16:00:30 #startmeeting fpc 16:00:30 Meeting started Thu Jun 21 16:00:30 2018 UTC. 16:00:30 This meeting is logged and archived in a public location. 16:00:30 The chair is geppetto. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 16:00:30 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 16:00:30 The meeting name has been set to 'fpc' 16:00:30 #meetingname fpc 16:00:30 #topic Roll Call 16:00:30 The meeting name has been set to 'fpc' 16:00:37 Howdy. 16:00:46 #chair tibbs 16:00:46 Current chairs: geppetto tibbs 16:01:07 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 redi: ok, no problem … we don't have any new tickets anyway 16:01:45 .hello2 16:01:45 ignatenkobrain: ignatenkobrain 'Igor Gnatenko' 16:01:55 #chair ignatenkobrain 16:01:55 Current chairs: geppetto ignatenkobrain tibbs 16:02:29 I got an email from decathorpe saying he was ill and wouldn't be able to make it. 16:02:37 I should have tagged 759 as meeting. 16:02:50 And churchyard posted to the list 16:03:48 Ok, if we get to quorum we can look at that first :) 16:05:21 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 Just tagged three more tickets as meeting. All three have drafts, too. 16:06:51 Should obviously have done that before the meeting. 16:07:32 doesn't look like it'll matter 16:07:41 Nothing about the forge macros; I still haven't heard from nim so I'm just going to merge the PR. 16:07:54 Is there some conference or something going on right now? 16:08:34 don't know about any 16:08:40 there are things going on inside RH … that might affect people for the next 6 weeks or so 16:09:10 for confs. there's just prep. for fudconf eu 16:09:16 Ah, well, we can always vote in tickets. 16:09:19 although that's mostly over now 16:09:37 Did you notice how fesco changed the way they vote on things? 16:09:44 no 16:10:10 #topic Open Floor 16:10:21 tibbs: how has it changed? 16:10:22 Basically, a ticket just needs three votes unless someone tags it as meeting. 16:10:35 Otherwise it doesn't get on the agenda at all. 16:10:42 And after a week, it needs only one vote. 16:10:59 hmm, seems a bit speedy for fesco … do they get that many tickets? 16:11:02 I might be bit off with how long they wait, but it's interesting. 16:11:13 geppetto: Yes, we get a lot 16:11:19 Especially during Change Proposal season 16:11:21 When I was on FESCo meetings were endless precessions of feature tickets. 16:11:41 Ahh, that makes more sense then 16:11:43 Most of which are trivial rubber-stamps, so this is meant to expedite that 16:11:53 * geppetto nods 16:12:16 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 With us it's usually about wording, though. 16:12:32 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 But otherwise, we can optimize for the common case 16:12:47 * geppetto nods 16:12:59 I'd be somewhat worried about doing that with drafts 16:13:17 esp. as people tend to send us incomplete drafts 16:13:39 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 #chair limburgher 16:13:47 Current chairs: geppetto ignatenkobrain limburgher tibbs 16:13:59 limburgher: it's fine, we are still -1 16:14:07 everyone sick or busy 16:14:18 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 geppetto, story of my life. :) 16:14:47 Currently three quick voters can get something passed immediately without other people even having a chance to read the ticket. 16:15:02 tibbs: No, not immediately. 16:15:07 The full week has to pass. 16:15:24 Ah, OK, that wasn't obvious from the description I read. 16:15:30 That may not have been clear in my email, sorry if so 16:16:04 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 (Working on removing basically all of the scriptlets from it.) 16:16:22 Anyway … anything we really need to discuss with only 4 of us? Or I'll close the meeting. 16:16:24 tibbs: I'm surprised you can type so coherently after that! 16:16:51 Would be interesting to see what opinions are on 775. 16:17:04 "Allow to have %{?suse_version} condition in spec file" 16:17:33 tibbs: IIRC you were the most opposed to having stuff like that in our specfiles before 16:17:42 Traditionally we have said that non-Fedora stuff should not be in specfiles, yes. 16:18:18 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 We expect the community of packagers to know a lot already; they can't know how suse defines macros. 16:19:04 I wrote my opinion there 16:19:29 if it doesn't pollute spec much and maintainer can maintain it -- no problem 16:19:45 if it complicates spec file (look at glusterfs), then I'm very against it 16:20:16 I would say that it does complicate the spec more than just a bit. 16:20:43 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 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 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 I mostly feel like ignatenkobrain does … not sure how to vote. 16:22:23 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 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 But there is some releationship there, obviously. 16:24:19 Now, a fun question is whether there is anything that both distros could to together to avoid this kind of thing. 16:24:38 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 we probably need a new spec language to make that worthwhile. 16:25:06 And I also note that they are already running the spec through a preprocessor. So... why does this even matter? 16:25:14 lol 16:25:31 On that note... 16:25:35 #endmeeting