17:00:44 <smooge> #startmeeting epel
17:00:44 <zodbot> Meeting started Fri Jan  9 17:00:44 2015 UTC.  The chair is smooge. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:00:44 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
17:00:52 <smooge> #meetingname epel
17:00:52 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'epel'
17:01:13 <smooge> #chairs smooge nirik dgilmore bstinson
17:01:28 <smooge> Nirik I believe is going to be absent
17:01:32 <smooge> Evolution is absent
17:01:51 <smooge> and dgilmore might be on snowed in absense
17:01:59 * nirik is actually here right now...
17:02:04 <nirik> but I might have to leave early
17:02:05 <smooge> #topic Roll Call
17:02:12 <smooge> nirik, I expect this will be a short meeting
17:02:17 <nirik> cool.
17:02:32 <bstinson> hi all
17:02:39 <smooge> hi bstinson
17:03:04 <smooge> #topic Old Business
17:03:30 <smooge> OK we don't have much old business from the last meeting because it was a couple of weeks ago
17:03:45 <smooge> We had the orphaning and tyll found some bugs in his script that didn't show all the orphans
17:03:52 <smooge> so we have another batch.
17:04:23 * bstinson hasn't had a chance to look through the email yet, how bad is it looking?
17:04:36 <smooge> nirik, bstinson do we want to have another orphan day or just have tyll do them when he has a chance?
17:04:48 <smooge> bstinson, it isn't any better than it was before the last one :)
17:04:54 * Jeff_S here a bit late
17:05:16 <nirik> did we say 6 weeks or something? or has the timeout already expired.
17:05:33 <smooge> nirik, most of these packages are over 6 weeks (some are 22)
17:05:48 <nirik> perhaps one last warn email and do them next week?
17:05:57 <bstinson> +1
17:06:06 <smooge> ok will send out an email and ask tyll to do them next week around Thursday?
17:06:35 <smooge> alright anyone else have any other old business?
17:07:06 <bstinson> none here
17:07:17 <nirik> nada
17:07:30 <smooge> ok next up
17:07:35 <smooge> #topic New Business
17:07:55 <smooge> we have a non-responsive maintainer issue with kanarip
17:08:21 <Evolution> ack. sorry I'm late
17:09:02 <nirik> well, last time I talked to him he was busy, but wanted to keep being co-maintainer.
17:09:05 <smooge> ಠ_ಠ
17:10:40 <smooge> nirik, did someone make Marriane the maintainer of the package?
17:11:06 <nirik> hum? I'm not sure even what package we are talking about...
17:11:09 <smooge> .whoowns perl-XML-TreePP
17:11:10 <zodbot> smooge: kanarip
17:11:39 * nirik looks
17:11:46 <nirik> .branches perl-XML-TreePP
17:11:48 <zodbot> nirik: el5 el6 epel7 f20 f21 master
17:12:02 <smooge> the email was about the above which he is sole maintainer of. I don't mind keeping him but since he is busy making someone a comaintainer makes sense
17:12:23 <nirik> they seem to own the epel7 branch
17:12:32 <nirik> so, I think they went ahead as they should have.
17:12:51 <nirik> You are supposed to ask the fedora maintainer, wait a week, if no answer:: drive on
17:13:09 <smooge> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2014-December/205902.html
17:13:39 <nirik> so, I think it all got sorted
17:13:50 <smooge> nirik, ah ok.. I did a whoowns which used to say something like epel7 (mmm)
17:14:03 <smooge> and it just said kanarip so I thought it was still waiting
17:14:05 <nirik> that might be cached.
17:14:06 <smooge> my apologies
17:14:13 <Jeff_S> So what was the problem?  Did the bug just not have the right flag set to get attention?
17:15:00 <nirik> I think they just were waiting forever, when the policy says wait a week and then just request it.
17:15:10 <Jeff_S> ok
17:15:21 <nirik> not sure how to make that any better. ;(
17:15:31 <smooge> will put that in a blog list of how to do things in EPEL
17:16:00 <smooge> ok any other new business?
17:16:09 <Jeff_S> Yeah, I don't think that's a big deal unless it's happening to a lot of requests
17:16:59 <nirik> more docs/blog posts on it should possibly help
17:18:48 <smooge> I am working on a couple.. I hope to get some time this weekend to get them out
17:19:05 <smooge> ok any other business we need to deal with?
17:19:19 <smooge> #topic Next Meeting Agenda Items
17:19:46 <smooge> Ok please put in anything we want to have in the next meeting or thought about in coming meetings
17:19:47 <nirik> there was another person asking about the epel-release permlink again
17:19:58 <smooge> yeah.. another roundtuit I need to get on
17:20:13 <Jeff_S> ++ :)
17:20:34 <smooge> I hope to look at it next week
17:20:47 <Jeff_S> Thanks
17:21:05 <bstinson> should we brainstorm some topic ideas for the CentOS-EPEL meetup at fosdem?
17:21:15 <Jeff_S> bstinson: sure, rub it in...
17:22:31 * nirik notes he will not be there, but will be around on irc if needed.
17:22:38 <Jeff_S> I've gotta run, thanks all
17:22:47 <bstinson> was hoping we could live stream it :) but i'm not sure if that's possible
17:23:23 <Evolution> yeah, sadly some of the key players won't be there
17:23:28 <Evolution> nirik, smooge, etc.
17:24:25 <smooge> yeah.. I think we are going to do better just having a public google hangout or something than try to do something at an event most can't get to
17:24:51 <smooge> not that I have been any better with some of the EPEL meetings at Flock/FUDcon when CentOS people couldn't attend
17:26:14 <smooge> so lets just say we need to come up with things for those who can make it to talk about and move on
17:27:22 <smooge> bstinson, most of the topics I would want to talk about sort of need the rest of EPEL do'ers on to better converse. Otherwise it could end up like my EPIC proposal.. lots of good ideas but no buy-in
17:29:08 <bstinson> that makes sense, it would be nice to do a hangout sometime
17:29:35 <smooge> ok lets see if we can get that arranged.
17:29:57 <smooge> anything else? I think we will lose nirik soon
17:31:26 <smooge> #topic Open Flood
17:31:36 <smooge> Ok last call on topics and things to talk about.
17:31:38 <smooge> Last call
17:31:51 <bstinson> nothing here
17:31:57 * smooge wonders if Evolution will wake up to those words
17:32:09 <Evolution> I'm here
17:32:15 <Evolution> I have nothing to contribute, but I'm here.
17:32:19 <dgilmore> sorry guys I slept in
17:32:46 <smooge> oh man.. I had a whole bar closing thing typed in too
17:32:51 <dgilmore> I should be at fosdem
17:33:14 <smooge> dgilmore, can you make the EPEL-CentOS meetup?
17:33:23 <dgilmore> smooge: should be able to yes
17:34:38 <smooge> cool. that should help answer some of the questions about build systems that will come up
17:34:59 <smooge> Evolution, do you know whats on kbsingh's mind for the meeting?
17:35:17 <Evolution> I believe interoperability.
17:35:47 <Evolution> packages that should be in epel coming from sigs, etc.
17:36:09 <dgilmore> for me its interoperability and working on finding ways to enable people to contribute to epel via either CentOS or Fedora
17:37:10 <smooge> ok I think then that if everything gets recorded we can get some stuff done then
17:38:32 <smooge> dgilmore, anything you want in the next meeting?
17:39:56 <dgilmore> smooge: we should look at the policy for branching packages from Fedora
17:40:37 <smooge> dgilmore, yes I agree. It comes up a lot
17:40:49 <dgilmore> It seems many people are not aware of it and quite a lot of people just go and request branches for packages. I had it happen to one of mine recently
17:41:32 * nirik wonders if we can somehow automate it.
17:41:56 <dgilmore> when emailing the person that branched my package they thought anyone was free to branch any package
17:42:12 <dgilmore> nirik: we should find a way to do it
17:42:40 <dgilmore> nirik: moving branching into pkgdb should give us a way to do so
17:42:43 <nirik> yeah...
17:44:02 <smooge> ok so something for me to put on next weeks agenda? Can pkdb fix all our problems?
17:44:22 <dgilmore> smooge: its work that is underway
17:45:08 <dgilmore> we probably should make sure we get all the policy right then palk to pingu and make sure we automate the checks
17:45:33 <smooge> ok so I am not clear on how policy should be worded.. any examples and I can make a pass at something for EPEL?
17:46:01 <dgilmore> i think the existing polic is fine
17:46:26 <dgilmore> we need to reaffirm it and make sure its visable and people are aware of it
17:47:04 <dgilmore> automated enforcement would help with making people aware
17:47:31 <smooge> And the exisitng policy is the one you listed in the email yesterday?
17:47:51 <dgilmore> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Getting_a_Fedora_package_in_EPEL
17:47:53 <dgilmore> correct
17:48:13 <dgilmore> packagers can opt out of epel
17:48:37 <dgilmore> in which case people can freely request a branch
17:49:18 <smooge> and from what nirik said earlier.. if the packager doesn't respond in a week they can branch anyway?
17:49:49 <dgilmore> yep
17:50:25 <dgilmore> the one thing i think we could add is that sometimes a package really doesnt make sense in epel
17:50:35 <dgilmore> and there should be a way to say so
17:50:48 <smooge> yeah
17:51:20 <smooge> ok I will ponder how to do that and come back next meeting on it
17:51:29 <dgilmore> cool
17:51:34 <dgilmore> i have nothing else
17:51:41 <smooge> ok me either..
17:51:47 <smooge> my dog says I need to walk her
17:51:51 <smooge> so ..
17:51:54 <smooge> #endmeeting