| --- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- Meeting rules at http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Development/Schedule/MeetingGuidelines -- Init process | ||
| bpepple | FESCo meeting ping -- bpepple, dgilmore, dwmw2, jwb, notting, nirik, kick_, jds2001, j-rod | |
|---|---|---|
| Hi everybody; who's around? | ||
| * hansg is present | ||
| jwb | here | |
| * nirik is here | ||
| jds2001 semi-here | ||
| hansg | Question (I know I'm a PITA), could the BetterWebCam support feature be discussed first, I don't have much time | |
| bpepple | hansg: I don't have a problem with that. | |
| dwmw2 | oh, that's what was going to be happening on Wednesday evening | |
| bpepple | Let's wait a few more minutes for some more FESCo members to show up, then we can start with that. | |
| bpepple | ok, I see 6 FESCo members so we can probably get started. | |
| --- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCo-Meeting -- Features -- http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/BetterWebcamSupport - all | ||
| bpepple | Anyone have any questions about this feature for hansg? | |
| jwb | hansg, the kernel patches are all upstream now, right? | |
| or are there additional ones that might need to be carried? | ||
| dwmw2 | this looks good to me | |
| gspca is upstream; there's more to be merged | ||
| jds2001 | i read it as there are additional ones, but so long as there's a clear path upstream, i'm not inherently opposed to that. | |
| dwmw2 | right | |
| nirik | hansg: are there other supported models you don't have/can't test with? adding them and asking for testers with that hardware might be good. | |
| * dgilmore is here | ||
| dwmw2 | we will defer to davej and his minions, of course, but it seems reasonable enough to merge new drivers if they're going upstream imminently. | |
| * nirik thinks this looks great. Should dust off some old webcams and test it. | ||
| jds2001 | btw, great job on the test matrix :) | |
| hansg | gspca which was my main target for F-10 is upstream now, other drivers will get cleaned up and merged upstream over time as time and hardware access allows | |
| notting | +1 from me, although the LD_PRELOAD hack is kind of meh | |
| jwb | i have no inherent opposition to this. just trying to make sure whatever patches are required get where they need to be ASAP | |
| bpepple | +1 to this feature. | |
| jwb | +1 | |
| jds2001 | +1 | |
| dwmw2 | hm, LD_PRELOAD is just for binary-only crap, isn't it? Not for real software? | |
| hansg | nirik there are tons of other models support by gspca, see: http://mxhaard.free.fr/spca5xx.html | |
| nirik | +1 here too. | |
| jwb | dwmw2, that's how i read it | |
| hansg | Too much to be able to try and get them all tested | |
| dwmw2 | +1 then | |
| nirik | hansg: might add that link and note testers are welcome? | |
| dgilmore | hansg: h[B[B[B[B[B[B[B[B[Bhas | |
| hansg | dwmw2, yes | |
| jds2001 | hansg: yeah, but getting a few more tested would be good. | |
| by no means do we have the resources/capacity to test every webcam that exists :) | ||
| hansg | I'm currently focussing on getting the necessary support (for conversion from custom cam formats to normal rgb format) in userspace | |
| ekiga patches have been accepted upstream, gstreamer patch is submitted upstream, no feedback sofar | ||
| * dgilmore is ok with it | ||
| nirik | sure, but if people have those cameras, they could join in and test. | |
| jds2001 | nirik: yeppers | |
| * dgilmore has a camera to test | ||
| hansg | My plan for getting more testing is to announce this on planet and fedora-devel and ask for testing once userspace support is in place | |
| * nirik has some old cameras... one is hopeless, but the other might work | ||
| nirik | hansg: sounds good. | |
| * dwmw2 looks around to see what weird shit he can plug into his PS3 | ||
| dgilmore | hansg: this replaces the old spca50x driver that was always outside of the kernel tree? | |
| jwb | dwmw2, you have to fix the kernel first | |
| jds2001 | you could also plead on f-t-l | |
| hansg | dgilmore, yes | |
| jds2001, good idea will do | ||
| dgilmore | hansg: cool | |
| hansg | About people having old cams, if you don't use them I very much welcome donations of cams. Drop me a mail for my snail mail address | |
| nirik | there is some ps3/sony camera... | |
| * nirik doesn't have one. | ||
| dgilmore has a few quickcam 5000's and an old intel one | ||
| hansg | I've solicited for this before but so far no donations from outside the Netherlands (one Dutch guy mailed me a box with 5 cams) | |
| jds2001 | pretty expensive to ship overseas.... | |
| nirik | I have a linksys one you are welcome to... but it's unlikely to ever work with linux... it needs IE to view steams from it. | |
| hansg | jds2001, probably I have no idea | |
| herlo | hansg: I have one, but its kinda broken | |
| jwb | should we move on? | |
| nirik | anyhow, are we at enough + to pass this? | |
| hansg | herlo, well if the hw is broken its of no use to me | |
| dgilmore | hansg: i might s endyou my intel one | |
| herlo | hansg: no, the cam works, just missing the stand... | |
| hansg | herlo it would be welcome then :) | |
| herlo | hansg: I'll see what I can do | |
| hansg | dgilmore, I already have one intel, see the feature page, if it isn't that one I would be very happy with it | |
| hansg | Anyways any more questions about the feature and the plan to complete it? | |
| bpepple | ok, I'm back. stupid coffee shop wifi. :( | |
| * dgilmore says +1 to the feature | ||
| jds2001 | +1 | |
| jwb | bpepple, we all passed it | |
| bpepple | great. anything else or should we move on? | |
| dgilmore | move on | |
| --- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCo-Meeting -- http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/RahulSundaram/CollectiveMaintenance -- all | ||
| bpepple | mether wanted this added to the agenda. | |
| jds2001 | this looks reasonable, but who enacts this procedure? | |
| it also seems a little cumbersome | ||
| bpepple | I'm a little reluctant, since it seems to add unnecessary bureaucracy to the process. | |
| * jds2001 lost on the point of the tracker bug | ||
| notting | we only have one feature today? | |
| * nirik isn't sure this solves the problem... | ||
| jwb | we started with webcams due to a request from hansg | |
| bpepple | especially since the maintainer containment should be added soon. | |
| nirik | the problem is that some maintainers are overworked. Adding more work/bugs/nagmail to them doesn't seem like it would help. | |
| jwb | i have no idea how this is going to work? | |
| jds2001 | i think webcam is the only one | |
| nirik: exactly | ||
| bpepple | notting: yeah, we only had one since poelcat is on vacation. I looked over the list, and that seemed the only one ready for today. | |
| jds2001 | but frankly they should seek co-maintainers if they're overworked | |
| nirik | we should be encouraging them to get comaintainers or find new maintainers for the packages they don't have time for... or comaintainers to handle easy bugs when they work on harder ones, etc. | |
| notting | bpepple: i can't help but think we're running behind there | |
| dgilmore | i say we just let maintainers fix bugs | |
| i tthiink adds to much overhead | ||
| * dgilmore hates X right now | ||
| bpepple | notting: I don't disagree with you. | |
| here's what's in the proposed queue. Most of them seem to be spins. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/CategoryProposedFedora10 | ||
| dgilmore | nirik: thats the current recomendation AFAIK | |
| jds2001 | what we're talking about here is a patch provided, or something trivial to fix | |
| if i understand correctly | ||
| * nirik would say -1 to this for now, lets see how the newmaintainer containment and opening acls to packagers helps first, and if not, we can revisit something along these lines after that. | ||
| jds2001 | the patch SHOULD be reviewed and ACK'ed or NAK'ed | |
| * bpepple agrees with nirik. | ||
| bpepple | -1 | |
| dgilmore | nirik: indeed | |
| notting | -1 from me | |
| dgilmore | -1 | |
| dwmw2 | hm, I like it. It encourages teamwork. | |
| jds2001 | -1, because as i mentioned this process is too complex. I like the idea, though | |
| jwb | no it doesn't | |
| dgilmore | dwmw2: so does the comainter policy we are implementing | |
| nirik | dwmw2: I think we should encourage teamwork, but we shouldn't legislate it. | |
| jds2001 | how not | |
| jwb | well, it does but in a very awkward way | |
| LyosNorezel | dwmw2: there are many better ways to encourage teamwork... without introducing another stick to beat people with | |
| dwmw2 | yeah, I agree that it's awkward/complex | |
| yeah, fair enough | ||
| bpepple | alright, I see five '-1', so this proposal has been rejected for now. | |
| dgilmore | dwmw2: i think this is an akward subset of whats already been worked on | |
| bpepple | dgilmore: agreed. | |
| dwmw2 | yeah, ok. | |
| bpepple | anyone have anything else to add? otherwise we can move on. | |
| nirik | speaking of newmaintainer containment/acl opening... is there any status on that? | |
| bpepple | nirik: I believe sadmac is still working on our changes. | |
| --- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCo-Meeting -- Clarification of spins as features - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SteeringCommittee/Meeting-20071206 - bpepple, all | ||
| * jds2001 tested the group rename worked and i could cimmit | ||
| jds2001 | commit even | |
| bpepple | ok, I looked at the features in the queue yesterday, and noticed most of them seem to be spins. | |
| nirik | bpepple: yeah. | |
| bpepple | we decided back in December that we didn't consider spins to be a feature. Has something changed? | |
| nirik | http://bpepple.fedorapeople.org/fesco/FESCo-2007-12-06.html is the meeting | |
| I think the thought there was that since the board had to approve spins, why should fesco also have to do so. | ||
| dgilmore | nirik: spins is all the board | |
| * jds2001 read that meeting | ||
| notting | the spin process has been through enough revisions to make my head, well, ... | |
| jds2001 | same sentiment - -1 to feature, +1 to pimp em | |
| jwb | wait wait wait | |
| notting | i distinctly remember a discussion of why the needed to be tracked as spins, but i don't recall whether that was in fesco, the board, rel-eng, or the spins sig | |
| jwb | there are reasons Rel-Eng wants the spins treated as features | |
| namely, we want the same sort of information (scope, test plan, etc) applied to spins that we do features | ||
| jds2001 | agreed | |
| jwb | we also want Spins to be treated as a _release_ item | |
| jds2001 | but does it have to be the same process? | |
| ldimaggi_ | wwoods, ping | |
| dgilmore | jwb: thats the spins-sig and releng's job | |
| jwb | e.g. they follow the same release process that Features do | |
| dgilmore | board says ack/nak | |
| ldimaggi_ | wwoods, any sign of Slick these days? | |
| dgilmore | fesco does nothing with spins | |
| jwb | dgilmore, rel-eng is asking fesco to do something. if we have to go and duplicate the whole feature process for spins, that seems pretty wasteful | |
| dgilmore | jwb: what does releng want? | |
| nirik | jwb: so spins have to pass thru the spins sig, then the board, then back to fesco, then to rel-eng? | |
| nirik | can we also pass them thru ambassadors and bugzappers so they get the grand tour? :) | |
| jwb | we want Spins treated as Features. if fesco doesn't want to ack them, then fine. but we're still going to require a feature writeup | |
| jwb | if a spin isn't ready by Feature Freeze, it isn't going to get done | |
| notting | all those steps are different items. board is simply for trademark usage, for example | |
| * jds2001 feels they should make a stop in QA | ||
| jwb | jds2001, just like features... | |
| dgilmore | notting: its too many steps. | |
| jwb | it's really not | |
| jds2001 | though QA has really delegated that to the spins sig for spins, and pointed them to our release testplans | |
| and encourage/help them to add their own | ||
| jwb | dgilmore, this is not just rel-eng. spins sig also sees value in doing this | |
| think of it as a mechanism to sync the spins with the rest of the distro during release | ||
| jwb | if fesco isn't the reviewing body, someone needs to be | |
| notting | jwb: just clarifying - does spins sig and rel-eng see a need for anything from fesco besides just the tracking *infrastructure* (as opposed to yea/nay votes) | |
| * nirik doesn't care too much... I guess we can review them along with the rest of features... not sure what we will need to look for tho | ||
| dgilmore | jwb: i have no problem in pimping spins in the release | |
| dgilmore | jwb: i just dont think fesco needs to approve them | |
| jwb | notting, i don't believe so | |
| jwb | dgilmore, fesco is the only body with enough clout to declare something as "not going to make it this release" | |
| notting | if that's the case, what do we need to discuss here, other than just note that spins will use the same feature reporting infrastructure, with feature wrangler pushing those features to the spins sig, etc. for approval? | |
| jwb | that's what we need to discuss | |
| notting | if that's what you want, i'm fine with that | |
| jds2001 | if you're not looking for ack/nack, and just process - then that's fine in my book | |
| dgilmore | jwb: if the spins sig or releng comes to fesco withhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh i isssue with a spin then we can look at it then | |
| jwb | proposal: rel-eng has final say in acking spins for a release based on the Feature criteria. spins sig/owner can escalate to fesco if needed | |
| dgilmore | jwb: +1 from me | |
| bpepple | jwb: +1 | |
| nirik | +1 | |
| jds2001 | +2 | |
| notting | +1 | |
| jds2001 | err, 1 | |
| jwb | i'll abstain officially, though i'm obviously +1 | |
| i see 5 votes | ||
| approved? | ||
| bpepple | ok, I see six '+1' to jwb's proposal, so it's been passed. | |
| * bpepple sees jwb beat him to the punch. | ||
| nirik | ok, move on? | |
| jwb | thanks | |
| dwmw2 | +1 | |
| --- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- Free discussion around Fedora | ||
| * nirik has an item... | ||
| bpepple | ok, that was it for what was on the schedule for today. | |
| nirik: floors yours. | ||
| * dgilmore will probably not be available for next weeks meeting | ||
| nirik | Should folks in fedorabugs be able to review/approve package reviews for already sponsored packagers? I thought we required they be packagers already to do that. | |
| dgilmore | nirik: no | |
| * jds2001 thought so too | ||
| nirik | but spot / the package review webpage says only fedorabugs needed. | |
| dgilmore | nirik: they should have a package in fedora first | |
| jds2001 | technically that's true | |
| however, policy-wise it's not. | ||
| notting | i thought the algorithm was that for approved packagers, you need to be a packager. for non-approved packagers, you need to be a sponsor. | |
| jds2001 | that's been a fear of mine. | |
| notting: my understanding as well. | ||
| nirik | notting: that was my thought as well, but the wiki/spot do not think so... wanted to clarify. | |
| dgilmore | notting: as did I, however the wiki reads differently | |
| bpepple | notting: +1 | |
| notting | anyone want to 'fix' the wiki/ | |
| ? | ||
| * nirik was hoping to round up spot to provide his input, but he doesn't seem to be around. | ||
| bpepple | notting: doesn't it need to be someone on the packaging committee? | |
| * jds2001 gives 'fedorabugs' freely - I don't want folks in *only* fedorabugs reviewing stuff. | ||
| dgilmore | bpepple: i think so | |
| bpepple | I thought those pages where locked down. | |
| dgilmore | jds2001: i think when it was set as such. we only gave fedorabugs to people who had a package in fedora | |
| bpepple | Is anyone here on the packaging committee? If not, I'll contact spot or tibbs. | |
| nirik | Proposal: FESCo clarifies that you must be in the packager group to review and approve package reviews of already sponsored submitters | |
| dgilmore | +1 | |
| bpepple | nirik: +1 | |
| dwmw2 | +1 | |
| notting | +1 | |
| nirik | +1 | |
| jds2001 | +1 | |
| jwb | +1 | |
| nirik | and if they want to change it back to just fedorabugs, we can revisit. | |
| bpepple | ok, that's seven "+1" to nirik's proposal. | |
| abadger1999 | I'm on FPC. That was my understanding as well. | |
| jds2001 | fedorabugs is necessary for triage. | |
| bpepple | abadger1999: could you update the wiki? | |
| abadger1999 | yeah. Link? | |
| jds2001 | perhaps we make a new bz group that 'packager' gives you that lets you set fedora-review | |
| nirik | abadger1999: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process | |
| notting | oh feh. so it's a technical thing where we don't have another ACL mechanism in bz? | |
| paaain | ||
| nirik | jds2001: that would be nice, but wouldn't totally solve the issue. | |
| jds2001 | we can easily make one | |
| nirik: why not? | ||
| * nirik notes that there have been cases where people not in the group did reviews, said they couldn't set the flag, and someone helpfully set it for them... | ||
| jds2001 | you dont do cvsadmin stuff without fedora-review+, right? | |
| abadger1999 | Err.. one thing, anyone can review... only a packager can approve. | |
| nirik | sure, it helps make it more obvious tho | |
| abadger1999: right. | ||
| bpepple | abadger1999: correct. | |
| abadger1999 | k. Changing | |
| dgilmore | abadger1999: yes. we want/ed new packagers to work on reviews first | |
| * nirik notes he is working with the recent person who did a bunch of reviews without being in fedorabugs/packager. Hopefully he will be sponsored by me soon... | ||
| dgilmore | nirik: :) | |
| bpepple | ok, is there anything else folks want to discuss, or should we wrap up for the day? | |
| notting | do we want to do the non-spin features? | |
| btw, i'll miss the next two meetings | ||
| dgilmore | notting: and I likely the next | |
| bpepple | notting: we can, but they seemed to be missing stuff. Like docs, qa stuff, etc. | |
| * dgilmore starts new job Monday | ||
| bpepple | dgilmore: congrats on that. | |
| dgilmore | bpepple: thanks | |
| jds2001 | congrats dgilmore :) | |
| notting | bpepple: if they're in proposedfedora10, aren't they by definition ready? or only if they get the featurewrangler magic stamp of approval? | |
| nirik | dgilmore: hopefully your new company will let you work on fedora some in your spare time. ;) | |
| dgilmore | nirik: i would hope so | |
| at least one goal is to get the product in fedora | ||
| bpepple | notting: poelcat tends to only bring them up if everything is complete, but I have no problem looking at them if you want. | |
| dgilmore | nirik: i should get to work on fedora some on work time also | |
| bpepple | we've got about 13 minutes left, so how about we try to look at 1 or 2 before wrapping up for today. | |
| --- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCo-Meeting -- Features -- http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/BetterStartup | ||
| nirik | bpepple: sounds fine to me. | |
| notting | bpepple: the worst that can happen is we'll have to do them again | |
| jwb | i talked to airlied about this one last night a bit | |
| bpepple | notting: agreed. | |
| jwb | the kernel drivers aren't quite there. intel will be first, then ATI | |
| dgilmore | jwb: want to fill us in | |
| jwb | i don't see any reason to _not_ approve this, but one has to wonder if all the bits will be in place in time for beta | |
| notting | actually, the policy says that the feature wrangler is supposed to raise the feature at the meeting. so technically we shouldn't do this | |
| * nirik hopes this lands at least somewhat soon... needs lots of testing I suspect. | ||
| jwb | nirik, right | |
| notting | plymouth's in rawhide. the modesetting bits are not | |
| jwb | notting, correct | |
| * nirik tried intel mode setting in f9... it works, but doesn't survive suspend/resume at all. | ||
| nirik | notting: fine, we could adjorn... or just look at them "informally" without voting? | |
| bpepple | +1 to this feature, but the documentation & release notes needs to be completed. | |
| jwb | bpepple, i think the kernel drivers should come first.. :) | |
| notting | nirik: i suppose by the rules of the process we should adjourn | |
| bpepple | notting: yeah, that might be for the best. | |
| stickster | Seriously? :-\ | |
| * nirik is looking forward to the SaveToBugzilla feature. thats pretty darn cool. | ||
| jwb | one could always spend the time asking questions of the Feature itself | |
| * jds2001 too | ||
| bpepple | stickster: most of the feature pages left aren't complete, not to mention I'm a little leery on stepping on poelcat's toes. | |
| stickster | bpepple: I'm pretty sure he'd be happy if it progressed -- but incomplete is another matter then. | |
| * stickster backs out humbly | ||
| bpepple | stickster: the only one that was complete was the webcam feature which we approved at the beginning of the meeting. | |
| stickster | yeah, saw that one -- fair enough. | |
| * stickster tips hat to FESCO in thanks | ||
| bpepple | Does anyone have anything else to discuss? Otherwise we can wrap up, so the next meeting isn't late. | |
| * nirik has nothing. | ||
| * bpepple will end the meeting in 60 | ||
| bpepple will end the meeting in 30 | ||
| * bpepple will end the meeting in 15 | ||
| bpepple | -- MARK -- Meeting End | |
| Thanks, everyone! | ||
| abadger1999 | nirik: I recall why the PackageReview page was written that way but it's obsolete now. | |
| It was before cvsextras automatically granted fedorabugs. | ||
| bpepple | btw, does anyone know when poelcat is back from vacation? | |
| nirik | abadger1999: ah ha. Makes sense. | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.5 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!