| --- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- Meeting rules at http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Development/Schedule/MeetingGuidelines -- Init process | ||
| * caillon raises hand: Present! | ||
| * jwb is here | ||
| spot is here | ||
| c4chris is here (DST also in Switzerland now...) | ||
| jeremy is here | ||
| bpepple | FESCo meeting ping -- bpepple, caillon, c4chris, dgilmore, dwmw2, f13, jeremy, jwb, notting, spot, nirik, tibbs, warren | |
|---|---|---|
| Hi everybody; who's around? | ||
| * tibbs here | ||
| * jwb is here | ||
| warren here | ||
| nirik is here. | ||
| jwb | lmacken, you got your ears on? | |
| lmacken | jwb: sure | |
| jwb: I just commented on your proposal | ||
| bpepple | that being the case. let's start with jwb's proposal. | |
| jwb | wiki slow | |
| --- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCo-Meeting -- Bohdi Proposal - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JoshBoyer/BodhiAnonymousKarmaProposal - jwb | ||
| lmacken | hmm.. my save is still saving | |
| jwb | i see it | |
| bpepple | lmacken: I see it. | |
| lmacken | k | |
| bpepple | +1 to jwb's proposal. | |
| lmacken | sorry for the last-minute comments :) but it all sounds good to me | |
| spot | +1 | |
| nirik | +1 | |
| jeremy | +1 | |
| c4chris | +1 | |
| jwb | +1 obviously | |
| tibbs | +1 | |
| jwb | lmacken, i'd really like to break out that first one into a separate proposal. the last one i could almost consider a bugfix | |
| jwb | bpepple, i think that's 7 +1s | |
| bpepple | ok, I count seven '+1', so jwb's proposal has been approved. | |
| jwb: yeah. | ||
| lmacken | jwb: agreed. | |
| notting | +1 | |
| bpepple | anyone have anything else to add before moving on? | |
| lmacken | I guess I'll implement it ? | |
| jwb | if you would be so kind :) | |
| lmacken | unless someone else wants to | |
| fine with me :) | ||
| bpepple | lmacken: cool, thanks. | |
| moving on........ | ||
| * dgilmore is here | ||
| --- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- Any objection to this week's report from FPC at https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-April/msg00231.html | ||
| bpepple | FPC has 4 proposals for us to look at. | |
| Let's start with the Java Guidelines. | ||
| --- bpepple has changed the topic to: - FPC proposal - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Java | ||
| * spot notes that this will lift the hold on Java packages, if approved. | ||
| nirik is +1 on all of them... seem fine to me | ||
| tibbs | Unfortunately overholt doesn't seem to be around. | |
| jwb | holy big guideline | |
| tibbs | I hope he answered the questions posed in response to my meeting summary adequately. | |
| c4chris | what were the concerns of the -1 voter on Java ? | |
| tibbs | abadger1999: ? | |
| walters | one thing to mention here is I think ville thought we could drop the versioned jars and symlink and just go with unversioned | |
| tibbs | I don't know if he's around. | |
| spot | walters: pretty sure those got dropped | |
| abadger1999 | It was over the way the Java Guidelines point to JPackage. | |
| I think it will be confusing to reviewers. | ||
| notting | do we really want to build for gcj and not openjdk? | |
| dgilmore | +1 to the java guidelines | |
| walters | spot: i still see it in the sample spec | |
| tibbs | notting: We kind of have to. | |
| dgilmore | notting: i think so | |
| jwb | why? | |
| abadger1999 | But the Java guys are willing to work on updating that in the near future so *shrug*. | |
| spot | notting: that's covered in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/GCJGuidelines | |
| dgilmore | notting: openjdk can use the jars | |
| c4chris | abadger1999: k, thanks | |
| +1 java | ||
| jwb | spot, so gcj can be dropped when F8 goes EOL? | |
| spot | +1 | |
| walters | spot: i get a wiki 404 on that | |
| oh, i missed the s | ||
| nm | ||
| tibbs | notting: Distilling a conference call I was on, there are still architectures which Fedora wants to support which are only properly supported by gcj. | |
| spot | jwb: its a SHOULD now, we can certainly drop it entirely in the future. | |
| tibbs | Thus it is suggested that maintainers make use of gcj so those packages are useful on those arches. | |
| dgilmore | tibbs: ive not yet managed to build openjdk for sparc using the zero arch stuff | |
| walters | one major problem is that gcj will still be using classpath, and that's an entirely different and much less complete class library | |
| * warren is still reading | ||
| notting | anyway, +1 to the proposal | |
| jwb | +1 | |
| bpepple | +1 to java guidelines here also. | |
| tibbs | +1 (echoing my FPC vote) | |
| warren | +1 | |
| bpepple | ok, I count eight '+1' to the java guidelines. It's been approved. | |
| c4chris | cool, congrats where due :) | |
| bpepple | anyone have anything else to add, or should we go to the next proposal? | |
| jwb | let the java flow | |
| --- bpepple has changed the topic to: - FPC Proposal - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/SysVInitScript | ||
| jwb | who was the owner here? | |
| * spot was | ||
| spot | if you thought the java guidelines were long... ;) | |
| warren | killproc guarantees that it only kills something in the current chroot right? | |
| notting | warren: it uses pidof -c, so yes | |
| warren | spot, I'm not sure if this is mentioned anywhere here or elsewhere, but we have to be sure that initscripts and rpm scriptlets do not screw with host processes when dealing with chroots. | |
| nirik | does this mean we can close all those 'please make your init script LSB compliant' bugs as 'not required, thanks anyhow' ? | |
| c4chris | +1 SysVInit | |
| spot | nirik: yes. | |
| bpepple | +1 SysVInit. | |
| jwb | is there an upstart specific syntax? | |
| spot | jwb: no, those wouldn't be SysV scripts | |
| notting | spot: may want to add a bit on 'you really shouldn't start by default for most things'. aside from that, +1 | |
| warren | +1 | |
| nirik | cool. In any case, +1 to this one as well... | |
| tibbs | upstart is something else entirely. | |
| jwb | i know that... | |
| spot | notting: it says that in several places | |
| tibbs | notting: That's for another draft, and isn't really an FPC thing. | |
| walters | so wait, is the plan to have everyone edit scripts to follow this standard, and then in F10 move to upstart syntax? | |
| jwb | i'm wondering if this is going to be completely irrelevant soon? | |
| spot | "Only services which are really required for a vital system should define runlevels here." | |
| walters: i dont think the timeline is F10 | ||
| walters: also, most scripts won't need any significant changes as a result of this | ||
| jwb | ok, whatever. +1 | |
| tibbs | My understanding is that the upstart syntax isn't even finished. | |
| nirik | I suspect most init scripts meet this guideline now... at least most of mine do fine. | |
| walters | spot: ok, so this is just a recommendation for the current system; got it | |
| spot | walters: i did this for two main reasons: 1. to put the LSB nonsense to bed, 2. to standardize existing practices. | |
| walters | yeah, makes sense | |
| tibbs | +1, BTW. | |
| spot | +1 as well | |
| bpepple | ok, I count eight '+1' to the SysVInit guidelines. It's been approved. | |
| spot | (since i wrote 99% of it...) | |
| nirik | should we close our own LSB bugs? or is someone going to mass close them? | |
| tibbs | It's nice to finally have something to which to refer when dealing with those LSB initscript bugs. | |
| spot | nirik: please close them on your own | |
| nirik | ok, fine with me. ;) | |
| --- bpepple has changed the topic to: FPC proposal - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/EclipsePlugins | ||
| spot | nirik: some folks might want to implement LSB headers for whatever reason | |
| f13 | ok, I'mhere. | |
| nirik | +1 to this one (as for all the others. ;) | |
| jwb | +1 | |
| bpepple | +1 | |
| tibbs | +1 | |
| warren | +1 | |
| spot | +1 | |
| notting | +1. rpmstubby? | |
| spot | notting: think cpan2rpm | |
| notting | yeah, just the name... | |
| * spot shrugs at names | ||
| spot | if i never have to write anything about package naming ever again... :) | |
| bpepple | ok, I count seven '+1' to the Eclipse Plugins guidelines. It's been approved. | |
| c4chris | +1 | |
| bpepple | moving on to the next proposal.... | |
| --- bpepple has changed the topic to: FPC proposal - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/GCJGuidelines | ||
| spot | +1, this is existing practice defined | |
| notting | +1 | |
| bpepple | +1, since this sorta of ties in to the java guidelines. | |
| jwb | +1 | |
| tibbs | +1 | |
| warren | +1 | |
| nirik | +1 here too | |
| dgilmore | +1 | |
| bpepple | ok, I count eight '+1' to the GCJ guidelines. It's been approved. | |
| c4chris | +1 | |
| bpepple | spot, tibbs: anything else we need to discuss regard FPC? | |
| spot | bpepple: not at this time, thanks. :) | |
| tibbs | Well, Ville has resigned now that Java has done, so thanks to him. | |
| bpepple | spot: great, thanks! | |
| * nirik would like to thank the packaging folks and guidelines submitters... lots of work went into the stuff today... it's great to have it in (especially java) | ||
| bpepple | moving on.... | |
| --- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCo-Meeting -- Final Release Schedule (Slip in conjunction w/ latest beta slip?) - all | ||
| f13 | poelcat: ping; any further reports from feature folks? | |
| I took a few minutes this morning to talk to the kernel folks | ||
| davej is typically paranoid come release time, but it doesn't appear that bad. | ||
| linville has a bunch of wireless fixes he's going to try to get in tonight or tomorrow | ||
| poelcat | f13: only 2 people responded :( | |
| bpepple | f13: freeze in on the 10th isn't it? | |
| f13 | bpepple: 8th | |
| poelcat | nothing earth shaking | |
| 5 days to get all features to 100% :) | ||
| notting | how's that blocker list? | |
| c4chris | what's the general impression after the bittorrent update ? | |
| f13 | notting: it's not as doomy as in previous releases | |
| there are some upgrade concerns, so this week/next week is "upgrade" week for a few of us | ||
| c4chris: seems mostly good, we fixed a number of beta bugs | ||
| didn't really introduce any new regressions | ||
| jwb | i ran an upgrade check this morning | |
| it wasn't horrible | ||
| tibbs | Yes, the list was pleasantly short. | |
| * c4chris thinks we can freeze on schedule | ||
| jwb | f13, when is final freeze again? | |
| f13 | 8th | |
| * bpepple agrees with c4chris. | ||
| nirik | yeah, seems not too bad right now... | |
| jwb | f13, ok i'll run the report again on the 5th and 6th | |
| * jeremy is installing Fedora 7 now to test an upgrade from | ||
| jwb | jeremy, i didn't check 7->9. i can | |
| nirik | do we want to go in and force updates at some point on those? | |
| jeremy | jwb: I'm more wanting to test anaconda's upgrade code a little bit more ... strenuously | |
| f13 | the broken deps list is pretty short too | |
| jeremy | multirelease is effective for that | |
| nirik | also, do we want to force fixes on broken deps before the 8th? | |
| notting | hm, 114 open bugs on the blocker list | |
| f13 | nirik: I may take a look and find the easy cases, but in some cases there was a pretty big divergence that I wasn't sure of | |
| f13 | notting: many of those can be culled or are in a needsretest or needinfo state | |
| jwb | nirik, i'll be filing bugs on the 6th for packages that still have a broken upgrade path | |
| notting | f13: 17 are modified, 9 needinfo. so still, 88 | |
| f13 | yeah, I haven't been able to get through the full list to find the stupids | |
| bpepple | f13: ok, so it sounds like nothing has came up that necessitates a slip. Right? | |
| f13 | nothign that I'm aware of | |
| jwb | i would agree with that statement | |
| f13 | everybody would like some extra time, but that's not new | |
| dgilmore | I think we are in good shape | |
| bpepple | anything else to discuss regarding the release schedule, or should we move on? | |
| jeremy | dgilmore: good might be stretching it | |
| dgilmore | except for X acting up on me still | |
| jeremy: im optimistic | ||
| f13 | we have a snapshot working its way out today, that should prove interesting | |
| warren | dgilmore, even after -16? | |
| notting | i'm not really convinced we can get the blocker list into a nice state in 4 business days | |
| but hey, if we're still fixing blockers and changing things for two weeks after that... | ||
| f13 | notting: I'd prefer to reserve judgement on that before actually /seeing/ what's on the blocker list | |
| dgilmore | warren: yes | |
| f13 | notting: given that the blocker tracker is a free for all | |
| notting | f13: ok, then | |
| warren | dgilmore, were things fine with -13 or -14? | |
| c4chris | notting: question is: is there a reasonable chance an additional week will help ? | |
| dgilmore | warren: no | |
| f13 | which I plan to get to today | |
| notting | f13: x is completely fucking broken on a major intel chipset on both the live and install CDs, and has been for the entire release | |
| warren | notting, which? | |
| dgilmore | notting: probably the one in my laptop | |
| tibbs | Who makes the final decision as to which bugs stay on the blocker list? | |
| f13 | notting: uh... only if you enable compiz right? | |
| dgilmore | f13: no | |
| f13 | notting: 'cause I think I have the same chip as you and it's solid here | |
| notting | f13: no. by default. | |
| dgilmore | f13: i dont use compiz | |
| f13 | tibbs: QA and releng | |
| dgilmore | f13: i tried KDE, gnome, XFCE, and fluxbox | |
| f13 | tibbs: or the owners of the trackers that were attached to the blocker list | |
| notting | f13: there are no less than 5 separate upstart regressions that still need fixed | |
| dgilmore | all acted up | |
| warren | notting, which chip? | |
| notting | warren: 965 | |
| tibbs | I'm just making sure we don't need to discuss infividual bugs here. | |
| dgilmore | i have a 945 | |
| notting | i'm not saying we *need* to slip. but "i don't think we should slip, but i haven't reviewed the blocker list" makes no sense | |
| f13 | notting: I have the 956 and it's working fine here. | |
| notting: neither does "I have no idea wha'ts on the blocker list, but lets just slip anyway, because it feels good" | ||
| notting | which is not what i said, and you know it | |
| f13 | notting: right back at ya. | |
| jwb | play nice and stuff | |
| f13 | I've reviewed a bunch of the blockers, just not the entire list | |
| and in reality, many of those "blockers" don't meet our release blocker critera | ||
| we just leave them on the "blocker" tracker so that they get attention | ||
| tibbs | Does FESCo even have the information it would need to make s slip decision at this point? | |
| c4chris | tibbs: I think if releng came saying "please slip" we'd say yes | |
| but it dosnt appear to be the case | ||
| bpepple | c4chris: or the qa team. | |
| c4chris | so I'm still enclined to stick | |
| c4chris | bpepple: right | |
| warren | how many of the rawhide package owners are actually using rawhide? | |
| notting | wwoods: you have been strangely silent for this entire discussion | |
| caillon | warren, i'd bet not a large percent | |
| bpepple | caillon: yeah, I'd agreed. | |
| * spot is. ;) | ||
| nirik has lots of rawhide boxes, but my main laptop is still f8... | ||
| * bpepple is also, but usually on after the alpha release. | ||
| * dgilmore is running rawhide | ||
| c4chris has one in qemu... | ||
| tibbs | I always have a rawhide box going. | |
| f13 | ok, I'm going to make it through the blocker list today. If anything is really standing out as ZOMG, I'll alert folks and consider requesting a slip. | |
| bpepple | f13: sounds good. | |
| f13 | (hopefully after talking to the developer involved) | |
| notting | f13: can we do this in public somehow? a qa/triage thing? | |
| c4chris | f13: fine with me | |
| nirik | looks like about 20 of the bugs are X or X related on the blocker list. | |
| f13 | notting: uh, you want me to sit on the street corner as I go through the list? | |
| I'm confused as to "public" means here. | ||
| notting | f13: maybe i'm nuts, but shouldn't control of the blocker list and raising the 'aiyeee' flag be a QA function? | |
| f13 | notting: you'd think, yet... | |
| warren | notting, either, me think | |
| bpepple | notting: probably makes sense, but does wwoods have time to do that? | |
| f13 | bpepple: at the expense of actually testing stuff, maybe | |
| caillon | notting, it should be a pro{ject,duct,gram} management function really... | |
| walters | who's tasked with moving the approved things from /Drafts to /? | |
| caillon | not sure what that equates to in fedora | |
| f13 | walters: for packaging guidelines? | |
| walters | yeah | |
| bpepple | walters: I think spot normally does. | |
| f13 | walters: spot, or whomever he delegates | |
| walters | bpepple: ok | |
| caillon | notting, since qa might think something is ZOMG but we can be like meh, ship anyway. | |
| f13 | walters: or the fpc member who brought forth the proposal | |
| tibbs | walters: It's already done. | |
| * spot does it, more often than not | ||
| walters is looking forward to groovy and jruby in the OS | ||
| f13 | caillon: right, I agree with that. And outside of FESCo, we don't really have pro* management | |
| notting | caillon: right. which is why i want to hear from the slient partner of wwoods | |
| caillon | of course, the only real way i know of doing that is with flags. like mozilla upstream does. | |
| and then we get into OMGFLAGS mode | ||
| (bugzilla flags that is) | ||
| wwoods | oh, ha | |
| here I am off running a bunch of upgrades | ||
| * wwoods speedread scrollback | ||
| wwoods | yes, F9Blocker is overstuffed with bugs | |
| a *lot* of them are NEEDINFO/MODIFIED and presumed fixed | ||
| another big chunk are not actually blocker-level problems | ||
| after a couple passes through it I am not panicking | ||
| spot | wwoods: are there any legal blockers? | |
| wwoods: i'm not currently tracking any | ||
| wwoods | there's two bugs mentioning licenses | |
| bug 419051 | ||
| and.. oh, the other one's closed | ||
| spot | i'll look into it today | |
| poelcat | there is also https://bugzilla.redhat.com/showdependencytree.cgi?id=438772 | |
| wwoods | Assuming assurances from ajax etc. that intel etc. are shaping up | |
| and some work on the mkinitrd-chooses-wrong-ld.so thing | ||
| I think we might be OK | ||
| bpepple | wwoods: sounds good. | |
| wwoods | for the record, blockers are determined by http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/ReleaseCriteria | |
| caillon | \o/ | |
| wwoods | there's also http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/TestPlans/Fedora9Install - tier#1 and tier#2 should correspond to ReleaseCriteria itmes | |
| assuming we did this right | ||
| warren | wwoods, bug # on the mkinitrd issue? | |
| wwoods | warren: bug 440091 | |
| bpepple | anyone have anything else to add about the release schedule, or are we ready to move on? | |
| c4chris | where's that robot that triggered on bug numbers ? | |
| bpepple | c4chris: seems to have died. | |
| --- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCo-Meeting -- Features Completion - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/9/FeatureList - poelcat | ||
| wwoods | buggbot? might be off havin' a smoke | |
| c4chris | :) | |
| bpepple | poelcat: do you need help poking folks to complete (100%) their feature pages? | |
| poelcat | PLEASE :) | |
| bpepple | I'm taking off tomorrow from work, so I can help out. | |
| c4chris | I see a 25%... | |
| bpepple | c4chris: I think that has been dropped already. | |
| c4chris | good | |
| poelcat | somone was going to followup on that a few weeks back | |
| i don't believe it was officially dropped | ||
| poelcat | bpepple: i'll send out another mass email to individ owners and cc fesco | |
| warren | poelcat, do I call it 100% if I have all features except some are broken? | |
| caillon | poelcat, we might want to re-add swfdec to the feature list... | |
| poelcat | about apr-08 freeze | |
| warren: you call it 100% if everything listed on the feature page is done :) | ||
| thus, adjust the page as necessary | ||
| poelcat | caillon: bpepple removed it | |
| bpepple | caillon: yeah, since we weren't installing it by default, I didn't really think it qualified as a feature. | |
| caillon | right, that was based on a board decision that was subsequently reversed. | |
| (or so i thought) | ||
| bpepple | caillon: I don't think the board reversed their decision, but truthfully who knows? | |
| poelcat | nothing has been communicated to me about swfdec being back on the feature list | |
| bpepple | as far as I'm aware codeina is still orphaned. | |
| warren | poelcat, is text from the feature page used in the release notes? if so, which part? | |
| * warren will have to rewrite it. | ||
| caillon | bpepple, it's back in | |
| bpepple | caillon: wasn't aware it had been put back in/ | |
| nirik | it's currently showing as orphaned still... hadess hasn't picked it back up | |
| caillon | bpepple, the minutes from the board's irc meeting tuesday is public already. | |
| poelcat | warren: yeah, the section called "release notes" is used by the docs people ;-) | |
| warren: i *think* they watch the feature pages too | ||
| bpepple | caillon: I'll have to go read it. thanks. | |
| poelcat | bpepple: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board/Meetings/2008-04-01 | |
| * poelcat hasn't had a chance to summarize discussion eyt | ||
| bpepple | poelcat: don't worry about it, I still haven't had time to summarize last week's FESCo meeting. | |
| poelcat | :) | |
| * c4chris has gotta leave in a few minutes... | ||
| c4chris | I guess the list should be checked right after the freeze, and pruned accordingly | |
| bpepple | c4chris: agreed. | |
| poelcat: anything else in regard to features? | ||
| poelcat | bpepple: that's all | |
| bpepple | poelcat: great, thanks! | |
| --- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- Free discussion around Fedora | ||
| c4chris | gotta go. Later folks. | |
| * caillon notices a fair number of packages with .fc7 and .fc6 disttags that failed gcc43 rebuild | ||
| bpepple | We're about 6 weeks from our election, so we need to send out a message about getting candidates for the election. | |
| I'll work on this over the weekend unless someone else wants to. | ||
| nirik | bpepple: and we are going to move down to 9 seats, right? and everyone up? | |
| bpepple | nirik: correct. | |
| caillon | yeah, that's the plan | |
| spot | caillon: if you have a list, put them up somewhere, i can start poking them with sticks | |
| nirik | cool. | |
| * nirik will ponder on re-running or not... | ||
| bpepple | nirik: I started to update the election rules, but someone else should give them a read to make sure it makes sense. | |
| caillon | spot, i don't but it would be pretty easy to generate that | |
| jwb | are we doing range voting? | |
| or, rather, are we changing the style of the vote itself? | ||
| bpepple | jwb: I think so, but should verify that against our election policy page. | |
| jwb | cause i get all confused with that stuff | |
| bpepple | Before I send out the announcement, I send a quick note to the FESCo list with the appropriate links to make sure everything is copacetic. | |
| anyone have anything else, or should we wrap up for this week? | ||
| * dgilmore has nothing | ||
| * bpepple puts a fork in the meeting. | ||
| 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! | ||
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.5 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!