17:07:34 <sgallagh> #startmeeting ELN (2021-03-12)
17:07:34 <zodbot> Meeting started Fri Mar 12 17:07:34 2021 UTC.
17:07:34 <zodbot> This meeting is logged and archived in a public location.
17:07:34 <zodbot> The chair is sgallagh. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:07:34 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
17:07:34 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'eln_(2021-03-12)'
17:07:34 <sgallagh> #meetingname eln
17:07:35 <sgallagh> #chair sgallagh
17:07:35 <sgallagh> #info Welcome to the inaugural meeting of the ELN Special Interest Group!
17:07:35 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'eln'
17:07:35 <zodbot> Current chairs: sgallagh
17:07:35 <sgallagh> #topic Init Process
17:07:44 <jforbes> .hello2
17:07:45 <zodbot> jforbes: jforbes 'Justin M. Forbes' <jforbes@redhat.com>
17:07:46 <cyberpear> .hello2
17:07:47 <zodbot> cyberpear: cyberpear 'James Cassell' <fedoraproject@cyberpear.com>
17:07:48 <sgallagh> .hello2
17:07:49 <michel_slm> .hello salimma
17:07:50 <zodbot> sgallagh: sgallagh 'Stephen Gallagher' <sgallagh@redhat.com>
17:07:51 <dcavalca> .hello2
17:07:53 <zodbot> michel_slm: salimma 'Michel Alexandre Salim' <michel@michel-slm.name>
17:07:55 <Eighth_Doctor> .hello ngompa
17:07:56 <zodbot> dcavalca: dcavalca 'Davide Cavalca' <dcavalca@fb.com>
17:07:58 <bookwar> .hello2
17:07:59 <zodbot> Eighth_Doctor: ngompa 'Neal Gompa' <ngompa13@gmail.com>
17:08:02 <zodbot> bookwar: bookwar 'Aleksandra Fedorova' <alpha@bookwar.info>
17:08:31 <sgallagh> #chair jforbes cyberpear michel_slm dcavalca Eighth_Doctor bookwar
17:08:31 <zodbot> Current chairs: Eighth_Doctor bookwar cyberpear dcavalca jforbes michel_slm sgallagh
17:08:56 <sgallagh> #topic Populate the initial SIG membership
17:09:09 <sgallagh> My original plan was that we'd welcome anyone who turned up for this meeting as an initial member of the SIG. Then we can work out rules on how to expand or contract the membership later.
17:09:24 <sgallagh> (Okay, I think we've replayed the relevant bits for the bot now)
17:09:31 <bookwar> sgallagh: we have also request from tstellard to count him in, even though he can not be here in person today
17:09:52 <sgallagh> #info tstellard is also a member of the SIG, though he cannot be in attendance today
17:10:31 <sgallagh> #topic Agenda
17:10:40 <sgallagh> Topics for today's meeting include:
17:10:52 <sgallagh> #info Agenda Item: Membership Rules
17:11:04 <sgallagh> #info Agenda Item: Future Meeting Plans
17:11:22 <sgallagh> #info Agenda Item: Identify a Documentation Czar
17:11:41 <sgallagh> #info Agenda Item: Relationship of ELN and EPEL
17:11:51 <sgallagh> Any other topics that people would like to add?
17:12:18 <dcavalca> I'd like to also talk about how to consume and mirror ELN composes if there's time
17:12:32 <bookwar> maybe review of important locations? docs, tracker, code..? not sure if this is a discussion item though
17:12:35 <sgallagh> #info Agenda Item: ELN mirroring and distribution
17:12:51 <sgallagh> bookwar: I think we can bundle that into the documentation topic.
17:12:58 <bookwar> ok
17:13:04 <sgallagh> If nothing else, we should have our landing page cover that
17:13:20 <sgallagh> OK, let'
17:13:23 <sgallagh> s get started
17:13:31 <sgallagh> #topic Membership Rules
17:14:23 <sgallagh> I proposed a simple, inclusive mechanism for joining the ELN SIG on the mailing list. I'll repeat it here for the record.
17:14:57 <sgallagh> #info Proposal: Anyone may join the SIG by asking to become a member. If
17:14:57 <sgallagh> no existing SIG member *opposes* that request within a week, they're
17:14:58 <sgallagh> in. If an existing SIG member opposes, we hold a regular vote at the
17:14:58 <sgallagh> next scheduled meeting as described above.
17:15:05 <sgallagh> #undo
17:15:05 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: INFO by sgallagh at 17:14:57 : Proposal: Anyone may join the SIG by asking to become a member. If
17:15:08 <Eighth_Doctor> +1
17:15:12 <Eighth_Doctor> welp
17:15:14 <sgallagh> #info Proposal: Anyone may join the SIG by asking to become a member. If no existing SIG member *opposes* that request within a week, they're in. If an existing SIG member opposes, we hold a regular vote at the next scheduled meeting as described above.
17:15:27 <Eighth_Doctor> sgallagh: +1
17:15:27 <michel_slm> +1
17:15:29 <dcavalca> +1
17:15:32 <bookwar> sgallagh: there was a comment from Matthew about adding the time limit
17:15:32 <sgallagh> (My email's newlines were getting in the way)
17:15:53 <sgallagh> bookwar: Indeed there was.
17:15:59 <sgallagh> Let's consider that separately.
17:16:00 <bookwar> "I strongly recommend at minimum a requirement for anyone who has not been active by some measure to reaffirm interest annually."
17:16:02 <bookwar> ok
17:16:13 <bookwar> then +1 on the initial proposal
17:16:26 <jforbes> +1
17:17:25 <sgallagh> cyberpear: Want to vote?
17:17:46 <cyberpear> +1
17:17:51 <sgallagh> #agreed Anyone may join the SIG by asking to become a member. If no existing SIG member *opposes* that request within a week, they're in. If an existing SIG member opposes, we hold a regular vote at the next scheduled meeting as described above. (+7, 0, -0)
17:18:16 <sgallagh> #info The first vote of the ELN SIG involved unanimous consent. This is a good beginning!
17:18:27 <bookwar> \o/
17:18:27 <Eighth_Doctor> 🙂
17:18:43 <bookwar> good start indeed )
17:18:54 <sgallagh> OK, Matthew's point is a good one: in order to avoid the membership list getting too stale, we ought to have some measure of actively reaffirming membership.
17:19:32 <Eighth_Doctor> what would that actually be though?
17:19:41 <Eighth_Doctor> because generally to me, ELN work is just fixing Rawhide stuff
17:20:02 <Eighth_Doctor> e.g. I did a lot of fixing to PipeWire for both Fedora Rawhide and ELN at once
17:20:33 <sgallagh> My suggestion is that we just pick a span (maybe January each year) for people to send an email saying they'd like to continue on the SIG.
17:20:35 <bookwar> I wouldn't add any specific metric for the activity, maybe just showing up at the meeting saying hi at least once in half a year?
17:20:43 <dcavalca> I'd say showing up to one of these meetings is probably enough affirmation
17:21:00 <sgallagh> Anyone who doesn't do so is assumed inactive and can always rejoin later, given our extremely low-effort joining rules.
17:21:14 <Eighth_Doctor> I'd probably be good with the meeting thing as a bar for that
17:21:15 <jforbes> That seems more than fair
17:21:23 <Eighth_Doctor> provided that we actually keep having meetings
17:21:31 <sgallagh> That's literally the next agenda item :)
17:21:45 <cyberpear> I don't remember... do we have a separate mailing list or just devel@?
17:22:07 <sgallagh> cyberpear: Until and unless it becomes too noisy for devel@, I'd prefer to keep it there.
17:22:15 <cyberpear> +1
17:22:16 <sgallagh> Especially since we're building from Rawhide
17:22:20 <michel_slm> +1
17:23:05 <Eighth_Doctor> +1
17:23:21 <dcavalca> +1
17:23:33 <sgallagh> OK, does anyone want to formalize the keepalive process, or should we just agree to wing it?
17:23:44 <Eighth_Doctor> let's just wing it
17:24:13 <Eighth_Doctor> the ELN SIG is a little weird compared to the rest of them in that there aren't really discrete activities we'd be doing
17:24:23 <sgallagh> OK, we'll figure out how to keep it up to date as we go
17:25:01 <sgallagh> Eighth_Doctor: I don't think that's entirely true. (Alternately: if that becomes true, this SIG is meaningless)
17:25:23 <Eighth_Doctor> sgallagh: I guess the better statement here is that I'm not exposed to anything that makes me think otherwise
17:25:44 <sgallagh> Eighth_Doctor: As a member of the SIG, you are now in a position to influence that :-)
17:25:52 <Eighth_Doctor> 😆
17:25:55 <sgallagh> But let's not side-track the agenda yet.
17:26:00 <Eighth_Doctor> sure
17:26:03 <sgallagh> #topic Future Meeting Plans
17:26:44 <sgallagh> First point: I think ELN absolutely needs to have regular meetings, but I'm uncertain about the frequency.
17:27:15 <sgallagh> I think less-frequent than monthly is prone to losing communication, but I also don't think we'll have enough topics to justify a weekly meeting.
17:27:22 <sgallagh> So I'm open to suggestions here!
17:27:36 <dcavalca> I'd rather err on more frequent meetings that we can cancel ahead if there's no agenda
17:27:40 <bookwar> bi-weekly? I think we should check on the state of things (the ELN compose and so on) regularly, and meeting is usually a good trigger for that
17:27:42 <michel_slm> the minimum is monthly, right?
17:27:43 <dcavalca> maybe biweekly is a good tradeoff?
17:27:45 <jforbes> I would likely think monthly is good, if we end up with more topics, we could do every 2 weeks or so?
17:27:49 <michel_slm> yeah, biweekly sounds fine
17:28:12 <Eighth_Doctor> every two weeks sounds fine to me
17:29:05 <sgallagh> Sounds like biweekly is generally preferred (and I was thinking about the same), so:
17:29:20 <sgallagh> Is the current time slot acceptable or should I run another WhenIsGood?
17:29:36 <bookwar> I would add the "current state of ELN compose" item to agenda as a default topic. And then anything else can be put on top of that
17:29:45 <dcavalca> the current slot works for me
17:29:47 <sgallagh> (Also: DST gets tricky this time of year)
17:29:51 <jforbes> This is acceptable for me.
17:29:55 <sgallagh> bookwar++
17:29:56 <zodbot> sgallagh: Karma for bookwar changed to 4 (for the current release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
17:30:07 <bookwar> Friday evening is not the best time for me, but other slots are even worse, so we can keep it :)
17:30:29 <Eighth_Doctor> the current slot (post-DST) works for me
17:30:42 <Eighth_Doctor> that is, 12pm EDT
17:31:21 <sgallagh> Proposal: ELN SIG Meeting will be held biweekly on Fridays at noon Eastern Time
17:31:26 <cyberpear> +1
17:31:27 <bookwar> +1
17:31:30 <dcavalca> +1
17:31:35 <sgallagh> (Following EST/EDT changes unless we vote otherwise in the future)
17:31:42 <jforbes> +1
17:31:50 <Eighth_Doctor> +1
17:31:53 <michel_slm> +1
17:31:56 <sgallagh> #info Proposal: ELN SIG Meeting will be held biweekly on Fridays at noon Eastern Time
17:32:10 <sgallagh> #agreed ELN SIG Meeting will be held biweekly on Fridays at noon Eastern Time (+7, 0, -0)
17:32:22 <sgallagh> (Woohoo, *two* unanimous votes in a row!)
17:32:53 <bookwar> another question - how do we maintain agenda?
17:33:03 <sgallagh> Good point
17:33:17 <sgallagh> Probably a good time to move into organizational topics
17:33:21 <michel_slm> Workstation uses tagged Pagure issues
17:33:31 <sgallagh> #topic Landing Page, Documentation and Ownership Thereof
17:33:48 <Eighth_Doctor> KDE SIG also uses Pagure for this
17:33:52 <Eighth_Doctor> it works very well for us
17:33:57 <cyberpear> (are we booking an hour or 30 min?)
17:34:03 <Eighth_Doctor> as does Server WG and Cloud SIG
17:34:14 <Eighth_Doctor> cyberpear: it's generally hour long booking
17:34:22 <bookwar> #link https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/eln/
17:34:25 <sgallagh> cyberpear: an hour, but good to make that explict.
17:34:32 <sgallagh> #info Meetings are scheduled for one hour
17:35:06 <sgallagh> Currently we don't have a `fedora-eln` group established on Pagure, but we do have one on github
17:35:11 <sgallagh> https://github.com/fedora-eln/
17:35:35 <sgallagh> https://github.com/fedora-eln/eln is specifically the issue tracker. I propose using tags there to establish the agenda.
17:36:01 <sgallagh> Though if everyone would prefer to move to Pagure, it's not a hill I am willing to die on.
17:36:06 <bookwar> we have initially setup repos on github, because we wanted to be able to move issues between projects, for example like fedora-ci or minimization which are also hosted on github
17:36:14 <Eighth_Doctor> not exactly a fan of using GitHub, but if everyone else wants to...
17:36:25 <Eighth_Doctor> well, only people who are member of all those orgs can do moves
17:36:28 <Eighth_Doctor> nobody else can do that
17:36:39 <michel_slm> I think it's fine to keep it where it is. I say "Pagure" to mean "issue tracker"
17:36:50 <dcavalca> likewise, I would prefer Pagure, but if the consensus is github I'll go with it
17:36:52 * Eighth_Doctor shrugs
17:36:55 <sgallagh> Eighth_Doctor: I think you can always give it away
17:37:01 <Eighth_Doctor> sgallagh: nope
17:37:06 * sgallagh shrugs
17:37:10 <dcavalca> I agree with michel_slm that the important thing is having an issue tracker in the first place
17:37:11 <Eighth_Doctor> tried that when the feature first launched
17:37:12 <bookwar> Eighth_Doctor: we have friends :)
17:37:48 <Eighth_Doctor> I prefer pagure, but I'm not going to hold a sword over everyone for it
17:38:20 <bookwar> i think we have consensus on using issue tracker and labels
17:38:25 <sgallagh> #info Proposal: ELN SIG will continue to use https://github.com/fedora-eln/eln for issue tracking and agenda tagging.
17:38:43 <bookwar> +1
17:38:47 <Eighth_Doctor> that does mean we need to collect github IDs to add to ELN org
17:38:49 <michel_slm> +1
17:38:56 <jforbes> +1
17:39:00 <Eighth_Doctor> +1 sigh
17:39:07 <michel_slm> Conan Kudo: yeah, was about to ask how we track that
17:39:15 <dcavalca> +1, conditional to adding everybody into the github org
17:39:31 <cyberpear> +1, but make sure all members are added to the org
17:39:43 <Eighth_Doctor> my +1 is conditional on that too
17:39:45 <Eighth_Doctor> naturally :)
17:40:38 <sgallagh> For clarity:
17:40:38 <sgallagh> #info Proposal: ELN SIG will continue to use https://github.com/fedora-eln/eln for issue tracking and agenda tagging. SIG members will be added to the Github organization.
17:40:47 <cyberpear> (I think I requested to be added to the FAS group way back when, but don't know if it went anywhere)
17:40:53 <michel_slm> qq: with Pagure, there's also no sync between project membership and group ACLs, right?
17:41:12 <sgallagh> cyberpear: The FAS group has not, to my knowledge, had any purpose to date.
17:41:23 <Eighth_Doctor> Michel Alexandre Salim: to date, no, but it's being worked on
17:41:45 <michel_slm> ah. it'd be a good time to revisit the issue tracker when that's possible
17:41:55 <sgallagh> #agreed ELN SIG will continue to use https://github.com/fedora-eln/eln for issue tracking and agenda tagging. SIG members will be added to the Github organization. (+7, 0, -0)
17:42:10 <Southern_Gentlem> sgallagh, sig emails is about all
17:42:28 <Eighth_Doctor> Michel Alexandre Salim: we'll see after the move to the new accounts system
17:43:09 <sgallagh> Moving on to the landing page:
17:43:35 <sgallagh> #info Proposal: The ELN SIG landing page will continue to be at https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/eln/.
17:44:06 <Eighth_Doctor> +1
17:44:07 <dcavalca> +1
17:44:17 <Eighth_Doctor> we should have eln.fp.o redirect to it
17:44:21 <michel_slm> +1
17:44:25 <bookwar> to clarify the sources are under the same org on github https://github.com/fedora-eln/eln-docs
17:44:30 <bookwar> +1 from me
17:44:38 <dcavalca> thanks bookwar, I was about to ask :)
17:44:47 <jforbes> +1
17:45:28 <cyberpear> +1
17:45:37 <bookwar> Eighth_Doctor: that's a good point. Also we don't have those ELN docs exposed on the docs.fp.org front page either
17:45:48 <sgallagh> #agreed The ELN SIG landing page will continue to be at https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/eln/ (+7, 0, -0)
17:45:48 <sgallagh> #info The sources to that page are located at https://github.com/fedora-eln/eln-docs
17:46:32 <sgallagh> Clearly there are some shortcomings with how our docs are organized and accessed today.
17:47:23 <sgallagh> Would anyone (who is not me) like to volunteer to act as our first Documentation Czar, taking ownership of doc organization and trimming stale information?
17:47:23 <Eighth_Doctor> bookwar: indeed
17:48:55 <bookwar> sgallagh: i can review the current content, but i don't think we have that much of a stale data. We have some missing data maybe, like describe the current automation, and maybe tips for common issues.
17:49:02 <sgallagh> If no one volunteers, I will nominate someone and the rest of us will vote on whether to voluntell you :)
17:49:25 <sgallagh> bookwar: I think we should ALL help to clean up the initial state, but I'm looking for someone to own it long-term.
17:50:51 <cyberpear> is it auto-published when a GitHub PR is merged?
17:50:53 <bookwar> I am not sure i understand what do you mean by ownership here, but you can sign me in for merging incoming pull requests :)
17:51:30 <bookwar> cyberpear: fedora docs site is regenerated by a cron job, and the eln sire is part of it
17:51:49 <bookwar> so it is not triggered on PR but it is updated in about hour or two
17:51:50 <cyberpear> perfect! so upon-merge, but with delay until next cron run
17:53:30 <sgallagh> bookwar: Someone taking responsibility for ensuring we don't have incorrect or outdated information in place.
17:55:23 <bookwar> I see incorrect information as a bug. So if someone finds it, they file a ticket, and then someone needs to act on it.
17:55:25 <sgallagh> OK, we're running out of time for the meeting, so let's move along.
17:55:51 <bookwar> We can do a regular review, but then i'd rather see it as a quarterly cleanup event, not a personal thing
17:55:55 <sgallagh> #topic Relationship between ELN and EPEL
17:56:18 <sgallagh> There was a *lot* of chatter about this on the devel@ mailing list
17:56:54 <dcavalca> my original idea on this was that it would be nice to be have matching EPEL composes with ELN
17:56:58 <sgallagh> My personal stance is that, while both are Fedora projects related to Enterprise Linux, that's pretty much where the similarities end.
17:57:16 <dcavalca> both to make it easier to test ELN in the real world, and potentially as a way to "seed" the next EPEL
17:57:26 * sgallagh nods
17:57:39 <Eighth_Doctor> well, EPEL isn't terribly useful in an ELN context
17:57:43 <Eighth_Doctor> we have all of Rawhide still built
17:58:04 <cyberpear> I'd like to see an ELN-extras built that includes the set of packages in the most recent EPEL or EPEL-Next
17:58:13 <michel_slm> ah, we rebuild all of Rawhide, not just the packages that will end up in the next EL? that changes things
17:58:22 <sgallagh> Eighth_Doctor: Well, ELN builds in a different configuration and with different flags.
17:58:24 <cyberpear> but maybe have that set of composed into its own repo?
17:58:31 <dcavalca> oh, I thought we rebuilt a subset of rawhide, not all of it
17:58:40 * cyberpear also thought it was a subset
17:58:40 <dcavalca> if we already do all of rawhide, that changes things
17:58:41 <sgallagh> We only build a subset
17:58:49 <sgallagh> we don't do all of Rawhide today
17:58:57 <bookwar> Eighth_Doctor: the good example is freeipa, which is ipa in ELN even though it uses the same sources from Rawhide
17:59:00 <sgallagh> However, ELN *can* still use Rawhide as an extra repo
17:59:12 <sgallagh> I think that's what Eighth_Doctor meant, but I'm not certain
17:59:12 <michel_slm> in that case, if EPEL maintainers can opt into getting built against EL that will be nice
17:59:19 <Eighth_Doctor> sgallagh: yes
17:59:26 <dcavalca> yeah, I think an opt in mechanics would be the best here
17:59:36 <Eighth_Doctor> Rawhide is already a working overlay on ELN
18:00:04 <dcavalca> Eighth_Doctor: the problem with using Rawhide is that it's going to be built with different macros, so it's not necessarily representative
18:00:11 <dcavalca> I dunno how much of an issue it'd be in practice though
18:00:18 <jforbes> There are some very small corner cases, where mixing ELN and Fedora can be hazardous, but I think even those are temporary
18:00:21 <Eighth_Doctor> in my experience, not very much
18:00:25 <sgallagh> Incorporating an EPELN (SWIDT?) is something we could explore, though it will need discussion with releng/infra
18:00:30 <jforbes> s/Fedra/Rawhide
18:00:31 <bookwar> For me the question here is the "early EPEL" a thing?  So is anyone interested in building EPEL 10 packages now?
18:00:40 <Eighth_Doctor> not a chance in hell
18:00:42 <michel_slm> SWIDT?
18:00:50 <Eighth_Doctor> software identifier tag
18:00:55 <michel_slm> ah
18:01:01 <sgallagh> (See What I Did There?)
18:01:06 <Eighth_Doctor> that too :P
18:01:16 <michel_slm> if we get to a point where ELN is installable, having EPELN might be useful
18:01:25 <sgallagh> michel_slm: Is ELN not installable today?
18:01:27 <dcavalca> I mentioned this on list, but for the record: my usecase here is taking an ELN compose and deploying it alongside CentOS Stream, as a way to do ongoing validation of what the *next* CentOS Stream will be
18:01:51 <michel_slm> sgallagh: I haven't tried, happy to hear it is
18:02:13 <Eighth_Doctor> my use-case is similar to dcavalca's, but also oriented around driving the next RHEL/CentOS Stream to have improvements and potential candidates for backporting into current EL/CS
18:02:15 <sgallagh> michel_slm: Well, it's possible it isn't installable this very second, but it HAS been installable (and I've installed it in a VM) in the past.
18:02:15 <bookwar> dcavalca: the issue here is that ELN is already a 10, but the next CentOS Stream is still 9. So are you interested in 10 or 9 at this point?
18:02:20 <dcavalca> michel_slm: planning to try that once the next agenda item is sorted out :)
18:02:29 <dcavalca> bookwar: 10
18:02:45 <dcavalca> bookwar: for 9, I understand that c9s composes will be coming out "soon"
18:02:54 <Eighth_Doctor> for some definition of soon
18:03:04 <bookwar> that's actually cool, didn't expect that 10 is so active already :)
18:03:21 <sgallagh> (We are beyond our allotted hour now; I happen to be free and can continue, but if this is an issue for others, we can move this discussion to the devel@ list)
18:03:50 <Eighth_Doctor> do we have a dedicated Matrix room?
18:03:54 <dcavalca> I can continue
18:04:08 <sgallagh> Eighth_Doctor: Soon measured in weeks, not months or geological epochs :)
18:04:45 <sgallagh> Eighth_Doctor: I created #fedora-eln a long while ago, but I didn't really advertise it.
18:05:13 <bookwar> dcavalca: so EPEL for ELN is still the Rawhide sources but built in ELN environment for the wider set than ELN itself, right?
18:05:34 <sgallagh> bookwar: That's how I was interpreting it, yeah.
18:05:50 <dcavalca> bookwar: yes, that's what I had in mind; an ELN rebuild of the set of packages that is currently in EPEL + their buildrequires
18:06:04 <sgallagh> If it was an opt-in, I think I'd be good with exploring that. We'd just need to tweak the compose process to exclude it from the BaseOS and AppStream repos.
18:06:18 <dcavalca> as mentioned above, this might be more tenable in practice if we make it an opt-in thing, at least in the beginning
18:06:23 <bookwar> sgallagh: i would do it via separate tag
18:06:47 <sgallagh> Good point; it would simplify syncing
18:07:01 <jforbes> Well, this is also going to require resources, are those resources available?
18:07:03 <Eighth_Doctor> I would never expect it to get its own branch or anything
18:07:04 <bookwar> leaving eln for the limited content, but extending out rebuild tooling to handle another target
18:07:06 <sgallagh> `koji build --target=epeln ...` :)
18:07:17 <sgallagh> jforbes: That was going to be my next question
18:07:30 <dcavalca> Eighth_Doctor: having a epeln branch could be handy to bootstrap the next epel though
18:07:30 <Eighth_Doctor> pretty much all the same principles that apply to ELN itself would have to apply to an EPELN
18:07:34 <Eighth_Doctor> no
18:07:35 <sgallagh> I think we will probably get the okay as long as we're talking about one-at-a-time opt-ins.
18:07:43 <sgallagh> Not a mass-inclusion of Rawhide thuogh
18:07:47 <jforbes> sgallagh: I am not sure that we can answer that here today
18:07:51 <Eighth_Doctor> dcavalca: the issue with that is ELN is pretty fluid
18:07:51 <bookwar> in theory the resources should be counted as EPEL resources, and there is a plan to expand EPEL afaik.
18:08:03 <Eighth_Doctor> and what winds up being in EL vs EPEL can change basically at a whim
18:08:06 <sgallagh> I'm not suggesting we can. We absolutely would need to propose this to Infra
18:08:19 <Eighth_Doctor> that could lead to all kinds of insanity if we have to retire and unretire epeln branches like nuts
18:09:08 <dcavalca> sgallagh: wrt resources, if there's ways for non-RH folks to help with this, let me know
18:09:15 <bookwar> we can define the epel-next workload in content resolver, and with some additional python scripting add it to existing eln pipelines, so it is only koji resources we should be worried about
18:09:26 <sgallagh> dcavalca: I would have to direct you to Infra about that.
18:09:51 <sgallagh> I know there are a lot of rules they have to follow
18:09:57 <Eighth_Doctor> I think if we do epeln things, we should just use content-resolver rules
18:10:19 <Eighth_Doctor> because generally speaking, fixing builds in rawhide should be our target because we have no real idea of what the final content set will actually be at branch time
18:10:30 <sgallagh> Eighth_Doctor++
18:10:36 <sgallagh> ngompa++
18:10:44 <Eighth_Doctor> 🤣
18:10:55 <sgallagh> No cookie for you
18:11:26 <dcavalca> agreed, the goal should be for fixes to end up in rawhide
18:11:53 <michel_slm> having more content be EL-ready will likely make it easier to ask for an official EPEL branch, so yeah, fixing Rawhide makes sense
18:12:30 <bookwar> dcavalca: do you have a specific set of packages you are interested in for this EPEL? how do you estimate the number of packages for that rebuild?
18:12:35 <michel_slm> do we anticipate blowbacks from maintainers who don't like their rawhide branches messed with?
18:12:43 <Eighth_Doctor> no more than they have now
18:13:00 <dcavalca> bookwar: I haven't run the numbers yet, but I can definitely make a list
18:13:02 <sgallagh> Probably, but I honestly think that's a net positive.
18:13:21 <Eighth_Doctor> there are certainly things I'd like in an "epeln" list
18:13:24 <bookwar> I think that we need to provide this functionality generally for the community, but if we provide some initial estimation that we expect 50 packages there, it might be easier to sell to the infra
18:13:24 <sgallagh> We've (Fedora Project) been trying to get people to recognize that they don't "own" their packages, they steward them.
18:13:43 <sgallagh> Active hostility to other people working on them is something we need to be discouraging.
18:14:20 <sgallagh> Suggestion: we agree to limit ourselves to a small number (50 is good) for this calendar year.
18:14:25 <Eighth_Doctor> a number of my packages that exist in EPEL and Fedora today for me, I'd like to have evaluated in ELN
18:14:39 <Eighth_Doctor> 50 is a nice, even number
18:14:42 <sgallagh> So that Infra would have time to adjust resourcing requirements for FY2022 well in advance.
18:15:02 <dcavalca> 50 + buildrequires seems reasonable
18:15:04 <Eighth_Doctor> basically, I want to get Fedora infra apps that I maintain packages for in the EPELN content-resolver
18:15:27 <bookwar> sgallagh: we have ~4000 packages in ELN now, and +-50 seems to be in that range still
18:15:27 <sgallagh> dcavalca: ehhh, that's got a little too much wiggle-room
18:16:13 <sgallagh> You'd be amazed at how many packages get pulled in if you allow ANY rust content, for example.
18:16:30 <dcavalca> sgallagh: I agree, but it's kinda hard to discuss this in the abstract
18:16:31 <bookwar> actually it is 3726 now
18:16:51 <bookwar> if we add workload to content resolver, it will calculate it for us
18:16:55 <dcavalca> I can tell you that things like rust and golang wouldn't be needed for me, at least at this point
18:17:03 <sgallagh> dcavalca: That's true, but I guess I'm suggesting that we should focus on building out our pipeline first
18:17:04 <dcavalca> but I can make an actual list with a few hours of work
18:17:08 <Eighth_Doctor> I'm mostly focused on Python and C/C++
18:17:09 <dcavalca> so I'll do that early next week
18:17:15 <dcavalca> sgallagh: fully agree there
18:17:21 <bookwar> i think it could be a great first step actually, to identify the reasonable small workload, add it to content resolver, and check the outcome
18:17:23 <sgallagh> Which is going to take some time, which also gives Infra time to prepare for a larger influx later
18:17:40 <sgallagh> dcavalca: That would be much appreciated
18:17:55 <bookwar> dcavalca++
18:17:55 <zodbot> bookwar: Karma for dcavalca changed to 4 (for the current release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
18:17:56 <sgallagh> #action dcavalca to create a first-pass at a starter set of EPELN package.
18:18:12 <sgallagh> #undo
18:18:12 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: ACTION by sgallagh at 18:17:56 : dcavalca to create a first-pass at a starter set of EPELN package.
18:18:14 <sgallagh> #action dcavalca to create a first-pass at a starter set of EPELN packages.
18:18:24 <sgallagh> (The typo was going to bug me)
18:18:30 <bookwar> are we going with that name now? :)
18:18:32 <sgallagh> dcavalca++
18:18:32 <zodbot> sgallagh: Karma for dcavalca changed to 5 (for the current release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
18:18:42 <bookwar> EPELN? :)
18:18:44 <sgallagh> bookwar: It works: Extra Packages for ELN
18:19:10 <bookwar> Also EPEL Next
18:19:19 <sgallagh> Yup, works in both directions
18:19:24 <sgallagh> So I'm good with it
18:19:36 <dcavalca> I like EPELN
18:19:45 <bookwar> is it the same thing which is discussed as epel next on the mailing list now?
18:19:47 <michel_slm> EPELN ++
18:19:55 <sgallagh> bookwar: Probably not?
18:20:00 <michel_slm> er, +1 for EPELN I mean
18:20:15 <Conan_Kudo> dcavalca++
18:20:15 <zodbot> Conan_Kudo: Karma for dcavalca changed to 6 (for the current release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
18:20:16 <michel_slm> I think epel next is epel for CentOS stream
18:20:20 <sgallagh> I think that was around how to deal with CentOS Linux being replaced by CentOS Stream
18:20:30 <bookwar> sgallagh: we better check, because I saw mentions of that, and if it means something else already we are going to be in trouble
18:21:13 <michel_slm> Carl George is driving that, I'm near 100% certain it doesn't clash (apart from the name) with EPELN here. the thought was that "stream" is overloaded
18:21:14 <Eighth_Doctor> epel-next = epel staging build for CentOS Stream
18:21:17 <michel_slm> turns out "next" is also confusing
18:21:44 <bookwar> "EPELN != epel-next" will be hard to sell
18:21:59 <bookwar> maybe they change it on the stream side
18:22:05 <Eighth_Doctor> Extra Packages for ELN
18:22:12 <sgallagh> I'm putting my foot down here. No naming debate on this meeting, please :)
18:22:20 <bookwar> sorry :)
18:22:23 <michel_slm> there's an EPEL meeting this afternoon, we should bring it up there
18:22:25 <Eighth_Doctor> 🤣
18:22:30 <Eighth_Doctor> yep
18:23:00 <sgallagh> OK, we're well over time, so I'm going to close up here, unless there are any urgent remaining topics.
18:23:11 <bookwar> let's go destroy someone else's meeting now :)
18:23:20 <jforbes> haha
18:23:45 <bookwar> sgallagh: will you be chairing the next one?
18:24:04 <dcavalca> I'll just mention https://github.com/fedora-eln/eln/issues/33 if folks have thoughts on the remaining item (consuming and mirroring composes)
18:24:08 <sgallagh> I'll default to acting as chair and find someone to fill in if I have a conflict.
18:24:16 <Eighth_Doctor> sounds gravy
18:24:28 <carlwgeorge> if there is going to be an epel for eln, i don't think i have a choice but to rename epel-next to epel-stream
18:24:38 <Eighth_Doctor> hey carlwgeorge :D
18:24:51 <michel_slm> one last thing, how will we collect GitHub IDs?
18:24:55 <sgallagh> Everything is negotiable
18:25:01 <carlwgeorge> i have almost none of the meeting context, i'm just here because michel_slm pinged me
18:25:23 <sgallagh> #action Everyone on the SIG to email me their Github IDs over the next few days.
18:25:29 <sgallagh> #undo
18:25:29 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: ACTION by sgallagh at 18:25:23 : Everyone on the SIG to email me their Github IDs over the next few days.
18:25:34 <sgallagh> #action Everyone on the SIG to email sgallagh their Github IDs over the next few days.
18:25:48 <sgallagh> #action sgallagh will update the landing page and github org with the new members
18:25:52 <michel_slm> carlwgeorge: damn, I didn't even tag your IRC nick. do you keep a watch for "Carl George" too? :)
18:26:19 <carlwgeorge> probably just "carl", i forget what highlight words i set up
18:26:58 <michel_slm> carlwgeorge: there's a plan to enable EPEL for ELN, and the obvious name, EPELN, is dangerously close to epel-next which tracks CentOS Stream
18:27:31 <sgallagh> OK, I'm closing up shop now. Thank you to everyone who joined us today.
18:27:32 <sgallagh> #endmeeting