13:00:40 <lalatenduM> #startmeeting ADB
13:00:40 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon Jul 18 13:00:40 2016 UTC.  The chair is lalatenduM. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
13:00:40 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
13:00:40 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'adb'
13:00:54 <lalatenduM> #topic rollcall
13:01:00 <lalatenduM> .fas lalatenduM
13:01:00 <zodbot> lalatenduM: lalatendu 'Lalatendu Mohanty' <lmohanty@redhat.com>
13:02:44 <lalatenduM> nshaikh: praveenkumar bexelbie are you guys around
13:02:49 <nshaikh> lalatenduM, yes
13:02:53 <nshaikh> .fas nshaikh
13:02:54 <zodbot> nshaikh: nshaikh 'Navid Ahmed Shaikh' <shaikhnavid14@gmail.com>
13:02:57 <bexelbie> tak
13:02:59 <bexelbie> .fas bex
13:03:01 <zodbot> bexelbie: ybexwqmxnx 'ybexwqmxnx yhdgb' <ybexwqmxnx@nowmymail.com> - lonelyibex 'fungo' <lonelyibex@gmail.com> - tqtwr 'gsafd' <mesabexudi@top1mail.ru> - moko 'moko lee' <ibex@msn.cn> - sfarr01 'Steven Farr' <sfarr@bex.net> - bexhet '' <bexhet@hotmail.it> - efjiwmos 'takagiatuko' <bexroll@gmail.com> - makubex 'Bruno Lopes de Mello' <bruno_guitarpro@hotmail.com> - tbex 'Tony Beckham' <t2yb5m@gmail.com> - mcreps 'Merl (2 more messages)
13:03:09 <bexelbie> .fasinfo bex
13:03:10 <zodbot> bexelbie: User: bex, Name: Brian (bex) Exelbierd, email: bex@pobox.com, Creation: 2014-06-12, IRC Nick: bexelbie, Timezone: Europe/Prague, Locale: en, GPG key ID: CE92EA393146330034BCAA4984733A2DBF0CAA95, Status: active
13:03:12 <zodbot> bexelbie: Approved Groups: cla_fpca cla_done docs fedorabugs docs-writers
13:03:18 <bexelbie> .hello bex
13:03:19 <zodbot> bexelbie: bex 'Brian (bex) Exelbierd' <bex@pobox.com>
13:03:22 <bexelbie> that's the one :)
13:03:41 * bexelbie wants Steven Farr's email domain :)
13:04:11 <lalatenduM> #info Please add topics in https://titanpad.com/adbmeeting
13:05:05 <lalatenduM> nshaikh: bexelbie I do not see any topic for today's meeting
13:05:22 <bexelbie> I have none
13:05:27 <lalatenduM> so if we do not get any topic we can end meeting quickly
13:05:45 <bexelbie> not after I worked so hard on roll call :P
13:06:02 <lalatenduM> bexelbie: :)
13:06:21 <nshaikh> can we discuss https://github.com/projectatomic/vagrant-service-manager/issues/347
13:06:22 <nshaikh> ?
13:06:37 <lalatenduM> nshaikh: sure
13:06:49 <nshaikh> lalatenduM, I have two points to say reg the issue
13:06:58 <nshaikh> Consider use case where we want to track the releases and group the issues resolved in particular release.
13:07:00 <praveenkumar> .fas kumarpraveen
13:07:01 <zodbot> praveenkumar: kumarpraveen '' <kumarpraveen.nitdgp@gmail.com>
13:07:25 <nshaikh> A new contributor can still create a new PR and we (maintainer) can create respective issue for the PR.
13:08:12 <nshaikh> A new contributor becoming getting involved more in the development can be guided incrementally for contributing guidelines.
13:08:33 <lalatenduM> nshaikh: RE: A new contributor can still create a new PR and we (maintainer) can create respective issue for the PR  -> do you think that is scalable
13:09:01 <lalatenduM> nshaikh: also not all PRs needs issue
13:09:28 <lalatenduM> nshaikh: we should keep guidlines simple
13:09:30 <nshaikh> agreed lalatenduM, but having issues for all the PR helps group the issues resolved in particular release.
13:09:30 <bexelbie> If our release work flow requires an issue then we should say that every PR requires and issue.  We can add a note that says that PRs without issues will have one created for them by the maintainers.  We are ok with bare PRs
13:09:36 <lalatenduM> otherwise we are making it hard for everyone
13:10:00 <nshaikh> bexelbie, +1 for approach and note about it in contributing guide.
13:10:21 <lalatenduM> Lets discuss this "Consider use case where we want to track the releases and group the issues resolved in particular release."
13:10:24 <nshaikh> lalatenduM, an issue could be a one line description as well if the PR is simple.
13:10:32 <nshaikh> lalatenduM, okay
13:11:22 <lalatenduM> nshaikh: PRs can be a start of discussion
13:11:31 <lalatenduM> thats the generic understanding
13:11:48 <lalatenduM> but we are changing that with making issue must for a PR
13:12:32 <lalatenduM> I feel creating an issue for a PR where PR is self explainable is extra work
13:13:10 <praveenkumar> +1 bexelbie point.
13:13:12 <lalatenduM> glit commit sare enough in tracking which commit came from whom and teh cause for it
13:13:19 <nshaikh> Having an issue must for a PR is okay, considering we are not imposing any guidelines for devising the issue. Consider I have a PR, which is just a fix in README, I can create an issue saying "Typo in README" and paste the line in README having typo in the issue description. I dont think its non trivial.
13:14:12 <bexelbie> The only reason to require an issue with a commit is because some tool on our side needs it
13:14:19 <bexelbie> otherwise for trivial PRs we don't need them
13:14:22 <praveenkumar> We shouldn't force to create a issue for a PR which are trivial and self explaintory.
13:14:29 <bexelbie> are we using issues to track things for the changelog or something like that
13:14:43 <bexelbie> if not only require issues on things that are being tracked for a milestone and have no PR yet
13:14:45 <lalatenduM> bexelbie: nope
13:14:47 <bexelbie> or need discussion, imho
13:14:53 <lalatenduM> we wuse git log for changelog
13:15:06 <nshaikh> lalatenduM, re: git commit - agreed! "I want to enlist all the issues (bugs and ehancements) for a given particular release, right from the github dashboard."  <-- and having the only issues tagged per release make more sense than tagging issues *and* PRs (if a PR does not have a respective issue).
13:15:25 <lalatenduM> nshaikh: but what is teh need for that
13:15:36 <lalatenduM> nshaikh: incase of bad commits you will use git bisect
13:16:13 <lalatenduM> bascially my feeling is we are trying to fix something whihc is not broken
13:16:31 <nshaikh> lalatenduM, I think this topic needs more input from the maintainers who are not part of the meeting now, viz hardy and budhram. Lets take this further on the issue itself <https://github.com/projectatomic/vagrant-service-manager/issues/347>.
13:17:38 <nshaikh> lalatenduM, do we more topics or time for open floor ?
13:17:40 <lalatenduM> sorry for comparision , but if Linux kernel, docker  can manage without it then why do we need it . Bascially I am doing teh comparision because it  sometimes make sense to see ecosystem and see how they are working
13:18:07 <nshaikh> lalatenduM, alright!
13:19:09 <lalatenduM> I have not found a single project in github in container and Vagrant ecosystem which have similar policy
13:19:23 <lalatenduM> though we should not blindly follw them
13:19:32 <lalatenduM> but it is something to think
13:19:59 <lalatenduM> and we have not got external contributions yet
13:20:12 <nshaikh> correct.
13:20:22 <lalatenduM> thats it. I do not have nay other points
13:22:15 <lalatenduM> If we do not have any other discussion lets close teh meeting
13:22:52 <lalatenduM> nshaikh: bexelbie praveenkumar I think it is worth to start a mail thread on container-tools
13:22:54 <praveenkumar> I don't have anything to discuss.
13:23:29 <praveenkumar> lalatenduM: mail thread of about ecosystem for PR's?
13:23:43 <lalatenduM> praveenkumar: about issues per PR
13:24:49 <bexelbie> ok
13:24:59 <lalatenduM> closing the meeting in 1
13:25:24 <lalatenduM> 2..
13:25:42 <lalatenduM> 3..
13:25:58 <lalatenduM> #endmeeting