16:00:13 <smooge> #startmeeting EPEL (2014-08-29)
16:00:13 <zodbot> Meeting started Fri Aug 29 16:00:13 2014 UTC.  The chair is smooge. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:00:13 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
16:00:33 <smooge> #meetingname EPEL weekly meeting
16:00:33 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'epel_weekly_meeting'
16:00:36 * Jeff_S here
16:00:43 <bstinson> hi all
16:01:04 <smooge> #topic meet and greets
16:01:15 <smooge> nirik, can you op zodbot?
16:01:15 <orionp> hello
16:01:16 <nirik> I'm here, but sick, so likely less coherent than normal if thats possible. ;)
16:01:19 <maxamillion> I'm here
16:01:31 <smooge> #topic meet and greets
16:01:48 <smooge> Not sure if I need to call the meeting something for the date or not
16:01:52 <smooge> anyway hello all
16:01:56 <maxamillion> o/
16:01:59 <smooge> hope you had a good week.
16:02:07 <maxamillion> well .... it's been a week
16:02:10 <maxamillion> :)
16:02:13 <smooge> I know that some people will be joining later in the meeting and such.
16:02:37 <smooge> Today's meeting is going to be 'shorter' than last weeks. I will be calling it at 17:00 UTC no matter what
16:02:57 <maxamillion> my tweet about EPEL7 is my most successful tweet to date in terms of retweets ... so there's something https://twitter.com/TheMaxamillion/status/505362715310039040 :)
16:03:15 <nirik> cool.
16:03:15 <smooge> Cool. I have no idea what that means :)
16:03:19 <maxamillion> anyhoo... sorry to go offtopic, just thought that was cool
16:03:20 * Ussat congratulates maxamillion
16:03:30 <maxamillion> smooge: I like to think it means people care about epel
16:03:37 <maxamillion> smooge: but I might just be overly optimistic
16:03:44 * smooge is old and can't keep his twits versus pervbooks apart
16:03:57 <maxamillion> smooge: :)
16:03:57 <smooge> or soemthing like that
16:04:13 <smooge> thanks for doing that maxamillion
16:04:17 <maxamillion> twifacespace
16:04:22 <smooge> #topic Agenda
16:04:38 <smooge> #info 1) Meet and Greets
16:04:45 <smooge> #info 2) Agenda
16:04:54 <smooge> #info 3) EPEL 7 out of beta
16:05:06 <smooge> #info 4) EPEL.<stuff> discussion
16:05:17 <smooge> #info 5) Open Flood
16:05:24 <smooge> #info 6) End meeting
16:05:37 <smooge> #topic EPEL 7 out of beta
16:05:53 <maxamillion> woot! go team! :D
16:06:01 <bstinson> +1
16:06:02 <smooge> congrats to nirik who was very sick and dgilmore who was doing other freeze stuff on getting EPEL 7 out of beta yesterday
16:06:06 <nirik> theres still a bit of bodhi work that needs to happen...
16:06:21 <nirik> (right now updates aren't working right), but hopefully soon
16:06:25 <smooge> oops
16:06:31 <smooge> oh well it could be worse
16:06:38 <nirik> indeed
16:06:38 <Jeff_S> Yep, much appreciated, thank you both
16:06:40 <smooge> we didn't delete it all
16:06:41 <avij> congrats for the release on behalf of the CentOS QA team :)
16:07:20 <smooge> #info Bodhi needs to get some work done still
16:07:31 <smooge> #info updates do not work correctly yet but will soon.
16:07:32 * nirik will be back in a min...
16:07:50 <maxamillion> nirik: any bodhi items that others can help? (I suspect not but figured I'd ask just in case)
16:07:53 <smooge> Anything people in the field using EPEL seeing that needs to be addressed?
16:07:56 <maxamillion> can help with*
16:08:30 <maxamillion> smooge: nothing that's come up, I basically live in #rhel and there's a lot of EPEL users there ... not really heard of any issues thus far
16:08:38 <smooge> maxamillion, I think it is that the channels are hard coded somewhere and so a patch needs to be done and then go through the alpha freeze process
16:08:45 <maxamillion> smooge: ahhh
16:08:51 <smooge> oh I forgot about #rhel
16:09:11 <smooge> Thanks for putting the word there
16:09:26 <maxamillion> smooge: I didn't ... probably should a little bit ... I'm #1 on the stats, for better or worse :/ ... http://www.delhage.se/rhelstats/
16:09:48 <Jeff_S> but... did anyone share this news with OEL?
16:09:51 * Jeff_S hides
16:10:09 <smooge> OEL knows all before we do it. It is an oracle
16:10:29 <Jeff_S> ;)
16:10:36 <Jeff_S> it's... something
16:10:49 <smooge> and I guess SciLinux will need an update
16:11:05 <smooge> I don't know if htey have a channel
16:11:18 <maxamillion> I would ping tdawson but he's on PTO
16:11:21 <avij> when I updated to epel-release-7-1, it moved my previous epel.repo to epel.repo.rpmsave. will subsequent epel-release updates also overwrite the existing epel.repo files? I thought the normal procedure was to create .rpmnew files if the file was modified.
16:11:28 <Jeff_S> I'm sure they have people on the EPEL lists
16:11:48 <smooge> hmmm did you edit it somewhere
16:11:55 <maxamillion> I'll send a note, I'm on their mailing lists
16:11:58 <nirik> maxamillion: the bodhi change needs to be that it looks for "EL" and it needs to look for "EL or EPEL"
16:12:02 <smooge> because a .save comes up if the file was edited
16:12:15 <avij> this might be relevant if people have, say, yum-plugin-priorities installed
16:12:35 <nirik> yeah, it should only do that if they were edited normally.
16:12:39 <avij> smooge: yes, I think I had edited it to include a "priority=xx" in there
16:13:12 <Jeff_S> hmm, is that file marked as %config ?  If so, I'd expect it to do .rpmnew if the old file had been edited
16:13:25 <smooge> one sec while I whip this out
16:13:28 <Jeff_S> For this release the URL is moving though right, so it's needed/expected
16:13:34 <avij> CentOS .repo files end up as .rpmnew files if the user's repo file has been edited in the meantime
16:13:41 <Jeff_S> but moving forward it shouldn't be replaced IMO
16:13:56 <orionp> Should be %config(noreplace) then
16:13:56 <Jeff_S> avij: yeah, that's the %config macro at work
16:14:01 <Jeff_S> oh, that
16:14:29 <nirik> the only actual change was 'gpgcheck=1' I think. ;)
16:15:01 <maxamillion> note sent to ScientificLinux community http://listserv.fnal.gov/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind1408&L=scientific-linux-users&T=0&P=14381
16:15:07 <smooge> thanks max
16:15:12 <maxamillion> smooge: certainly
16:15:19 <smooge> amillion
16:15:20 <avij> I agree that for this particular case it's perfectly okay to overwrite the file to get gpgcheck=1 in there, but I'd expect that further updates to that rpm would leave user-modified repo files intact
16:16:08 <nirik> avij: can you file a bug on epel-release? we can see what if anything we need to change?
16:16:28 <avij> nirik: will do
16:17:04 <smooge> ok any other gotchas or problems?
16:17:22 <smooge> #topic EPEL.<stuff> discussion
16:17:35 <nirik> the fedora ones are noreplace, so I suspect we just need to do that in epel-release too.
16:17:43 <dgilmore> its purposly not marked as a config file
16:17:57 <dgilmore> so when we make changes to the .repo files users get them
16:18:26 <nirik> dgilmore: is it config... just not noreplace.
16:18:33 <dgilmore> the change was to turn gpgchecking on
16:18:41 <nirik> %config /etc/yum.repos.d/*
16:18:42 <dgilmore> nirik: right thats intentional
16:18:55 <dgilmore> we want to replace it
16:18:56 <nirik> huh. fedora doesn't do it that way?
16:19:00 <dgilmore> hrrm
16:19:04 <Jeff_S> are older ones that way?  I don't like it
16:19:13 <dgilmore> it used to and I don't remeber changing it
16:19:20 <dgilmore> Jeff_S: yes
16:19:46 <Jeff_S> hmm, ok, let's discuss later and not hold up the meeting
16:20:01 <Jeff_S> dgilmore: thanks for clarifying
16:20:11 <smooge> #action Jeff_S and dgilmore and others to discuss .rpmsave issue
16:20:27 <smooge> ok back to the topic.
16:20:59 <smooge> we discussed last week about various options that could be done for EPEL.<<stuff>>. Was there any discussion between meetings we need to cover?
16:21:18 <smooge> dgilmore, nirik ?
16:21:24 <bstinson> from the last meeting: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL-faster-repo-ideas
16:21:36 <nirik> there was some more posts to the lists...
16:21:45 <nirik> otherwise I haven't had any more discussions
16:22:54 <smooge> thank you bstinson
16:23:18 <smooge> ok I saw there was a post early this morning from the stacks group. I haven't had time to respond to it yet
16:23:48 * nirik either
16:25:18 <smooge> ok so first thing I want to discuess.. set up at least short term board to help guide the new repos
16:25:26 <nirik> I'd say we should continue on the list (so we include the stacks folks that can'tmake it to this time)
16:25:50 <maxamillion> need to step afk for a second, apologies
16:26:09 <nirik> smooge: I thought we sort of did that last week... but I guess we never decided anything... you, me, dgilmore, and Evolution.
16:26:46 <smooge> I figured it was a proposal last week. I am just cementing it this week.
16:27:36 <smooge> Are there any objections to having a short term governance team containing smooge, nirik, dgilmore and Evolution?
16:28:30 <bstinson> no objections here
16:28:32 <Jeff_S> +1
16:29:01 <smooge> nirik, dgilmore ?
16:29:11 <nirik> sure.
16:29:35 <smooge> #agreed EPEL short term governance team members: smooge, nirik, dgilmore, and Evolution
16:29:38 * dgilmore doesn't feel he should say yes to himself but the others yes
16:29:50 <dgilmore> im happy to do it
16:29:54 <smooge> well I was looking for a "Fuck no I won't do it"
16:30:10 <smooge> anything else was implied agreement :)
16:30:17 <Jeff_S> heh
16:30:21 <Jeff_S> smooge: nice
16:31:03 <smooge> Evolution agreed earlier. He is out of this meeting because it is his 4 year anniversary.
16:32:06 <smooge> ok from that I hear a call to move the discussion to mailing lists to include people who could not attend this meeting due to conflicts and timezone conflicts.
16:32:51 <smooge> If we do this I would like to frame what we are moving to the mailing list so I can make a report for next weeks meeting.
16:33:18 <smooge> Looking at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL-faster-repo-ideas I see several subtopics.
16:33:26 <smooge> Do we want to focus on one for this week?
16:33:27 * maxamillion is back
16:34:05 <smooge> good news maxamillion you were not voted off the island
16:34:54 <maxamillion> \o/
16:36:14 <smooge> Does discussing policy, 3 repos or technical questions first makes sense to people or is there a pressing one that stands out?
16:36:29 <maxamillion> I see Evolution got thrown under the bus, I support this +1
16:36:45 <maxamillion> (I put that there in hopes he sees it in the chat logs ;) )
16:37:39 <bstinson> i think we should work out 1.) governance structure (which we just started), and 2.) the "Policy Questions" section before we start talking about technical solutions
16:39:45 <smooge> OK so my proposal is that the governance structure is a short term organization to set up policies and such in place. Its term will end 3 months after either new repos are setup or voted not going to happen by said board. If a longer term running board is required the previous board will set up policies for elections and such before ending.
16:40:20 <smooge> change board to committee or whatever word works best for this org.
16:40:39 <Jeff_S> smooge: sounds great to me
16:40:46 <nirik> a time limit is fine.
16:41:11 <smooge> I wanted to do that so we don't end up with a lifetime FPC or people feeling they have to be here forever.
16:42:05 <Jeff_S> according to linkedin I'm still on the epel steering-whatchamicalit
16:42:10 <maxamillion> +1
16:42:10 <Jeff_S> maybe I'll change that one day
16:42:29 <smooge> Jeff_S, probably a good idea.. in case you get called on it :)
16:42:39 <bstinson> +1, after the policies are set it would be nice to keep some sort of group around (sort of like an outreach/quasi-steering committee) as a resource for packagers
16:42:48 <Jeff_S> EPEL Steering Committee - Dishonorable Discharge
16:43:08 <smooge> EPSCO we put SCO into EPEL
16:43:34 <Jeff_S> bstinson: sure... but the same group is generally here in some unofficial capacity.  But calling it out as a resource for packagers may be useful
16:43:50 <smooge> Ok here were the list of policy issues from the wiki page
16:43:51 <Jeff_S> lol smooge
16:44:09 <smooge> How many repos? epel, epel-rolling and epel-edge?
16:44:09 <smooge> What would faster moving mean?
16:44:10 <smooge> Would packages in this be able to conflict with epel packages? Base packages?
16:44:10 <smooge> When would incompatible changes be allowed in each branch?
16:44:10 <smooge> Different guidelines for specs/packages per branch?
16:44:10 <smooge> When would a package be expired or removed?
16:44:32 <smooge> any other items that people see as must haves?
16:45:02 * nirik can't think of anything else, but my head is killing me, so I'll look later when I am well.
16:45:33 <smooge> nirik, ok no problem.. if you need to exit meeting.. I am planning on taking this all to the mailing list in 10 minutes.
16:46:03 <dgilmore> smooge: i think 2-3 repos
16:46:18 <smooge> and next week I will put to a formal meeting vote about the governance structure and any policy questions we discussed and wanted a vote on
16:47:34 <dgilmore> smooge: I think thats fine
16:48:12 <smooge> I figure that way people aren't pushed to decide when either ill or low on coffee
16:48:22 <smooge> dgilmore, thanks
16:48:58 <dgilmore> caffiene
16:49:01 <dgilmore> :)
16:49:13 <smooge> #info moving discussion of governance structure and policy to mailing list. Votes to finalize anything that feels need a vote will be next weeks meeting
16:49:47 <smooge> #topic Open Flood.
16:50:05 <smooge> OK we have ~10 minutes left. Any items for the floor?
16:50:06 <dgilmore> ponies or unicorns for all?
16:50:14 <smooge> ponicorns
16:50:19 <Jeff_S> is kbsingh around?
16:50:30 <dgilmore> Jeff_S: not today I do not think
16:50:32 <Jeff_S> also I wanted to discuss the EPEL push-to-stable policy
16:50:42 <Jeff_S> dgilmore: he mentioned he wanted to drop by, but I guess not
16:50:50 <smooge> ok Jeff_S
16:50:55 <smooge> you have the conch
16:50:56 <dgilmore> Jeff_S: what would you like to see changed?
16:51:35 <Jeff_S> It'd be nice to have a way around the two week in testing policy without explicit approval -- even if it's maybe for a group of "proven packagers" or whatever
16:52:03 <dgilmore> Jeff_S: if you get enough karma it goes stable
16:52:08 <Jeff_S> Do we have data to show that stuff actually gets tested while in "testing"? I expect it doesn't happen much
16:52:18 <dgilmore> not sure
16:52:19 <Jeff_S> dgilmore: so for a new package nobody cares about?  Or some other leaf package
16:52:33 <Jeff_S> two weeks sitting there with no feedback is pretty useless IMO
16:52:56 <Jeff_S> I understand wanting to keep EPEL stable, but it'd be nice to have a way around it in some cases
16:53:36 <dgilmore> Jeff_S: sure, maybe we can work with the qa guys to get some taskotron tasks running and allow it to go after passing some tests
16:53:40 <smooge> well I was thinking we would look at it with the epel-rolling to help get more views
16:54:29 <dgilmore> maybe we put them into a faster moving repo
16:54:37 <dgilmore> then move to epel after some time period
16:54:41 <nirik> there have been 24 karmas for el6 packages this month. pretty sad. ;)
16:54:48 <Jeff_S> heh, thanks for looking nirik
16:55:14 <nirik> previous 2 were over 50 each
16:55:22 <Jeff_S> I'd propose that one week in testing is sufficient -- isn't that the current Fedora policy?
16:55:29 <nirik> guess people who give karma moved to 7
16:55:34 <Jeff_S> hmm, maybe
16:55:47 <Jeff_S> that's actually more than I expected.  But for how many package updates was that?
16:56:14 <kbsingh> Jeff_S: hi
16:56:27 <Jeff_S> kbsingh: just wanted to ping you since I know you had something you wanted to discuss
16:56:50 <kbsingh> I've had a series of meetings that overran
16:57:04 <nirik> so in july there was 54 karmas for el6 packages, on 35 packages.
16:57:33 <smooge> Jeff_S, I will add that to policy questions on list
16:57:39 <Jeff_S> smooge: thanks
16:57:59 <smooge> #action Add time in testing to policy discussion on mailing list
16:58:05 <kbsingh> there were two things that I wanted to bring up actually, is now a good time ?
16:58:25 <dgilmore> kbsingh: yep
16:58:37 <smooge> it is open floor. I was hoping to end the meeting in 2 but will delay
16:58:43 <kbsingh> so, 1) was how do we handle overlapping content between EPEL and CentOS ( SIG's mostly )
16:59:04 <kbsingh> eg. cloud-init, we've got opennebula and cloudstack support rolled into the 0.7.5 version
16:59:07 <dgilmore> undecided, but we should look at it
16:59:31 <kbsingh> iirc, the last epel7 version was 0.7.4
16:59:33 <dgilmore> kbsingh: i dont think epel7 had cloud-init as its part of rhel
16:59:41 <dgilmore> i could be wrong
17:00:05 <kbsingh> dgilmore: its been a painful conversation - *I* think it is a part of rhel, but rhel folks seem to think they just use it for some of their stuff, and its not really RHEL
17:00:19 <dgilmore> cloud-init-0.7.5-6.el7
17:00:24 <kbsingh> the idea of RH-COMMON for 7 was floated... but is deadending so far
17:00:30 <dgilmore> there is a 0.7.5 build in epel 7
17:00:42 <kbsingh> ah interesting
17:01:18 <kbsingh> although that is going to cause some level of grief for people who use centos cloud images, unless we upstream the local patchs from here as well
17:01:32 <kbsingh> so thats an example... I am sure this is going to be more of an issue ongoing
17:01:39 <kbsingh> and we should have a plan / process to handle it
17:01:42 <smooge> so in the past, I would have said that EPEL doesn't conflict with CENTOS-Core (if its not in Extras, Plus, etc we don't conflict)
17:01:43 <dgilmore> it needs some coordinating on some level
17:01:58 <dgilmore> either remoaval from epel or package syncronisation or something
17:02:20 <kbsingh> smooge: in most cases, this isnt core content ( eg. cloud-init is CloudInstance SIG )
17:02:39 <nirik> removal might cause problems for other epel packages, but yeah...
17:02:39 <kbsingh> dgilmore: initially, if we can find a way to sync, that would be better
17:02:43 * nirik nods
17:02:48 <dgilmore> kbsingh: I am okay with that?
17:02:55 <kbsingh> the challenge is going to be patch sync.
17:03:18 <kbsingh> so this also leads up nicely to point 2) that i wanted to bring up
17:03:24 <smooge> yeah.. so in the new now.. I would like to see a feed system where sigs work on feeding stuff into EPEL-rolling/whipcrack or whatever its called
17:03:28 <nirik> if we have the same people maintaining both, they could just keep them in sync?
17:03:36 <kbsingh> while i dont know for sure myself, mikem23 noted that its possible to send karma via an api call
17:03:55 <dgilmore> yeah bodhi does have an api
17:04:04 <dgilmore> and there is a tool called fedora-easy-karma
17:04:14 <kbsingh> so what i want to propose is that we start running ci jobs for epel as well, and start sending some karma down from the ci runs
17:04:20 <dgilmore> which will provide karma for builds installed in testing
17:04:27 <kbsingh> initially it would be only rpm level, but we can easily expand that to include some functional stuff as well
17:04:54 <kbsingh> maybe we can start with simple things like 'new package upgrades previous' and 'md5's for common content in 32bit/64bit match, etc
17:05:03 <Jeff_S> I like this :)
17:05:07 <dgilmore> kbsingh: sure :)
17:05:19 <nirik> cool. whats the ci system?
17:05:45 <kbsingh> nirik: ci.dev.centos.org is where we run a few things, there is a bigger, better system under consideration..
17:05:57 <kbsingh> nirik: or, if your question was 'what' then - Jenkins
17:06:05 <nirik> ok.
17:06:30 <kbsingh> what we will need is someway to get a ping back or a call back with a url that has 2 things in it : name of package, url to just this build.
17:07:07 <kbsingh> or well, something - we dont need to solve mechanics right now. but if the idea is acceptable, then we can start working out the mechanics on a list
17:07:44 <Jeff_S> Yeah, we're running long, let's discuss on list
17:07:44 <dgilmore> kbsingh: sure, more automated testing is a win
17:07:50 <Jeff_S> I think it's a great idea
17:08:03 <nirik> yeah. we do have fedmsg possibly for that info
17:08:12 <kbsingh> right, and i think the epel group is small enough that we can actually agree to something
17:08:22 <smooge> hahahaahaa
17:08:28 <smooge> oh sorry was that out loud
17:08:31 <dgilmore> you can at least get the koji task from fedmsg, then you can get teh rest from koji's api
17:08:36 <Jeff_S> lol
17:09:27 <kbsingh> do we want to discuss some of this on centos-devel ? or epel-devel ? we have quite a few people on centos-devel and if you guys dont mind, thrashing it out there might be nice
17:09:48 <dgilmore> reminds me i need to sign up for centos-devel and raise some issues
17:10:03 <kbsingh> dgilmore: there are no issues, only features :)
17:10:08 <kbsingh> some more enjoyable than others
17:10:27 <dgilmore> kbsingh: well some features are undesirable ;)
17:11:00 * nirik is on both lists
17:11:04 <dgilmore> some of it is working out better CentOS EPEL interactions and simplifing contribution
17:12:19 <Jeff_S> I've gotta run...  will follow on list(s)
17:12:26 <dgilmore> okay
17:12:37 <kbsingh> same here. its almost 6:30pm, I'm about to be attached by a 2yr old any second now
17:12:42 <dgilmore> I think we are about at the point of wrapping up
17:12:45 <kbsingh> thanks guys
17:12:49 <avij> fyi, the aforementioned epel-release bug (if it is a bug, tbd) is at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135576
17:13:04 <kbsingh> I'll start some conversations with context and examples on those two points
17:13:23 <smooge> ok anything else?
17:13:40 <smooge> stopping in 30 seconds
17:13:57 <smooge> #topic Thanks for coming everyone. See you on the list.
17:14:12 <smooge> #endmeeting