| --- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- Meeting rules at http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Development/Schedule/MeetingGuidelines -- Init process | ||
| bpepple | FESCo meeting ping -- bpepple, caillon, c4chris, dgilmore, dwmw2, f13, jeremy, jwb, notting, spot, nirik, tibbs, warren | |
|---|---|---|
| Hi everybody; who's around? | ||
| * tibbs here | ||
| spot is here | ||
| nirik is here | ||
| f13 | ||
| f13 | I'm somewhat distracted, trying to stem the tide of spam | |
| fraggle_ f13 finnzi fab | ||
| bpepple | ok, I see seven of us here, so we can probably get started. | |
| dwmw2_n770 | I need to head home shortly | |
| --- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCO-Meeting -- Secondary Arches Releases and FESCo's role over them -- all | ||
| bpepple | f13: you want to lead this one? | |
| f13 | well, I just thought it was a bit odd that there was an announcement of a secondary arch release, and I don't recall it being mentioned at FESCo at all leading up to the release announcement. | |
| I'm perfectly content letting the secondary arch SIG run things, but letting FESCo know there was a release coming might have been nice | ||
| nirik | was that a full release? or just a alpha/testing one? | |
| dwmw2_n770 | and didn't it have packages not in f9-updates? | |
| f13 | = Release notes for F9-beta on ia64 = | |
| dwmw2_n770: yeah, I think the fedora-release was in updates-testing | ||
| notting | it's a final release, the relnotes were not updated right (so it was said) | |
| dwmw2_n770 | updates-testing isn't so bad | |
| spot | dwmw2_gone: all of their changes were committed to f9 cvs | |
| (at least, to the best of my knowledge) | ||
| dwmw2_n770 | good | |
| f13 | comitted != built though | |
| dwmw2_n770 | still not so bad | |
| nirik | so what do we suggest here? ask secondary arches to ping Fesco before release? or talk to rel-eng ? or ? | |
| spot | f13: does rel-eng want to coordinate the secondary releases? | |
| dwmw2_n770 | talk to fesco I think | |
| f13 | talking to FESCO is fine with me | |
| dwmw2_n770 | rel-eng is reasonably represented on fesp | |
| spot | okay, sounds fine to me | |
| nirik | ok, and what does fesco do? say "yes, please announce your release" ? or do we check anything on it? | |
| dwmw2_n770 | a brief sanity check makes sense | |
| nirik | ok | |
| * jwb is here now | ||
| bpepple | alright, anything else on secondary arches or should we move on? | |
| ok, moving on.......... | ||
| --- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCo-Meeting -- Application approvals for cvsadmin - f13 | ||
| f13 | I just simply wanted to get a vote from fesco on handling approvals for people getting cvsadmin access, since such access means complete access to all packages / control files in cvs | |
| * warren here | ||
| f13 | it was mentioned on list that allowing current admins of that group be the body that approves new members, however they see fit | |
| warren | that seems like a good idea | |
| notting | f13: +1 to that, fesco can revoke if necessary | |
| spot | seems fine | |
| bpepple | f13: +1 | |
| warren | +1 | |
| f13 | +1 from me. | |
| jwb | how do we handle promotion of new admins of that group? | |
| dwmw2_n770 | seems reasonable... cancelledyou include me? | |
| tibbs | Predictive text input FTW. | |
| dwmw2_n770 | :) | |
| f13 | jwb: same group of people IMHO | |
| nirik | yeah, +1 from here... FESCo reserves the right to revoke/promote if need be (in its oversight capacity)... | |
| tibbs | +1, I suppose. | |
| dwmw2_n770 | +1 | |
| f13 | dwmw2_n770: I don't necessarily want 'cvsadmin' to just be a method to bypass cvsextras settings. It's more for administrative type tasks. | |
| dwmw2_n770: but that's my opinion. | ||
| bpepple | ok, I see seven '+1', so we've approved allowing current admins of that group be the body that approves new member. | |
| f13 | (just like secondary arch rights aren't there to allow them to fiddle with things that aren't secondary arch related) | |
| bpepple | anyone have anything else to add? otherwise we can move on. | |
| dwmw2_n770 | yeah | |
| jwb | +1 | |
| * nirik wonders who was wanting in cvsadmin that started this discussion...but I guess it doesn't matter. | ||
| dgilmore is here | ||
| tibbs | nirik: I believe it is lmacken. | |
| jwb | what?! NOOO | |
| can't trust that lmacken dude... | ||
| * jwb kids | ||
| bpepple | ok, onto features.... | |
| --- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCo-Meeting -- Features -- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/GoodHaskellSupport - poelcat | ||
| bpepple | poelcat about? | |
| poelcat | vote away :) | |
| jwb | +1 | |
| bpepple | +1, though I wonder if it truly is a feature or not. | |
| notting | "Many developers, scientists, and other technically oriented people are drawn away from Fedora for a lack of Haskell support. " | |
| [citation needed] | ||
| spot | +1 | |
| * nirik notes several of the packages (like darcs) are already in and usable...have been for a while. | ||
| dwmw2_n770 has to head home | ||
| tibbs | FPC will hopefully discuss the guidelines on Tuesday. | |
| notting | +1, i suppose. not sure it's feature-worthy | |
| warren | meh | |
| +1 | ||
| f13 | +1 | |
| dgilmore | +1 | |
| nirik | +1 | |
| tibbs | Well, they'd like to tout it in the haskell community. | |
| jwb | there is nothing that makes it clearly not feature worthy | |
| tibbs | !1 | |
| jwb | so publicity about it is fine | |
| tibbs | Erm, +1 | |
| bpepple | ok, I see nine '+1', so we've approved this feature. | |
| --- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCo-Meeting -- Features -- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Fingerprint - poelcat | ||
| bpepple | This was one that was pushed backed from F9 wasn't it? | |
| spot | i think so | |
| jwb | yes | |
| tibbs | It's still going to block on libusb. | |
| spot | i'm ok giving it the goahead, if it doesn't make it, we're in no worse state. | |
| dwmw2_n770 | thinkfinger works quite nicely in f9 | |
| bpepple | +1 | |
| notting | +1 | |
| spot | +1 | |
| dwmw2_n770 | what's new? | |
| tibbs | This doesn't seem to involve thinkfinger at all. | |
| spot | dwmw2_gone: did you read this? thinkfinger is dead, this is better integration | |
| nirik | +1 | |
| bpepple | dwmw2_n770: I believe this is new: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Fingerprint#Detailed_Description | |
| dwmw2_n770 | ok | |
| jwb | +1 | |
| f13 | well, I"d like to see it get in too, so +1 | |
| wwoods | hey, that's a pretty good (if minimal) test plan | |
| tibbs | +1 but I guess most of this hinges on whether jnovy can update libusb. | |
| dwmw2_n770 | +1 | |
| bpepple | ok, I see eight '+1', so we've approved the fingerprint feature. | |
| --- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCo-Meeting -- Features -- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/DeviceKit - poelcat | ||
| bpepple | This looks pretty cool. | |
| +1 | ||
| f13 | +1 from me | |
| although I disagree that release notes aren't necessary | ||
| tibbs | Yes, this looks neat. | |
| f13 | it might be necessary to make sure existing release notes don't have directions that would benefit from actually having DeviceKit to use | |
| wwoods | Test plan needs a *lot* of fleshing out, but it's not in rawhide yet, so that's not critical | |
| notting | +1 | |
| tibbs | I note that currently it's set up to block on the KDE stuff being ported. | |
| f13 | tibbs: yeah, that's something to pay close attention to | |
| * nirik wonders how if at all it will work under Xfce/others... | ||
| spot | will this integrate with anaconda? | |
| f13 | spot: there is talk of that yes | |
| dgilmore | its light on detail, but otherwise it looks ok | |
| spot | i would hate for it to look significantly different | |
| f13 | <jeremy> fyi -- we might be "lucky" enough to get to switch our disk probing to use devicekit instead of hal for f10. davidz was typically cagey about what would remain and when things would land :-/ | |
| dgilmore | nirik: there is mention of KDE but thats it | |
| f13 | Dependencies | |
| spot | f13: it would be nice to see anaconda integration as an item | |
| f13 | Solid's (KDE's) disk management also needs to be ported to DeviceKit-disks. | |
| tibbs | I read through the mailing list thread and the explanations seem to make sense. | |
| jlaska | it notes it's a partial replacement for hal ... it would seem worthwhile identifying which pieces it's taking over (from a testing perspective) | |
| tibbs | But I wonder how much of our system links into the HAL stuff that we don't really know about. | |
| nirik: Do you know the extent that xfce plays with hal? | ||
| wwoods | jlaska: yeah, we'd want to expand the test plan to include other stuff that uses (used) HAL's disk support | |
| tibbs | "Components which depend directly on the disk functionality in hal, such as gvfs and Solid, have to be ported to DeviceKit-disks." | |
| * jlaska runs `rpm -q --whatrequires hal` | ||
| nirik | tibbs: thunar-volman uses it to find removables, etc. | |
| so there would need to be changes there probibly. | ||
| tibbs | Then it may be worth getting clarification on that, and the porting of that added to the "Dependencies" section. | |
| * f13 notes that these are all wonderful questions for the discussion tab | ||
| bpepple | f13: agreed, we need to add them there. | |
| notting | there's a certain point at which things are pushed to the upstream of said technologies | |
| nirik | sure, can add some to the discussion tab. | |
| tibbs | Well, sure, but we're kind of in a meeting to vote on it now. | |
| spot | i'm not opposed to this feature, it sounds great... but given how intrusive it will be, i'd like to see a lot more details on porting other components | |
| notting | for example, if openssl changes api/abi , it's not necessarily up to the openssl maintainer to port everything | |
| spot | notting: no, but it sure is nice when they describe how to port. | |
| wwoods | details on porting, hints on finding things that will need updates | |
| jlaska | ... yeah, applications that must be changed to use DeviceKit by F10 | |
| f13 | pointers to documentation | |
| tibbs | I guess it would be at least nice to know if it's just the matter of calling different function names and listening for different dbus messages or whether there's a complete logic rewrite required. | |
| jlaska | maybe a DeviceKit-hal layer is used to map the old methods to the new? dunno if possible </crack> | |
| tibbs | So I think we're at three +1's at the moment. | |
| jlaska | I think we'd want some of these questions answered before we fully take it, no? | |
| spot | i'm not comfortable voting +1 without some of these items addressed | |
| tibbs | Can we provide a list of requests for additional info? What do you want to see? | |
| spot | details on anaconda integration | |
| spot | list of packages affected by the change | |
| bpepple | spot: I'm fine with that. How about the people with questions they want answered add them to the discussion page. | |
| f13 | I'm really curious if they'd roll it back if the KDE part isn't done in time | |
| tibbs | "Please provide links to documentation and porting information"? | |
| dgilmore | spot: agreed | |
| * nirik added a thunar-volman question to the discussion tab... | ||
| f13 | I added my question too | |
| spot | mine as well | |
| bpepple | ok, let's move on to the next feature then. | |
| tibbs | FYI, http://hal.freedesktop.org/docs/DeviceKit/ | |
| tibbs | BTW, the use of gobject seems controversial according to the list traffic. | |
| * nirik thinks we really need KitKit to keep track of all the Kits. ;) | ||
| f13 | KitKaboodle | |
| bpepple | nirik: ;) | |
| bpepple | ok, onto the last feature for today. | |
| --- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCo-Meeting -- Features -- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Bluetooth - poelcat | ||
| tibbs | Has this changed at all recently? | |
| It doesn't look like it's changed since we discussed the feature during F9. | ||
| bpepple | tibbs: I believe the documentation section tells the changes from previous release. | |
| nirik | yeah, it's not clear what things are going into f10, or are already in or what | |
| tibbs | And I note the word "test" doesn't seem to appear at all. | |
| jlaska | excessive use of the words "possible solutions" | |
| spot | aside from adding a release notes section, nothing has changed since it was imported into the new wiki | |
| notting | well, i suppose the issue is that this is more of a 'todo' list | |
| tibbs | "the CUPS backend work is available in Fedora 8 and rawhide." | |
| notting | and there's not a good view of which are still todo, and which aren't | |
| wwoods | yeah a lot of the stuff in there has landed in previous releases | |
| f13 | does hadess know it's being pitched as an F10 feature again? | |
| poelcat | f13: yes, though admitedly I should have done a better job reviewing it | |
| mclasen | he's at guadec right now, I can ask him when he comes back | |
| tibbs | "Rawhide's nautilus uses GVFS, support will be in gvfs 0.1.9.", but F9 has gvfs 0.2.5 now. | |
| f13 | yah, this probably needs a good overhaul for what's current and not, with a clear idea of what we're looking to be "featured" in F10 | |
| poelcat | typically he puts a bunch of stuff on that page and then forks it at release time to reflect what was accomplished during that release cycle | |
| * bpepple thinks we need to check w/ hadess before voting on this. | ||
| spot | poelcat: is RPM4.6 not ready? i want Panu to have as much time as possible for this to hit | |
| not that he should feel held up by it, but still | ||
| poelcat | spot: the feature page? | |
| spot | poelcat: yessir | |
| * poelcat hasn't done a full scour since tues | ||
| wwoods | https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/RPM4.6 looks pretty ready | |
| spot | okay. thats the one i'm most excited about. :) | |
| * spot bounces | ||
| f13 reads | ||
| poelcat | bpepple: if there is still time go for it | |
| bpepple | poelcat: we've got time. | |
| --- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCo-Meeting -- Features -- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/RPM4.6 - poelcat | ||
| dgilmore | +1 | |
| * bpepple goes to read it. | ||
| spot | +1 from me as well (duh) | |
| spot | FPC will tackle the changes for F10+ if this feature makes it in | |
| notting | +1 | |
| wwoods | need to flesh out that test plan to have some specific test cases that people can run | |
| f13 | I give this +1, I"ll be closely watching the buildsystem when this goes in | |
| wwoods | because we will need serious buy in from everyone everywhere to shake out all the bugs | |
| f13 | I'm also curious if we (fesco/whomever) wants to schedule a full rebuild of the distro against hte new rpm | |
| bpepple | +1 | |
| f13 | and whether we wnat to default to lzma compression for F10 | |
| * poelcat notes that feature pages like RPM4.6 are a feature wrangler's dream | ||
| bpepple | f13: Aren't we going a rebuild for gcc this release also? | |
| notting | f13: full rebuild or a test rebuild? | |
| nirik | +1 here | |
| f13 | bpepple: hand wavy. | |
| wwoods | other than that, if my vote counted it'd be +1 | |
| dgilmore | f13: we need 2 rebuilds to take full advantage from what Panu said | |
| f13 | notting: a test rebuild will be done by mdomsch. I'm talking about a full rebuild, to enable things like lzma | |
| nirik | perhaps mdomsch could do a run with the new rpm? | |
| f13 | dgilmore: yeah. | |
| nirik | also, how does this affect deltarpms? | |
| notting | f13: i'd be curious as to the size savings. doesn't help livecd, and the non-live spins aren't *that* bad | |
| spot | lzma would be great to enable if possible | |
| dgilmore | f13: if we accept this then we should schedule the 2 full rebuilds | |
| spot | notting: it would make yum transactions a bit quicker | |
| dgilmore | notting: it would save disk space on mirrors | |
| f13 | notting: we can test rebuilds on the side with lzma settings to see | |
| drago01 | "To enable support for LZMA package payloads, a new version of lzma-libraries will be needed, but this is out of scope for initial introduction, more of F11 material. " | |
| f13 | dgilmore: the feature doesn't mention doing the rebuild. | |
| dgilmore | f13: we probbaly should get it added | |
| * spot is also ok with this hitting in F11 | ||
| notting | spot: downloads, not the transactions themselves? | |
| f13 | however, since RHEL has to rebuild our packages, it'd probably be valueable to them if we've done a rebuild with this rpm to shake out any issues. | |
| spot | notting: yeah, thats what i meant | |
| f13 | I'm with spot, I'd be ok with pushing the full rebuild for this rpm to f11 timeframe | |
| notting | ooh, actually a memory/uncompress cpu vs zlib/bzip2 would be nice | |
| f13 | leaving the f10 timeframe to get rpm right, so we don't mass rebuild more than we have to. | |
| * spot idly wonders if lzma is parallelized | ||
| tibbs | spot: It is. | |
| spot | tibbs: very nice. | |
| * nirik is ok with rel-eng figuring out when and what mass rebuilds we need and letting fesco know. | ||
| spot | nirik: +1 | |
| bpepple | ok, I see six '+1' for this feature, anyone else want to weigh-in? | |
| tibbs | +1 | |
| bpepple | ok, that's seven '+1' (and one from our QA guy), so this feature has been approved. | |
| do we also have to make a decision about the rebuild now also? | ||
| spot | bpepple: i'm ok with letting rel-eng decide that | |
| tibbs | Do we know when the new gcc is supposed to hit? | |
| bpepple | spot: I'm fine with that also. f13 that good with you? | |
| nirik | if we do a mass rebuild for rpm, then it's a full one right? even noarch, etc... | |
| dgilmore | nirik: yes everything | |
| bpepple | poelcat: anything else on features we need to discuss today? | |
| poelcat | bpepple: that is all except to note that I think the presentation and discussion of the rpm feature is fine example | |
| bpepple | poelcat: duly noted. | |
| poelcat | that this process is not that hard :) | |
| f13 | yeah, +1 from me. | |
| bpepple | ok, moving on since we're at the top of the hour. | |
| --- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- Free discussion around Fedora | ||
| bpepple | anything folks want to discuss before wrapping up for today? | |
| spot | I have a few items related to F10 I want to mention | |
| f13 | Schedule approval | |
| bpepple | spot: floors your. | |
| tibbs | Please note that I will be on vacation from July 16 until Aug 6, and will probably miss several meetings. | |
| spot | 1. I'm going to purge anything under the Artistic 1.0 license only from Fedora before the Alpha. | |
| * notting will be out 8/4-8/18 | ||
| spot | i've spent more than a year trying to get everything I could relicensed with the upstreams | |
| notting | spot: how many things will that affect dependency wise? | |
| spot | notting: i will send an email out before i do it which details that. | |
| notting | spot: have you done the check briefly? are we talking 10 things, or 500 things? | |
| f13 | spot: make it a feature 9: | |
| spot | notting: rough count around 40, mostly perl modules | |
| dgilmore | spot: does it mean half of perl goes? | |
| spot | f13: i can make it a feature, but its legal driven | |
| (which is why i didn't do it) | ||
| dgilmore | spot: i think its a good feature. it shows we take licensing seriously | |
| spot | okay, i will write it up as a feature | |
| tibbs | Test plan: Look at the repo and verify that the packages are not there. | |
| mether | spot: does Debian accept the license as free? | |
| bpepple | tibbs: ;) | |
| spot | mether: no. | |
| f13 | spot: yeah, but making it a feature provides a good place to coordinate changes, show completion status, etc.. | |
| it doesn't have to be an advertised feature by us. | ||
| a rollback plan | ||
| spot | My 2. item was around packages putting files in /srv | |
| FPC voted not to permit this, so I was going to work with the maintainers to get this resolved before F10 | ||
| (FESCo ratified as well) | ||
| dgilmore | spot: is there many putting stuff in /srv? | |
| spot | its only a handful of packages, but i wanted it on the record. :) | |
| dgilmore | :) ok | |
| bpepple | spot: seems reasonable. | |
| f13 | spot: yay! | |
| spot | thats all from me | |
| (for now...) | ||
| bpepple | f13: you wanted to discuss the schedule? | |
| thanks, spot! | ||
| f13 | yeah, I don't remember if we (FESCo) had actually approved the F10 schedule | |
| bpepple | f13: I don't think we have. | |
| f13 | releng did, although on Monday we adjusted it slightly to take OLS into account (pushed alpha out a week) | |
| so we wanted to alert FESCo to this, as well asn make sure FESCo had approved the schedule in the first place. | ||
| I wasn't sure if that was fully delegated to releng or not | ||
| http://poelstra.fedorapeople.org/schedules/f-10/f-10-all-tasks.html fwiw | ||
| notting | +1 from me | |
| bpepple | +1, but truthfully, I'm fine w/ delegating it to rel-eng. | |
| nirik | +1 here. | |
| tibbs | +1 | |
| f13 | +1 from me obviously | |
| bpepple | spot, jwb, dwmw2_gone, dgilmore: ? | |
| spot | +1 | |
| * Southern_Gentlem looks at clock | ||
| bpepple | Southern_Gentlem: yeah, we're running late. One second, and I'll start to wrap thing up. | |
| Southern_Gentlem | ty | |
| bpepple | well, I only see six votes for the schedule, but we need to wrap things up. | |
| f13 | argh. | |
| please somebody approve the schedule (: | ||
| bpepple | warren: ? | |
| f13 | jwb voted for it in the releng meeting, we could assume a +1 here | |
| as did warren IIRC | ||
| bpepple | f13: that works for me. | |
| FESCo has approved the schedule. | ||
| f13 | (mayhap we have too many relengy people in fesco...) | |
| jwb | yeah | |
| f13 | wheee | |
| notting | quick, let's slip it! | |
| bpepple | ok, let's put a fork in this 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!