--- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- Meeting rules at http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Development/Schedule/MeetingGuidelines -- Init process
bpeppleFESCo meeting ping -- bpepple, dgilmore, dwmw2, jwb, notting, nirik, kick_, jds2001, j-rod
Hi everybody; who's around?
* jds2001
* jwb is here
nirik is here.
bpeppleok, I see six of us here, so we can probably get started.
--- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCO-Meeting -- Features -- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/BetterPrinting
* Kick__ is here
bpeppleok, this feature looks fairly straight forward.
* dgilmore is kinda here
* abadger1999 takes a seat
bpepple+1 to BetterPrinting feature.
Kick__the only thing missing for BetterPrinting is a detailed test plan
jds2001indeed straightforward, +1
* nirik would like to see docs and release notes filled in...
nirikbut +1 and ask them to fill those in...
jds2001i think release notes are critical for user experience things like this.
nirikeven if it only notes that their are many improvements.
that kind of note would get people to go look and see...
j-rod+1 for me
* jds2001 not tried setting up a printer in Fedora for awhile.....and i porbably wouldn't unless someone told me it was easier.
bpeppleok, I see five '+1' to this feature, so it has been approved.
jds2001That's why release notes are critical.
bpepplenirik: can you add something to the discussion page about adding a release note?
nirikyep. Just about to do that.
bpepplenirik: thanks.
moving on to next feature.....
--- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCO-Meeting -- Features -- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/BetterStartup
Kick__as this feature is only 53% completed and there are many packages involved, can we be sure that everything continues to work if we have to back down to rhgb ?
* jds2001 notes the LOOONNNGGG TODO list. Can we really get all this done?
jds2001good point Kick__, that too
bpeppleKick__: I'm not sure.
Kick__we should ask the maintainers to add that to the test plan
bpeppleKick__: agreed.  I'll add that to the discussion page.
nirikyeah, more detail in the   Contingency section would be nice.
nirikie, what else needs to be reverted? etc
j-rodthis one really isn't as far off as it sounds
jds2001j-rod: is the modesetting stuff in the kernel yet?
j-rodand quite a bit doesn't actually need to be reverted, per se
* jds2001 wants to take this for a spin :)
Kick__It'll make a nice feature, but I'm somewhat concerned about the 53% completion
j-rodI *think* the intel modesetting stuff works now
nirikwell, if it fails to be complete, it gets dropped and the Contingency plan goes into effect.
nirikj-rod: it sorta worked for me in f9, but couldn't deal with suspend/resume at all.
Kick__nirik:  that's not even on the test plan
nirikKick__: oh yeah, that should be added. ;(
j-rodnirik: yeah, I think that was the old ttm-based stuff
j-rodI swear its further along than 53%, at least on development systems in-house, since I've seen the whole thing in operation
but a lot of it wasn't committed to built packages yet
nirikwould have been nice for it to be in alpha, but oh well.
bpepple+1 to this feature, but would like more detail put into the test plan & contingency plan.
Kick__+1 from me provided we have working fall-back and known-to-work systems continue to have suspend/resume
nirikin any case +1 from me, but we should ask for more tests and backout plan.
jds2001+1 here, we'll probably need to keep an eye oln this one at feature freeze.
bpepplealright, I see six '+1' for this feature, so we've approved the BetterStartup feature.
onto the next feature...
--- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCO-Meeting -- Features -- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Portreserve
* jds2001 notes the lack of several sections
nirikrelease notes FIXME is not good.
jds2001most specifically a testplan, and what packages need to be modified.
j-rodhaha, I like the contingency plan
dwmw2why isn't this being done with selinux?
nirik-1 from me... ask them to fill in more info? list of packages, who is talking to package comittee, and such
Kick__definetely nice to have, but more of an enhancement as an feature. It's invisible to the user and doesn't seem to fit into any of the feature requirements
jds2001-1 from me too, is this really a feature?
more of an implementation of a bugfix to me.
(yes, the "bug" has been around for years)
dwmw2it also only seems to do Legacy IP, unless my first glance at the code misleads me
j-rodmostly indifferent on this one myself. have to agree though, doesn't really sound feature-ish...
bpepplejds2001: Yeah, this might not meet the requirement of being a highly visible change.
but a fix would still be nice
bpepplealright, I see six '-1' so we have rejected the Port Reserve feature.
j-rodat least as a feature, yeah
bpepplej-rod: correct.
anyone have anything else to add, or should we move on to the next feature request.
moving on......
--- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCO-Meeting -- Features -- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/PythonNSS
bpeppleDoes this meet the requirements for being a feature?
j-rodI was just going to suggest NOTAFEATURE
jds2001dont really think so....
j-rodmore like just a new package
nirikyeah, seems like a nice to have new package
bpepplej-rod: that's what I was thinking also.
abadger1999I think the actual feature might be FIPS-140 validation
And this would be an update on that feature.
j-rodmore "Feature-y" would be to convert anything and everything using python ssl bindings to using nss bindings
jds2001can Fedora *ever* be FIPS-140 validated?
j-rodor a component of FIPS 140-2 validation (are we actually doing that for Fedora???)
nirikwell, that would require someone to pay for the testing wouldn't it?
jds2001if so, that's an awesome feature - but this is just a status update on getting there.
abadger1999Questions to toss back to the feature writer,  I think.
nirikyeah, -1 for now... make it more featurey and resubmit
j-rod-1, not a feature as-is, just a new package
bpepplealright, I see five '-1', so we have not approved this feature.
anyone have anything else to add, otherwise we can move on to the last feature for today.
--- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCO-Meeting -- Features -- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/SaveToBugzilla
jds2001hotness from clumens :)
bpepple+1, though they need to add a test plan.
& release notes.
jds2001they have one
Kick__will there be any saveguards in place to check if this really is a Fedora installation ? I wouldn't like to have lots of bugzillas for dereived distributions
bpepplejds2001: oh, my browser wasn't refreshed.
Kick__..although they probably would have component anaconda anyway...
wwoodstest plan involves triggering an intentional crash, which I *THINK* we can do
bpepplealright, that's five '+1', so we've approved the SaveToBugzilla feature.
wwoods: ;)
jds2001wwoods: i was thinking of a bogus updates.img or something
* wwoods cough cough
bpeppleok, that's all the features that was ready for today/
--- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- Free discussion around Fedora
jds2001unless there's real bugs to be triggered :)
wwoodsyou can always do an updates.img that replaces some key code with 'raise Exception, "AIIIIEEE I CAN'T FEEL MY LEGS"'
bpeppleAnyone have anything they wish to discuss?
jds2001bpepple: i thought we were gonna talk about the review queue, or did that get dropped
j-rodKick__ raises a semi-interesting point w/derived distros...
wwoodsderived distros - the bugzilla installation URL is provided during buildinstall/pungi
j-rodI presume this feature ties into the bugurl you feed anaconda at build time
wwoodsobviously they should provide their own. yes.
j-rodwwoods: however... that's bugurl, not bugzilla url... :)
bpepplejds2001: we can, though it might be worth waiting until tibbs gets back from vacation.
j-rodso it'll fall down if bugurl is trac
of course, not our problem
wwoodsAFAIK it's constructed like "%s/xmlrpc.cgi" % bugurl
but I could be wrong
j-rod(our == Fedora)
--- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCo-Meeting -- Package Review queue - bpepple, all
j-rodI know of one Fedora-derived distro that uses trac... :)
wwoodsj-rod: right, it's using a simple API with a provided backend. in this case we provide a bugzilla backend
j-rodwill have to cross that bridge when I come to it
wwoodsif you want to write a trac backend and drop that in, go right ahead
jds2001$DAYJOB has been very demanding this last week and weekend.
bpepplejds2001: yeah, my free time has been pretty minimal for the last week, also.
wwoodsit just has to provide some API bits like python-bugzilla does
bpeppletibbs was planning to start a package review sig when he gets back from vacation.
j-rodwwoods: I don't want to. :) but at the same time, I don't want to see said derived distro blow up in funny ways
jds2001I have a little bit of something, nothing really presentable, to show
clumens: we approved your feature :)
wwoodsI believe you can disable bug reporting if you're too lazy/busy to provide a backend for your derived distro's bug tracker
clumensoh well that's good
wwoodsclumens: is the bug reporting URL derived from bugurl or embedded in the backend code?
nirikbpepple: yeah, but no idea if that will help... dunno if there is any easy answer.
clumenswwoods: it's part of the installclass, though it'd perhaps be better if it involved bugUrl
j-rodclumens: and can one opt out of permitting bug report submission for something like a derived distro that doesn't use bugzilla, and is too lazy to write a trac api?
jds2001nirik: why wouldnt it help?
bpepplenirik: agreed, but maybe we can try to organize some package review days or something.
jds2001nirik: it would provide a way for tibbs to recruit qualified folks to help...
nirikjds2001: why would it? I guess more org might get more people involved... but really there is a limited pool of reviewers.
jds2001yeah, it's all in the organization
nirik: limited to ~600 :)
niriklimited pool of reviewers who ever review anything.
clumensj-rod: if you've got a derived distribution, you are using an install class other than the ones we provide.
the default install class uses the AbstractFiler, which doesn't do anything.
so, yes.
nirikperhaps we should look at a 'you must review another package to get your package approved' type thing... but thats not nice for people who really don't want to review.
j-rodclumens: cool, worksforme
* jds2001 is guility of that.
jds2001i.e. not reviewing - though i did review the mess that was testopia that I'm about to CLOSE/CANTFIX :(
* jds2001 cries
nirikin any case I am all for a SIG... but just not sure it will solve the issues. Worth a try. ;)
abadger1999jds2001: Maybe someone will replace the JS library tonight :-)
bpepplenirik: yeah, package reviewing is a pretty thankless job.  Hard to get folks interested in doing it.
sticksterSort of like QA, docs, testing...
* stickster runs
* jds2001 recruits stickster :)
sticksterjds2001: You're on
* bpepple agrees with stickster. almost all of those are tasks that are hard to motivate people to work on.
niriktheres a brew pub near here in boulder... one of the cool things they do is make everyone who works there do all the jobs. So, they move around thru waiting on tables, working in the kitchen, cleanup, manning the bar, helping make the beer, etc.
clumenshow egalitarian
nirikso, perhaps we could look at some kind of way to get people to move around and try things until they find the spot they are interested in.
and in the mean time get them to do some reviews. ;)
* j-rod only reviews packages when people specifically ask him to, or when they're of personal benefit, like the new iwl5000-firmware package... :)
jds2001the only thing is you have to be sponsored to do reviews
which limits the pool, as you said.
* j-rod just doesn't have the time, otherwise
Kick__let new maintainers do a few reviews under supervision so that they learn how to package and maybe do more reviews than the absolue minumum ?
* jds2001 didnt even know there was such a thing as iwl5000 :)
jds2001i did a review or two as a condition of being sponsored, as I think all sponsors should do :)
nirikKick__: they do, but the queue is pretty big... more stuff flowing in that being reviewed.
jds2001nirik is just a good sponsor :)
nirikcurrently 722 in the queue.
* Kick__ hasn't had a look at the queue for some time
bpepplenirik: do we have weekly numbers of what the queue is?
* jds2001 working on something so that we can highlight the status in FWN.
nirikanother idea tibbs had was to have bugzappers or someone go thru, run scratch builds and make sure things build and make sure the submitter is still there...
sticksternirik: Is that working with the new BZ?
bpeppledoesn't tibbs get back this week from vacation?
nirikstickster: I think tibbs fixed it.
j-rodjds2001: iwl5000 hardware hasn't exactly been officially released yet, I think, but some folks have managed to acquire engineering samples... :)
nirikyeah, in the next few days.
sticksternirik: OK, hadn't looked in ~48 hrs
j-rodI've got an iwl5350 combo 802.11n/wimax card that I need to wedge into my t61 one of these days...
nirikhumm... or not.
it's not updated to current
Kick__nirik: oh my, 3 of my own packages under the first 15 packages listed there
* Kick__ feels bad
nirikin any case, I think we should wait for tibbs and the SIG and try and help with any ideas they have
bpepplenirik: agreed.
--- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- Free discussion around Fedora
bpeppleanything else foks want to discuss in our remaining 8 minutes?
btw, I was contacted by Sun about getting NetBeans added to Fedora as a possible feature for F10.
Kick__aren't there some licensing issues with NetBeans ?
bpeppleI believe there under acceptable license for acceptance into Fedora, but I haven't had a chance to look into very closely yet.
I just was contacted yesterday.
Kick__last time I've looked was at least 2 years ago
poelcatbpepple: they've got two weeks :)
poelcator less if we hold to a hard feature freeze date of 2008-08-19 (tuesday)
bpepplepoelcat: yeah, I need to get a move on this.
* poelcat has one question about "spins" as a feature
poelcatshould I triage those to releng for +/- vote?
bpeppleThey've already submitted package reviews, but I probably need to contact some of the java guys for some help in reviewing them.
poelcati dont' want to keep carrying them as waiting for acceptance
bpeppleyeah, you can triage those to releng for voting.
nirikpoelcat: I would think so... you might doublecheck with them to be sure.
bpeppleok, anything else? otherwise, we should probably wrap up for this week.
* 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

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