| --- Topic for #fedora-meeting is Channel is used by various Fedora groups and committees for their regular meetings | Note that meetings often get logged | For questions about using Fedora please ask in #fedora | See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/FedoraMeetingChannel for meeting schedule | ||
| Topic for #fedora-meeting set by mmcgrath at Thu Mar 26 16:28:05 2009 | ||
| bpepple | hmm, are we having a FESCo meeting today? I didn't see any agenda sent yesterday. | |
|---|---|---|
| sharkcz | bpepple: it was sent today | |
| bpepple | oh, that's probably why I didn't see it then. ;) | |
| jds2001 | bah | |
| fail | ||
| * nirik is here. | ||
| --- jds2001 has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- init | ||
| jds2001 | ok, im in a state of massive fail right now, sorry | |
| nirik | jds2001: no worries... it's friday at least. ;) | |
| jds2001 | anyhow, who's here? | |
| * sharkcz is here | ||
| * bpepple is here till 2, when I need to go to a work meeting. | ||
| jds2001 | bpepple, jwb, dgilmore, sharkcz j-rod, dwmw2, nirik | |
| dwmw2 | fish | |
| jds2001 | yeah, i need to split quickly too | |
| dgilmore | yo what up | |
| jds2001 | light agenda today | |
| * notting is here | ||
| j-rod mostly here | ||
| --- jds2001 has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting - agenda at https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/report/9 - Tickets | ||
| jds2001 | notting: sorry i forgot you, my normal meeting ping is in google docs | |
| and google docs is down right now apparently :( | ||
| jds2001 | anyhoo | |
| jds2001 | .fesco 119 | |
| zodbot | jds2001: #119 (Provenpackager Request: s4504kr) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/119 | |
| jds2001 | +1 | |
| sharkcz | +1 | |
| j-rod | +1 | |
| nirik | +1 here | |
| notting | +1 | |
| bpepple | +1 | |
| jds2001 | i see six +1's, so we've approved s4504kr's request. I'll do it after the meeting. | |
| jds2001 | .feco 110 | |
| jds2001 | .fesco 110 | |
| zodbot | jds2001: #110 (Policy on Flags) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/110 | |
| dgilmore | +1 | |
| jds2001 | so spot answered the questiosn we had here. | |
| dwmw2 | +1 | |
| notting | +1 | |
| jds2001 | and abadger1999 raised some concerns, but +1 since it's better than nothing. | |
| sharkcz | +1 | |
| nirik | yeah, I am +1... I think the issue that abadger2001 raised could be handled on a case by case basis | |
| jds2001 | yeah | |
| nirik | (sorry, 1999, jds's nick confused me. ;) | |
| jds2001 | alright we've approved the flag policy. | |
| nirik: I'm easily confused too :) | ||
| last but not least | ||
| jds2001 | .fesco 126 | |
| zodbot | jds2001: #126 (QEMU and KVM Merge - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/KVM_and_QEMU_merge) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/126 | |
| jds2001 | markmc: you around? | |
| markmc | jds2001, I am, and glommer | |
| dwmw2 | it's done, right? All we're talking about is whether we _admit_ it? | |
| nirik | so this is all done, they just want it to be a feature? | |
| jds2001 | the virt guys are requesting a feature freeze exception. | |
| yeah | ||
| glommer | yeah, done. | |
| markmc | yeah, the feature page just fell through the cracks | |
| glommer | and seems in good shape. | |
| * jwb is here now | ||
| markmc | forgot to pass it to poelstra | |
| bpepple | has the qa guys weighed-in on giving an exception for this (since they would be effected). | |
| glommer | it's actually like a triangle... good shape. | |
| markmc | bpepple, affected how ? | |
| bpepple | they would be involved in the qa testing of this feature. | |
| dgilmore | markmc: they would explictly test it | |
| jds2001 | they havent planned or had a test day on this. | |
| j-rod | its already done though | |
| glommer | jlaska, know something about it ? | |
| markmc | jds2001, we're planning two test days to cover all f11 virt features | |
| j-rod | we're just talking about shouting about the fact its been done | |
| * j-rod +1 for the exception | ||
| glommer | all virt features we test, end up indirectly testing it. | |
| jds2001 | markmc: cool. | |
| glommer | at least the kvm part. | |
| * notting is +1 | ||
| jlaska | glommer: lemme get back to you ... walking through beta issues atm | |
| jwb | +1 | |
| jds2001 | +1 | |
| sharkcz | +1 | |
| nirik | sure, +1. This might also affect docs... as they have been gathering talking points and such from the features list. | |
| bpepple | +1 here also. | |
| glommer | nirik, I can write a release note if needed. | |
| jds2001 | i see six +1's, so we've approved this exception. | |
| markmc | nirik, it's in the draft release notes already | |
| nirik | glommer: yes, there should be a release note. :) The one on the page looks ok to me. | |
| markmc | nirik, docs folks were the one that pointed out we'd missed getting the feature approved | |
| jds2001 | glommer: yeah, they're doing in depth deep dives, and some talking points for press interviews and stuff. | |
| nirik | markmc: cool. ;) | |
| dgilmore | FTR /me is +1 | |
| jds2001 | anyone else have anything? | |
| * bpepple has nothing. | ||
| j-rod | I dop | |
| jlaska | glommer: markmc nailed it ... we're going to line up 2 virt focused test days https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Test_Days/F11 05-07 and 05-14 | |
| j-rod | do | |
| quick tho | ||
| jds2001 | j-rod: cool, what's up? | |
| j-rod | just wondering if/when we should go back and re-evaluate any features we think might not actually be ready | |
| jds2001 | didnt we already do that? | |
| dgilmore | j-rod: probably in the next week | |
| jds2001: there some that need relooking at | ||
| jds2001 | cool. | |
| bpepple | and some that probably need to be evaluated based on their qa testing. | |
| jds2001 | next week we have hte provenpackager exceptions to look at. | |
| jlaska: can you get me a list of such features? | ||
| j-rod | we were going to get a status update on ext4 as the default fs at some point too, correct? | |
| jds2001 | (that need re-evaluated based on test day outcome, etc) | |
| j-rod | (though I think that's been relatively smooth so far) | |
| jlaska | jds2001: I haven't finalized it yet with markmc, but I'll get that as soon as possible | |
| jds2001 | j-rod: sandeen gave us an update like 2-3 weeks ago | |
| maybe you missed the meeting or were sleeping :D | ||
| j-rod | I thought we were going to get one final update after beta testing though | |
| markmc | jds2001, https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:F11_Virt_Features | |
| j-rod | I'm not too concerned about ext4 though | |
| jds2001 | we can get another one, but beta's not out yet :) | |
| j-rod | yeah, I know. the more concerning feature to me is the anaconda storage rewrite... | |
| jds2001 | yeah, that's quite concerning, that's what caused us to slip beta. | |
| j-rod | I know they've been busy fixing stuff right and left, just hoping there isn't too much to fix still | |
| so perhaps it would be good to invite some anaconda folks to next week's meeting | ||
| bpepple | j-rod: yeah, not a bad idea. | |
| jds2001 | sure, f13 has mainly been interfacing with em. | |
| f13 | huge progress last week | |
| * nirik isn't sure what we could do tho... "make it work" seems not usefull. :) | ||
| f13 | we're down to really some of the more fragile configurations | |
| and we look pretty good to get beta out on Tuesday | ||
| j-rod | f13: is this newer anaconda than what's currently in the tree? | |
| nirik | I suppose "how can we help or get people to help" would be something we could try and do. | |
| j-rod | because I can make umpteen different storage configs all go boom still | |
| f13 | j-rod: no | |
| j-rod: are you filing bugs for all of those? | ||
| j-rod | jlaska: could we sneak in another anaconda storage test day? | |
| f13 | anaconda gives you a nice ability to do so from the installer. | |
| j-rod | f13: I have been, yeah | |
| jlaska | j-rod: we have a follow-up scheduled yeah | |
| j-rod | probably 2/3 of the ones I've filed have been fixed now | |
| f13 | right | |
| j-rod | for the most part, its anything having to do with custom partitioning that goes boom | |
| f13 | there are some icky areas there | |
| but I've been doing a lot of simple custom stuff and its fine | ||
| j-rod | I generally *always* do custom partitioning, so its been rather painful for me | |
| j-rod | last night, just trying to say "take this existing partition and reformat it ext3 for /boot" died. | |
| dgilmore | j-rod: your special when it comes to storage :) | |
| j-rod | so I manually nuked the partition table | |
| custom partitioning still blows up on that same system though (live install attempt, fwiw) | ||
| dgilmore: oh, I'm "special" in MANY ways... :) | ||
| dgilmore | j-rod: wasnt going to go there. | |
| j-rod | :D | |
| jds2001 | anyhow, anything else? | |
| nirik | we might all think about what criteria we want to use to approve exceptions to provenpackager commit. | |
| dwmw2 | I was going for 'always say no' | |
| j-rod | what dwmw2 said... | |
| nirik | we have some pending requests for exception... | |
| dwmw2 | if anyone really fucks up, we can always revert their changes and promote an attitude of violence | |
| bpepple | j-rod: yeah, the exceptions should be *really* rare. | |
| notting | jds2001: there were some requests for provenpackager/sponsor on the lists, and also the gnome 2.26.1 thing mclasen brought up | |
| jds2001 | oops, yeah - the stuff on the list i was planning on handling next week. | |
| or are there old ones that I'm completely failing to remember? | ||
| * nirik is also inclined to 'no' on everything, but not sure how that would go over. | ||
| jds2001 | i've not seen anything really compelling thus far. | |
| notting | well, if you really planned to always say no, what was the point in enacting the policy? just screwing with people and feeling a sense of authority? | |
| jds2001 | except maybe initscripts and hwdata for the same reasons (we're upstream on both) | |
| but even just a bump and rebuild could be useful in some (limited) circumstances. | ||
| but just because it's critical/used during boot/whatever is not convincing to me. | ||
| nirik | well, perhaps we should revisit the policy again. (on noe). There might be some compelling argument for keeping something closed. | |
| notting | nirik: i just think that if we're saying no to all exceptions (not that i agree), there's really no point to having some waiting period, filing of tickets, etc. since we passed the policy with the waiting period, tickets, etc. last week, presumably we're expecting to approve some exceptions | |
| jds2001: oh, re: sponsorship/provenpackager, mmaslano's ticket dates from 03/18 | ||
| jds2001 | notting: yeah, i forgot to send it to the list though and just did that this morning. | |
| We can deal with it now if you think that's fair | ||
| she replied and said no rush though. | ||
| * bpepple missed last weeks meeting so wasn't aware we even passed that policy. Probably need to actually read last week's IRC meeting log. | ||
| nirik | sure. I just don't have a clear idea of what criteria we would use to approve/disapprove a request. I agree saying no to everything makes the policy not make sense... but what criteria do we have to say yes? | |
| j-rod | honestly, I do think *some* exceptions are fine | |
| dwmw2 | the policy makes sense | |
| f13 | judgement call by active FESCo members | |
| dwmw2 | if we ever find a good reason to make an exception, we can | |
| f13 | judgment that is | |
| jds2001 | it leaves room for exceptions, doesn't actually require us to make any. | |
| maybe something that we don't know about right now. | ||
| notting | well, one that comes to mind is 'legal reasons' (ff/tbird/etc) | |
| * sharkcz thinks that crypto stuff is a candidate for exception ... | ||
| jds2001 | it's sorta like the flag policy in that regard - default to no, exception are case by case. | |
| nirik | notting: whats the legal thing there? oh... name trademarked so upstream has to approve changes? | |
| jds2001 | sharkcz: they've not requested exception, though. But if they did, I wouldn't have an issue with it. | |
| yeah, the trademarked stuff makes sense too. | ||
| notting | nirik: yes | |
| * nirik nods. | ||
| jds2001 | but I've yet to see a request from them, either. | |
| as of now, I remember lvm, popt, ethtool, hwdata, initscripts and that's it. | ||
| jds2001 | anything else on that topic? The silence is deafening :) | |
| nirik | well, do we want to vote on the pending ones now? or save them for next week? | |
| dgilmore | jds2001: most of those requests were not by the maintainer correct? | |
| jds2001 | notting requested his | |
| .whoowns popt | ||
| zodbot | jds2001: robert | |
| notting | ethtool came from a co-maintainer. others seem to be from the maintainer? | |
| jds2001 | ethtool is open right now. | |
| I'm not inclined to take a request to close it :) | ||
| especially when it didn't come from teh maintainer. | ||
| bpepple | what was the reasoning for wanting an exception? | |
| dwmw2 | I'd probably accept a request from firefox or thunderbird. All else I'd reject unless I see much better arguments than I've seen so far | |
| jds2001 | used during boot, I think. | |
| notting | oh hrm | |
| jds2001: do you know how many/if any of your mails bounced due to owner == a mailing list (with wacky post rules)? | ||
| jds2001 | due to that, none | |
| due to non-existant accounts, some. | ||
| dgilmore | dwmw2: i agree | |
| jds2001 | I can forward the bounces to the list. | |
| notting | there also may be surprise b/c i don't see either of the last two meeting summaries on-list | |
| jds2001 | yeah, who's doing it this week? | |
| bpepple | I think it's my turn. | |
| nirik | given that, perhaps we should push it out a bit more... | |
| jds2001 | well, each of the maintainers got an email (supposedly) | |
| notting | well, the mail said we'd decide at the 2009-04-03 meeting. so i suppose there's no harm in not deciding on any ahead of them | |
| jds2001 | yeah | |
| bpepple | what about mclasen's question? | |
| jds2001 | reszo is one of the ones who didn't | |
| mclasen | bpepple: it was really just informational | |
| bpepple | mclasen: ah, ok. | |
| * notting doesn't have a problem with it. | ||
| jds2001 | mclasen: i dont see a problem with requesting a tag through rel-eng | |
| notting | mclasen: are you likely to have tarballs pre-freeze? | |
| * bpepple didn't have a problem with it either. | ||
| mclasen | just didn't want anybody to be surprised when we build a bunch of bug fix releases right around devel freeze time | |
| mclasen | notting: they usually start to appear one or two days earlier | |
| but there's always some latecomers | ||
| notting | mclasen: and does upstream gnome.org care if they hit rawhide before the 'official' date? | |
| mclasen | no | |
| notting | good, sounds pretty simple then | |
| mclasen | ok, cool | |
| * bpepple needs to get ready to go to another meeting. | ||
| jds2001 | alright, anything else or put a fork in it? | |
| bpepple | put a fork in it. | |
| j-rod | fork(); | |
| nirik | idle query: should we require this not allow installing non-free stuff: bug 485596 ? Feel free to add opinions there. ;) | |
| buggbot | Bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=485596 medium, low, ---, kevin, ASSIGNED, Review Request: phoronix-test-suite - A Comprehensive Linux Benchmarking System | |
| jds2001 | i will opine there :) | |
| * jds2001 ends the meeting in 15 | ||
| jds2001 ends the meeting in 10 | ||
| jds2001 ends the meeting in 5 | ||
| jds2001 | -- MEETING END -- | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.5 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!