| --- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- Meeting rules at http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Schedule/MeetingGuidelines -- Init process | ||
| * jeremy is here | ||
| Kenvi | Kenvi | |
|---|---|---|
| * jwb is here | ||
| * nirik is here. | ||
| abadger1999 sits in the bleachers | ||
| bpepple | FESCo meeting ping -- bpepple, caillon, c4chris, dgilmore, dwmw2, f13, jeremy, jwb, notting, spot, nirik, tibbs, warren | |
| * tibbs here | ||
| jwb is here | ||
| bpepple | hey, everybody. | |
| * nirik is here still. | ||
| * spot is here | ||
| f13 | I'm here. | |
| * poelcat here | ||
| bpepple | ok, we can probably get started. | |
| * notting is here | ||
| --- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCO-Meeting -- MISC -- Feature Proposal Approval - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Dashboard - notting, poelcat | ||
| bpepple | poelcat: you want to lead this? | |
| --- poelcat has changed the topic to: vote on feature: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FeatureEclipse33 | ||
| * c4chris is here | ||
| jeremy | +1 | |
| bpepple | +1 here also. | |
| notting | +1 with a 'whatever'. not sure this needs tracked as such. | |
| spot | +1 | |
| jwb | ditto to notting | |
| tibbs | I have zero interest in eclipse or java; if they think thay can be ready with this, then +1. | |
| nirik | +1 here, might have a bugzilla tracker bug for all the affected packages (but thats a detail up to the maintainer I suppose) | |
| bpepple | Ok, that's seven '+1'. any other comments before moving on? | |
| * f13 looks | ||
| c4chris | +1 | |
| f13 | Eclipse is going to be IceTea ready? | |
| notting | f13: it ran on proprietary jvms before... | |
| f13 | sure. | |
| *shrug* +1 | ||
| jwb | move on | |
| * bpepple wonders if poelcat is still here. | ||
| bpepple | vote on feature: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/FeatureGenericLogos | |
| --- bpepple has changed the topic to: vote on feature: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/FeatureGenericLogos | ||
| tibbs | I think this is important. | |
| jeremy | given that the contingency plan is the status-quo, I don't know that it's really committing to much :) | |
| jwb | +1 | |
| notting | +1 from me, obviously | |
| bpepple | jeremy: agreed. +1 | |
| nirik | +a lot... this is a good thing. | |
| notting | jeremy: we should talk about anaconda theming, btw :) | |
| nirik | and it would be good to tout for f8 too. | |
| tibbs | +1 | |
| daMaestro | +1 ... i could work to help with this also | |
| jeremy | notting: yeah, it's in my "flagged mail to reply to" pile | |
| c4chris | +1 | |
| caillon | +1 | |
| poelcat | bpepple: thanks... sucked into another meeting, back now | |
| f13 | +1 | |
| bpepple | poelcat: no worries. | |
| ok, that's more than seven '+1'. | ||
| --- poelcat has changed the topic to: followup discussion on feature: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/IcedTea | ||
| poelcat | approval was deferred last week for further clarification | |
| jwb | i know nothing about java. 0 | |
| caillon | i talked to the red hat eclipse team and they were jazzed about it | |
| +1 | ||
| f13 | I don't know if we've gotten any clarification. Has this page been changed at all? | |
| bpepple | f13: I don't see any change/ | |
| tibbs | I still don't get it; we are now trying to get away from native code compilation? | |
| caillon | actually, let me see if i can pull someone in here | |
| tibbs | Why would that possibly be a good thing? | |
| caillon | hang | |
| jwb | tibbs, i wonder that myself | |
| f13 | I don't see how we can possibly do IceTea on i386/x86_64, but not ppc(64) | |
| notting | f13: did we ask for a clarification on the page? | |
| f13 | notting: hrm, probably failed that one :( | |
| frozty_sa | Hi...I'm new, but I've got a possible idea for the alternatives package, if I could tell it to whoever is the appropriate person later | |
| caillon | hm, i guess they're at lunch | |
| jwb | frozty_sa, talk to someone in #fedora-devel | |
| notting | frozty_sa: that would probably be me, and -> #fedora-devel, or bz please | |
| frozty_sa | thanks jwb | |
| * jeremy is all for getting iced tea in and working well | ||
| jwb | f13, yeah... i'm not overly thrilled about no ppc/ppc64 either | |
| frozty_sa | notting, I will speak to you in pm | |
| jwb | jeremy, does it drop native compiles? | |
| jeremy | f13: it's alternatives, so you get the "best" one | |
| jwb: no, we'd still be doing native compiles for gcj | ||
| jwb | jeremy, huh? | |
| IcedTea is replacing gcj, yes? | ||
| jeremy | jwb: gcj isn't going to go away, at least, not yet | |
| jwb | jeremy, that's not my question | |
| jeremy, what is e.g. eclipse going to be built with? | ||
| jeremy | jwb: just that the (already existing and managed by alternatives) /usr/bin/java will point to IcedTea on platforms where we've got it | |
| jwb | ok, but if we're defaulting to IcedTea, does it compile to native code like gcj does? | |
| jeremy | no, you get the native code via gcj | |
| * jeremy thinks he's not understanding the question | ||
| jwb | but the page says IcedTea would be the default | |
| jeremy | jwb: the native compilation is all done via explicit calls to gcj | |
| jwb | gr, hang on | |
| nirik | so IcedTea gets used for only non native packages/runtime stuff? | |
| jwb | ok. so today we have Eclipse native compiled with gcj, which is the default. this page is asking to switch to IcedTea as the default. are we then not going to compile eclipse anymore? | |
| c4chris | nirik: that's what I think I'm understanding too | |
| tibbs | I have no problems with "we need a jvm; icedtea will do nicely". | |
| jwb | or is eclipse still built with gcj, and therefore gcj is required? | |
| tibbs | I have issues with "don't bother compiling any java we ship to native code; just run it all in the jvm". | |
| jeremy | my understanding (from talking with fitzsim before my vacation, hence, maybe fuzzy) is that eclipse is still _built_ with gcj. but on platforms where icedtea is available, at runtime, you'll be using the jars via the jvm and not the native compiled bits | |
| tibbs | And why on earth would we want that? | |
| jwb | jeremy, why would we want that? | |
| belegdol | jeremy: wouldn't that be slower | |
| jeremy | we _already_ do all of this. the only difference is what gets done by default | |
| jwb | today, default is eclipse runs native via gcj | |
| jeremy | belegdol: generally not. the native code isn't necessarily the best in the world :/ try eclipse in the default setup, then try installing a jvm. see which works faster/better | |
| jwb | do we have numbers? | |
| jeremy | jwb: until you install the jdk. at which point, it gets used instead because it's then /usr/bin/java | |
| jwb: I don't have any recent ones -- I suspect the java guys have more | ||
| f13 | I'm willing to trust the java guys on this one though | |
| so long as we're not screwing outselves on ppc I'm OK with this | ||
| (and that the building keeps happening as usual) | ||
| jwb | i'm still leary | |
| bpepple | f13: +1 | |
| jwb | but then again, i vote 0 | |
| c4chris | so who is a java guy here? | |
| * bpepple is definitely not. | ||
| jeremy | c4chris: no one! :-) | |
| caillon | nobody | |
| c4chris | argh | |
| caillon | we're having the meeting during their lunch time | |
| c4chris | can we get some advice from a real one? | |
| tibbs | It's my lunch time too.... | |
| But aren't these feature requests supposed to come with a driver who will answer our questions? | ||
| c4chris | until then: 0 | |
| bpepple | maybe we should discuss this on the mailing list w/ the java guys? | |
| tibbs tibbs|h | ||
| c4chris | bpepple: yea | |
| poelcat | can someone summarize the issue to raise on the feature page or add it themselves? | |
| c4chris | or have one here at the next meeting | |
| bpepple | jwb: could you add your concerns/questions to the feature page? | |
| jwb | yes. tibbs, i'll ping you when i've done that to make sure yours are covered too | |
| bpepple | jwb: great. thanks. | |
| poelcat | caillon: are you ready to discuss http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/FeatureNetworkManager ? | |
| jwb tibbs thanks | ||
| caillon | poelcat: one more week | |
| poelcat: i need more clarification on something still | ||
| poelcat | caillon: fair enough... i'll raise next week | |
| caillon | thanks | |
| poelcat | bpepple: no more features :) | |
| bpepple | poelcat: cool. Thanks. | |
| moving on then. | ||
| --- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCO-Meeting -- MISC -- Bugs blocking approved features -- notting | ||
| bpepple | notting: you wanted to discuss this. | |
| notting | this came up in regards to the 'disabling xfs' feature. it would be done, but it's blocking on changes to the font packages, some of which have been in bz for over a month w/o comment | |
| and the question was - should there be some sort of step-in process? add people to ACLs? have an admin apply the changes? start AWOL maintainer? | ||
| jwb | i thought people wanted xfs enabled? | |
| oh, wrong xfs | ||
| sorry | ||
| nirik | if there hasn't even been response I would say start awol procedure. | |
| jwb | agreed | |
| c4chris | nirik: agreed | |
| tibbs | Yes, this is no different than any other non-response issue, I think. | |
| * nirik is on cc for 3 font packages and hasn't seen any bugs on this. Is it all fonts? | ||
| notting | not necessarily | |
| caillon | what packages are we blocking on:? | |
| notting | caillon: urw-fonts is the one that brought this up. i think jens was taking care of the asian ones | |
| nirik | The danger of an admin stepping in is that then people then have an expectation that it's maintained, and if the maintainer is gone we want to know and have someone take it over. | |
| notting | i suspect it is very much more 'maintainer slow/unresponsive' than 'gone' | |
| jwb | notting, not even a single comment in the bug? | |
| caillon | has a bug been filed? | |
| notting | yes | |
| nirik | perhaps some public shaming then? post to maintainers or devel ? | |
| notting | should there be some sort of middle step between <no response> -> AWOL process? | |
| jwb | notting, did someone try emailing them directly? | |
| notting | i doesn't know | |
| caillon | and how long have we given them (trying to account for vacatoin, etc) | |
| jwb | the AWOL process covers all that | |
| nirik | ah, urw-fonts is than... ;) He's very busy | |
| jwb | just follow it | |
| tibbs | We know than isn't AWOL. | |
| notting | caillon: in this case, 6+ weeks | |
| caillon | clearly he's not awol though | |
| bpepple | I'm inclined to have someone step-in, since this is holding up the feature. | |
| jwb | i would say AWOL in this case is package based | |
| bpepple | and the maintainer clearly isn't awol. | |
| nirik | yeah, he may not be awol, but if he's too busy, someone else could take over the package. | |
| abadger1999 | jwd: +1 | |
| jwb even. | ||
| c4chris | yea package based AWOL sounds reasonable | |
| caillon | i think i'd rather open up the acl. he'd still own the package, but if he's blocking on fedora features, we need to step in. | |
| nirik | there are 2 bugs about it filed, both priority "low" | |
| bpepple | caillon: +1 | |
| notting | nirik: that's the default | |
| nirik | and no comments on the older one since 06-26. | |
| jwb | caillon, that's fine with me | |
| nirik | I suppose for the feature we can have someone else do this change, but if than is too busy to maintain the package it would be best if someone take it over. | |
| so, where are we here? vote on having an admin make the change and ask than if someone should take over the package? | ||
| caillon | i'd really like than to reply though to confirm the change(s) are correct for his package | |
| nirik | is someone in the same office as than and can go over and ask him? | |
| notting | he's on this channel (but away) | |
| caillon | unlikely, but I can look up his phone number internally and call him tomorrow (I'm guessing he's gone home for the day already) | |
| nirik | I know he's often very busy with kde stuff... | |
| bpepple | caillon: that sounds fine to me. | |
| c4chris | caillon: +1 | |
| f13 | caillon: +1 | |
| bpepple | notting: was than's package the only one blocking this feature? | |
| notting | bpepple: not sure. but it seems like a reasonable way to go. i think jens responsed on behalf of most of the others | |
| bpepple | notting: ok. | |
| anything else? or should we move on? | ||
| --- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCO-Meeting -- MISC -- obsoleting kmod proposal - dwmw2, f13 | ||
| bpepple | f13: did dwmw2 get a chance to work on his proposal? | |
| nirik | FYI, there appears to be one more open kill xfs font bug... https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=251026 | |
| f13 | bpepple: I haven't seen it. | |
| bpepple | f13: ok, we'll move on then, since he isn't here. | |
| f13 | k | |
| jwb | no proposal from either dwmw2, f13, or |DrJef| | |
| --- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCO-Meeting -- Rebuilding Packages -- Needs to decide to always rebuild, or only when toolchain warrants it - all | ||
| bpepple | this was one of those topics we put off until after F7. | |
| tibbs | We need to do it in any case for F8, so we could put it off again.... | |
| f13 | we do need it | |
| we should do between test2 and 3 | ||
| * nirik thinks "when releng says we need to" should be the rule... | ||
| tibbs | Frankly I think it's something we'd need to decide on release-by-release. | |
| f13 | need it for build-id, for ppc, and licensing. | |
| guess we dont' need one for IceTea | ||
| c4chris | what nirik said | |
| nirik | that would mean we would need all the license changes done by then... so we should announce asap... | |
| also if licenses aren't updated, do we have someone step in and do so? Or ? | ||
| f13 | Yeah, I want to give time for that to flesh out | |
| belegdol | it was announced | |
| bpepple | f13: Yeah, we definitely need to rebuild for F8, but some people want a policy that we rebuild regardless if there's a technical reason to warrant it. | |
| f13 | and for build-id stuff to get working too | |
| abadger1999 | mether really wants a vote on whether end-user confusion is reason enough to rebuild. | |
| belegdol | but the "or later" stuff is driving me mad | |
| abadger1999 | Whether or not there are any known technical reasons to rebuild. | |
| nirik | well, the license changes were announced, but not when the mass rebuild would be... | |
| belegdol | ah, ic | |
| nirik | which would be a deadline to make all the license changes. | |
| jwb | bpepple, agreed. we need to vote in general | |
| bpepple | jwb: right. this topic is for F8, it's about our future handling of rebuilds. | |
| s/is/isn't/ | ||
| nirik | ok, I vote "only mass rebuilds when releng says they are needed" No required mass rebuild per cycle. | |
| f13 | is the 'confusion' part the dist tag "mismatch" ? | |
| caillon | f13: yes | |
| jwb | theoretically | |
| bpepple | f13: partially. | |
| f13 | bpepple: what else is it? | |
| bpepple | also, some people this rebuilds also helps identify missing maintainers. | |
| s/this/thinks/ | ||
| notting | +1 to 'when releng says to' (have to step away for a moment) | |
| bpepple | sigh. | |
| nirik | I think lack of response to bug reports is a better way to find awol maintainers... | |
| f13 | bpepple: I'm not convinced that this is the best way to do it. | |
| caillon | bpepple: that might be one way, but its a crappy way IMO | |
| f13 | where "it" == identify awol maintainers. | |
| bpepple | f13: I agree, but that's one of the arguments I've heard from people. | |
| f13 | nod | |
| c4chris | +1 to 'when releng says to' | |
| jwb | question | |
| abadger1999 | and axel likes to point out that we're always fallible (ie: brokenness that a rebuild would have fixed seems to occur.) | |
| caillon | but we can also introduce brokenness because of a rebuild | |
| jwb | would doing a mass rebuild benefit Secondary arches that are trying to come online? | |
| i suspect so | ||
| f13 | yes and no | |
| yes in that many things get built, no in that 'OMG THE WORLD JUST BUILT AND I CAN'T CATCH UP!' | ||
| jwb | they're going to have to cope with the latter anyway | |
| f13 | to some extent yes. But this is a massive amount of churn | |
| jwb | and? if we do a mass rebuild for technical reasons, they have to deal | |
| f13 | yes | |
| jwb | believe me, even if it's difficult for them it helps | |
| belegdol | we will probably have gcc 4.2 for f9 | |
| jwb | if nothing else, to highlight they don't have enough horsepower | |
| bpepple | should we do a vote, or does this need more discussion? | |
| jwb | i think it's been discussed to death already | |
| the only "new" information is what i just brought up | ||
| bpepple | Proposal: Only do rebuilds when it's warranted for technical reasons. | |
| f13 | +1 | |
| caillon | bpepple: +1 | |
| bpepple | +1 | |
| nirik | +1 | |
| c4chris | +1 | |
| jwb | tibbs, jeremy? | |
| spot, ? | ||
| spot | 0 | |
| tibbs | +1 | |
| jwb | +! | |
| er, 1 | ||
| * bpepple wouldn't mind hearing abadger1999 opinion either, since he's here. | ||
| jwb | that's 7 | |
| jeremy | +1 | |
| jwb | sure, abadger1999 ? | |
| * nirik counts now 9 with nottings +1 from above. | ||
| abadger1999 | 0 | |
| jwb | bpepple, please highlight that f8 will get a rebuild | |
| abadger1999 | I think its six in one, half dozen the other. | |
| jwb | or whoever does meeting minutes | |
| nirik | I suspect most cycles we will end up having to do one (new gcc, etc) | |
| bpepple | jwb: I will. | |
| jwb | thanks | |
| nirik, i agree | ||
| f13 | well. | |
| nirik | for the f8 rebuild, can releng come up with a plan? | |
| f13 | f8 will get a rebuild of the packages that need rebuilding | |
| jwb | f13, meaning? | |
| f13 | noarch packages without a license change, no need to rebuild them. | |
| jwb | oh, sure | |
| nirik | thats going to be a pretty small number of packages I suspect. | |
| spot | f13: the vast majority of packages needed license changes | |
| c4chris | f13: even for the build-id thing? | |
| bpepple | spot: agreed. | |
| f13 | c4chris: build-id only applies to packages with debuginfo | |
| c4chris | f13: ah, right | |
| jwb | i have to step out for a sec | |
| f13 | it's a targetted rebuild, just a very large target. | |
| bpepple | f13: the rel-eng team is planning to have rebuilds done between Test2 & Test3? | |
| f13 | that's my thought yes. | |
| we haven't proposed/voted on anything. | ||
| bpepple | f13: cool. anything else? or should we move on? | |
| f13 | that's probably good for now. | |
| bpepple | ok. moving on then..... | |
| --- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- Free discussion around Fedora | ||
| bpepple | Anything folks wish to discuss? | |
| in regard to Fedora. ;) | ||
| * bpepple listens to the crickets. | ||
| c4chris | nothing here | |
| nirik | were we waiting for a proposal for security to ack security updates? Or was that approved already in the past? | |
| abadger1999 | What should be the default commit acl for new packages? | |
| f13 | we were waiting for a proposal. | |
| I've kicked them again tomake one. | ||
| bpepple | nirik: I think we were waiting for a proposal, but I'm not 100% sure. I'll check the prior minutes. | |
| nirik | f13: ok, thanks. | |
| abadger1999 | Default open to cvsextras or default open only to owner? | |
| notting | abadger1999: imo, owner + sponsor, easily removed | |
| caillon | f13: how recently? | |
| belegdol | i think free access is better | |
| f13 | abadger1999: If we can prevent somebody from taking over a new package, I'm all for wide open by default. | |
| caillon | should we re-kick? i talk to them nearly daily... | |
| f13 | caillon: two days ago maybe? | |
| caillon | okay fair enough ;) | |
| abadger1999 | f13: That should be doable. The new package will be created with an owner. | |
| nirik | abadger1999: can you do 'sponsor automagically added' now? that would be a good thing. | |
| abadger1999 | nirik: Needs some coding. | |
| bpepple | anything else? or should we wrap up for this week? | |
| tibbs | I still think the default access should be to constrain new packagers. | |
| But acls are on packages, not packagers.... | ||
| nirik | I'd like to see open to cvsextras by default... | |
| abadger1999 | We have to ask FAS who the sponsor is and I'm afraid I didn't make that information public. | |
| nirik | abadger1999: yeah, would be very good down the road tho, so sponsors can fix things of sponsorees. | |
| abadger1999 | So it sounds like cvsextras: +2 -1 0 | |
| tibbs | Is it even possible to consider constraining new packagers? | |
| abadger1999 | nirik: I'll open a ticket to explore that. | |
| * nirik notes that currently new package requests can say if they want it or not... | ||
| tibbs | It would make the question of sponsorship so much easier. | |
| abadger1999 | tibbs: that needs account system changes. | |
| bpepple | abadger1999: I would prefer owners & sponsors, but I'm not strongly opposed to cvsextras. | |
| abadger1999 | The levels that warren talks about but hasn't written a proposal for yet. | |
| caillon | if this is an issue, can we line it up for next week? thursdays are really bad meeting days for me... | |
| nirik | abadger1999: yeah, perhaps if it could do: '@cvsextras-@probationary' and new people get in probationary, and get removed from it after a while. | |
| bpepple | caillon: yeah, we're already past the hour. we should end the meeting. | |
| * nirik has nothing more today, and we are over time. | ||
| * bpepple will end the meeting in 60 | ||
| abadger1999 | tibbs: But I agree, that would make me happy as well. | |
| * bpepple will end the meeting in 30 | ||
| caillon | cool. later guys | |
| * bpepple will end the meeting in 15 | ||
| bpepple | later, caillon. | |
| bpepple | -- MARK -- Meeting End | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.5 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!