Dear all,
For those who are available, we’ll be having the usual online meeting to discuss open-HEA and open-IHM this afternoon at 3pm UK time / 5pm Malawian time.
We will try to use IRC (if you haven’t used IRC before, instructions can be found here at http://code.google.com/p/open-ihm/wiki/IrcChats) – let us know if you have any problems accessing it.
Agenda for this week:
1. Progress since last week
2. Points for discussion/technical decisions
3. Priorities for next week
We’ll send a transcript of significant discussion afterwards.
Hope to see you online,
Wolf
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "openihm-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to openihm-dev...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "open-hea" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to open-hea+u...@googlegroups.com.
Dear all,
Here's the transcript of our conversation this afternoon.
Best wishes,
Wolf
#open-ihm
|
hi tiwonge-good you could make it. How are things going with the asset reports! |
||
|
the status has not changed from last week |
||
|
which issue is the "asset reports"? |
||
|
262 |
||
|
thanks |
||
|
the sensitive bit of that issue (262) is not necessarily the code that has to be written, but how it gets in line with QIP adjustments + re-arrangement of some of code for intermediate calculations that we already have |
||
|
that sounds good |
||
|
that's why things are a bit slow |
||
|
I am trying not do quick job that re-enforces some of the bad code we are trying to do away with |
||
|
sounds good |
||
|
thanks-good to know this is progressing. We'll look out for posts . The next field study on the DfID/ESRC project that requested this enhancement is at the end of Sept - but if it not ready we will just add the analysis later |
||
|
It should be ready by then |
||
|
Do we know what the status of the automatic initiate food energy requirements issue Brown is working on |
||
|
I think initiate food energy values is already automated? It's not obvious how to test these function as they need a newly installed version of open -ihm. |
||
|
Re asset: Many thanks-look forward to testing |
||
|
No. I will check on him again. If he is tied up then I will attend to it next weekend. |
||
|
probably the best way would be to install open-ihm on a "clean" machine |
||
|
that' great-thanks. |
||
|
@ Sarah - what are your referring to? |
||
|
yes, we just need to find a clean machine. In fact we have another long term intern starting in a couple of weeks, so we can tet on hers |
||
|
who needs a clean machine for open-ihm? |
||
|
@tio-Sarah is referring to the initiate food energy requirements funtion |
||
|
tiwongem I was suggesting that when Celia tests the automation thing, that that's how she goes about the testing |
||
|
or is the "automation" on a per-project basis? |
||
|
no, it's installation of open-ihm |
||
|
no it's automation for the whole installation |
||
|
so that the first time people open the software all should be there |
||
|
ok, so when Celia and Wolf test that feature, they need a new installation on a clean m/c |
||
|
that's it. And as we have a new intern starting shortly, that will be less difficult than it could be.. |
||
|
after next weekend all should be well. The script is there, but we had agreed with Brown that he should do the commit |
||
|
Great-that's perfect timing |
||
|
now we can address issue 277 as part of that |
||
|
that's good-thanks |
||
|
would someone please add the exact values we need to use for people above 99 under issue 277 |
||
|
Wolf, could you do this please? |
||
|
ok, but there needs to be some sanity brought to the Issues list; are all 59 Critical / High priority Issues intended for the next milestone release? Some of them have QualityRelease as the milestone against them, some have no milestone |
||
|
We had intended / agreed that once the FIRST release of open-ihm was made, "we" would sit down and decide as a team how releases would be managed. Since then I have no idea who has decided what changes go into what release, when, why, etc. It seems compeltely random |
||
|
Wolf_ |
Yes - thanks Tiwonge. As discussed at length in the issue it's not an urgent urgent one, but the exact values for people above 99 will be the same as for people aged 99. Slightly worryingly, all food energy requirements seem to have disappeared from the recently-updated version of open-IHM on my laptop though, so I can't tell you what those numbers are... |
|
|
we should do a clean up indeed, but some of the issues can be resolved together like those on energy requirements |
||
|
Food energy requirements have disappeared? Has this been logged as an issue? |
||
|
Wolf_ |
Just checked on my old laptop - it's 2100 kcals for men over 99 and 1850 kcals for women over 99. |
|
|
Wolf and I will prioritise this next week. Would it help to put upalist of urgent enhancements required by donors for current work (eg the assets question) (where? on the downloads page?) . However, some of these urgent priorities are technical ones that will need input from tohers. |
||
|
Am startled to see food energy requirements have disppeared! from where?am checking software now |
||
|
Wolf_ |
I've only just noticed that - will try testing it by updating open-IHM on the office PC on Tuesday... |
|
|
Wolf_ |
'Data Management' -> 'View Food Energy Requirements' |
|
|
Sarah issues 277, 141, 178 |
||
|
all food energy requirements are as they should be on my version of open-ihm |
||
|
tiwonge yes, I'm aware those three are related. What I am asking was how it came to be decided that these would go in the next release, since it's clearly a done deal |
||
|
I am not sure about anything about releases. I am just going to fix those things because they have been said to be critical |
||
|
no they have not, two of those issues are marked as Priority "medium" |
||
|
This relates to the need to review all labels. As discussed earlier, Wolf has been putting up 'enhancements' to ensure these aren't forgotten/overlooked. However I agree we need to review all the issues currently on the list and make sure that tiwonge and brown are only asked to work on critical issues on 1.5.1 |
||
|
There are many critical issues that have not been touched, which would actually have prevented a bunch of really critical bugs getting to users |
||
|
what I am asking is how the decision was made to prioritise these Issues on the list, which are not marked as critical, whereas other Issues have not had priority |
||
|
yes we need to sort out the labels. I have seen some enhancements being mixed with what has to be done now |
||
|
I will walk through some of the issues that have been commented on this week |
||
|
This is poor management of the list on our part (Celia and Wolf). We will review the list from a user's perspective and ensure that issues are only marked 'critical' where they are preventing the software from being used in the field -or with the current single exception of the 'assets' enhancement, a donor requires a function as part of a contract. |
||
|
We will rely on others to mark the critical technical issuees |
||
|
thanks Celia |
||
|
Good-we have a plan (Wolf, I hope you're up for this too....) Is there anything else this afternoon? If not, have good weekends, and many thanks to all. |
||
|
Wolf_ |
Yes, that's fine - although I think the only couple of live critical issues posted by me are still critical. |