| --- nirik has changed the topic to: FESCo special session for features | ||
| nirik | who all is here for the special session? | |
|---|---|---|
| * j-rod here | ||
| sharkcz here | ||
| nirik is here. | ||
| j-rod | may have to manually poke some folks who didn't notice the channel change | |
| j-rod | bpepple: poke, prod | |
| * j-rod pokes jwb in #fedora-kernel | ||
| jwb | i'm 1/2 here. on phone | |
| nirik | bpepple was going to be a few late. | |
| j-rod | just poked dennis | |
| * nirik notes we need at least one more to have enough people I think. | ||
| * bpepple is gets here finally. | ||
| nirik | cool... so we have 4.5 out of 9? | |
| j-rod | yep, that's what I came up w/ too | |
| didn't see any votes from jds come in via trac | ||
| nirik | yeah, me either. | |
| bpepple | So, where does that leave us? | |
| nirik | well, it would be nice to get at least one more person here IMHO | |
| j-rod | I can't remember... do we need >50% or >60% for quorum? | |
| jwb | you need at least 5 | |
| bpepple | jwb: correct. more than 50% of FESCo. | |
| j-rod | ok, that's what I thought. and then to approve anything, all 5 would have to vote +1 | |
| well, we got 5... | ||
| j-rod | just start through stuff, and anything that doesn't get +5 gets postponed? | |
| bpepple | yup. Lets' try to get through what we can. Features we can't agree upon we can then bring to the rest of FESCo on the mailing list. | |
| j-rod | hey! 6 | |
| nirik | yep. Lets go... | |
| nirik | .fesco 90 | |
| zodbot | nirik: #90 (FEATURE: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/DBusPolicy) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/90 | |
| nirik | ok, so is this a feature? | |
| j-rod | +1, seems like a kinda nasty security hole | |
| well, +1 for doing it | ||
| bpepple | I'd normally say this isn't a feature, but it's a pretty big security hole. | |
| j-rod | but yeah, I question whether this is really a feature | |
| nirik | I guess it does require a lot of coordination... | |
| sharkcz | and testing ... | |
| bpepple | I'd lean towards it is a feature, just due to how big a part of the distro dbus is. | |
| nirik | yeah, guess so. | |
| jwb | +1 | |
| nirik | +1 here | |
| bpepple | +1 | |
| sharkcz | +1 here too | |
| * bpepple thinks we have five +1's. | ||
| dgilmore | im +1 | |
| sharkcz | now it's 6 +1 | |
| nirik | ok, this feature passes. | |
| nirik | .fesco 91 | |
| zodbot | nirik: #91 (FEATURE: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/DRI2) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/91 | |
| j-rod | +1 | |
| sharkcz | yes, +1 | |
| nirik | release notes need fleshing out. | |
| bpepple | +1 here also. | |
| nirik | +1 here tho with that noted. | |
| jwb | +1 | |
| dgilmore | +1 | |
| nirik | I see +6, so this is approved | |
| nirik | .fesco 92 | |
| zodbot | nirik: #92 (FEATURE: http://tinyurl.com/bxazrx) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/92 | |
| j-rod | +1 | |
| nirik | this is cool, but the low % has me a bit worried. | |
| dgilmore | -1 65% done and it needs to land today | |
| j-rod | yeah, there's that | |
| * j-rod pings halfline | ||
| j-rod | but if the 65% is 'multiple stacks patches enabled and you can use the fingerprint stuff' and the remaining 35% is mostly the smartcard stuff, that's not bad | |
| dgilmore | if one stack works thats enough i think | |
| nirik | yeah, if halfline is around some info would be good. | |
| j-rod | I'm guessing he's down lunching. table it for now, come back to it after we go through others? | |
| nirik | sure. | |
| nirik | .fesco 93 | |
| zodbot | nirik: #93 (FEATURE: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/NetworkManagerIPv6) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/93 | |
| nirik | oh, that got pulled. | |
| nirik | .fesco 94 | |
| zodbot | nirik: #94 (FEATURE: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Radeon3DUpdate) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/94 | |
| j-rod | this is the big source of all the people complaining about 3D performance regressions, isn't it? | |
| jwb | yeah | |
| i'm +1 on this | ||
| sharkcz | +1 | |
| bpepple | +1 | |
| nirik | +1 sounds good. | |
| dgilmore | im +1 | |
| j-rod | I'm mostly for it, but would like to know that we're going to be addressing the performance hit | |
| dgilmore | id like it at 90% | |
| j-rod | I guess that's at least somewhat covered... | |
| dgilmore: I'm wondering if the remaining 20% is mostly "fix regressions" | ||
| * j-rod pokes airlied... | ||
| dgilmore | j-rod: its 2am thee | |
| there | ||
| well 2:31am | ||
| realistically it should be at 100% today | ||
| sharkcz | isn't the 100% deadline next week? | |
| nirik | well, it should be "testable" now. | |
| j-rod | +1 from me, on the assumption that the merged code is testable right now, and the remaining percentage points are 'fixing regressions' | |
| nirik | New features must be feature complete or close enough to completion by Beta freeze that a majority of its functionality can be suitably tested--the "feature is testable" | |
| ok, so thats +6, this feature is approved. | ||
| nirik | .fesco 95 | |
| zodbot | nirik: #95 (FEATURE: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/TigerVNC) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/95 | |
| sharkcz | I have some details | |
| dgilmore | didnt we have a different VNC feature | |
| j-rod | dgilmore: yep, it was TightVNC, feature page got renamed to TigerVNC | |
| i.e., this is it | ||
| nirik | which is a fork | |
| sharkcz | as I have already wrote in the mail, the feature owner is one the developers, and he paired together with few others to create a fork | |
| j-rod | but we're revisiting because of the change | |
| * dgilmore says -1 to this version | ||
| j-rod | sharkcz: so I'm assuming nothing major really changed wrt what the actual shipped code will be | |
| bpepple | Isn't this fork pretty much exactly what we approved the first time? | |
| j-rod | we'd just be using a 'tigervnc' tarball instead of tightvnc + patches | |
| sharkcz | the package is exactly the same, only with s/tightvnc/tigervnc/g | |
| nirik | well, upstream has not yet had a formal release it seems... and the package is still under review. So is is testable now? | |
| sharkcz | yes, it is testable | |
| bpepple | j-rod: right, if that is the case I don't have any issues with the rename. | |
| sharkcz | tighvnc was a post-release snapshot | |
| j-rod | well, technically, its not testable if you can't 'yum install tigervnc', right? | |
| dgilmore | j-rod: correct | |
| sharkcz | j-rod: I am going to do the review today | |
| dgilmore | why was a fork created? | |
| j-rod | cuttin' it close, eh? ;) | |
| the wiki page says "TigerVNC is RealVNC fork"... the tigervnc site says its a tightvnc fork... | ||
| sharkcz | dgilmore: https://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=alpine.LFD.2.00.0902271116020.25749%40maggie.lkpg.cendio.se&forum_name=tigervnc-users | |
| unfortunately I wasn't able to catch the developer today | ||
| dgilmore | sharkcz: to me thats really not a good enough reason | |
| but the details may be missing | ||
| nirik | so it sounds like upstream plans no release based on trunk... | |
| dgilmore: yeah, they might have been diplomatic in there and there might be more going on. | ||
| dgilmore | I guess we are missing some details that that email doesnt cover | |
| j-rod | I still don't quite understand... what's the link between TigerVNC and RealVNC and TightVNC? | |
| dgilmore | j-rod: its a fork on TightVNC | |
| j-rod | but then... why does the wiki page say its a fork of RealVNC? | |
| or is TightVNC a fork of RealVNC | ||
| and the wiki page didn't get updated correctly? | ||
| dgilmore | j-rod: the email did say TightVNC was a fork of something | |
| nirik | notting: we are talking about http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/TigerVNC now | |
| sharkcz | AFAIK TigerVNC is a fork of TightVNC and TightVNC is a fork of RealVNC | |
| jwb | so if you fork a fork, it's really not a fork of anything is it? | |
| nirik | if you fork a fork, you're forked? ;) | |
| j-rod | devil's pitchfork | |
| jwb | something like that :) | |
| nirik | in any case, I think this feature is really really close to the wire... I suppose if the package gets approved/built today it could still make it. | |
| * dgilmore still says -1 | ||
| nirik | could this package parallel install with the existing vnc? | |
| sharkcz | no | |
| j-rod | I'm of the mind that since this isn't really any different than the tightvnc feature other than in name, its fine if it actually get in today | |
| nirik | it would be nice if it could, then I would say punt it to next release and get it more testing before it became default. | |
| bpepple | j-rod: +1 | |
| notting | didn't we approve tightvnc? | |
| nirik | notting: yeah, this is a fork of that. They renamed the feature based on the new name | |
| sharkcz | the already present tighvnc obsoleted vnc from F-10 | |
| * dgilmore says we use the existing VNC feature and strongly suggest that this fork be disbanded. and that they try resolve the issues upstream to fix the issues | ||
| sharkcz | but the existing one is tighvnc | |
| nirik | right, so tightvnc is already in, but it's a release that upstream tightvnc will never make? | |
| sharkcz | probably, but I don't know the details | |
| j-rod | and in most ways, save name, is identical to tigervnc, aiui | |
| I have to assume the tigervnc folks have *tried* to resolves the issues w/the tightvnc upstream | ||
| could well end up being something like compiz->compiz & beryl->compiz | ||
| nirik | well, given that we approved the old one and it's already in, I guess I would say +1 if it's testable by today. But it would be good to hear more about why a fork is happening. ;( | |
| j-rod | ditto | |
| bpepple | +1 here also. | |
| notting | the reading of the tigervnc announcement is that tightvnc isn't ever releasing anything? | |
| j-rod | +1 for me | |
| sharkcz | +1 | |
| notting | +1 | |
| nirik | jwb? | |
| jwb | i'm ok with this one, but i dislike the confusion it has caused. +1 | |
| nirik | ok, 6 +1 and 1 -1. It passes... but note that it must finish review and be testable. | |
| sharkcz | I was telling him to put an explanation paragraph to the feature page ... | |
| nirik | back to: | |
| nirik | .fesco 92 | |
| zodbot | nirik: #92 (FEATURE: http://tinyurl.com/bxazrx) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/92 | |
| nirik | Features/MultiplePAMStacksInGDM | |
| halfline: we had some questions about how far along/completed this is... | ||
| j-rod | halfline: so there was some concern about it being listed as 65% complete | |
| heh | ||
| i.e., how testable is it right now? | ||
| what's missing, etc | ||
| halfline | so i actually bumped it up to 85% today | |
| dgilmore | what is remaining? | |
| halfline | it's not testable yet. right now it's all sitting on a git branch | |
| basically i need to finish up a few odds an ends in the gdm code | ||
| dgilmore | halfline: it needs to be testable today | |
| halfline | write the authconfig code | |
| get the authconfig code okay'd by t8m | ||
| and build packages | ||
| dgilmore | Today is Feature Freeze | |
| nirik | "New features must be feature complete or close enough to completion by Beta freeze that a majority of its functionality can be suitably tested--the "feature is testable"" | |
| halfline | well it's close, but it's not there yet | |
| dgilmore | halfline: so even a single working stack would suffice | |
| halfline | well what's in rawhide right now uses a single stack | |
| but that's not the new code | ||
| dgilmore | halfline: single stack using the new code | |
| can you land that today? | ||
| halfline | ugh, maybe | |
| I mean i could pull a mega patch from git | ||
| apply it to the srpm | ||
| build a plugin into the main package (without doing a subpackage) | ||
| by today pretty easily | ||
| that's a little groady though | ||
| dgilmore | that would make the feature testable | |
| you then get a week to do it right | ||
| if that can happen im +1 | ||
| halfline | okay i can do that | |
| bpepple | +1 | |
| notting | +1 | |
| j-rod | +1 | |
| sharkcz | +1 | |
| nirik | +1 | |
| I see 6 +1's, so this feature is approved, provided it can be testable. ;) | ||
| I think thats all the ones we had on the docket for today. Does anyone see any more or anything else we should go over? | ||
| * bpepple doesn't have anything. | ||
| * dgilmore has nothing | ||
| nirik | ok, lets call it a meeting then. Who can do the minutes/summary? | |
| sharkcz | I already did 2 rounds, so the next one please | |
| bpepple | I can do it. | |
| j-rod | I haven't done any yet, guess I could... | |
| nirik | sharkcz: I'm gonna run the cvs queue later this afternoon... ping me when that review is done so I can process it after it's approved... so it's sure to get in today. | |
| bpepple | j-rod: you want it? I'm fine with letting you. ;) | |
| j-rod | bpepple: want? no... but you've done more than enough of your share :) | |
| * mclasen finds the sekrit meeting room | ||
| j-rod | so yeah, I'll do it | |
| bpepple | j-rod: cool, thanks! | |
| nirik | thanks j-rod! | |
| ok, thanks everyone. | ||
| ---MEETING END--- | ||
| bpepple | mclasen: we just finished the meeting. was there anything you wanted to discuss? | |
| nirik: thanks for running the meeting. | ||
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.5 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!