LibreTime 3 Beta Todos

YeYeah I forgot PPAs were Ubuntu specific bit it’d be good to have the one with the silan fix by default with the installer. A repo with libretime packages would be cool as well for Debian I haven’t checked the status of the deb packaging. How is it going ?

The deb package works, but contains a lot of stuff that needs working out before it would be able to get into Debian. Those are pretty much stalled and I think waiting for potentially an API and front-end rewrite would be useful so that we can get away from having to package a ton of old/outdated dependencies and can focus on using current software that is already packaged for Debian. So picking JS, Python, etc libraries that are already packaged and target versions that are in Debian or newer.

Cool we should highlight it. I’m assuming it gegets built manually for each release ?

Yup. I build for amd64 Debian and upload the source changes to Launchpad for it to build for amd64 and i386

So does this project board reflect the current priorities? https://github.com/LibreTime/libretime/projects/2

Are these the remaining development issues that need to be claimed and resolved? https://github.com/LibreTime/libretime/projects/2#column-5144349

The rest are documentation? https://github.com/LibreTime/libretime/projects/2#column-5144368

What about issues labeled as bug https://github.com/LibreTime/libretime/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Abug

Are some of those potential release blockers?

Per https://github.com/LibreTime/libretime/issues/544#issuecomment-608034378

If one person (ideally not one of the core maintainers) could assume the PM/scrum master role, possibly we could coordinate some virtual sprints with the goal of 3.0.

Thoughts?

Yeah. Those need to get done for 3.0 to be released

The ones that are should be labelled with ‘3.0-release-blocker’. Please let us know of any that you think are release-blockers that are not labelled as such

Shouldn’t the next major release be bug free? Would it make sense for @robbt to run point on this and assign or tag priority tasks w/ help wanted (or something like that)?

I’d like to help coordinate an effort to direct financial resources towards the 3.0 and other priorities referenced in this post.

No software is ever bug free, especially one as complex as LibreTime. There are just bugs we don’t know about, even fixing the ones we know about will require a lot more time than we currently have. The issue is a lack of development hours to dedicate to the project as much as anything else. The original Airtime was developed with many high $ amount grants to SourceFabric and a team of multiple full-time developers. We are keeping it alive as best we can. I plan on continuing to dedicate as much hours as I can towards it.

Anyways, getting to “beta” is our goal at this moment. Getting new developers in will happen as they show up. If we wanted to “meet” in real time more often to discuss priorities that might help but I don’t know that there are a lot of untapped resources/developers just waiting to join in.

As referenced in my previous comment, funds to help devs spend more time to get 3.0 beta out the door will most likely come indirectly from services, a paid beta, or hackathons.

With a MVP platform to build on, OpenProducer can finally help facilitate all of the above. This could be a good entry point - https://github.com/OpenProducer/openproducer-platform/issues/18

Probably old news, but I’m just noticing SourceFabric completely dropped support of the free open-source Airtime https://www.sourcefabric.org/en/airtime/

Would be pretty cool if, in the not too distant future, LibreTime could provide a better free and SaaS version for frustrated Airtime users.

I personally don’t think SaaS is the way to go. I would prefer to offer support for running LibreTime on end-users own hardware and software and provide installation expertise etc. versus getting into the hosting game directly. In addition if anyone where to offer SaaS they would be bound by the Affero GPL v3 to release all of their code thus making it easy for anyone else to copy their setup so there is no real incentive here other than providing mark-up on rented cloud servers. I suspect that Airtime.pro has never been a big source of profit for SourceFabric and I am pretty sure they developed Airtime primarily with grant money they received from various NGOs etc to develop open-source radio software. I suspect that this might be the best route for LibreTime as well.

LibreTime is being used by more and more broadcasters and web streamers. Especially by those that value their freedom and autonomy from cloud services and SaaS platforms that can exert control over their users and create external dependencies. I’d like to make it so that LibreTime has a robust enough setup that people can easily install it on their own and don’t need to pay us to host it. I think that the business model NextCloud has followed is aspire to. I am always suspicious when a business model relies upon a freemium version with a paid version because there is a temptation to water down or limit functionality artificially on the freemium version. This is the issue the founder of NextCloud ran into when he founded OwnCloud and received a bunch of investments. There was a conflict between the community and the company because of this. See this talk at LibrePlanet 2019 that influenced my thinking here - https://media.libreplanet.org/u/libreplanet/m/why-i-forked-my-own-project-and-my-own-company-31c3/.

Anyways thanks for moving the conversation forward, going to go back to working on release blockers for v3.

2 Likes

So there are only 4 unassigned release blockers - https://github.com/LibreTime/libretime/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3A3.0-release-blocker+no%3Aassignee

Possibly 3 if the issues related to the player are combined -

As @paddatrapper mentioned in https://chat.libretime.org/ the SSL one looks fairly straight forward https://github.com/LibreTime/libretime/issues/88

The remaining unclaimed issues people were suggesting solutions or offering help -


Does that seem like an accurate assessment?

If there are folks interested/able to helping get 3.0 out the door, please don’t be shy about jumping into the issue queue or joining https://chat.libretime.org/libretime/channels/developers

This issue has now been claimed by mepholic!

Down to two unclaimed release blockers as referenced in the previous comment.

Seems like one of the main goals/challenges coming out of yesterday’s online meeting was the usual “how do we get a 3.0 out the door?”.

If the release blocker board is accurate it seems like there are just a few blockers on the todo list and a few more in progress. Out of those, just a couple unclaimed.

Would be good to know if folks on working release blockers need help.

I can take care of these two tasks (document SSL and replace the player), I’ve been recently messing around with icecast and libretime for configuring SSL, so I have it pretty fresh. And regarding the player, I have been thinking since a while about changing it to https://jplayer.org, I don’t know what you think about it.

The SSL documentation is already there - LibreTime - SSL Configuration, but probably needs some more visibility under the For System Administrators at the bottom of the docs page.

@xabispacebiker Are you talking about the issue below? If yes, it looks like there’s been some progress. Might be good to chime in and ask for a status update.

So I guess this is the only unclaimed issue?

@hairmare @robbt @paddatrapper @xabispacebiker @kmahelona Do you need any help with issues you’ve claimed and/or working on? Possibly you could provide a quick status update in the related Github issue(s)?

For the rate limit issue, see the partial solution in https://github.com/LibreTime/libretime/pull/1125 there may be something there that you can work from

The issue is unclaimed but it looks like several folks have been working on it (when they have time) -

Is someone else saying here they can work on it?