| --- jds2001 has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- init | ||
| jds2001 | FESCo meeting ping -- bpepple, dgilmore, dwmw2, jwb, notting, nirik, sharkcz, jds2001, j-rod | |
|---|---|---|
| * notting is here | ||
| * bpepple is here. | ||
| * sharkcz here | ||
| dwmw2 | fish | |
| * nirik is here. | ||
| jds2001 | before we get started, does anyone have objections to the mail I sent to f-devel yesterday right after the agenda? | |
| * jwb is here | ||
| bpepple | jds2001: which message was that? | |
| nirik | about the summaries? | |
| jds2001 | bpepple: saying that our "shared minutes" thing has devolved into failure. | |
| jds2001 | yeah | |
| bpepple | jds2001: agreed (noting that I was the one the dropped the ball last week). | |
| notting | i would agree. the idea could work, but it wasn't clear to me from week to week whose turn it was | |
| jds2001 | I hate signing up for more work, but it's not *that* much more work. | |
| yeah | ||
| anyhow | ||
| --- jds2001 has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting - agenda at https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/report/9 - Tickets | ||
| jds2001 | .fesco 118 | |
| zodbot | jds2001: #118 (Asking for sponsoring status (+ provenpackager): mmaslano) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/118 | |
| jds2001 | so this was quite...interesting. | |
| jds2001 | so i guess we should split it into 2 | |
| and discuss guidelines for each, which we may need to finally write down. | ||
| so let's do provenpackager first | ||
| +1 | ||
| sharkcz | +1 | |
| bpepple | +1 | |
| nirik | +1 | |
| notting | this is what lead to patrice writing up some approval guidelines? | |
| jds2001 | yeah | |
| nirik | https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-April/msg00067.html | |
| jds2001 | oh, i missed it on f-devel | |
| * jwb is now not here (phone call) | ||
| j-rod is now not not here | ||
| jds2001 | j-rod: :D | |
| * dgilmore is here | ||
| notting is +1 on mmaslano for provenpackager | ||
| jds2001 | OK, I see five +1's, so we've approved mmaslano's request for provenpackager. I'll add her after the meeting. | |
| Now on to the more contentious - sponsor. | ||
| jds2001 | anyone? | |
| * nirik re-reads the emails | ||
| bpepple | Ralf had some concerns about not having done many package reviews didn't he. | |
| s/./?/ | ||
| jds2001 | yeah, I think so. | |
| * jds2001 digs up the thread too | ||
| nirik | yeah. They have done 66 reviews, mostly merge reviews. | |
| * nirik checks his eyes. ok, not mostly, but some merge reviews. | ||
| bpepple | Patrice also had some concerns about mmaslano being able to guide the sponsoree to do the best choices in packaging and reviewing. | |
| jds2001 | yeah, i saw that number too. Ralf had a concern of quality, and it being too much too fast. | |
| and that to. | ||
| * nirik is on the fence. Either a cautious +1, or a "come back in a month or two with more experence", not sure which. ;) | ||
| jds2001 | as j-rod mentioned last week, a cautious +1 should likely be a -1, come back in a month or so. | |
| bpepple | nirik: yeah, I'm also not really sure. If anything I guess I'm in the come back in a month or so. | |
| jds2001: agreed. | ||
| * jds2001 too | ||
| j-rod | crystal ball says: ask again later | |
| nirik | yeah. | |
| j-rod | flex your newfound provenpackager power a bit first | |
| * dgilmore says ask again later | ||
| jds2001 | -1, come back in a month or two. | |
| dgilmore, j-rod: do I take those as -1? | ||
| bpepple | -1 here also. | |
| j-rod | sure | |
| * notting was leaning +1. although i don't think that can carry now in any case | ||
| jds2001 | anyone else? | |
| dgilmore | jds2001: yes | |
| sharkcz | +1 | |
| jds2001 | so far I see 2 +1, and 4 -1. | |
| nirik: was your vote -1 from "yeah"? | ||
| * jds2001 didnt count that | ||
| nirik | sorry, phone call. Yeah, I am ok with -1 for now, and revisit in a month or so. | |
| jds2001 | np | |
| OK, so I see five -1's, so we've declined marcelas sponsor request. I will add her to provenpackager after the meeting though. | ||
| jds2001 | .fesco 125 | |
| zodbot | jds2001: #125 (New sponsor request - kasal) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/125 | |
| bpepple | this was the request that was a pre-emptive for any changes we make to provenpackager wasn't it? | |
| jds2001 | yeah, if i recall | |
| * jds2001 looking | ||
| nirik | yeah. | |
| jds2001 | and answering questions about autotools, etc. | |
| nirik | yeah, but they can do that now just fine. | |
| jds2001 | yeah, i fail to see what becoming a sponsor would do for that. | |
| dgilmore | i think +1 to provenpackager and -1 to sponsor | |
| jds2001 | .fasinfo kasal | |
| zodbot | jds2001: User: kasal, Name: Štěpán Kasal, email: skasal@redhat.com, Creation: 2007-03-26, IRC Nick: kasal, Timezone: Europe/Prague, Locale: en, Extension: 5101401, GPG key ID: 05909B88 | |
| jds2001: Approved Groups: cla_done fedorabugs packager cvsl10n cla_redhat cla_fedora cvsspecspo ols provenpackager | ||
| jds2001: Unapproved Groups: None | ||
| nirik | they are already provenpackager. ;) | |
| dgilmore | he is already provenpackager | |
| nirik | -1 to sponsor from me. If they would like to start doing more reviews and sponsoring new contibutors, come back and we will revisit. | |
| dgilmore | -1 to sponsor. he indicated that he did not really wantto sponsor people | |
| jds2001 | -1 here too | |
| j-rod | -1 as well | |
| sharkcz | -1 | |
| notting | -1, but not based on his body of work (which is fine) | |
| jds2001 | i see seven -1's, so we've declined kasal's request. | |
| jds2001 | .fesco 113 | |
| zodbot | jds2001: #113 (wanna-be provenpackager - caolanm) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/113 | |
| jds2001 | +1 | |
| bpepple | belated -1 (kasal) here also. | |
| j-rod | +1 | |
| sharkcz | +1 | |
| nirik | +1 to caolanm | |
| dgilmore | +1 | |
| bpepple | +1 to caolanm | |
| jds2001 | i see six +1's, so we've approved caolanm's request. | |
| notting | +1 | |
| jds2001 | ok, seven :) | |
| jds2001 | .fesco 127 | |
| zodbot | jds2001: #127 (Request provenpackager - stahnma) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/127 | |
| jds2001 | +1 | |
| notting | +1 | |
| sharkcz | +1 | |
| bpepple | +1 | |
| dgilmore | +1 | |
| nirik | +1 stahnma | |
| jds2001 | i see six +1's, so we've approved stahnma's request. I'll add him after the meeting | |
| let's do the only non-ACL thing next | ||
| jds2001 | .fesco 129 | |
| zodbot | jds2001: #129 (FPC report - 2009-03-31) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/129 | |
| jds2001 | +1 | |
| * jds2001 steps away for a sec | ||
| jds2001 | back | |
| nirik | the second of those seems to be missing content. | |
| jds2001 | missing? | |
| nirik | Here are the contents of a sample .desktop file (comical.desktop): (nothing) | |
| jds2001 | oh, that's on the guidelines page already | |
| nirik | oh, it's just a change to an existing doc | |
| sorry. | ||
| jds2001 | thought one question i have | |
| dgilmore | +1 to both | |
| jds2001 | is why would anyone do this in a spec file | |
| nirik | +1 to both. | |
| jds2001 | rather than as a SourceX: | |
| sharkcz | +1 to both | |
| jds2001 | doesnt incredibly matter, but just wondering. | |
| notting | +1 to both | |
| nirik | I guess to have less files to deal with? ie, if you unpack it somewhere you just have the spec and don't need to cp around the .desktop? | |
| bpepple | +1 to both. | |
| jds2001 | i see six +1's, so we've approved both FPC proposals. | |
| jds2001 | .fesco 10 | |
| zodbot | jds2001: #10 (Review list of non-provenpackager committable packages) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/10 | |
| jds2001 | I think the exception requested here was initscripts | |
| * jds2001 reads the ticket to see if there were others. | ||
| nirik | I would like to move we don't open things until next week at least... to give time for people to see the missing meeting summaries and comment before it happens. | |
| dwmw2 | makes sense. there's no massive rush | |
| jds2001 | seems reasonable. | |
| dwmw2 | I'm disinclined to approve initscripts | |
| having waited for months to get a simple fix for ifcfg-foo applied :) | ||
| the world won't end if provenpackers can commit to it | ||
| * notting has had bad history with people committing broken patches to it, and having to clean it up | ||
| jds2001 | notting has a point that changes to that should be upstream, but I agree the world won't end if they're upstream in a bit. | |
| dwmw2 | giving provenpackager access doesn't mean that we have to encourage people to _use_ it | |
| notting | ... then... what's the point? | |
| jds2001 | exactly. and we're all human. | |
| I broke fp.o DNS last night. Should I no longer work on infrastructure stuff since I messed up? | ||
| or learn from my mistakes and move on? | ||
| dgilmore | jds2001: being a cards fan is punishment enough | |
| bpepple | jds2001: just beaten severely. ;) | |
| jds2001 | dgilmore: :) | |
| notting | maybe i'm confused. i thought the point of provenpackager wasn't patching upstream; it was making things builds, fixing dependencies, etc. | |
| jds2001 | yep | |
| sharkcz | I have heard an opinion that rawhide should be open to all and only releases should work with ACL | |
| jds2001 | i would be disinclined to put a non-emergency patch in anything | |
| (like X won't build without this patch) | ||
| sharkcz: aiui, only the maintainer can submit an update in bodhi. | ||
| lmacken: is that still true? | ||
| notting | ergo, i'm not understanding dwmw2's reasoning - hell, i've waited for years for various kernel interfaces to not be crap, but it doesn't mean i should have write access to directly add patches to linus's tree | |
| sharkcz | jds2001: but rawhide updates doesn't go thru bodhi | |
| jds2001 | sharkcz: right, i was just saying that would be de facto how it is. | |
| how you were suggesting. | ||
| nirik | ok, so where are we here... | |
| jds2001 | good question :) | |
| * jds2001 got distracted by someone at my desk :D | ||
| nirik | I guess it depends on if we want to grant exceptions for sensitive packages which have a history of bad commits being done? or ? | |
| jds2001 | that's something of a slippery slope. | |
| though I guess if history needs to be one of the indicators, then I'm fine with it. | ||
| * jds2001 doesnt expect a flood of commits starting next week or anything, either :) | ||
| nirik | on the one hand I doubt there would be any non maintainer commits to it... on the other if we open it there well could be. | |
| dwmw2 | I agree that it's a slippery slope | |
| notting | i'll be fine with whatever is voted - i'll obviously recuse myself from this particular one. i just found dwmw2's reason specios. especially since he had arch maintainer status already and could have committed if he felt that strongly about that reason, but didn't :P | |
| dwmw2 | I'm inclined to concede that it's necessary for firefox and thunderbird, and deny just about anything else | |
| notting: actually I don't. ppc isn't secondary yet :) | ||
| and last time I waited for ages was a long time ago, anyway | ||
| it was just an example of when it would have been useful | ||
| nirik | do we need to vote on initscripts now? or just defer? I'm fine either way. | |
| * jds2001 would like a vote on all of these today if possible, | ||
| notting | but i can live with it. the situations where i've had to clean up broken stuff in the past isn't likely to reoccur the same way in fedora in any case | |
| j-rod | who *does* have commit access to initscripts if its !provenpackager ? | |
| jds2001 | .whoowns initscripts | |
| zodbot | jds2001: notting | |
| jds2001 | and seocndary arch folks | |
| notting | j-rod: maintainer, co-maintainer, secondary arch teams, cvsadmin | |
| jds2001 | and cvsadmin | |
| nirik | https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/initscripts | |
| and agk, mitr, harald | ||
| jds2001 | yeah, i need to hack something into supybot-fedora to tell me comaintainers :D | |
| * dwmw2 votes -1 to all applications except the ff/tb/xulrunner one | ||
| nirik | I'm inclined to say -1, and if provenpackagers commit broken stuff we deal with them, or it more then. | |
| jds2001 | yeah, -1 here too | |
| * sharkcz agrees with dwmw2 | ||
| notting | are we voting per-request? | |
| nirik | lets do them one at a time? or ? | |
| dwmw2 | notting: we can do them one at a time. | |
| jds2001 | i have it split up that way. | |
| notting | ok | |
| * notting abstains from initscripts vote | ||
| jds2001 | i see four -1's, and one abstention, so we've declined closed ACL's on initscripts. | |
| dgilmore | im inclined to say +1 to initscripts | |
| bpepple | -1 here also. | |
| dgilmore | just because if you get it wrong lonts of machines might not boot | |
| nirik | dgilmore: yeah, but also the case with tons of other packages. | |
| dwmw2 | I bet I can fuck up _any_ package to the extent that it'll prevent the machine booting :) | |
| dgilmore | nirik: sure. bootloaders, kernel etc | |
| notting | is kernel still closed? | |
| j-rod | 0 for me | |
| dgilmore | dwmw2: but your a special case | |
| nirik | dwmw2: indeed. | |
| jds2001 | notting: they didnt request it be closed. | |
| dgilmore | there is a reson we put you in a white padded room ;) | |
| dwmw2 | :) | |
| * nirik suspects there may be more requests when people read the meeting summaries. | ||
| jds2001 | and i dont think the kernel guys are in favor of it being closed anwyways. | |
| bpepple | I think davej has stated that he didn't want the kernel open, but I could be wrong. | |
| jds2001 | did he? | |
| dwmw2 | nah. When they see we told them all to piss off, they won't bother asking | |
| bpepple | jds2001: I thought so, but my memory could be faulty on that. | |
| dwmw2 | remember, just because a provenpackager _can_ commit, that doesn't mean they _should_ | |
| Perhaps we should make it clearer that this is not intended to signal a free-for-all. | ||
| bpepple | dwmw2: agreed. | |
| dwmw2 | that people should still be wary of touching others' packages, and should never do it without consulting | |
| jds2001 | i think that's already covered in policy. | |
| dwmw2 | I know, but I think the people who are wanting to close their packages may be losing sight of it (or be concerned that others are) | |
| notting | what's the next request? | |
| bpepple | wouldn't hurt to reiterate that point in the meeting summary just to remind folks. | |
| jds2001 | https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Who_is_allowed_to_modify_which_packages | |
| dwmw2 | provenpackagers who commit to other packages without even _trying_ to coordinate with the owner should expect censure | |
| jds2001 | sure thing. | |
| * jds2001 next. | ||
| jds2001 | oops | |
| next. | ||
| jds2001 | .fesco 121 | |
| zodbot | jds2001: #121 (Keep popt and ethtool non-provenpackager committable) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/121 | |
| notting | -1 | |
| jds2001 | -1, there's lots of other things that could break. Just because a lot of stuff requires it doesn't mean anything, really. | |
| nirik | -1 | |
| sharkcz | -1 | |
| bpepple | -1 | |
| dgilmore | -1 | |
| j-rod | -1 | |
| dwmw2 | -1 | |
| jds2001 | i see eight -1's, so we've declined popt and ethtool | |
| jds2001 | .fesco 124 | |
| zodbot | jds2001: #124 (Re: Packages with closed ACL's - LVM related items) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/124 | |
| dwmw2 | -1 | |
| jds2001 | -1, same as before. | |
| sharkcz | -1 | |
| j-rod | -1 | |
| nirik | -1 | |
| notting | -1 | |
| bpepple | -1 | |
| jds2001 | i see six -1's, so we've declined this request. | |
| jds2001 | .fesco 128 | |
| dgilmore | -1 | |
| zodbot | jds2001: #128 (Firefox/Thunderbird/XULRunner closed ACL's) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/128 | |
| jds2001 | +1, legal reasons. | |
| sharkcz | +1 | |
| notting | +1 for mofoco things | |
| dgilmore | +1 | |
| bpepple | +1 | |
| nirik | +1 I guess. ;( | |
| jds2001 | i see six +1 | |
| 's, so we've approved this request | ||
| jds2001 | .fesco 122 | |
| zodbot | jds2001: #122 (keep closed ACLs for hwdata package) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/122 | |
| jds2001 | -1, caveat that it shouldn't be touched, we don't want to diverge from the canonical list. | |
| sharkcz | -1 | |
| nirik | I have problems picturing why a provenpackager would touch this package... | |
| dgilmore | -1, if someone does touch it they should make sure to get there changes upstream | |
| nirik | -1 in any case | |
| notting | nirik: right. it can't possibly be broken in a way that provenpackager would need to touch it | |
| but -1, in that also if a provenpackager did touch it, they couldn't possibly break other software | ||
| bpepple | -1 here also. | |
| jds2001 | i see six -1's, so we've declined this request. | |
| That's all I've got. | ||
| --- jds2001 has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- Open Floor | ||
| jds2001 | anyone got anything else? | |
| nirik | do we want to approve patrices changes to the wiki: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-April/msg00067.html ? | |
| jds2001 | sure, I've got no problems with them. | |
| bpepple | I'm fine with what Patrice came up with. | |
| notting | yeah, they looked good | |
| nirik | yeah, I liked them too. | |
| dgilmore | +1 | |
| sharkcz | +1 | |
| jds2001 | i see five +1's, so we've approved patrice's wiki changes, for whatever that's worth (it *is* a wiki after all :) ) | |
| * nirik had nothing else. close meeting early? :) | ||
| jds2001 | sounds good. | |
| * jds2001 closes the meeting in 30 | ||
| * jds2001 closes the meeting in 15 | ||
| jds2001 | -- MEETING END -- | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.5 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!