18:16:50 <stoney> #startmeeting 18:16:50 <tota11y> Meeting started Mon Aug 19 18:16:50 2013 CET. The chair is stoney. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 18:16:50 <tota11y> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. 18:16:54 <stoney> Hi 18:17:01 <stoney> Sorry about the delay 18:17:13 <LoganH> Hello :) 18:17:18 <stoney> I forgot that I was taking my daughter to and from a summer camp 9-12 this week 18:17:26 <stoney> Hi LoganH 18:17:31 <stoney> who else is here? 18:18:09 * joanie is 18:18:09 <LoganH> Amber and Joanie were earlier.. Not sure where they are right now 18:18:34 <stoney> ok... let's wait a second more... 18:18:39 <stoney> heidi is over on foss2serve 18:18:49 <stoney> I"ll see if she can join us 18:19:38 <stoney> hi peter! 18:19:47 <pnutzh4x0r> long time, no chat 18:21:03 <stoney> joanie: Heidi can get onto freenode's #foss2serve, but not here... ideas? 18:21:14 <joanie> error message? 18:21:19 <stoney> asking 18:23:22 <stoney> OK... I don't want to hold everyone up 18:23:45 <stoney> so let's press forward... I'll try to relay heidi's messages as I go 18:24:00 <stoney> (from heidi: Yes, it says connection refused.) 18:24:13 <joanie> have her try a different host 18:24:22 <stoney> sending 18:24:24 <LoganH> Okay.. FYI, I will have to bug out at 12:45 for a meeting 18:24:45 <stoney> #topic status 18:24:59 <stoney> Go ahead and shout out your status as an #info please 18:25:04 <stoney> (everyone) 18:25:18 <stoney> (from heidie: Not sure what other hosts exist?) 18:25:31 <joanie> (we're on irc.eagle.y.se) 18:26:07 <stoney> (she's going to try it) 18:26:49 <stoney> (from heidi: assuming that I can just use an "attach" command followed by the host name, I'm still getting connection refused.) 18:27:14 <stoney> Are people typing in their status? 18:27:21 <LoganH> #info I was having issues with merging Nikki's branch into mine. New files would not being updated locally, so the merge merged nothing. I seemed to have cleared up the issue Friday, and will trying it again tonight. Besides the merge, I am working on the face tracking, and trying to keep the square updated 18:27:30 <stoney> aha... here they come :) 18:28:13 <amber> sorry was making lunch 18:28:51 <stoney> np... please go ahead and give us your status 18:29:16 <amber> not much to report this week, sadly my school work was a bit overwhelming 18:29:36 <stoney> #info stoney has been integrating and trying to figure out what exactly the system is supposed to do 18:29:46 <stoney> oh yes, no problem 18:30:05 * joanie doesn't understand stoney's status 18:30:12 <stoney> #topic Merge Amber's Documentation Changes 18:30:31 <stoney> joanie: We have a box drawing 18:30:42 <stoney> I'm not sure if it is supposed to move 18:30:53 <stoney> all of the videos on youtube don't show a box 18:31:01 <joanie> oh 18:31:04 <stoney> they show a dot in the middle of the forhead 18:31:17 <stoney> I'm wondering if the box is just an initial reference point 18:31:23 <joanie> got it 18:31:24 <stoney> or if it is the visualizatoin of the tracking 18:31:25 <joanie> and not sure 18:31:29 <stoney> right 18:31:30 <amber> the box? 18:31:35 <amber> do you have a pic 18:31:49 <stoney> no... but logan_test should run now 18:31:51 <joanie> but it might be a side effect of the gtk+ stuff 18:32:09 <stoney> I think the box is intensional 18:32:19 <LoganH> The box was commented out in the original code. It was debug tool to show what the coordinates of the face were 18:32:23 <amber> well they use it as a safe box 18:32:33 <amber> when you move within it, it just moves the mouse 18:32:44 <amber> and if you go outside, it has funcitons like click or cancel 18:32:50 <stoney> I was thinking something similar 18:33:14 <amber> hmm maybe were thinking of two things 18:33:17 <stoney> but when I watch the video the "box" you describe amber is invisible and very small, I think 18:33:20 <stoney> not the whole face 18:33:40 <amber> yes, there are pictures in the docs 18:33:58 <stoney> amber: I'll take a closer look at your documentationg.... 18:34:08 <stoney> which is why I want it merged into logan_test :) 18:34:21 <stoney> is everyone ok with merging into logan_test? 18:34:26 <joanie> :) 18:34:28 <stoney> I can make that happen 18:34:40 <stoney> if everyone is cool with it 18:34:48 <amber> the docs are in master 18:34:53 <stoney> right 18:35:01 <amber> im fine with that 18:35:09 <stoney> I made a pull request via github from master to logan_test 18:35:20 <stoney> it looks like there are no interferences 18:35:40 <stoney> I tested the merged version and it seams to behave like logan_test before the merge 18:35:42 <stoney> so good? 18:35:51 <LoganH> Sounds good 18:35:54 <amber> yep 18:35:59 <stoney> #agreed stoney will merge master into logan_test 18:36:17 <stoney> #topic merge nikki's GTK3 update into logan_test 18:36:51 * stoney working on what to type :) 18:37:01 <stoney> nikki was working on GTK3 updates 18:37:07 <stoney> GUI stuff mostlye 18:37:22 <stoney> she has completed the work and checked it into nikki branch 18:37:36 <stoney> I made a pull request via github to merge that into logan_test 18:37:53 <stoney> I performed the merge locally and got an error 18:38:03 <stoney> LoganH solved the typo error 18:38:15 <stoney> and the merged version now seams to work 18:38:37 <amber> awesome 18:38:40 <stoney> is everyone ok with merging these in too... assuming no conflicts with ambers stuff? 18:39:17 <LoganH> Good with me 18:39:46 <stoney> (from heidie: I'm having no luck with web-based cclients.) 18:40:22 <stoney> #agreed stoney will merge amber's stuff first, then nikki's (assuming no other errors appear) 18:40:53 <stoney> #topic What's it supposed to do :) 18:41:04 * joanie grins 18:41:07 <stoney> So we discussed this some earlier 18:41:15 <stoney> but I think it's unresolved 18:41:47 <stoney> has anyone seen or have some understanding of how the capture window is supposed to update points? 18:41:59 <stoney> (I don't even know if that makes any sense) 18:42:44 <stoney> maybe I should have asked... does anyone know how objects/points drawn to the capture display are supposed to get updated 18:43:06 <stoney> and... the opencv calls that are supposed to analyze the images for changes/motion? 18:43:30 <stoney> there she is! :) 18:43:49 <heidi> Hi folks! 18:43:56 <joanie> stoney, is that not what LoganH is working on 18:44:02 <joanie> ? 18:44:03 <heidi> This is definitely something about my new machine. I'm on my old machine. 18:44:19 <stoney> joanie: yes... 18:44:31 <stoney> I'm now also trying to make sense of it 18:44:42 <stoney> I'm trying to catch up 18:44:43 <joanie> ah :) 18:44:49 <LoganH> The update of the pointer and moving the mouse happens in the ui/scripts/joystick.py file 18:44:55 <stoney> so I'm wondering how much "we" know already :) 18:45:17 <stoney> #info from LoganH: The update of the pointer and moving the mouse happens in the ui/scripts/joystick.py file 18:45:42 <LoganH> #info It calls "get_pointer" from the idm (forehead.py) 18:45:43 <stoney> does it also update the display? 18:45:52 <stoney> ok... cool 18:46:10 <LoganH> A different thread updates the display 18:46:22 <stoney> Ok... I'll start there 18:46:51 <stoney> #topic 18:46:57 <LoganH> If you look at that pdf i uploaded to the docs, the Blue box is the mouse/pointer update, and the green box is the display frame update 18:46:57 <stoney> #topic employmenet 18:47:17 <stoney> ok I'll look at that more closely too.. thanks 18:47:24 <LoganH> Your welcome.. 18:47:33 <LoganH> But I need to run to my next meeting 18:47:34 <stoney> heidi: who is on the grant payroll after this week? 18:47:46 <stoney> bye! 18:47:53 <stoney> (to LoganH :)) 18:47:54 <heidi> No noe. 18:48:01 <stoney> OK 18:48:06 <heidi> We will need to restart folks. 18:48:23 <LoganH> I will leave my chat open so I can read this after. 18:48:24 <heidi> We also have a transfer IT student who is interested in working on the project. 18:48:41 <stoney> OK 18:49:00 <stoney> Are you still planning to use MouseTrap in Software Engineering? 18:49:40 <heidi> Ues 18:49:43 <heidi> Can't type today! 18:49:59 <stoney> OK 18:50:20 <stoney> How soon do you think you'll be using it? 18:50:47 <joanie> on a related note, does anyone have any ideas how close/far we are to being ready to start working on an upstream branch? 18:51:34 <stoney> i agree... that's related... but I'm not sure how close it is to working until I try some more .... 18:51:35 <heidi> That would be either Stoney or LoganH. They're closest to the code 18:51:56 <joanie> ok 18:51:56 <stoney> at the moment, it feels like a bottomless pitt to me 18:52:02 <joanie> uh oh 18:52:22 <stoney> probably because I still don't have a great handle on it... 18:52:38 <stoney> when I hammered on it before, I got it to a similar point that LoganH has 18:52:43 <joanie> is LoganH planning on staying on? 18:52:49 <stoney> and that's where I got stuck 18:52:59 <stoney> but I haven't hammered on it since 18:53:09 <stoney> last week I've mostly been trying to integrate 18:53:30 <stoney> joanie: I think ambers documentation might be good for upstream 18:53:43 <joanie> cool 18:53:58 <joanie> and by upstream I don't mean "in master"; I just mean in a development branch upstream 18:54:21 <heidi> LoganH will be taking the Software Engineering course in the fall 18:54:50 <heidi> So we'll have about six students working on MouseTrap, but also focusing on stuff othere than code. 18:55:01 <stoney> personally, I think all of this should be in a development branch upstream 18:55:39 <stoney> but then I can't say I undertand what qualifies for inclusion in a development upstream 18:56:50 <stoney> heidi: sounds good 18:56:56 <heidi> Yes. 18:57:17 <stoney> is there a reason not to include what has been done into a development branch upstream (gnome repo) 18:57:18 <stoney> ? 18:57:54 <joanie> not in my mind 18:57:59 <amber> i think it might be good, so others can see progress is being made 18:58:10 <stoney> ditto... 18:58:14 <stoney> we have progress 18:58:17 <stoney> but we're stuck 18:58:26 <stoney> (aren't we always :) ) 18:58:29 <joanie> are we stuck? 18:58:49 <amber> but it will show that its compatible with newer versions of dependencies 18:59:17 <amber> maybe we should schedule a mousetrap code day again? 18:59:21 <stoney> stuck = were I left it since last I worked on it... != can't fix 18:59:59 <stoney> maybe I'm using the wrong word 19:00:00 <stoney> :) 19:00:02 <joanie> :) 19:00:13 <joanie> If the students are not stuck, then we are not stuck 19:00:44 <stoney> Let me put it another way... I think we are at a problem that we don't totally understand... yet 19:01:29 <stoney> Anyone got anything else on their mind? 19:01:59 <joanie> do we have any action items towards the single, upstream "gnome3" (or whatever) branch? 19:02:29 <stoney> (i knew there was something I was forgetting :) ... need food) 19:02:53 <stoney> heidi: how do you want to do this? 19:03:00 <joanie> if we have a single, integrated branch somewhere, then heidi and I can work on the upstreaming bit 19:03:12 <stoney> OK. 19:03:14 <stoney> i c 19:03:23 <stoney> so i'll finish integrating into logan_test 19:03:32 <stoney> then that can be upstreamed? 19:03:40 <stoney> what do I do once I've got that? 19:03:40 <pnutzh4x0r> so i see we are moving to gtk3, are we still using python2? 19:03:46 <heidi> Yes, I agree with Joannie (single integrated branch) 19:04:28 <stoney> (heidi Yes and I would like to start following a gitflow workflow... but that's for a future discussion) 19:04:31 <joanie> once we have the new branch, we can generate the patches between it and master. potentially squashing at least some of them. And then we can branch upstream and apply those patches 19:04:51 <joanie> we can also make a new "version" in bugzilla 19:04:54 <stoney> pnutzh4x0r: yes to gtk3... I don't remember were we are on python at the moment ... but I think python3) 19:05:09 <amber> fed 19 is python 2.7 19:05:20 <stoney> is it running there? 19:05:21 <joanie> I thought we were sticking with python2, but doing much of the changes that are compatible with both 19:05:22 <stoney> amber? 19:05:30 <joanie> f19's default is 19:05:37 <amber> i havent gotten the latest logan branch down yet 19:05:38 <joanie> but it also has 3.3.x 19:05:40 * joanie looks 19:05:55 <joanie> 3.3.2 19:06:35 <stoney> \me caugt up 19:06:38 <stoney> ok 19:06:49 <pnutzh4x0r> ok, so i dont need to look into opencv and python3 19:06:54 <stoney> #agreed stoney integrates into logan_test 19:07:18 <stoney> I think we still want python3... ultimately... true? 19:07:26 <amber> yes 19:07:27 <joanie> pnutzh4x0r: well.... 19:07:33 <joanie> we still need python3 19:07:35 <stoney> or is that pushed to MouseTrap4.0 or something 19:07:36 <joanie> but I think we're blocked 19:07:39 <pnutzh4x0r> ok, then i ll still look into it :] 19:07:42 <joanie> :) 19:07:44 <joanie> thanks pnutzh4x0r 19:07:54 <stoney> on that toipic... 19:08:00 <joanie> but we can make progress towards python3 19:08:10 <joanie> I forget who said they'd do that though 19:08:19 <joanie> I remember volunteering to help whoever it was 19:08:23 <stoney> I swear opencv on github has python3 updates 19:08:30 <stoney> i just haven't tried it to confirm 19:08:38 <pnutzh4x0r> yes, i think they do, i just have to confirm 19:08:44 <stoney> right... 19:08:58 <stoney> which i think requires compiling opencv manually right? 19:09:15 <pnutzh4x0r> yes, building it from source 19:09:31 <pnutzh4x0r> which was tricky last time i tried... 19:09:38 <pnutzh4x0r> but hopefully will be fine 19:09:40 <stoney> so that's the trick 19:09:50 <stoney> so if you get that working... then what? 19:10:00 <joanie> start using it :) 19:10:04 <heidi> :-) Right 19:10:12 <joanie> and bump the dependency 19:10:18 <pnutzh4x0r> then that means we can write mousetrap in python3 and have access to opencv 19:10:31 <stoney> we create a new branch to work against python3 while we wait for the new opencv in the distrobution stream? 19:11:02 <joanie> it can go into the to-be-created development branch upstream 19:11:03 <stoney> but the opencv in distro is old... how will that wok 19:11:13 <stoney> I see 19:11:18 <joanie> how it works is this: 19:11:25 <joanie> 1. There needs to be a need for the new version 19:11:33 <joanie> 2. There needs to be a stable release of the new version 19:11:45 <joanie> 3. You start filing bugs against distros to start packaging the new version 19:12:06 <stoney> (new version of opencv?) 19:12:10 <joanie> correct 19:12:16 <stoney> OK 19:12:19 <joanie> i.e. they need to do a python3 release 19:12:32 <joanie> then packages that use opencv will start migrating towards it 19:12:40 <joanie> for the python3 goodness, new features, whatever 19:12:46 <joanie> mousetrap will be one of those packages 19:13:02 <joanie> as software people use depends on that new version of opencv.... 19:13:16 <joanie> the distros will be motivated to package the new version of opencv 19:13:29 <joanie> because building everything from source does not appeal to most users 19:13:41 <stoney> so maybe we need two development branches upstream... one for GTK3+python2+ocv2... and one for GTK3+python3+ocvX ? 19:13:56 <joanie> depends 19:14:00 <joanie> if it were me 19:14:06 <joanie> I'd start with the first 19:14:19 <stoney> first = one for GTK3+python2+ocv2 ? 19:14:27 <joanie> then I'd update it with all the changes needed for python3 ***which are compatible with 2.7*** 19:14:33 <joanie> correct re first one 19:14:51 <stoney> OK... so pnutzh4x0r is in the experimental category here 19:14:56 <joanie> there's a bunch of changes needed for 3.x that are compatible with 2.7 19:15:09 <joanie> since they work with both, do those first 19:15:15 <joanie> then you reasses 19:15:17 <joanie> s 19:15:23 <stoney> OK 19:15:31 <stoney> so do we have a plan? 19:15:35 <joanie> I think so 19:15:48 <joanie> who is doing the python3 (but 2.7 compatible) changes? 19:15:53 <heidi> Ummm, lets put this in the official notes using #info 19:16:11 <stoney> at the moment... I don't think anyone is 19:16:25 <stoney> heidi: which part :) 19:16:26 <stoney> ? 19:16:34 <joanie> all of it stoney :) 19:16:55 <heidi> :-) Yes right. 19:16:57 * stoney looks boggled 19:17:32 <stoney> #info create an upstream development branch for GTK3+python3+ocv2 19:17:44 <heidi> Umm, likely #action? 19:17:56 <stoney> #action create an upstream development branch for GTK3+python3+ocv2 19:18:17 <stoney> #action stoney integrate into logan_test which will become that upstream 19:18:37 <heidi> #action create an upstream development branch for GTK3+python2+ocv2 19:18:46 <stoney> #action pnutzh4x0r will try to confirm that the changes to opencv in github work with python3 19:18:55 <stoney> oop 19:18:57 <stoney> oops 19:19:25 <stoney> irc://irc.gnome.org/#action create an upstream development branch for GTK3+python2+ocv2 (not GTK3+python3+ocv2... that was a typo) 19:19:36 <stoney> what the heck 19:19:49 <stoney> irc://irc.gnome.org/#action create an upstream development branch for GTK3+python2+ocv2 (not GTK3+python3+ocv2... that was a typo) 19:19:56 <stoney> what is with taht irc junk? 19:20:33 <heidi> #action create upstream branch for GTK3+python3+ocvX 19:20:42 <stoney> #action make as many python3 changes that are compatible with python2.7 as possible 19:20:58 <stoney> heidi: but not now... right? 19:21:11 <heidi> #action joanie will update the GTK3+python2+ocv2 version with all the changes needed for python3 19:21:17 <heidi> Yes, right not now. 19:21:25 <stoney> ok 19:21:30 <stoney> did we get it all? 19:21:31 <heidi> My apologies. I'm not fully up to date on development. 19:21:33 <joanie> I thought I was merely guiding students, but ok 19:21:43 <joanie> python3 migration is pretty easy 19:21:45 <heidi> Oh, sorry, I pulled that from earlier in the IRC. 19:21:57 <joanie> i don't mind 19:22:03 <heidi> #action Joanie will help students as needed in the conversion from python 2.7 to 3. 19:22:07 <heidi> better :-) 19:22:10 <joanie> I think so 19:22:14 <stoney> heidi: can that be part of what students do in software engineering? 19:22:17 <heidi> Yes, right. 19:22:31 <stoney> cool 19:22:36 <heidi> My next comment was that Stoney and I need to sit down and figure out a plan for the SE students. 19:22:41 <heidi> Stoney, are you in this week? 19:22:51 <stoney> OK... anything else (my daughter is gnawing my leg) 19:23:04 <heidi> Ah, go. We can coordinate later. 19:23:06 <LoganH> I'm back now 19:23:06 <stoney> I can't 19:23:13 <heidi> Joanie, as always, thank you so much. 19:23:14 <stoney> because I'm rachel's shuttle this week 19:23:18 <heidi> Oh, right! ballet. :-) 19:23:28 <stoney> pink pink pink pink :) 19:23:31 <heidi> OK, I'll figure something out. 19:23:33 <heidi> Right! :-) 19:23:39 <stoney> we can skype 19:23:50 <heidi> Yes, good idea. 19:23:51 <stoney> this afternoon even 19:23:54 <stoney> got time? 19:24:08 <stoney> (I need 1 hour right now to feed the ankle biter) 19:24:10 <heidi> I'm back to the dentist this afternoon. 19:24:12 <heidi> :-) 19:24:16 <heidi> I'm pretty free all day tomorrow. 19:24:22 * stoney checking 19:24:41 <stoney> how about right after the openfe skype? 19:25:00 <heidi> Umm, the OpenFE skype is on Weds.... But I could do it at 10 if that works. 19:25:04 <heidi> :-) 19:25:10 <stoney> I keep getting that confused 19:25:19 <stoney> Yes 10, that works :) 19:25:26 <heidi> OK, I'll skype you then. 19:25:26 <stoney> it's in my calendar 19:25:30 <stoney> are we done? 19:25:31 <heidi> Good! 19:25:45 <heidi> I think so. 19:26:04 <amber> :) 19:26:13 <heidi> joannie, any hints on what my connection issue with irc.gnome.org might be? 19:26:22 <stoney> Ok... i'll assume we are meeting again next week same time... if this doesn't work for anyone please send email. 19:26:33 <stoney> Thanks all for being here 19:26:34 <stoney> ! 19:26:34 <heidi> Works on my old machine but not new so must be a machine setting. 19:26:35 <joanie> heidi: 'fraid I don't without seeing more concrete error messages 19:26:45 <stoney> #endmeeting