--- Topic for #fedora-meeting is Channel is used by various Fedora groups and committees for their regular meetings | Note that meetings often get logged | For questions about using Fedora please ask in #fedora | See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/FedoraMeetingChannel for meeting schedule
Topic for #fedora-meeting set by mmcgrath at Thu Mar 26 16:28:05 2009
bpepplehmm, are we having a FESCo meeting today?  I didn't see any agenda sent yesterday.
sharkczbpepple: it was sent today
bpeppleoh, that's probably why I didn't see it then. ;)
* nirik is here.
--- jds2001 has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- init
jds2001ok, im in a state of massive fail right now, sorry
nirikjds2001: no worries... it's friday at least. ;)
jds2001anyhow, who's here?
* sharkcz is here
* bpepple is here till 2, when I need to go to a work meeting.
jds2001bpepple, jwb, dgilmore, sharkcz j-rod, dwmw2, nirik
jds2001yeah, i need to split quickly too
dgilmoreyo what up
jds2001light agenda today
* notting is here
j-rod mostly here
--- jds2001 has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting - agenda at https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/report/9 - Tickets
jds2001notting: sorry i forgot you, my normal meeting ping is in google docs
and google docs is down right now apparently :(
jds2001.fesco 119
zodbotjds2001: #119 (Provenpackager Request: s4504kr) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/119
nirik+1 here
jds2001i see six +1's, so we've approved s4504kr's request.  I'll do it after the meeting.
jds2001.feco 110
jds2001.fesco 110
zodbotjds2001: #110 (Policy on Flags) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/110
jds2001so spot answered the questiosn we had here.
jds2001and abadger1999 raised some concerns, but +1 since it's better than nothing.
nirikyeah, I am +1... I think the issue that abadger2001 raised could be handled on a case by case basis
nirik(sorry, 1999, jds's nick confused me. ;)
jds2001alright we've approved the flag policy.
nirik: I'm easily confused too :)
last but not least
jds2001.fesco 126
zodbotjds2001: #126 (QEMU and KVM Merge - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/KVM_and_QEMU_merge) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/126
jds2001markmc: you around?
markmcjds2001, I am, and glommer
dwmw2it's done, right? All we're talking about is whether we _admit_ it?
nirikso this is all done, they just want it to be a feature?
jds2001the virt guys are requesting a feature freeze exception.
glommeryeah, done.
markmcyeah, the feature page just fell through the cracks
glommerand seems in good shape.
* jwb is here now
markmcforgot to pass it to poelstra
bpepplehas the qa guys weighed-in on giving an exception for this (since they would be effected).
glommerit's actually like a triangle... good shape.
markmcbpepple, affected how ?
bpepplethey would be involved in the qa testing of this feature.
dgilmoremarkmc: they would explictly test it
jds2001they havent planned or had a test day on this.
j-rodits already done though
glommerjlaska, know something about it ?
markmcjds2001, we're planning two test days to cover all f11 virt features
j-rodwe're just talking about shouting about the fact its been done
* j-rod +1 for the exception
glommerall virt features we test, end up indirectly testing it.
jds2001markmc: cool.
glommerat least the kvm part.
* notting is +1
jlaskaglommer: lemme get back to you ... walking through beta issues atm
niriksure, +1. This might also affect docs... as they have been gathering talking points and such from the features list.
bpepple+1 here also.
glommernirik, I can write a release note if needed.
jds2001i see six +1's, so we've approved this exception.
markmcnirik, it's in the draft release notes already
nirikglommer: yes, there should be a release note. :) The one on the page looks ok to me.
markmcnirik, docs folks were the one that pointed out we'd missed getting the feature approved
jds2001glommer: yeah, they're doing in depth deep dives, and some talking points for press interviews and stuff.
nirikmarkmc: cool. ;)
dgilmoreFTR /me is +1
jds2001anyone else have anything?
* bpepple has nothing.
j-rodI dop
jlaskaglommer: markmc nailed it  ... we're going to line up 2 virt focused test days https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Test_Days/F11 05-07 and 05-14
quick tho
jds2001j-rod: cool, what's up?
j-rodjust wondering if/when we should go back and re-evaluate any features we think might not actually be ready
jds2001didnt we already do that?
dgilmorej-rod: probably in the next week
jds2001: there some that need relooking at
bpeppleand some that probably need to be evaluated based on their qa testing.
jds2001next week we have hte provenpackager exceptions to look at.
jlaska: can you get me a list of such features?
j-rodwe were going to get a status update on ext4 as the default fs at some point too, correct?
jds2001(that need re-evaluated based on test day outcome, etc)
j-rod(though I think that's been relatively smooth so far)
jlaskajds2001: I haven't finalized it yet with markmc, but I'll get that as soon as possible
jds2001j-rod: sandeen gave us an update like 2-3 weeks ago
maybe you missed the meeting or were sleeping :D
j-rodI thought we were going to get one final update after beta testing though
markmcjds2001, https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:F11_Virt_Features
j-rodI'm not too concerned about ext4 though
jds2001we can get another one, but beta's not out yet :)
j-rodyeah, I know. the more concerning feature to me is the anaconda storage rewrite...
jds2001yeah, that's quite concerning, that's what caused us to slip beta.
j-rodI know they've been busy fixing stuff right and left, just hoping there isn't too much to fix still
so perhaps it would be good to invite some anaconda folks to next week's meeting
bpepplej-rod: yeah, not a bad idea.
jds2001sure, f13 has mainly been interfacing with em.
f13huge progress last week
* nirik isn't sure what we could do tho... "make it work" seems not usefull. :)
f13we're down to really some of the more fragile configurations
and we look pretty good to get beta out on Tuesday
j-rodf13: is this newer anaconda than what's currently in the tree?
nirikI suppose "how can we help or get people to help" would be something we could try and do.
j-rodbecause I can make umpteen different storage configs all go boom still
f13j-rod: no
j-rod: are you filing bugs for all of those?
j-rodjlaska: could we sneak in another anaconda storage test day?
f13anaconda gives you a nice ability to do so from the installer.
j-rodf13: I have been, yeah
jlaskaj-rod: we have a follow-up scheduled yeah
j-rodprobably 2/3 of the ones I've filed have been fixed now
j-rodfor the most part, its anything having to do with custom partitioning that goes boom
f13there are some icky areas there
but I've been doing a lot of simple custom stuff and its fine
j-rodI generally *always* do custom partitioning, so its been rather painful for me
j-rodlast night, just trying to say "take this existing partition and reformat it ext3 for /boot" died.
dgilmorej-rod: your special when it comes to storage :)
j-rodso I manually nuked the partition table
custom partitioning still blows up on that same system though (live install attempt, fwiw)
dgilmore: oh, I'm "special" in MANY ways... :)
dgilmorej-rod: wasnt going to go there.
jds2001anyhow, anything else?
nirikwe might all think about what criteria we want to use to approve exceptions to provenpackager commit.
dwmw2I was going for 'always say no'
j-rodwhat dwmw2 said...
nirikwe have some pending requests for exception...
dwmw2if anyone really fucks up, we can always revert their changes and promote an attitude of violence
bpepplej-rod: yeah, the exceptions should be *really* rare.
nottingjds2001: there were some requests for provenpackager/sponsor on the lists, and also the gnome 2.26.1 thing mclasen brought up
jds2001oops, yeah - the stuff on the list i was planning on handling next week.
or are there old ones that I'm completely failing to remember?
* nirik is also inclined to 'no' on everything, but not sure how that would go over.
jds2001i've not seen anything really compelling thus far.
nottingwell, if you really planned to always say no, what was the point in enacting the policy? just screwing with people and feeling a sense of authority?
jds2001except maybe initscripts and hwdata for the same reasons (we're upstream on both)
but even just a bump and rebuild could be useful in some (limited) circumstances.
but just because it's critical/used during boot/whatever is not convincing to me.
nirikwell, perhaps we should revisit the policy again. (on noe). There might be some compelling argument for keeping something closed.
nottingnirik: i just think that if we're saying no to all exceptions (not that i agree), there's really no point to having some waiting period, filing of tickets, etc. since we passed the policy with the waiting period, tickets, etc. last week, presumably we're expecting to approve some exceptions
jds2001: oh, re: sponsorship/provenpackager, mmaslano's ticket dates from 03/18
jds2001notting: yeah, i forgot to send it to the list though and just did that this morning.
We can deal with it now if you think that's fair
she replied and said no rush though.
* bpepple missed last weeks meeting so wasn't aware we even passed that policy. Probably need to actually read last week's IRC meeting log.
niriksure. I just don't have a clear idea of what criteria we would use to approve/disapprove a request. I agree saying no to everything makes the policy not make sense... but what criteria do we have to say yes?
j-rodhonestly, I do think *some* exceptions are fine
dwmw2the policy makes sense
f13judgement call by active FESCo members
dwmw2if we ever find a good reason to make an exception, we can
f13judgment that is
jds2001it leaves room for exceptions, doesn't actually require us to make any.
maybe something that we don't know about right now.
nottingwell, one that comes to mind is 'legal reasons' (ff/tbird/etc)
* sharkcz thinks that crypto stuff is a candidate for exception ...
jds2001it's sorta like the flag policy in that regard - default to no, exception are case by case.
niriknotting: whats the legal thing there? oh... name trademarked so upstream has to approve changes?
jds2001sharkcz: they've not requested exception, though. But if they did, I wouldn't have an issue with it.
yeah, the trademarked stuff makes sense too.
nottingnirik: yes
* nirik nods.
jds2001but I've yet to see a request from them, either.
as of now, I remember lvm, popt, ethtool, hwdata, initscripts and that's it.
jds2001anything else on that topic? The silence is deafening :)
nirikwell, do we want to vote on the pending ones now? or save them for next week?
dgilmorejds2001: most of those requests were not by the maintainer correct?
jds2001notting requested his
.whoowns popt
zodbotjds2001: robert
nottingethtool came from a co-maintainer. others seem to be from the maintainer?
jds2001ethtool is open right now.
I'm not inclined to take a request to close it :)
especially when it didn't come from teh maintainer.
bpepplewhat was the reasoning for wanting an exception?
dwmw2I'd probably accept a request from firefox or thunderbird. All else I'd reject unless I see much better arguments than I've seen so far
jds2001used during boot, I think.
nottingoh hrm
jds2001: do you know how many/if any of your mails bounced due to owner == a mailing list (with wacky post rules)?
jds2001due to that, none
due to non-existant accounts, some.
dgilmoredwmw2: i agree
jds2001I can forward the bounces to the list.
nottingthere also may be surprise b/c i don't see either of the last two meeting summaries on-list
jds2001yeah, who's doing it this week?
bpeppleI think it's my turn.
nirikgiven that, perhaps we should push it out a bit more...
jds2001well, each  of the maintainers got an email (supposedly)
nottingwell, the mail said we'd decide at the 2009-04-03 meeting. so i suppose there's no harm in not deciding on any ahead of them
bpepplewhat about mclasen's question?
jds2001reszo is one of the ones who didn't
mclasenbpepple: it was really just informational
bpepplemclasen: ah, ok.
* notting doesn't have a problem with it.
jds2001mclasen: i dont see a problem with requesting a tag through rel-eng
nottingmclasen: are you likely to have tarballs pre-freeze?
* bpepple didn't have a problem with it either.
mclasenjust didn't want anybody to be surprised when we build a bunch of bug fix releases right around devel freeze time
mclasennotting: they usually start to appear one or two days earlier
but there's always some latecomers
nottingmclasen: and does upstream gnome.org care if they hit rawhide before the 'official' date?
nottinggood, sounds pretty simple then
mclasenok, cool
* bpepple needs to get ready to go to another meeting.
jds2001alright, anything else or put a fork in it?
bpeppleput a fork in it.
nirikidle query: should we require this not allow installing non-free stuff: bug 485596 ? Feel free to add opinions there. ;)
buggbotBug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=485596 medium, low, ---, kevin, ASSIGNED, Review Request: phoronix-test-suite - A Comprehensive Linux Benchmarking System
jds2001i will opine there :)
* jds2001 ends the meeting in 15
jds2001 ends the meeting in 10
jds2001 ends the meeting in 5
jds2001-- MEETING END --

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