16:00:30 <geppetto> #startmeeting fpc 16:00:30 <zodbot> Meeting started Thu Jun 21 16:00:30 2018 UTC. 16:00:30 <zodbot> This meeting is logged and archived in a public location. 16:00:30 <zodbot> The chair is geppetto. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 16:00:30 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 16:00:30 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fpc' 16:00:30 <geppetto> #meetingname fpc 16:00:30 <geppetto> #topic Roll Call 16:00:30 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fpc' 16:00:37 <tibbs> Howdy. 16:00:46 <geppetto> #chair tibbs 16:00:46 <zodbot> Current chairs: geppetto tibbs 16:01:07 <redi> I'm afraid I have something very high priority to work on at the moment and won't be "attending" this meeting today, sorry 16:01:34 <geppetto> redi: ok, no problem … we don't have any new tickets anyway 16:01:45 <ignatenkobrain> .hello2 16:01:45 <zodbot> ignatenkobrain: ignatenkobrain 'Igor Gnatenko' <ignatenko@redhat.com> 16:01:55 <geppetto> #chair ignatenkobrain 16:01:55 <zodbot> Current chairs: geppetto ignatenkobrain tibbs 16:02:29 <geppetto> I got an email from decathorpe saying he was ill and wouldn't be able to make it. 16:02:37 <tibbs> I should have tagged 759 as meeting. 16:02:50 <geppetto> And churchyard posted to the list 16:03:48 <geppetto> Ok, if we get to quorum we can look at that first :) 16:05:21 <tibbs> It's not a big hurry as the updated macro package hasn't hit any stable release, though everything is live in koji. 16:06:39 <tibbs> Just tagged three more tickets as meeting. All three have drafts, too. 16:06:51 <tibbs> Should obviously have done that before the meeting. 16:07:32 <geppetto> doesn't look like it'll matter 16:07:41 <tibbs> Nothing about the forge macros; I still haven't heard from nim so I'm just going to merge the PR. 16:07:54 <tibbs> Is there some conference or something going on right now? 16:08:34 <ignatenkobrain_> don't know about any 16:08:40 <geppetto> there are things going on inside RH … that might affect people for the next 6 weeks or so 16:09:10 <geppetto> for confs. there's just prep. for fudconf eu 16:09:16 <tibbs> Ah, well, we can always vote in tickets. 16:09:19 <geppetto> although that's mostly over now 16:09:37 <tibbs> Did you notice how fesco changed the way they vote on things? 16:09:44 <geppetto> no 16:10:10 <geppetto> #topic Open Floor 16:10:21 <geppetto> tibbs: how has it changed? 16:10:22 <tibbs> Basically, a ticket just needs three votes unless someone tags it as meeting. 16:10:35 <tibbs> Otherwise it doesn't get on the agenda at all. 16:10:42 <tibbs> And after a week, it needs only one vote. 16:10:59 <geppetto> hmm, seems a bit speedy for fesco … do they get that many tickets? 16:11:02 <tibbs> I might be bit off with how long they wait, but it's interesting. 16:11:13 <sgallagh> geppetto: Yes, we get a lot 16:11:19 <sgallagh> Especially during Change Proposal season 16:11:21 <tibbs> When I was on FESCo meetings were endless precessions of feature tickets. 16:11:41 <geppetto> Ahh, that makes more sense then 16:11:43 <sgallagh> Most of which are trivial rubber-stamps, so this is meant to expedite that 16:11:53 * geppetto nods 16:12:16 <tibbs> I wouldn't go that far in FPC, but I can see the point for trying to get everyone to just vote in tickets and to avoid too much discussion in meetings. 16:12:32 <tibbs> With us it's usually about wording, though. 16:12:32 <sgallagh> Any FESCo member can, within that first week (or the second, if fewer than three votes have occurred) mark it as "meeting" and then it has to have a quorum vote after discussion 16:12:43 <sgallagh> But otherwise, we can optimize for the common case 16:12:47 * geppetto nods 16:12:59 <geppetto> I'd be somewhat worried about doing that with drafts 16:13:17 <geppetto> esp. as people tend to send us incomplete drafts 16:13:39 <geppetto> but I can def. see it being a help if we had a lot of rubber stamp things. 16:13:42 * limburgher here, late 16:13:47 <geppetto> #chair limburgher 16:13:47 <zodbot> Current chairs: geppetto ignatenkobrain limburgher tibbs 16:13:59 <geppetto> limburgher: it's fine, we are still -1 16:14:07 <geppetto> everyone sick or busy 16:14:18 <tibbs> Personally I think the FESCo policy is overly speedy and should either add a week of "soak time" at the beginning of the process, or delay "acceptance" until some period of time after the last vote was received. 16:14:39 <limburgher> geppetto, story of my life. :) 16:14:47 <tibbs> Currently three quick voters can get something passed immediately without other people even having a chance to read the ticket. 16:15:02 <sgallagh> tibbs: No, not immediately. 16:15:07 <sgallagh> The full week has to pass. 16:15:24 <tibbs> Ah, OK, that wasn't obvious from the description I read. 16:15:30 <sgallagh> That may not have been clear in my email, sorry if so 16:16:04 <tibbs> To be fair, I've been buried in texlive for the past three days and so I can't think very well. 16:16:20 <tibbs> (Working on removing basically all of the scriptlets from it.) 16:16:22 <geppetto> Anyway … anything we really need to discuss with only 4 of us? Or I'll close the meeting. 16:16:24 <sgallagh> tibbs: I'm surprised you can type so coherently after that! 16:16:51 <tibbs> Would be interesting to see what opinions are on 775. 16:17:04 <tibbs> "Allow to have %{?suse_version} condition in spec file" 16:17:33 <geppetto> tibbs: IIRC you were the most opposed to having stuff like that in our specfiles before 16:17:42 <tibbs> Traditionally we have said that non-Fedora stuff should not be in specfiles, yes. 16:18:18 <tibbs> My argument is that we want specfiles to be maintainable and testable within Fedora without having to know what other distros need. 16:19:02 <tibbs> We expect the community of packagers to know a lot already; they can't know how suse defines macros. 16:19:04 <ignatenkobrain_> I wrote my opinion there 16:19:29 <ignatenkobrain_> if it doesn't pollute spec much and maintainer can maintain it -- no problem 16:19:45 <ignatenkobrain_> if it complicates spec file (look at glusterfs), then I'm very against it 16:20:16 <tibbs> I would say that it does complicate the spec more than just a bit. 16:20:43 <tibbs> The problem with "if it doesn't pollute spec much and maintainer can maintain it -- no problem" is that you need to decide what you mean by "maintainer". 16:21:32 <geppetto> Yeh, the problem with ignatenkobrain's position is that it degrades to "yes" … as maintainer of horrible specfile will say it's fine. 16:21:36 <tibbs> Yes, the people who want to add it presumably know why it's there. But I don't, and so that basically becomes yet another spec that most of us can't touch. 16:22:22 <geppetto> I mostly feel like ignatenkobrain does … not sure how to vote. 16:22:23 <tibbs> I wouldn't want to say much more than "we would prefer that you didn't, but we can't stop you". 16:22:34 * geppetto nods 16:23:33 <geppetto> I've certainly added a bunch of stuff to specfiles for just "CentOS X", and it obviously made the Fedora side less readable. 16:24:10 <geppetto> But there is some releationship there, obviously. 16:24:19 <tibbs> Now, a fun question is whether there is anything that both distros could to together to avoid this kind of thing. 16:24:38 <tibbs> But looking at https://github.com/abrt/abrt/blob/master/abrt.spec.in, I suspect that there is little which could help with those differences. 16:24:44 <geppetto> we probably need a new spec language to make that worthwhile. 16:25:06 <tibbs> And I also note that they are already running the spec through a preprocessor. So... why does this even matter? 16:25:14 <geppetto> lol 16:25:31 <geppetto> On that note... 16:25:35 <geppetto> #endmeeting