Attachment 'mousetrap2013-04-26_log.txt'
Download 1 18:05:01 <darci> #startmeeting
2 18:05:01 <tota11y> Meeting started Fri Apr 26 18:05:01 2013 CET. The chair is darci. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
3 18:05:01 <tota11y> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
4 18:05:22 <darci> Who wants to start
5 18:05:27 <darci> Stoney?
6 18:05:30 <heidi> Shall we start with the thoughts on the current status?
7 18:05:44 <ghislop> hi all...
8 18:05:45 <heidi> #topic Current Status
9 18:05:47 <heidi> Stoney?
10 18:05:48 <Stoney> sure
11 18:05:52 <heidi> Hi ghislop
12 18:05:55 <darci> hi Greg
13 18:06:01 <ghislop> my apology that the foss2serve.org server is down...
14 18:06:22 <ghislop> the drexel university IT level people chose this AM to do an upgrade...
15 18:06:24 <Stoney> did everyone have a chance to look at the page that was circulated before the server went down?
16 18:06:33 <darci> yes
17 18:06:37 <john> yes
18 18:06:41 <ghislop> I knew it was coming, but they didn't give much notice about when...
19 18:06:52 <ghislop> and now I hear they've run into problems (of course)...
20 18:07:18 <Stoney> i guess I give a short synops.
21 18:07:25 <ghislop> so, again, apologies... we're waiting on their work and will get the server back ASAP after they network changes are done...
22 18:07:47 <ghislop> and now I'll be quiet and let Stoney or Darci resume with the meeting... :-)
23 18:07:57 <heidi> Stoney?
24 18:08:14 <Stoney> basically, we are proposing to start fresh using the newest platform
25 18:08:22 <heidi> And the motivation?
26 18:08:38 <heidi> (Not questioning, just wanting further explanation for the group.)
27 18:08:45 <Stoney> oh... because although we have learned alot by trying to fix what we have...
28 18:08:58 <Stoney> we still don't have a working system
29 18:09:18 <darci> #info The suggestion is to start fresh using the newest platform -- we've learned a lot, but still don't have a working system
30 18:10:04 <heidi> Adding to that, one of our goals is to bring MouseTrap into Gnome 3 compliance and Python 3.
31 18:10:15 <Stoney> so we were thinking to move to GTK 3, Python3
32 18:10:19 <Stoney> right... : )
33 18:10:41 <heidi> And the major barriers to getting the current system running is the OpenCV library.
34 18:10:47 <heidi> joanie?
35 18:11:08 <Stoney> which isn't available in python3 (correct?)
36 18:11:08 <darci> #info Starting fresh would allow us to bring MouseTrap into Gnome 3 compliance and Python 3
37 18:11:29 <heidi> I'm thinking that it would be good to get Joanie or API's input into this.
38 18:11:30 <joanie> heidi: yes?
39 18:11:35 <amber> opencv has no python3 support currently
40 18:11:35 <heidi> hi!
41 18:11:40 <joanie> hey
42 18:11:42 <amber> it may be planned in the future
43 18:12:01 <heidi> We are thinking about rewriting MouseTrap from scratch. <read back>
44 18:12:17 * joanie pokes API_afk to see if he's really afk
45 18:12:28 <API_afk> ups
46 18:12:31 <API_afk> no sorry
47 18:12:36 <API_afk> I forget to change my nick
48 18:12:40 <heidi> :-) Hi API
49 18:12:47 <API> hi heidi
50 18:12:50 <heidi> :-)
51 18:13:06 <joanie> writing it from scratch seems sad to me
52 18:13:13 <joanie> but maybe it is needed
53 18:13:13 <API> rewriting mousetrap from scratch ....
54 18:13:15 <joanie> ?
55 18:13:20 <heidi> So the issue is that we've tried a variety of things to get MouseTrap to work with Fedora 18, without much success.
56 18:13:21 <API> without opencv?
57 18:13:24 <amber> we would still be keeping the algorithms and haars im sure?
58 18:13:29 <Stoney> yes API...
59 18:13:34 <heidi> Yes, that is the question. Should we still use OpenCV.
60 18:13:39 <Stoney> no opencv in python3
61 18:13:48 <Stoney> replace it with gstreamer
62 18:13:50 <API> well, but if the idea is starting from scratch
63 18:13:54 <heidi> What we're looking for is some input. We don't like the idea of a complete rewrite.
64 18:13:56 <Stoney> and scipy/numpy
65 18:13:56 <API> other option is C
66 18:13:59 <heidi> Seems to defeat the purpose.
67 18:14:02 <API> anyway, gstreamer?
68 18:14:07 <Stoney> true
69 18:14:22 <API> have gstreamer all the utilities that opencv provides?
70 18:14:32 <API> I mean that gstreamer is basically
71 18:14:36 <Stoney> no... just the multimedia part
72 18:14:39 <API> "play this song/video/image"
73 18:14:42 <Stoney> capturing images from cam
74 18:14:53 <API> opencv is the one that provides image analysis, afaik
75 18:15:14 <Stoney> that's what numpy/scipy would be used for... the calculations
76 18:15:17 <joanie> have you tried ctypes?
77 18:15:27 <Stoney> no I haven't
78 18:15:32 <joanie> http://docs.python.org/3.3/library/ctypes.html
79 18:15:37 <API> fwiw
80 18:15:44 * heidi looks
81 18:15:54 <API> there are some people that work at our company
82 18:15:55 <Stoney> taking a look too
83 18:16:00 <API> that have some experience with opencv
84 18:16:20 <API> so before deciding about starting from scratch
85 18:16:25 <API> something that sounds like a lot of work
86 18:16:39 <API> I think that it would be good to ask them more about the python3 stuff
87 18:16:46 <API> and if there are other options
88 18:16:48 <joanie> or try ctypes
89 18:17:04 <heidi> Ask the opencv folks?
90 18:17:09 <heidi> About python 3?
91 18:17:15 <john> I'd like to suggest an idea: write the UI front end in Python, and the OpenCV backend in C.
92 18:18:00 <API> heidi, well, we can do that too
93 18:18:12 <API> but I guess that it would be better to ask first our colleagues
94 18:18:12 <heidi> John, do you mean rewrite the OpenCV in C?
95 18:18:29 <API> heidi, opencv is a c++ library
96 18:18:34 <john> If we're rewriting Mousetrap, yes -- write the backend in C
97 18:18:36 <heidi> Just to clarify, ask our colleagues in A11y?
98 18:18:36 <Stoney> joanie, so ctypes woul let us access the opencv as a dll/so?
99 18:18:39 <API> afaik, mousetrap is using their python bindings
100 18:18:51 <API> heidi, ask our colleagues in Igalia, our company
101 18:18:55 <john> Actually not exactly
102 18:18:58 <heidi> Oh, got it! Sorry :-)
103 18:19:07 <john> Mousetrap isn't using the current Python bindings -- it's using PyVision
104 18:19:09 <john> IIRC
105 18:19:19 <API> heidi, np, we are all talking at the same time
106 18:19:19 <joanie> https://code.google.com/p/ctypes-opencv/
107 18:19:48 <heidi> API, yes, it would be helpful to have some additional input from your colleagues.
108 18:20:20 <joanie> http://www.cs.unc.edu/~gb/blog/2007/02/04/python-opencv-wrapper-using-ctypes/
109 18:20:21 <heidi> I have almost no experience with the technologies that we're talking about so I'm having difficulty evaluating the best approach.
110 18:20:23 <API> john, so if mousetrap is using pyvision ...
111 18:20:29 <API> who is the one that have problems with python3?
112 18:20:33 <heidi> And I am concerned about performance as well.
113 18:20:34 <API> opencv or pyvision?
114 18:20:41 <john> joanie: would it complicate things, forcing a Python layer? Could we simply use C directly,
115 18:20:46 <heidi> OpenCV is not python3 compliant.
116 18:20:52 <API> afaik, pyvision is a kind of prototyping library
117 18:20:59 <heidi> #link https://code.google.com/p/ctypes-opencv/
118 18:21:08 <heidi> #link http://www.cs.unc.edu/~gb/blog/2007/02/04/python-opencv-wrapper-using-ctypes/
119 18:21:17 <API> john, well, "could we simply" is relative
120 18:21:18 <john> PyVision is old and no longer developed. It precedates Python 3
121 18:21:22 <heidi> #link http://docs.python.org/3.3/library/ctypes.html
122 18:21:27 <API> mousetrap has already some work already done
123 18:21:38 <API> so I think that it is debatable what it is easier
124 18:21:44 <API> solving the python3 usage problem
125 18:21:48 <heidi> API, work done using Python3?
126 18:21:50 <heidi> Ah, goti t.
127 18:21:56 <API> or starting without all the functionality already implemented on mousetrap
128 18:21:57 <john> To use ctypes you seem to need to know C
129 18:22:04 <john> Why use a unnecessary layer?
130 18:22:25 <john> Using C, the Python 3 problem disappears.
131 18:22:26 <joanie> to transition rather than start from scratch
132 18:22:32 <joanie> true
133 18:22:39 <joanie> I don't know how much work that would be
134 18:22:49 <joanie> so I was merely suggesting other things to consider
135 18:23:13 <amber> stupid question, doesnt the current version of mousetrap use ctypes?
136 18:24:07 <john> Yes, some of the code does. It uses a mix of PyVision, ctypes and home-grown mini-APIs.
137 18:24:31 <heidi> Yes.
138 18:24:38 <amber> so that would eliminate some "from scratch"
139 18:25:02 <john> Thing is, does those APIs still exist/work with the current OpenCV?
140 18:25:21 <API> john, btw, are you sure about that "we don't use opencv but we use pyvision"?
141 18:25:24 <john> Mousetrap's code predates the cv/cv2 mess
142 18:25:30 <API> after a quick look on mousetrap/conifgure.in
143 18:25:35 <API> the dependency is with opencv
144 18:25:44 <john> PyVision is basically OpenCV bindings for Python
145 18:25:48 <john> before OpenCV rolled their own
146 18:26:13 <john> So it's not "instead of OpenCV", they do use OpenCV, using PyVision bindings
147 18:27:14 <john> I think amber found this as well -- she knows much more about the inner workings
148 18:27:31 <amber> john, your saying pyvision is built into opencv?
149 18:27:35 <API> john, but although pyvision is basically opencv bindings for python, I really doubt that mousetrap is using that
150 18:27:37 <john> Not sure
151 18:27:52 <API> the dependency is with python-opencv
152 18:27:59 <API> that is not related at all with pyvision
153 18:28:24 <amber> ok, i was very confused for a min lol
154 18:28:43 <API> at least, I think that when I got compiled mousetrap
155 18:28:53 <john> Then it must be another library -- because Mousetrap predates OpenCV's own Python bindings (I think)
156 18:28:55 <API> I didn't have at all pyvision stuff
157 18:28:58 <API> having said so
158 18:29:11 <API> as I said, deciding to switch to starting from scratch
159 18:29:16 <API> is a important decision
160 18:29:21 <API> and more a long term one
161 18:29:22 <API> soo
162 18:29:25 <API> what about something like
163 18:29:54 <API> 1. API ask their colleagues with opencv experience
164 18:29:59 <API> about this python3 problem
165 18:30:18 <API> 2. meanwhile, someone sees how complex would be to use the ctypes option that joanie suggested
166 18:30:42 <API> in a summary
167 18:30:47 <API> <joanie> I don't know how much work that would be
168 18:30:47 <API> <joanie> so I was merely suggesting other things to consider
169 18:31:05 <heidi> Yes, I like this.
170 18:31:09 <heidi> Stoney, thoughts?
171 18:31:24 <Dark_Rose> Heidi, none of this affects me directly with gtk, so I should keep focusing on gtk and gtk3 for now?
172 18:31:29 <Stoney> I've been quiet because I've been trying to keep up reading
173 18:31:37 <john> I brought up an possibility with amber and nicole a couple of weeks ago of using the Apple model with this -- one team working on getting the current code to work, another work on a rewrite, and see who prevails.
174 18:31:46 <heidi> Dark_Rose, not sure yet.
175 18:31:50 <Dark_Rose> ok
176 18:31:55 <Stoney> I still think that we don't really know how much of the current code base is working
177 18:32:04 <Stoney> and if it was an easy fix it would be done
178 18:32:18 <Stoney> so I would still like to see an effort starting with working code
179 18:32:19 <heidi> Is the threading the main issue?
180 18:33:08 <john> If it's impossible to test it piece by piece without running into threading, the code is bad. /interjection
181 18:33:44 <Stoney> it's very hard to know if we are making progress without working code
182 18:34:01 <API> I'm somewhat lost now
183 18:34:10 <API> a quick summary of that threading thing?
184 18:34:12 <heidi> This is a case where the code is inherently multithreaded. Need to have the camera tracking user movements at the same time as moving the cursor.
185 18:34:20 <API> is somewhat related with the previous python3 stuff?
186 18:34:36 <Stoney> no
187 18:34:44 <Stoney> threading issues in python2 stuff too
188 18:34:59 <heidi> Umm, I don't think so. I'm just commenting that when we were testing we were getting seg faults at different locations.
189 18:35:06 <API> so when you tested moustrap with python2 you found threading issues?
190 18:35:07 <joanie> did anyone try to see if the software works on an older version of GNOME?
191 18:35:09 <heidi> And even at different locations using the same machine.
192 18:35:12 <joanie> like, say, f14 maybe?
193 18:35:14 <john> In theory one should be able to test moving the cursor in one thread. And tracking the face in one thread. Even though the program runs them in two threads...
194 18:35:21 <Stoney> the only time I've seen the current code base work is when logan commented about 80% of the codebase out
195 18:35:24 <heidi> Amber got it to work on Ubuntu. And John did too?
196 18:35:33 <joanie> Stoney: oh dear
197 18:35:34 <john> joanie: yes -- it semi-worked
198 18:35:41 <john> No camera capture, though
199 18:35:42 <amber> yea wasnt full-functionality
200 18:35:47 <john> but it compiled and GUI showed up
201 18:36:40 <amber> yep
202 18:36:49 <API> was mousetrap inherently using threads?
203 18:36:50 <joanie> it is my assumption that at some point this code worked
204 18:37:02 <API> at least at CSUN 2010 worked
205 18:37:12 <john> CSUN 2010?
206 18:37:25 <Stoney> joanie: mine too, but I've never seen it run :)
207 18:37:40 <heidi> Stoney, you're working on a VM?
208 18:37:41 <API> that was the first(and last) time that I talked with original mousetrap maintainer face-to-face
209 18:37:47 <Stoney> no
210 18:37:53 <API> but in theory, it was also working after that
211 18:38:07 <API> I mentioned CSUN 2010, because Flavio was
212 18:38:07 <Stoney> heidi: no, fedora 18 our development platform
213 18:38:14 <API> showing the app to people at the event
214 18:38:14 <heidi> Yes, I've seen some comments that it was working in 2011.
215 18:38:20 <heidi> Right. It
216 18:38:24 <heidi> 's a cool app. :-)
217 18:38:35 <Stoney> heidi: and I mean that I've never seen anyone demonstrate it to me other than through youtube
218 18:38:41 <heidi> Got it.
219 18:39:05 <john> Working in 2011 using current-at-the-time software, I assume?
220 18:39:17 <Stoney> I don't doubt that it did work...
221 18:39:32 <heidi> I believe so.
222 18:39:46 <john> According to github the last changes was back in 2009
223 18:39:48 <Stoney> it's just not a good sign if we have never got it to work ourselves
224 18:39:53 <john> that is ages ago in sotware-time
225 18:40:11 <joanie> well, maybe it is worth starting from scratch then.
226 18:40:13 <API> john, github?
227 18:40:19 <API> which repository are you using?
228 18:40:19 <joanie> that seems extreme however
229 18:40:26 <API> official one is gnome one
230 18:40:30 <john> amber's -- and Stoney's
231 18:41:04 <joanie> https://git.gnome.org/browse/mousetrap/log/
232 18:41:05 <john> they forked from Mousetrap's official one… right amber or Stoney?
233 18:41:10 <API> on gnome repository, last change of flavio dates of 2010
234 18:41:11 <joanie> 2010 is still long ago
235 18:41:15 <joanie> but yeah
236 18:41:20 <Stoney> john: mine was yes
237 18:41:45 <Stoney> let me clarify what I mean by "from scratch"
238 18:41:56 <heidi> Yes, we are using a copy from Gnome that we've put on github so that everyone can reach it.
239 18:42:02 <Stoney> I think we can use the existing code base as a model
240 18:42:05 <API> heidi, ok
241 18:42:13 <Stoney> we can mine it for its design
242 18:42:26 <john> Hmm -- this Balazs Ur guy added a translation just last month
243 18:42:27 <heidi> The idea was to get a running version and then push that to GNOME as a base to make further changes.
244 18:42:32 <john> Anyone know if he got it working?
245 18:42:45 <joanie> john: translators don't even build the code necessarily
246 18:42:47 <API> john, usually translation teams doesn¡t test programs
247 18:42:52 <john> ah
248 18:42:56 <john> got it
249 18:43:03 <API> they just receive a file with all the strings to translate
250 18:43:13 <API> they provide the translated version and upload it
251 18:43:41 <joanie> but that's a digression
252 18:43:53 <john> haha, sorry
253 18:44:27 <Stoney> nothing says we can't have a team trying to fix the existing system...
254 18:44:39 <Stoney> and another trying "from scratch"
255 18:44:44 * joanie nods
256 18:45:13 <heidi> I'd like to hear what API's colleagues have to say as well.
257 18:45:30 <API> in any case
258 18:45:31 <Stoney> absolutely
259 18:45:33 <amber> if we fix th existing im assuming thats using opencv?
260 18:45:39 <Stoney> if there is an easy fix... i'm all for it
261 18:45:41 <API> starting from scratch would need a lot of time
262 18:45:52 <john> even if we do from scratch, I think we would use opencv still
263 18:45:55 <API> so a last bullet to use opencv on python3 is worthy
264 18:45:56 <heidi> Yes, fixing existing means using opencv.
265 18:45:56 <API> imho
266 18:46:02 <API> john, I agree
267 18:46:30 <heidi> OK.
268 18:46:32 <joanie> i've got a crazy and possibly dumb idea
269 18:46:36 <heidi> ?
270 18:46:44 <heidi> I love creative thinking!
271 18:46:52 <joanie> if we could figure out in what environment (old distro) where it worked
272 18:46:54 <Stoney> if we go from scratch we certainly can still use opencv through ctypes (it looks like) but there are other options
273 18:47:00 <joanie> and use that as a development environment
274 18:47:03 <john> or C...
275 18:47:07 <joanie> ctypes has been around for ages
276 18:47:12 <joanie> so has c
277 18:47:13 <joanie> ;)
278 18:47:15 <john> joanie: Anjuta
279 18:47:31 <joanie> what does anjuta have to do with anything?
280 18:47:34 <john> nicole (or amber?) thinks the file structure looks like Anjuta
281 18:47:35 <john> 's
282 18:47:39 <john> IDE
283 18:47:40 <amber> not me lol
284 18:47:43 <joanie> emacs
285 18:47:44 <joanie> ;)
286 18:47:56 <joanie> I'm talking about the version of gnome
287 18:47:56 <john> joanie: unless I'm completely misunderstanding you
288 18:47:58 <joanie> not the ide
289 18:48:04 <heidi> Joanie, so you're saying revert to something like Fedora 14 where MouseTrap works?
290 18:48:09 <Stoney> john: I don't think it is anjunta's - we checked that out
291 18:48:12 <joanie> brainstorming, but yes
292 18:48:36 <joanie> because if we've never seen it working it's hard to see and test progress
293 18:48:41 <joanie> it's just a bunch of lines of code
294 18:48:50 <john> The install instructions on the original site has Debian commands (IIRC?) so that implies Ubuntu
295 18:48:51 <heidi> Yes :-) It certainly is!
296 18:49:09 <API> fwiw, anjunta is just an IDE
297 18:49:10 <joanie> so even in old ubuntu
298 18:49:17 <joanie> you could use ctypes
299 18:49:19 <API> probably it was used to create the skeleton of the program
300 18:49:20 <joanie> you could port to c
301 18:49:30 <API> but it is not a environment to run it
302 18:49:34 <joanie> you can verify if your changes work
303 18:49:42 <API> joanie is proposing an older version of the system at all
304 18:49:43 <joanie> etc.
305 18:49:52 <heidi> Ah, got it.
306 18:49:53 <john> API: I know -- from experience with Eclipse, sometimes a structure makes zero sense unless you open it in the IDE. But I seem to have misunderstood joanie, so ignore me :)
307 18:49:55 <API> lets say, first release of fedora on 2010
308 18:50:11 <joanie> ubuntu, but yeah
309 18:50:19 <Dark_Rose> I have to go, im pretty sick today, i'll probably be back on IRC around 2. if I miss anything big just shoot me an email :)
310 18:50:22 <API> I was just giving an example ;)
311 18:50:25 <Stoney> api: yes... we were struggling with autotools, and anjunta briefly came up because it use autotools to manage its projects... but we have since figured out that anjunta was not use (or doesn't appear to have been) on mousetrap
312 18:50:31 <heidi> Bye dark_rose
313 18:50:55 <API> Stoney, ok
314 18:51:00 <joanie> so heidi you are following what I'm saying?
315 18:51:13 <heidi> I think so.
316 18:51:25 <joanie> work with working code :)
317 18:51:59 <heidi> yes, I like that!
318 18:52:14 <heidi> And once we get it working, the first thing would be to try to update to OpenCV2?
319 18:52:25 <joanie> sounds like it might be, yes
320 18:52:35 <joanie> how long has opencv2 been around?
321 18:52:46 <joanie> and what are its dependencies?
322 18:52:50 <heidi> Ah, so isolate the OS issues from the library version issues.
323 18:52:52 <joanie> (don't need an answer now)
324 18:52:56 <joanie> exactly
325 18:53:00 <john> That's one thing I'm completely confuzzled about… cv and cv2 -- cv2 seems to be a superset of cv now? And I read somewhere that cv will replace cv2? *lost*
326 18:53:08 <heidi> We have this info on the foss2serve wiki which is down now.
327 18:53:11 <joanie> try to get as far along as you can in the old ubuntu
328 18:53:33 <amber> how will we know when its "working"?
329 18:53:52 <Stoney> I can move the mouse with my head? :)
330 18:53:53 <joanie> when it does what's in flavio's video?
331 18:53:55 <heidi> Amber, because we'll be able to see behavior as shown in the videoas.
332 18:53:56 <heidi> :-)
333 18:53:59 <heidi> Yes.
334 18:54:23 <joanie> amber: and then start updating the code and see if stoney can still move the mouse with his head :)
335 18:54:34 <heidi> Joanie, why ubuntu rather than earlier fedora, because we know it works in ubuntu
336 18:54:35 <joanie> and if he can, you did it right ;)
337 18:54:36 <heidi> :-)
338 18:54:42 <heidi> right!
339 18:54:50 <heidi> Stoney is very good at moving things :-)
340 18:54:55 <john> Maybe I'm wrong, but the one in Flavio's video seems different from the one we watched crash constantly in Ubuntu… For one, the video is displayed in a window completely differently than it seems to fit in the program we ran...
341 18:54:56 <joanie> heidi: because it appears that ubuntu was used before
342 18:54:57 <Stoney> lol
343 18:55:02 <heidi> Not so sure about the head part :-)
344 18:55:14 <Stoney> :)
345 18:55:28 * joanie looks for the video
346 18:56:16 <amber> i think being able to move the mouse with your head is somewhat vague. there are other capabilities that mousetrap has.
347 18:56:24 <Stoney> like?
348 18:56:32 <amber> choosing which haar
349 18:56:38 <Stoney> why?
350 18:56:55 <amber> for different usability scenarios
351 18:56:57 <john> joanie abmonished us about that one a couple weeks ago… ;)
352 18:56:58 <heidi> http://www.youtube.com/user/flaper87
353 18:57:18 <amber> yes, but the video is a subset of its functionality
354 18:57:25 <Stoney> john... about what?
355 18:57:26 <heidi> Right. Mousetrap should be able to track noses, fingers, etc.
356 18:57:32 <Stoney> I see
357 18:57:34 <john> about usability scenarios
358 18:57:41 <john> Stoney: I was just joking, BTW
359 18:57:48 <amber> so, it would be nice to see a list so we know what "working" is
360 18:57:53 <joanie> I don't think it was an admonishment :)
361 18:58:09 <Stoney> well... right now our version doesn't track anything .... so I would be happy about the head (or any feature)
362 18:58:12 <joanie> amber: my understanding is that currently it does absolutely nothing
363 18:58:17 <joanie> exactly
364 18:58:18 <amber> yes
365 18:58:21 <Stoney> exactly
366 18:58:32 <joanie> so we're not saying ONLY moving the mouse
367 18:59:07 <Stoney> joanie: does that mean that mousetrap is really a feature tracker?
368 18:59:22 <joanie> ?
369 18:59:22 <amber> but it seems we are having lots of conversations about approaches, (we already talked about developing with a working version) so I would like to see some requirements and goals so we dont create a cirucular dev pattern
370 19:00:15 <heidi> One of the videos shows using one's mouth as a mouse click.
371 19:00:17 <john> Agreed -- let's go with my idea of having two teams tackling the two approaches
372 19:00:23 <john> and just do it
373 19:00:40 <heidi> So what two approaches are those? I count three approaches so far.
374 19:00:56 <john> rewrite or fix
375 19:01:08 <heidi> 1. - Get it running on older ubuntu/fedora, 2. - Start from scratch 3. - Fix what we have currently.
376 19:01:19 <john> 1 is part of 3
377 19:01:36 <john> once it runs in oldies, we can see what works and what does in newies
378 19:01:42 <joanie> right
379 19:01:44 <john> *not
380 19:02:03 <heidi> Stoney? Are you happy with this?
381 19:02:15 <Stoney> I'm happy with working code...
382 19:02:16 <heidi> (I've got only 3 more minutes...)
383 19:02:17 <Stoney> so either is good
384 19:02:28 <heidi> So who would like to work on which?
385 19:02:31 <heidi> Amber, thoughts?
386 19:02:40 <john> Both approaches have possible fruitful results -- might as well try both I think
387 19:02:42 <heidi> John?
388 19:02:52 <amber> id like to fix existing, since im familiar with opencv
389 19:03:23 <john> If I'm choosing, I'll be on the rewrite team
390 19:03:34 <john> unless you guys think I'm a better fit elsewhere :)
391 19:03:44 <heidi> Amber and John, are you available Monday at 10?
392 19:03:55 <amber> ill be on the train
393 19:03:56 <john> Unfortunately, no
394 19:04:01 <john> 9:30 I can be
395 19:04:06 <heidi> Ah, OK. that is the WNE regular meeting.
396 19:04:09 <amber> later i can be
397 19:04:17 <heidi> I think folks have class until 10 at WNE.
398 19:04:38 <john> I have class at 11 and am booked solid until 5
399 19:04:51 <amber> (i just was in class 12-1) oops
400 19:04:55 <john> Well, actually I *can* be available at 10
401 19:05:02 <john> I'll just have to drive to school earlier
402 19:05:02 <heidi> Do NOT miss class :-)
403 19:05:10 <amber> i was still there!
404 19:05:27 <john> Scratch that. I'll be available at 10 on Monday, yes
405 19:05:45 <Stoney> we'll talk to WNE students monday and see what they want to do
406 19:05:55 <Stoney> (they're not here right now)
407 19:05:58 <heidi> Right.
408 19:06:11 <Stoney> motion to adjourn?
409 19:06:24 <heidi> And Logan has been debugging the current system using a python debugger.
410 19:06:38 <heidi> Note that we haven't really decided anything. Just pushed a lot of ideas.
411 19:06:46 <Stoney> exactly
412 19:06:56 <heidi> I'm fine with that.
413 19:06:56 <john> logan and amber on the fix team, me and Nicole on the rewrite team (since she's working on GTK+)
414 19:07:04 <joanie> i'll install an older version of ubuntu on my laptop
415 19:07:14 <joanie> and see if I can get it working
416 19:07:27 <heidi> #agree Explore option of reverting to older version of ubuntu and get MouseTrap working and progress from there
417 19:07:31 <amber> ubuntu 10 was promising
418 19:07:36 <heidi> #agree Explore option of rewrite from scratch.
419 19:07:37 <john> I'll 'see' you guys at 10 here on Monday?
420 19:07:42 <john> 10.4 to be exact
421 19:08:04 <amber> is there anyway to meet later on monday?
422 19:08:14 <Stoney> #agree 10 am monday here if you can make it
423 19:08:22 <heidi> We'll be meeting with students f2f Monday at 10:00.
424 19:08:27 <Stoney> very tough for me amber... lots of meetings and classes on monday
425 19:08:33 <john> amber: I'm available after 5, but I don't think the WNE students will appreciate that ;)
426 19:08:36 <heidi> Right. Stoney teaches all afternoon.
427 19:08:43 <heidi> Well, I can't do after 5:00 :-(
428 19:08:57 <darci> Why not run the meetbot, Amber can at least look at the log
429 19:08:57 <heidi> Lets get as many folks as we can and continue the discussion.
430 19:09:01 <heidi> Now I really need to run.
431 19:09:08 <amber> ok
432 19:09:11 <heidi> Joanie and API, thank you so much for all your help.
433 19:09:13 <Stoney> ditto
434 19:09:14 <darci> bye
435 19:09:15 <heidi> We very much appreciate it!!
436 19:09:21 <Stoney> thank you all
437 19:09:27 <john> joanie thanks again for the help with PixBuf!
438 19:09:29 <API> heidi, no problem, you are welcome
439 19:09:32 <joanie> someone needs to end meeting
440 19:09:35 <heidi> And API, if you email me whatever you find out from your colleagues, I'll pass it along to the group.
441 19:09:40 <heidi> Darci? End the meeting?
442 19:09:42 <API> heidi, ok
443 19:09:43 <darci> I can do that
444 19:09:45 <darci> ;-)
445 19:09:47 <heidi> :-) Thank you!
446 19:09:49 <darci> #endmeeting
Attached Files
To refer to attachments on a page, use attachment:filename, as shown below in the list of files. Do NOT use the URL of the [get] link, since this is subject to change and can break easily.You are not allowed to attach a file to this page.