bpeppleFESCo meeting ping -- bpepple, caillon, c4chris, dgilmore, dwmw2, f13, jeremy, jwb, notting, spot, nirik, tibbs, warren
* nirik is here.
rdieteron to work on kde-3.93 (kde4beta2)
linux_geekbpepp .. is the meeting started ?
bpepplehi, everyone! who's around?
linux_geekiam IN
bpeppleis hadess about?
* abadger1999 takes a seat in the bleachers
spot is here
notting is here
poelcat here
hadessbpepple: he just joined :)
bpepplehadess: cool.  ok, let's get started then...
--- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCO-Meeting -- MISC -- Bluetooth Feature http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/FeatureBluetooth - hadess, polecat
bpeppleOk, hadess wanted us to reconsider pulling Bluetooth from the feature list.
caillonhadess: you have the floor.  why is bluetooth awesomer?
hadesscaillon: why do we need web browsers? :)
caillonhadess: porn
* jeremy is here, sorry to be a few minutes late
hadesscaillon: well, same reason then :)
jwbbluetooth porn?
hadessthe main reasons why bluetooth was removed from the feature list, i believe, was:
no %age completion, i explained that it wasn't relevant
* c4chris is here now
jwbit is
hadessand because no huge progress seemed to have been made
jwbhuge is a relative term
hadessi've updated the page with docs explaining what works now, and didn't before, and how to do it
see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/FeatureBluetooth#head-5f18054be16b8498dd45b2361830046fdd9e6220
poelcathadess: and because it looked liked a lot of stuff wasn't done
hadesspoelcat: give me 48 hour days, and it still wouldn't be finished
poelcathades: sorry i haven't been able to your email yet :(
hadess: fair enough... make a feature page describes what is doable for a particular release :)
linux_geekhadess .. thatz a pretty cool stuff ( gathering on wiki )
nirikso the Documentation section is the items that are going to be new in f8? shouldn't that be the entire feature?
hadesspoelcat: invent a process that makes long-lasting feature work not a pita :)
c4chrisIIUC, none of this works in F7 ?
jeremyhadess: I think the key is to focus on "these specific bluetooth things are mo' bettah" rather than "bluetooth is fully rocking"
hadessc4chris: only printing, iirc, after i did an update
poelcatjeremy: +1
hadessjeremy: saying bluetooth is fully rocking is just like saying USB is fully rocking, rhythmbox still doesn't sync my ipod :)
poelcatthis also helps for testing and our release announcement
mclasenone thing to realize here is that a lot of features consist of a ton of incremental changes
c4chrisI'm all for advertising what's new and works
bpepplehadess: I'm fine with keeping this as a feature, since it's an obvious improvement over prior releases, and something we should be advertising.
nirikyeah... although if we are touting something as a "Feature" we need specific things to say that are better/different or users won't care...
hadessif that helps, i can clone the page to be "this is f8", and do the same dance for f9
c4chrismaybe in a bit more precise terms, rather than in too broad terms
poelcathadess: that would be great
nirikhadess: that sounds like a good plan to me... specific things that are going to be in f8...
c4chrishadess: sounds good to me
linux_geekhadess .. i would like to add a cent here .. in the wiki page.. the description about features is well and good. But if we can
hadessthere's use cases that are only partially done...
linux_geekgive a small heads up of its current functionality in F7 and why is it enhanced in F8
it might be good .. correct me if am wrong
hadesslinux_geek: see above, it's in the documentation part
bpeppleOk, could I get a quick vote on having this be a feature?
hadesslinux_geek: but i can add a bit more details, as to why it's improved
caillonbpepple: +1
hadesslinux_geek: eg. "no UI for that feature in F7"
* nirik just wants his bluetooth headset to work out of the box... someday perhaps it will. ;)
linux_geeki can help if required .. as iam interested in fedora development
sounds good to me :)
* dgilmore is here
hadessnirik: the backend is there, i'm checking whether it actually works in f8, the work was done upstream for that
bpeppleany other FESCo members want to vote on this?
nirikhadess: if you need testers, let me know. Although my laptop is f7 right now.
bpepplethanks, jeremy. ;)
linux_geeki vote for testers if new testers are required
iam using f7 , btw
bpeppleok, that's more than 50% of FESCo.  hadess, consider this approved.
hadessnirik: add yourself to the CC: on the page, i'll be updating it with info about the audio
hadessbpepple: yay!
nirikhadess: ok. I get the rss feed of all wiki changes, so I will see it.
bpeppleanything else on this, or should we move on?
poelcathadess: and clarified to focus on F8?
caillonhadess: cool. thanks for showing up.
nirikmove on ++
hadesspoelcat: yeah
bpepplehadess: thanks.
alright moving on....
--- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCO-Meeting -- MISC -- obsoleting kmod proposal: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DavidWoodhouse/KmodProposal - dwmw2, f13
bpeppleIs f13 about?
jeremyhaven't heard him walk in yet
nirikhe was going to be a bit late... driving in.
bpeppleok, we can come back to this when he shows up.
--- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCO-Meeting -- MISC -- Automatic pushing of updates after 14 days? - nirik
bpepplenirik: this was something you wanted us to discuss.
nirikyeah, there are a pile of old updates in bodhi...
bunches in pending (never went to testing) then bunches in testing that never got pushed to stable.
caillondo we have data on why they are in their current states?
lmackeni created an 'unpushed' state in bodhi, so the huge pile of "pending but not really" updates will go away soon
nirikIs there opposition to setting it to auto push testing->stable after 2 weeks?
c4chrisdo packagers get nagged somehow?
nirikthere isn't currently any nagging that I know of. ;(
caillonnirik: it would be useful to know why they are stagnating
f13I'm here now.
bpepplecaillon: agreed.
lmackenI also implemented a stable_karma feature that will automatically push an update to stable after N positive comments... by default stable_karma=3.. anyone object ?
nirikyeah, agreed. I suspect some is just that they forget.
caillonbut i suspect not all
nirikit's hard to remember you pushed an update 2 weeks ago and need to push it to stable
caillonand auto pushing them would be bad
mclasenwe never got nagmail back, did we ?
lmackennagmail will go out soon (probably this weekend)
niriklmacken: oooh... good. I like that.
bpepplelmacken: I think that a good idea, though probably a lot of people aren't aware of karma voting.
jeremyI think nagmail plus the karma (... and advertising it, so that testers know to use it) might be better than auto-push
lmackenbpepple: they will be next week.. if all goes to plan, bodhi will get upgraded this weekend
bpepplejeremy: +1
caillonnagmail and karma are probably better than auto pushing
c4chrisI say let's start with nagmail and karma...
lmackenjeremy: +1
nirikwhen does nagmail fire? I guess we can adjust it?
lmackeni haven't written it yet.. but probably weekly ?
lmackendaily is fine too
f13can do weekly
I'm not tied to anything.
* lmacken neither
caillonlmacken: how does the karma work?  if say 2 people found an issue and 5 said it was awesome....
spotdaily, pls. :)
nirikor even after a week, then daily. ;)
lmackencaillon: then the updates karma would be 3
abadger1999lmacken: Is setting up a push date per package already implemented?
lmackenabadger1999: embargoes ? it used to support it, but bressers said we don't want to
caillonlmacken: i might think we need to have it be karma=3 AND no negative comments
nirikalso would be nice for more often pushes. ;) We should clone f13 I guess. ;)
caillonlmacken: since the 5 people may not have noticed a big issue
that the other 2 more thorough? testers did
lmackencaillon: ok, that works for me... also, people can negate their original vote.. so if someone gave it a -1, then they could undo their vote once the update works
jeremy(note: I don't want to hold up the push of current bodhi to live for any new features; far better to get what we _have_ available and then start trying to do regular and quick devel/push cycles)
abadger1999I was thinking of the -maintainers request to set a push date right after  make build
nirikand I assume the maintainer could do whatever, right?
lmackenyeah, once I do this upgrade to the new db model, bodhi will go back to the release-early-release-often cycle :)
caillonnirik: +1 to wait a week, then daily
nirikie, push or unpush.
f13nirik: I plan to start work on the signing server after test2 goes out.  Most my pungi work for F8 is done.
|DrJef|about nagmail... are there provisions to alert comaintainers?
nirikwith karma + nagmail, I think we will be good... autopush can be revisited if need be later.
bpepplenirik: agreed.
caillon-1 autopush
lmacken|DrJef|: not until the pkgdb can tell us who the co-maintainers are
niriklmacken: are many updates getting comments?
f13I"ve noticed some
|DrJef|lmacken, nagmail will be far more effective when it can interact at the comaintain/sig level
abadger1999|DrJef|: I need to implement something for pkgdb to enable that.  Been busy getting co-installable python modules going for rawhide.
lmackennirik: yes... bodhi's new frontpage will show the latest comments, and today I also made bodhi email everyone that had commented on an update when the update is modified/commented -- so people can easily keep up
abadger1999So it's been lagging :-(
bpepplelmacken: cool.
anything else on this, or should we move on?
caillonlmacken: also pushing a newer update should autocancel the older update IMO
nirikalso would be nice if bodhi allowed comaintainers to push/unpush even if a maintainer pushed it first... or an admin, etc.
caillonbut that's other bugs :)
|DrJef|abadger1999, without co-maintainer notifications..we're sort of short circuiting the point of co-maintainers
caillonbpepple: i think we're good
lmackencaillon: yes, I added an 'obsoleted' state.. I'll have to write a prompt for devs when they try and do that
|DrJef|abadger1999, i can't help with package issues if I'm not being informed
* nirik has nothing more on this.
lmackennirik: yep.. that's blocking on the pkgdb hooks
bpepplethanks for the update lmacken.
ok, let's move on....
lmackenno problem
abadger1999|DrJef|: Agreed.  It's the third thing on my agenda to do.
--- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCO-Meeting -- MISC -- obsoleting kmod proposal: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DavidWoodhouse/KmodProposal - dwmw2, f13
niriklmacken: might drop a email to devel about upcoming enhancements and how they might work to get feedback from developers?
lmackennirik: will do
|DrJef|abadger1999, the first better be..  tequila!!!!
bpepplef13: with dwmw2 not here, do you want to discuss this?
f13dwmw2 is out.
f13I'm not sure there is much more to discuss on our end.  I had hoped |DrJef| had something to add.
IIRC we've got two competing proposals up, and a chance to maybe merge them or let them duke it out.
I'm quickly losing interest though as other things are stealing my time.
|DrJef|f13, i dont...we still need find a small backroom, light up some cigars..and decide
jwbf13, i don't see them as competing really
they can almost compliment each other
but we can move on
|DrJef|f13, the dkms stuff is orthogonal... if not the exact opposite of kmods :->
bpepplelet's hold off until dwmw2 is here, since I haven't heard him weigh in on |DrJef|'s proposal.
sounds good
bpeppleanyone object to that?
* nirik thinks that sounds good.
bpeppleok, let's move on then...
--- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCO-Meeting -- MISC -- Update on packages missing from buildroot - f13
f13yeah, well there was discussion on the list, no real clear ya, or nay.  I think I'm just going to do it, unless anybody objects
* bpepple is fine with adding them.
f13the important part is getting the "missing" packages back in.  We can play games with how much we explicitly list without actually changing content later.
jeremy+1 to Just Do It
bpeppleDoes anyone object to f13 adding them in?
c4chrisno objection here
bpeppleok, that's more than 50% of FESCo.
f13will be done shortly after meeting.
bpepplef13: great, thanks.
--- bpepple has changed the topic to: Status Update: Compat Policy http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JeremyKatz/DraftCompatPackages - jeremy
bpeppleis there any more progress on this?
jeremysaw you added it, saw some of the comments from abadger1999 and others.  but have been doing test2 and pretty much nothing else this week
as I'd kind of like to get out of frozen world :)
bpepplejeremy: yeah, I figured you were fairly busy.
|DrJef|jeremy, so you include anything which provides the same API?
jeremyI'll try to look in some down time before next week
bpepplejeremy: that's fine.  I was just giving a little nudge, so we don't let it slip through the cracks.
jwbjeremy, when you have it "ready" can you send it to -devel?
jeremybpepple: thanks, appreciated as it kind of had slipped through the cracks for me
jwb: when I have an actual proposal, yeah
jeremy(or -maintainers, but that's probably next ;-)
bpepplejeremy: thanks.
yeah ;)
--- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCO-Meeting -- MISC -- keep maintainers list? - all
bpeppleOk, time for an issue were we probably don't agree. ;)
nirikI'd like to drop it, and invite everyone on it to fedora-devel-announce
f13this one just pisses me off to no end.
jeremyokay, let me try to give the historical background just for those that have forgotten
In The Beginning, there was just fedora-devel-list
fedora-extras-list was added as Extras got off the ground
there was a desire to have a list that reached both sets of people and would be low-traffic, announcement type mail
thus, -maintainers was born with the intent that all package maintainers would be subscribed and announcements, etc could be sent there
discussion started happening there and especially as we merged and more discussion moved to -devel instead of -extras, there started to also be more discussion on -maintainers
making it too high traffic; people wanted an announce only list
thus, we got to -devel-announce
and I think that's the big picture at least
linux_geekjeremy .. you mean to say .. that devel corresponds only to the core modules ..
forgive my ignorance.. if am
jeremylinux_geek: once upon a time, yes.  -ish.
bpepplemy probably with getting rid of the -maintainers list is the signal to noise of the -devel list.
jeremybpepple: I'd agree, except that I don't think that -maintainers has a substantially different one
caillonwhich is the problem most people on maintainers have with it
* c4chris is subscribed to all 3, and do not really care if one stays or goes...
f13also, there is a good many of us who are on /both/ lists anyway and have to consume both message sets.
jwblet's step back for a second
caillonwhich is unfair to new SIGs
jwbcaillon, i'm not talking about those
i'm talking about lists "for everyone"
|DrJef|jwb, :-( i was going to propose a list just to discuss features  tomorrow
nirikI'd like to see knurd's reorg happen someday, but for now, I would be happy if maintainers went away. :)
jwbright now, we have 3 overlapping lists
jwb-devel and -maintainers overlap drastically in purpose
* knurd maybe sooner or later might find the energy and the interest to take care of it -- but for now he has lost interest
jwb-devel-announce covers the "low-traffic" part of -maintainers
jeremybpepple: I think the answer to people who want lower traffic and just "necessary" bits is that we make sure stuff is getting sent to -devel-announce.  and -devel-announce avoids devolving like -maintainers did because it's moderated
* knurd votes for killing maintainers as well, in case anybody wonders
* nirik suggests a list to talk about what lists we should have. fedora-list-list. :)
f13that's why I want to make this change now, as we have devel-announce, we have it going to -devel so it won't be missed by people who aren't on the announce list.
linux_geekjeremy .. one question.. if we are maintaining mainters list .. which will have new packages list ( both core and extras ) ./. then why to have -devlist again ?
f13and discussions can happen in one place.
bpeppleHmm, sounds like I'm alone on this.  Could I get a quick vote on who wants to get rid of maintainers?
* knurd suggested to have a public review phase for new lists, but Board decided something different
caillon kicks maintainers in the pants, and votes to get rid of it
nirik+1 get rid of maintainers and invite everyone on it to devel-announce.
f13linux_geek: mostly because the topics concerning development of Fedora and development /on/ Fedora bleed together quite a lot.
bpepple-1, keep maintainers. ;)
nirikmaintainers is also a closed list. You must be a maintainer to post.
f13linux_geek: please don't vote if you're not in FESCo, it just confuses things.
spot+1, maintainers serves no useful purpose anymore, devel-announce fits the need.
linux_geekoops .. sorry.. f13
f13linux_geek: that's ok, just letting you know (:
dgilmore-1 i think we need maintainers
jwbdgilmore, why?
caillondgilmore: i'd like to hear why
jwb(and bpepple)
caillonbpepple: also, what's with the |lt?  :)
bpepplelt = laptop
jeremy+1 for death to -maintainers at this point.  although I also want to hear dgilmore and bpepple's reasoning
jeremy(so that we can see if there's a better way to address it than more lists :)
caillonhrm.  then in that case /nick caillon|pc-thru-ssh-via-lt+vpn
bpeppleone of the reasons for creating the maintainers list was to have a low traffic list for maintainer discussions.  -devel doesn't really meet that requirement.
just looking about august's stats it has about 5x the traffic.
jwbbpepple, give me an example of a "maintainer discussion"
* spot wonders if the irony of "low traffic maintainer discussions" is apparent to anyone else
bpepplepackaging guideline changes.
they pretty much only affect maintainers.
jwbbpepple, discussion on those happens on the packaging list
f13bpepple: I would venture to say that the stats are less as more has been shoved over to -devel instead of -maintainers.  PLus the discussion that was happening on -maintainers before that wasn't nearly "low traffic" enough for folks, hence -announce.
spotbpepple: to be fair, what they want are "low traffic announcements"
caillonbpepple: neither does -maintainers, according to real complaints from the "little man".  the warriors who are on both -devel and -maintainers are fine with it, afaict, and that's about it
jwblet's not all kill bpepple at once
bpepplejwb: it's alright. ;)
|DrJef|bpepple, im swamped in lists
bpepple, i'm honest not keeping up with maintainers
jwbmy point is, if it's a _discussion_, then i don't see why it can't happen on -devel
jeremyjwb: that's where I am at this point
bpepplejwb: but do maintainers want to sift through discussions that don't affect them?
|DrJef|bpepple, what i'd prefer to see.. is policy proposal discussions..start as an annoucement and discussion picks up in one of the other lists
bpepple, i'm simply not catching as much of the drafting discussion as i should
nirikyeah, but lots of people don't want to see the proposal announcement, only the result.
caillonnirik: +1
|DrJef|nirik, i think the call for a discussion period is important
bpepplealso, it's not going to hurt my feelings if the majority of FESCo of want to kill maintainers.  Not everything has to have 100% FESCo support. ;)
nirikI agree, but if we start posting those to announce people will get mad I suspect.
|DrJef|nirik, how do maintainers know their feedback is needed.. unless you..announce..a discussion process?
jwbbpepple, well... we have a slight problem there
|DrJef|nirik, one announcement..per draft..to be voted on
caillonwell, nirik is right...
nirikthey subscribe to -devel ? and skim looking for [PROPOSAL]: or something?
caillonsome people want to be made aware of this stuff
and some people don't
many people don't
they just want to package
using whatever rules whoever has made up
and go
jwbbpepple, all the FESCo people are already subscribed to -devel
|DrJef|nirik, its called..responsible..governance communication
caillonone of the beauties of being a fedora contributor is it's low entry barrier
jwbbpepple, so, representative-wise, we're a bit biased :)
nirikwell, from my count we don't have enough to kill maintainers I don't think... or did I miscount votes?
caillonwe NEED to keep it low if we want to entice e.g. upstream maintainers from helping out
bpepplejwb: yeah, but I'm trying to support those maintainers that don't want to join the high traffic -devel.
jwbhang on
abadger1999, you here?
|DrJef|nirik, every proposal should see two annoucements... at the beginning of the public discussion and then after the vote
bpepplenirik: I think we were at 5 '+1', and 2 '-1'.
abadger1999jwb: Yes
cailloni count 7 +1
f13caillon: did you count linux_geek ?
jwbabadger1999, how hard would it be to whip up a quick poll for this?
caillonf13: no
jwbwait a sec
abadger1999Not too hard.
jeremyjwb: given our feedback rate with polls, I don't really think they're representative
nirik|DrJef|: I'd be fine with that, but just pointing out that many people don't want to see the inital suggested thing... and those that do, probibly would already be on devel anyhow.
cailloni count caillon, f13, jwb, notting, nirik, jeremy, spot
jwbjeremy, better than 13 people subscribed to a billion lists already
f13I really don't want to drag this out much longer.  At some point we as a body need to make a decision and stick with it.  I'm prepared to do so here.
|DrJef|nirik, the people who don't want to see proposals.. i'll have my uncle Nikko talk to them politely in the alley
jwbf13, as am i.  but i was just trying to come up with a way the community itself could decide
spotjwb: the community elected us to decide. :)
bpepplef13: agreed.  sometimes we need to make the hard decisions, even if I don't agree with them.
f13they decided by voting us a body to decide.
spotits a representative system. ;)
jeremybpepple: if we're tyring to have a way for lower-volume discussion between maintainers, I think we just need to identify the things that they're wanting to discuss and come up with better avenues
jwblike wiki discussions!
jeremyand I think that we (fesco) should decide because we're the deciders ;)
* jwb vomits
|DrJef|nirik, i look at it this way... expecting people to already be watching -devel-list as proposals come up is expecting people to got to every town meeting to discover that the city just decided to re-zone your house as industrial
caillonjeremy: no, bush is the decider
jeremyjwb: discussions on a wiki page, discussions on irc, ...  it all depends on _what_ is being discussed
caillonbut yes, we should make this call
spot-maintainers list isn't the solution to any problem addressed here, IMHO.
nirik|DrJef|: we could hide the proposal in the basement behind the door marked "beware of lepard"
spoti'm not opposed to solving those problems. :)
jwbok, CALL FOR VOTE:  kill maintainers
|DrJef|nirik, we need an easily consumable..notice board for proposals and voting results
spot+1, kill it.
bpepplejwb: -1
nirik|DrJef|: agreed
notting|DrJef|: that was displayed at the local planning office in alpha centauri
jwbnotting, vote?
abadger1999|DrJef|: I agree with you there.
jwbthat's 7
|DrJef|nirik, let -devel or -maintainers or whatever be the mire of 40 billion discussion but there's but something low traffic has to drive people to discussion as they are happening..not after
bpepplejwb: yup. it's decided.  we're killing maintainers.
nirik|DrJef|: maintainers is not the solution you are looking for.
|DrJef|nirik, and not just for contributors...but for PR
jwbmy $deity have mercy on our souls
caillontold you i counted 7.  :)
bpepplecaillon: ;)
f13./topic <bpepple> jwb: yup. it's decided.  we're killing maintainers.
f13with blunt objects.
bpeppleok, let's move on.... ;)
nottingf13: and roasting their bodies on spits to feed the masses
--- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- Free discussion around Fedora
caillonnotting: yuck, who'd want to eat that crap?
bpeppleanything else people want to discuss before wrapping up for this week?
* c4chris doesn't
spotnothing from me.
|DrJef|jeremy, how broad is your definition of compat in your proposal?
linux_geekbpep .. how can i join the current ongoing projects ?
poelcatbpepple: yes.. feature question :)
bpepplepoelcat: goa head and shoot.
poelcatQuestion to FESCo :: Do NM, XULrunner and generic-logos remain approved features for F8?
Notting reports: generic-logos feature has no progress since last week
Caillon reports:
1) NM is built but not tagged because it causes a few breakages, so it won't make the test2 cut, but it will be available in the first update after it.
2) xulrunner has been fighting issues with the build system to prevent it from being built--e.g. policykit was broken over the weekend so i couldn't build, then that got fixed and someone broke openssl. that got fixed and now nss is broken.
bpeppleI'd like to keep NM in, since I think it's a fairly import feature.
nottingcaillon: you want bugs on new NM in bz?
* spot would also like to keep XULrunner in, that makes updates easier for mozilla-based apps
f13spot: if only we recompile everythign against it.
bpepplespot: yeah, but it's going to affect a lot of packages that need to be built against it.
jeremycan we do them one by one rather than having everything tied up together in a jumbled mess of discussion? ;)
bpepplejeremy: yeah, let's start with NM.
* spot wonders when NM hasn't had a few breakages
jeremyI want NetworkManager in, but I'm a little worried about the degree of changes and losing one of our big chances of having exposure on it
this isn't just the normal NetworkManager update with some little breakage, it might as well be a rewrite of it from scratch
mclasenwe could do a one-off spin once a working snapshot is there, and ask people to test it
* jwb points out the freeze is preventing the rawhide hordes from testing it
mclasento get some test exposure before test3
spotwell, if we let it drop, we can just let ubuntu take the credit for it in their next release.
nirikI suppose it's way way too late to tag it now?
* c4chris needs to head out, sorry. see ya all later.
bpepplec4chris: later.
nottingnirik: wireless doesn't work
f13which is something of the point.
mclasennirik: a working snapshot is not going to be there before next week
nirikah, ok.
f13I would really really like to get it in.
f13(in F8 that is)
jeremyI suspect we take it, we just suck it up and need to make sure to spend some real time beating on it
as well as trying to get more interim snapshots out for people to test
nirikmclasen: +1 to a working version snapshot... possibly a special livecd release?
bpepplejeremy: agreed.
f13nirik: we've been trying to do weekly rawhide live images, when the tools allow for it.
linux_geeknirik f13 jeremy .. sorry to ask the same question. is there any scope/gap in the current ongoing projects that i can contribute ?
jwblinux_geek, ask in #fedora-devel
jeremyhopefully it gets easier to do rawhide live images weekly as we approach release (as things should be changing less and causing less to break)
f13jeremy: I hope that too
jwbf13, are we good for test2?
f13jwb: define "good".
nirikok, so NM is in or not? vote? or just do it?
f13we've got a release candidate spun, it needs beating on
bpeppleanyone against keeping NM? otherwise we can move on to xulrunner.
f13I'm trying to rsync the Fedora tree up to phx
lets move on
bpepplef13: agreed.
I'm sort of torn on xulrunner, since a bunch of packages are dependent on it.
f13for xul I think there are a couple different scenarios.
1) xul lands, we don't explicitly build anything against it, but provide it as a "tech preview" sort of thing.
2) xul lands and we try to rebuild as much as possible against it
3) xul does a fly by but doesn't actually land, we try again for F9
jwbf13, how are we going to prevent 1 from happening?
nottingwhat's the point of #1?
jwbyeah, that's a better way of phrasing it
caillonnotting: yes
sorry, i dropped out not realizing we were still going
bpepplecaillon: no worries.
f13there isn't much point to #1 other than "hey look, we have xulrunner"
caillonright, so...
spotthe point of #1 is to make it easier for mozilla-derived maintainers to start working on integration
caillonspot: no
jwbf13, we aren't ubuntu.  fsck that
abadger1999Would #1 become #2 over the course of F8 updates (with notable exceptions like firefox)?
f13and people can try building against it.
abadger1999: that could possibly happen yes.
caillonspot: mozilla derived packages already support xulrunner
for the most part
i'd say that like 80% of them do
jeremyabadger1999: likely, yes
f13so then, we should be easily get to #2 in short order?
spotcaillon: if they do, then #2 should be rather simple
bpepplecaillon: yeah, liferea supports xulrunner though I haven't tested how well.
jwbi like #2
caillonand they work and are tested with the upstream builds
spotat least for 80% of the stuff out there
jeremyproposal:  let's try for 2, but apps that don't work upstream with xulrunner aren't "compelled" to switch
caillonbpepple: i've talked to the upstream guys of that and various other projects.  they are supporting firefox only because we do
jwbjeremy, +1
nirikjeremy: +1
spoti say we push for #2, those that don't work have a very easy fallback. :)
jeremy: +1
caillonspot: right
bpepplejeremy: +1
f13jeremy: +1
caillonspot: except it's hard to do the fallback....
poelcatso it stays as an approved feature?
f13poelcat: I believe so.
bpepplepoelcat: yeah.
we only had 5 +1s
f13caillon: when could we expect a xul to land that people can start building against?
caillonf13: as soon as people stop fucking me
each time i try and build some new package breaks me in some weird fashion
* spot stops fucking caillon
caillontoday's nss added a new hewader with a variable named "template"
for the latest bit of fun
nirikcaillon: the version you have is pretty much the same as the OLPC branch? or different?
jwbcaillon, you a +1 on jeremy's proposal?
caillonnirik: same as OLPC updated to a newer version, and a few minor changes
jwband bpepple?
caillonbut nothing drastic
what's jeremy's proposal?
* caillon reads up
nirikcool. Might see if changes can flow back and forth... would be good to share as much as we can from/to them.
jwband nirik?
bpepplejwb: Yeah, I was a +1 for jeremy's proposal.
jwbok, that's 7
caillonbpepple: actually, i think that we should fix the ones that don't.
caillon-1 sorta from me on that
nirik+1 from me...
caillonit's hard to have 2 gecko versions providing the same libraries, the same headers, etc.
we had this problem with mozilla and firefox in the tree at the same time
bpepplecaillon: have we identified the packages that don't support xulrunner?
caillonand notting disabled the auto provides stuff in mozilla because it broke things
caillonbpepple: as far as i know, there aren't any that i've seen.  the upstreams all have moved over, but i expect there to be some incompatibilities with whatever alpha version i'm using at the time
bpepple: and maybe some new packages that have been recently added
bpepplecaillon: do we have enough time to fix the ones with incompatibility problems?
cailloni'll have another look though
caillonbpepple: yes, i imagine if we have to fix any they are easily done by regular expressions and/or makefile tweaking
bpepplecaillon: ok.
caillonthe one notable exception is firefox/thunderbird itself
jwbbah, who cares about that
bpeppleok, we've got 7 '+1' so we can probably move on the the generic logos.
caillonthey ship gecko internally so we can deal with that
if it comes down to
caillonbpepple: what happened with NM?  did i miss that?
* spot needs to go afk for a bit
bpeppleyeah, we discussed it right before xulrunner.
caillonand the outcome?
jeremycaillon: we're going to try to put some stuff in place to help get it the testing it's going to need
caillonjeremy: okay.  we're going to try to push out a livecd after test2 since it looks like it's going to miss that
and we are getting more resources to help fix issues
jeremycaillon: yes, that's one part of it
okay, we can move on then.
bpeppleOk, let's discuss the generic-logos quick, so that we can wrap up the meeting.
notting: what's the status on that?
jeremygeneric logos I think we have to continue to track no matter what
even if we're not "done" for Fedora 8, it'll be helpful if we know the holes
nottingbpepple: we have a list of what needs done in general, just haven't done it
caillonespecially since it was given down as a board mandate :)
nottingsome of it is artwork generation, some of it is code bits
jeremycaillon: that too
bpepplecaillon: ok, so that's really something we have to complete then.
poelcatcaillon: it wasn't a mandate... they volunteered to do it :)
caillonpoelcat: the board said it needed to get done.  i dont think they said who needed to do it.  :)
nirikright, so it stays as a feature and hopefully notting can finish it soon? :)
poelcatcaillon: so if "the board" says a feature has to get done it stays on the approved list even if it breaks the stated policies?
bpeppleIs there anything we can do to help get it completed in time?  a call for help maybe?
* poelcat is just trying to be consistent in the way we handle each feature
notting'maybe'. i'll try and update the feature page tomorrow
caillonpoelcat: i don't think the baord specified a timeline other than it would be super fab if it was done for F9.  wink wink.  but its something we should consider.
poelcatbpepple: thanks. looks like all 3 stay on the approved list
caillonpoelcat: if it cant get done, it cant, but i think we can get a lot of it done and it is important because it will make respinning easier
so yeah i think its good if it stays approved
poelcatcaillon: i don't disagree; as the feature wrangler I'm just trying to follow the policy we all agreed on :)
caillonpoelcat: *cough* the policy was agreed on by the old fesco.
i didn't agree to it, just for the record.
bpepplepoelcat: yeah, once F8 is out the door, we probably need to look at the policy and see if anything needs to be adjusted.
poelcatbpepple: sounds good :)
bpeppleok, anything else or can we wrap up?
* bpepple will end the meeting in 60
caillonpoelcat: not saying that i wouldn't have or anything, just stating the fact :)
* bpepple will end the meeting in 30
bpepple will end the meeting in 15
bpepple-- MARK -- Meeting End

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.5 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!