| 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, dgilmore, dwmw2, jwb, notting, nirik, kick_, jds2001, j-rod | |
|---|---|---|
| Hi everybody; who's around? | ||
| * jwb is here | ||
| nirik is here. | ||
| Kick__ is here | ||
| j-rod just got here | ||
| rwmjones | nothing to talk about mingw today | |
| bpepple | rwmjones: I was going to check with dgilmore on the status of the infrastructure work, since he looks to be in charge of that. | |
| rwmjones | bpepple, oh sure ... | |
| bpepple | since dgilmore doesn't appear to be here yet, we can probably skip the mingw stuff for now. | |
| --- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCo-Meeting -- Features - all | ||
| * jds2001 semi-here | ||
| jds2001 | working on $DAYJOB fire :) | |
| bpepple | ok, I chatted briefly with wwoods yesterday about coordinating qa on features. | |
| jds2001 | I thought that jlaska was doing that in the test days? | |
| or am I in left field again? :) | ||
| jlaska | that's what test days are about | |
| jwb | he just talked about it in the QA meeting | |
| bpepple | jds2001: no, your right, but in the past it always seems like we (FESCo) are madly deciding what features to drop at RC time. | |
| jlaska | if folks have a suggested topic for a future test day ... please fire my way ... current schedule available at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Test_Days | |
| * dwmw2 arrives | ||
| jds2001 | yeah, I missed most of the QA meeting due to this $DAYJOB fire....annoying how those get in the way sometimes :) | |
| bpepple | jlaska: I'd like to see one on the Gnome feature (specifically whether Empathy is ready to replace pidgin). | |
| wwoods | I'm trying to finish https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/TestResults/Fedora10Features/Beta | |
| If someone could give me a hint about why haskell, HDTV, and timezone were dropped.. I'd appreciate that | ||
| * dgilmore is here | ||
| jlaska | bpepple: I can queue that up | |
| bpepple | jlaska: thanks. | |
| wwoods | loupgaroublond seemed to think haskell was ready to go, so I'm not sure about that one | |
| jlaska | bpepple: any suggested time slot you'd prefer? | |
| bpepple | jlaska: no, I'm fine with whatever works for you. | |
| jlaska | gotcha | |
| wwoods | and the LXDE owner was also surprised/disappointed to learn that his feature was dropped. although I tried to find him and tell him to get stuff in for the Beta.. | |
| dwmw2 | he can still get in all the packages, right? | |
| jwb | i think notting sufficiently answered that on the list | |
| dwmw2 | it's just the comps changes which are the real issue? | |
| nirik | haskell was dropped I thought due to lack of update... ? | |
| jwb | yes | |
| notting | breaking the string freeze is up to the discretion of the trans group - there's a process for it | |
| jlaska | bpepple: is there a feature page for empathy/telepath? | |
| Kick__ | one of the suggestions in the LXDE thread was to invite the maintainers via email to the FESCo meetings, can we do that ? | |
| dgilmore | Kick__: everyone is invited to attend every week | |
| wwoods | nirik: yes, except loupgaroublond is alive and well, the feature is basically done, and he was just unaware that it was going to be dropped | |
| nirik | notting: so if he can get the string freeze overridden there we could re-add the LXDE feature? or since it's not testable by Beta, it's just out of luck? | |
| bpepple | jlaska: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/GNOME2_24 | |
| jds2001 | dgilmore: i think what Kick__ was suggesting is a reminder. | |
| dwmw2 | and we do send out the schedule | |
| Kick__ | jds2001: exactly | |
| Kick_ Kick__ | ||
| jwb | wwoods, ok, so exactly what are we supposed to do there? | |
| wwoods | I'm not suggesting that these things be UN-dropped, just pointing out that maintainers keep seeming to be surprised | |
| jlaska | bpepple: thx | |
| jwb | wwoods, chasing around people that don't update their Feature pages (which is part of the process) after having repeated reminders to do so is not something FESCo needs to be doing | |
| notting | nirik: iirc, the process is 'not testable by beta' requires an exception', or something like that. *if* the rest of the work gets done (package reviews too) i'm not against it | |
| wwoods | probably wickert's suggestion that FESCo agenda be sent to -devel-announce is a good one, esp. when features are slated to be reviewed / dropped | |
| bpepple | Kick_: yes, if we know what features are to be reviewed in the meeting by the time I send out the agenda. Sadly, most of time poelcat has a hard time tracking down the feature owners to get the information he needs. | |
| * f13 notes that this is exactly why there is a contengency plan section on features. | ||
| jwb | wwoods, that seems valid | |
| f13 | wwoods: except that when fedora-devel-announce was created it was explicitly /not/ for the regular meeting minutes/announcements | |
| wwoods | obviously the maintainers *should* remember the Golden Rule: IF WE CAN'T TEST IT, IT AIN'T THERE | |
| notting | dgilmore: standing invitation from everyone probably doesn't hold the same weight as 'hey, we're discussing your stuff today' | |
| wwoods | but when we have to move the beta date around, and there are sometimes exceptions, and blah blah blah | |
| bpepple | wwoods: regarding the haskell feature, I see in 2 meeting summaries that the page was incomplete. Are we wasting our time even sending out the meeting summaries? | |
| f13 | see https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-announce | |
| wwoods | bpepple: direct mail to the feature owner when their feature(s) are discusseD? | |
| jwb | wwoods, poelcat pinged them individually | |
| f13 | although perhaps any meeting where we're going to give go/nogo on features would probably be OK for f-d-a | |
| dgilmore | notting: true, but isn't that what the schedule emails are for | |
| wwoods | jwb: IRC or email? | |
| jwb | wwoods, email | |
| jwb | FESCo is not a babysitting organization | |
| f13 | bpepple: was the feature owner cc'd on the summary? | |
| bpepple | f13: no. | |
| it was sent to the devel mailing list, and placed on the wiki. | ||
| wwoods | I'd say CC'ing feature owners on meeting agenda/summaries where their features are discussed | |
| is more than enough | ||
| wwoods | and perhaps we just need to be louder about the deadlines for feature completeness removal | |
| poelcat | for the record, for this release I did not email owners individually | |
| Kick__ | devel list is a high volume list and it's to easy to miss the announcements/schedules, CC'ing the owners is much better | |
| poelcat | i thought we had established the process enough and we have fedora-devel-announce | |
| wwoods | (and make sure people know: hey, don't fret, only 4 months 'til F11alpha) | |
| poelcat | i also expect feature owners to have set a page watch on their own pages | |
| nirik | yeah, but the wiki watch doesn't work as many people expect. ;( | |
| f13 | poelcat: that's a valid assumption | |
| but as nirik says. | ||
| poelcat | and always try to leave a descriptive commit message when I make a change | |
| f13 | also, there are infrastructure outages from time to time, where mail can be lost | |
| * jwb is obviously wrong | ||
| f13 | and since we tend to get new people doing features for the first time each release, we can't rely on them "knowing" the system. | |
| nirik | so, next time: more communication to feature owners... but what can we do here with these 2 features where the owners are unhappy... | |
| f13 | nirik: contengency plans? | |
| enact them? | ||
| jwb | which is what happened? | |
| poelcat | f13: wasn't fedora-devel-announce created to stem these issues of important developer notification? | |
| * poelcat has spent countless hours on past releases doing the individual email thing... often it was ignored too :) | ||
| nirik | well, both the contingency plans are "nothing" for these two... | |
| f13 | nirik: why were those features accepted without a contengency plan? | |
| notting | nirik: as in 'blank', or as in 'just don't do any announcements' | |
| nirik | because it's not needed? | |
| jwb | i'm very much against doing anything other than exactly what is listed in the contingency plans | |
| jwb | which is "nothing" | |
| dgilmore | f13: because if they miss they dont exist | |
| nirik | you want us to remove haskell? or lxde? | |
| wwoods | they've both been removed already | |
| jwb | wwoods, removed how? | |
| dgilmore | wwoods: the packages have not been | |
| nirik | no, the packages are still there... | |
| wwoods | I mean they've been removed from the feature list. | |
| nirik | just it's not going to be touted as a feature. | |
| jwb | wwoods, yep. for reasons we've already gone over | |
| nirik | ok, so no action here, we move on? Note that LXDE could well finish getting setup and working, just won't be a feature, right? | |
| dgilmore | nirik: yes | |
| bpepple | nirik: correct. | |
| f13 | in the case of LXDE, the contengency plan should have consisted of soething like, "get as many of the packages into F10 as possible, revert or don't change comps for an LXDE group" | |
| nirik | (which is kinda sad if it's there and we aren't touting it, but oh well I guess) | |
| f13 | or something along those lines. | |
| wwoods | Right. The only issue is that both maintainers seemed surprised by the change in the feature list. | |
| f13 | I find it strange that the feature owners didn't have a contengency plan, fesco didn't ask them to have one, and now they're asking "What do I do now?" | |
| jwb | "nothing" | |
| nirik | f13: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/LXDE#Contingency_Plan | |
| * bpepple is extremely frustrated by that, since it's apparent he wastes his time writing those meeting summaries each week. | ||
| f13 | nirik: if LXDE wasn't ready to be tested by Beta, it's not something we should be announcing as a Feature. | |
| jwb | we aren't... | |
| nirik | f13: right. | |
| wwoods | I guess the response needs to be: read the dang FESCo summaries if you're a feature owner | |
| wwoods | that's part of owning a feature! | |
| jwb | wwoods, agenda and summaries | |
| f13 | nirik: ok, LXDE does have a plan, perfect, that's what the feature owner needs to do. | |
| wwoods | make sure it's in and testable by beta! make sure you can answer questions if FESCo asks! | |
| nirik | f13: right. I am agreeing with you. | |
| shall we move on the? | ||
| then? | ||
| wwoods | so the only change that could be possibly asked of FESCo is to cc owners on agenda/summaries where their features are discussed. | |
| bpepple | wwoods: yup. | |
| notting | +1 to that | |
| Kick__ | wwoods: 'read the dang FESCo summaries if you're a feature owner' needs to be documented in the feature process | |
| bpepple | I'll start doing that, though it is frustrating that owners can't take the initiative to read the summaries to begin with. | |
| but, anyway enough of me griping about that. ;) | ||
| wwoods | bpepple: maybe they just didn't know they needed to. or maybe they were confused about Beta was. Lord knows we all were. | |
| bpepple | wwoods: true. | |
| wwoods | also, for the record, I love bpepple to pieces for doing the summaries. | |
| bpepple | thanks. anyway is there anything else about features to discuss? | |
| ok, moving on then........ | ||
| --- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCo-Meeting -- MinGW follow-up? - dgilmore | ||
| bpepple | dgilmore: what's the status of the infrastructure team work on this? | |
| dgilmore | bpepple: there is no work on this. | |
| bpepple: it can all be done | ||
| dgilmore | what would be needed is new tags and targets in koji | |
| new cvs branches | ||
| bodhi learning to do updates | ||
| dgilmore | mirrormanager knowing to serve up mirror lists | |
| releng saying they want to do the extra work | ||
| rwmjones | since this whole thing was led by spaleta's attempts to torpedo the whole mingw project, is it worth going back to the board and just getting them to reverse their decision on a new repository? | |
| rwmjones_afk rwmjones | ||
| dgilmore | f13: has releng looked at and given a report on the work involved in creating a new set of repos for mingw | |
| rwmjones | for that we'd need to know how much extra work we're demanding from infrastructure (ie. weeks, months, years ...) | |
| bpepple | rwmjones: I don't think they made a decision on a separate repo, it was more of a suggestion. | |
| bpepple | or at least based on the info from spot. | |
| dgilmore | rwmjones: it would take someowhere between 1-3 weeks work to do | |
| f13 | dgilmore: to the best of my knowledge, releng hasn't ever been approached about this. | |
| dgilmore | bpepple: it was proposed as an idea | |
| dgilmore | f13: should have been 2 or 3 weeks ago | |
| f13 | dgilmore: where? | |
| dgilmore | when infrastructure was asked to give a report on what would be involved in doing it | |
| * f13 sees nothing in the rel-eng list | ||
| dgilmore | f13: i dont know who was going to ask. infra got a ticket about it | |
| f13 | I think the answer here is "no", releng hasn't looked into it, because we didn't really know about it. | |
| jwb | communication fail | |
| rwmjones | as a datapoint, even with all the updates to the repo (and hence duplicated packages) I've been doing over the past few weeks, my repo's total size is still 380 MB (http://www.annexia.org/tmp/mingw/files.txt) | |
| f13 | who owns this issue Infrastructure side? | |
| dgilmore | f13: i do | |
| f13 | dgilmore: I'd suggest sending a mail over to the rel-eng list or ccing the rel-eng list so that releng can be aware of it (: | |
| dgilmore | f13: lets talk about it after the meeting | |
| tibbs | Is it known why this has to be in a separate repo? | |
| I mean, we don't think twice about approving a game data package that's more than 380MB. | ||
| rwmjones | tibbs, there's no technical reason ... just an unfounded FUD about how it will grow to consume the whole universe | |
| jwb | stop that | |
| bpepple | tibbs: here's our discussion on that from a couple of week's ago: http://bpepple.fedorapeople.org/fesco/FESCo-2008-09-24.html | |
| notting | the point is finding a mechanism that any cross-compiler support can fit into | |
| nirik | this may be the first of many. | |
| tibbs | It's not the first, though. | |
| yum list avr-\* | ||
| dgilmore | tibbs: i think the big difference between the two we currently have and this one is the following | |
| rwmjones | MinGW is quite different from cross-compilers because of the win32 API ... secondly there really aren't that many systems where cross-compilation is necessary .. most modern embedded systems are PCs that can just run straight Fedora | |
| dgilmore | mingw wants to build libraries to build against | |
| tibbs | dgilmore: avr has a libc; we package it. | |
| nirik | avr is crosscompiling for another arch | |
| dgilmore | where the other cross compile tool chains are just that tool chains | |
| nirik | mingw is cross compiling for the same arch on another os | |
| dgilmore | tibbs: its the tool chain, libc binutils gcc | |
| tibbs: mingw wants libjpeg libpng for example | ||
| rwmjones | but an OS with a totally different API .. there is no 'libc' on Windows, all the low-level calls are completely different | |
| notting | nirik: not really. mingw is all x86-windows, it's not <native-arch>-windows | |
| rwmjones | which is why porting each package is so painful | |
| dgilmore | though we do have arm-gp2x-linux-SDL.noarch and arm-gp2x-linux-zlib.noarch | |
| nirik | notting: true. | |
| dwmw2 | yeah, we shouldn't though | |
| dgilmore | rwmjones: forget the api and porting details. we dont care and it has no effect here. we want it to be done in a way that others can follow. the api and porting details are for those actually using the result | |
| nirik: in theory i could compile windows apps on sparc linux. so its not same arch different os | ||
| rwmjones | dgilmore, but it really does matter ... everyone is hung up on the "it's cross-compiling" issue, but that is a minor irrelevance. The major work in the guidelines has nothing to do with cross-compilation at all. | |
| nirik | is there a sparc windows? | |
| rwmjones | cross-compiling in mingw is utterly trivial in comparison .. you just have to call i686-pc-mingw32-gcc instead of gcc | |
| dwmw2 | nirik: there was ppc and alpha. Not sure about sparc :) | |
| dgilmore | rwmjones: the packaging guidelines are accepted and a done deal | |
| dwmw2 | but we only care about x86 | |
| j-rod | there was also ia64 | |
| dwmw2 | true | |
| but ia64 has _always_ been irrelevant | ||
| dgilmore | nirik: no sparc windows. but rwmjones says that it shouldnt matter what the host arch is | |
| j-rod | also true | |
| * dwmw2 winces as the chip his employer installed in his head shocks him | ||
| jwb | why are we having this same discussion _again_ | |
| j-rod | hahaha | |
| rwmjones | I think there's a PPC windows .. not that anyone uses it | |
| dgilmore | jwb: i dont know | |
| jwb | ok, then we should stop | |
| bpepple | jwb: agreed, we're just re-hashing the same discussion we had 2 weeks ago. | |
| dgilmore | we need a report from releng and infra stating what the work involved is to create and manage seperate repos. then FESCo decides if it gets rolled into a seperate repo or the main one | |
| rwmjones | so the next step is a report from rel-eng and infrastructure? | |
| dgilmore | and it seems releng was not notified it needs to report | |
| bpepple | alright, so as it stands we have buy-in from infrastructure, and need to get it from rel-eng. | |
| dgilmore | bpepple: its not buyin from infra | |
| bpepple: its a list of whats involved and that it will take ~1-3 weeks to complete | ||
| bpepple | dgilmore: ok. | |
| rwmjones | f13, can rel-eng update this tracker https://hosted.fedoraproject.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/807 or do you need another tracker opened? | |
| dgilmore | there are alot of pieces that will need updating and changing to deal with it | |
| rwmjones: releng will need its own ticket | ||
| f13 | dgilmore: well, let me look at the ticket. | |
| bpepple | anything else? or should we move on? | |
| ok, moving on then... | ||
| --- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCo-Meeting -- Which packages should be in comps.xml and which not? - all | ||
| bpepple | knurd_afk wanted us to discuss comps.xml. | |
| jwb | is there an "uncategorized" group? | |
| notting | no | |
| jwb | can there be? | |
| notting | at least, not unless someone's gone to the pain to implement one | |
| nirik | clearly there is a lot missing, but there are a lot of things that don't make sense to be in there normally either... | |
| nim-nim nirik | ||
| jwb | or don't fit into the existing categories | |
| bpepple | nirik: correct. here's how we've defined what packages to include from the wiki: | |
| "In general, it's going to be applications which show up in the menus somewhere. Libraries should almost *never* be explicitly listed and instead pulled in via dependencies. Also, most text-mode utilities don't really fit in unless they have a pretty large established user-base. Given that the primary use is with a GUI, selecting a lot of text-mode things make little sense. If you have questions as to whether it make | ||
| s sense or not, feel free to post to f-e-l. " | ||
| f13 | dgilmore: lets just use this one ticket. | |
| notting | bpepple: step one: point it to the proper list | |
| dwmw2 | are we having this discussion for F-10, having told the LDXE guy that he can't add LDXE to comps ? | |
| bpepple | notting: yeah, didn't even notice that. ;) | |
| shows how long ago that section was written. | ||
| nirik | I think abadger1999 had some very good questions here: http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-September/msg01949.html | |
| f13 | dwmw2: adding packages is different than adding translatable text. | |
| * jds2001 notes the wide array of text-mode things in comps.xml today. | ||
| dwmw2 | f13: ok | |
| * nirik wondered about that... | ||
| nirik | so does comps get translated all the time? we add things to old releases comps, does that just not get translated? | |
| notting | nirik: do we add groups? | |
| nirik | I don't think so off hand, but haven't looked to see if anyone did in the past. | |
| is it only groups that are translated? | ||
| jwb | what else would be? | |
| jds2001 | there's really no other text. | |
| notting | group name and description are the only things translated | |
| * nirik goes to look. | ||
| jds2001 | the descriptions that you see in consumers of comps are taken from the packages. | |
| dgilmore | f13: ok | |
| f13 | category names arent/ | |
| ? | ||
| dgilmore | f13: i just added the list of infra things to the ticket | |
| dwmw2 | it does seem strange that we can't make an exception for LDXE. The sky isn't going to fall on our heads if we have one string which isn't translated. | |
| f13 | dgilmore: crap, collision coming probably then. | |
| dwmw2 | but perhaps we should come back to that later | |
| notting | f13: that too | |
| f13 | lets see if trac will handle it. | |
| dwmw2: "we" aren't the ones that need to make the exception. There is an established proceedure for breaking string freezes. | ||
| dgilmore | f13: :( sorry | |
| f13 | dwmw2: it would need to be followed if said maintainer wishes to change said strings. | |
| bpepple | dwmw2: I believe LDXE is still waiting for some packages to be approved also, so comps isn't the only problem. | |
| nirik | yes, there are 2 packages still pending review approval. | |
| tibbs | Do they have reviewers? | |
| nirik | yes. | |
| dwmw2 | are they show-stoppers? | |
| * nirik digs up the bugs | ||
| jds2001 | I *do* believe that since we're on the topic of comps, it needs to get some TLC. | |
| tibbs | bug 442270 and bug 442268 | |
| nirik | humm... perhaps not... bug 442268 doesn't | |
| buggbot | Bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=442270 medium, medium, ---, nobody@fedoraproject.org, NEW, Review Request: lxde-common - Default artwork and Configuration for LXDE | |
| Bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=442268 medium, medium, ---, nobody@fedoraproject.org, NEW, Review Request: lxsession-lite - Lightweight X11 session manager | ||
| dwmw2 | we suck at reviews | |
| tibbs | We're overwhelmed with package submissions. | |
| bpepple | dwmw2: yeah, it's tough to motivate people to want to review. | |
| * jds2001 recalls seeing something on the list about a comps SIG, but can't remember if there was a follow-up if it was still active or not. | ||
| nirik looked at them a while back and it looked like reviews were happening. ;( | ||
| notting | are we discussing review issues, lxde, or comps at the moment? | |
| tibbs | I'd be happy if review tickets blocking approved features were marked as being high priority or something. | |
| dwmw2 | we risk digressing; should we add another topic to the agenda for later, about how to improve reviews? | |
| jds2001 | notting: all of the above :) I can suspend my debate however :) | |
| nirik | notting: I don't know. | |
| bpepple | notting: we've gone a bit off-topic talking about lxde, we can steer it back to comps. | |
| dwmw2 | sorry | |
| bpepple | dwmw2: np. | |
| bpepple | alright, so back to comps. Does our current definition of what packages should be in comps need to be modified? | |
| nirik | so on comps, not sure what we can decide here and now, aside from we need a better way to make sure things that should be in there are. | |
| notting | we've traditionally delegated that to maintainers, but i don't know that we've publicized that they have that power/responsibility | |
| nirik | it's in both the Join (new packages for new maintainers) and the outline for people who already maintain adding new packages... | |
| not sure how many people (especially established maintainers) who look thru that checklist tho. | ||
| bpepple | should we send a reminder to the devel list? | |
| nirik | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/NewPackageProcess | |
| notting | there's certainly not a process or procedure for coming up with new groups, aside from the langsupport ones | |
| Kick__ | do we have a policy about not adding packages to Base without having it discussed somewhere ? | |
| Kick_ Kick__ | ||
| bpepple | Kick__: no, our policy on comps is pretty thin. | |
| https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/CompsXml | ||
| jds2001 | Kick__: that's what I said it probably needs some TLC | |
| j-rod | I've always had the understanding it was up to me as a packager to do what I saw fit for my packages | |
| jds2001 | i do propose that mandatory packages and those added to @base be discussed someplace. | |
| j-rod: it is, really. | ||
| jds2001 | that "discussion" need be no more than "hey I did this, anyone care?" | |
| dgilmore | notting: ive added two groups to comps over the last year or so | |
| spinakop | hi | |
| j-rod | however, I'd agree that anything added to @base as mandatory or default ought to have some oversight, since it bloats the size of the default install | |
| spinakop | anybody please need help | |
| j-rod | spinakop: try #fedora | |
| jds2001 | spinakop: this is the FESCo meeting, you probably want #fedora | |
| spinakop | im new to fedore and need help | |
| bpepple | spinakop: please ask your questions in #fedora. thanks. | |
| dgilmore | spinakop: the right place to ask for help is #fedora | |
| spinakop | its not much just sum 1 to tell me what i need | |
| nirik | so, anyone want to step up to update that page and we can review it next week? :) | |
| dgilmore | spinakop: please go to #fedora we are in the middle of a meeting | |
| j-rod | nirik: I'm probably game if nobody else wants it | |
| jds2001 | nirik: I'll add it to my pile o' doom :) | |
| or j-rod and I can work together. | ||
| bpepple | j-rod, jds2001: sounds like it's your. ;) | |
| j-rod | worksforme | |
| however, on that note, I need to slink away... | ||
| bpepple | j-rod: np, thanks. | |
| ok, let | ||
| 's move on... | ||
| j-rod | (which I feel guilty about, and may have something to do w/my volunteering... ;) | |
| ttfn | ||
| --- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCo - LXDE | ||
| spinakop | i have a (P4 quad core, 4gb ram, 320gb drive) and want to no what i need to run fedore as a mail server and what version is new | |
| nirik | spinakop: as others have mentioned, this is not the place... /join #fedora ? | |
| spinakop | some people charge me also for a copy of fedore where it should be free | |
| bpepple | dwmw2: ok, so where were we on this? | |
| * bpepple scrolls back to refresh his memory. | ||
| dwmw2 | we done with comps? | |
| what was next on the agenda? | ||
| can we shoe-horn in something about reviews? | ||
| bpepple | dwmw2: definitely. | |
| floors yours. | ||
| --- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCo - Reviews - dwmw2 | ||
| dwmw2 | we suck | |
| how can we encourage people to do more reviews? | ||
| * jds2001 knows that he personally sucks, too. | ||
| dwmw2 | can we set an example by expecting each FESCo member to do one a week, or something? | |
| jds2001 | sounds like a plan, about what I was to suggest. | |
| dwmw2 | and can we make them easier to do? push some of the gruntwork to the submitter | |
| bpepple | dwmw2: I'm game with that. I was also thinking of trying to lure folks in by maybe having some kind of contest for swag for reviews done. | |
| dwmw2 | like getting them to go through the review checklist. | |
| dwmw2 | we'd have to check it still, of course. | |
| jds2001 | they're already supposed to submit scratch builds, and run rpmlint, etc. | |
| actually in the triage world we're working on greasemonkey scripts for triaging. | ||
| I personally find the most tedious part is going to find the checklist and fill it out. | ||
| notting | dwmw2: well, at least start a review. can't necessarily finish them | |
| dwmw2 | how about a daily/weekly mail to fedora-devel-list with a list of the open review bugs? | |
| dgilmore | jds2001: submitting scartch builds has never been recommended. building locally in mock has | |
| dwmw2 | notting: yeah | |
| submitting scratch builds isn't always possible. But is useful | ||
| nirik | well, part of the problem is the merge reviews still sitting there... | |
| dwmw2 | those are less interesting, really. | |
| jds2001 | so I'm thinking that if we ask nicely, we can get a GM script for reviews. | |
| dwmw2 | although we should still finished them _some_ day :) | |
| nirik | GM? | |
| http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/NEW.html | ||
| bpepple | is tibbs about? he would probably be interested in this discussion. | |
| jds2001 | greasemonkey, embeddable js in firefox. | |
| nirik | what would it do? | |
| jds2001 | basically add a button to paste the review template in to a comment. | |
| dwmw2 | nirik: cute page. Can we mail it to the list periodically? | |
| nirik | merge reviews are less interesting, and have much less desire by the maintainer to care, etc. ;( | |
| jds2001 | dwmw2: I'm also willing to make an RSS feed :) | |
| nirik | dwmw2: sure, but I doubt that will do anything much... | |
| dwmw2 | whatever we think will provoke people :) | |
| jds2001 | I use feedburner for some triage bug feeds, I can add one for reviews. | |
| bpepple | I know tibbs was working on setting up a reviewers/packagers sig, it might be good to have them take the lead on this. | |
| nirik | bpepple: +1 | |
| dwmw2 | makes sense | |
| tibbs | Yes. Unfortunately my life is still somewhat in disarray and I've had no time to get back to it. | |
| bpepple | how about I take these suggestions to him, and try to kick start that group. | |
| tibbs | I'll try to contact all of the interested parties later this week. | |
| bpepple | tibbs: I'd be willing to help you out on this. | |
| * nirik is willing to help too, as time permits. | ||
| tibbs | That would be great. I'll email everyone. | |
| bpepple | tibbs: cool. thanks. | |
| anything else about reviews (other than we suck at them)? | ||
| * nirik would love to see the uberpackager/new maintainer containment finished up soon. Hopefully it will be. | ||
| bpepple | nirik: that got delayed due to the system intrusion didn't it? | |
| nirik | yeah. | |
| jds2001 | and then the change freeze | |
| don't think it's blocking on anything atm | ||
| bpepple | yeah, we should probably check with abadger1999 to see what the status of it is. | |
| ok, that's everything I had on the agenda for this week. | ||
| --- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- Free discussion around Fedora | ||
| bpepple | anything else folks want to discuss? or should we start to wrap up? | |
| * bpepple gets ready to call it. | ||
| 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!