21:00:24 <tdawson> #startmeeting EPEL (2020-09-25)
21:00:24 <zodbot> Meeting started Fri Sep 25 21:00:24 2020 UTC.
21:00:24 <zodbot> This meeting is logged and archived in a public location.
21:00:24 <zodbot> The chair is tdawson. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
21:00:24 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
21:00:24 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'epel_(2020-09-25)'
21:00:26 <tdawson> #meetingname epel
21:00:26 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'epel'
21:00:27 <tdawson> #chair nirik tdawson bstinson Evolution pgreco carlwgeorge
21:00:27 <zodbot> Current chairs: Evolution bstinson carlwgeorge nirik pgreco tdawson
21:00:29 <tdawson> #topic aloha
21:00:36 * pgreco waves
21:00:41 <tdawson> Hi pgreco
21:00:55 <nirik> morning
21:01:00 <tdawson> Hi nirik
21:01:34 <carlwgeorge> howdy folks
21:01:43 <bstinson> hey all
21:01:44 <tdawson> Hi carlwgeorge
21:01:47 <tdawson> Jo bstinson
21:02:07 <tdawson> Sorry ... fingers slipped one set of keys over
21:05:28 <tdawson> Hmm ... I thought michel_slm would be here
21:05:38 <nirik> he was a few ago. ;)
21:05:43 <tdawson> Well, let's get started and maybe he'll make it back
21:05:52 <tdawson> #topic Old Business
21:05:53 <tdawson> epel8-playground
21:06:29 <tdawson> Just a status update here.  I got all the package.cfg files removed from all the epel8 dist-git repo's
21:06:45 <tdawson> Next week will be getting the package list and untagging them.
21:06:49 <nirik> did you get any angry emails from it? :)
21:07:03 <tdawson> Didn't get a single email.
21:07:10 <nirik> nice
21:07:33 <tdawson> I think most people won't even notice for a month or two.
21:08:13 <tdawson> When I untag the packages from the repo ... then I expect some emails.
21:08:18 <nirik> well, it will cause a merge commit when/if they merge from master right?
21:08:23 <pgreco> I know I didn't, I'll see it on the next merge
21:08:44 <pgreco> nirik: yeap, another one
21:08:50 <tdawson> Yep ... so until people do things, they won't notice.
21:08:56 <nirik> thats what I expect the angry email for. ;)
21:09:07 <nirik> but oh well, they can deal.
21:09:11 <tdawson> Yep
21:09:18 <pgreco> well, there's no going back now
21:09:27 <pgreco> after the inclusion I mean
21:09:44 * nirik nods
21:09:51 <tdawson> Next old business topic - epel8-next
21:10:06 <tdawson> carlwgeorge: I'll turn the time over to you.
21:11:13 <carlwgeorge> I had a brainstorming session with nirik and mboddu the other day, putting together the steps for actually executing the plan
21:11:40 <carlwgeorge> other than that, it's just a question of voting on it I suppose
21:12:25 <nirik> you were gonna send an email with steps? or was that already the case?
21:12:26 <carlwgeorge> I sent an example workflow to the list if anyone hasn't seen it yet
21:12:36 * nirik needs to catch up on emails
21:12:41 <carlwgeorge> haven't sent the steps email yet
21:13:04 <tdawson> I saw the workflow, it seemed logical.
21:13:26 <carlwgeorge> I don't mind delaying the vote until we give the steps bake time on list
21:13:52 <tdawson> Good idea
21:14:14 <michel_slm> .hello salimma
21:14:15 <zodbot> michel_slm: salimma 'Michel Alexandre Salim' <michel@michel-slm.name>
21:14:32 <michel_slm> I totally forgot to come back here from devconf :p
21:14:33 <tdawson> Hi michel_slm
21:14:39 <carlwgeorge> at this point, does anyone have concerns with how next is shaping up?
21:14:55 <nirik> seems fine to me.
21:14:55 <pgreco> I think we are all pretty much on the same page
21:15:06 <pgreco> we just need the final version to rubber stamp
21:15:12 <tdawson> carlwgeorge - From an package maintainer view, it seems logical and good.  I'd like to see the steps though
21:15:21 <pgreco> at least, that's where I'm at
21:15:40 <carlwgeorge> yup, I have a draft of steps I just need to polish into an actual email
21:16:12 <tdawson> Sounds good.
21:16:21 <carlwgeorge> some of it will be vague and hand wavy just because I've never personally done it, but it'll be a great time to learn
21:17:06 <tdawson> We can fill in the details in discussion ... don't have to worry to much about that.
21:17:22 <tdawson> Anything else that needs to be discussed here before we move on?
21:17:36 <carlwgeorge> I don't believe so
21:17:54 <tdawson> carlwgeorge: Thanks for doing all of that.
21:18:11 <tdawson> Moving on to epel-packaging-sig ... michel_slm, did you want to take the floor?
21:18:33 <michel_slm> Sure, it will be brief
21:18:48 <michel_slm> #topic epel-packaging-sig
21:18:53 <michel_slm> wait, is that #info?
21:19:14 <nirik> either, but you need to be added as a chair...
21:19:25 <nirik> #chair michel_slm
21:19:25 <zodbot> Current chairs: Evolution bstinson carlwgeorge michel_slm nirik pgreco tdawson
21:19:35 <michel_slm> ok, so based on the discussion over the past few weeks, I've requested epel-packagers-sig as the name of the FAS group and a mailing list.
21:19:47 <michel_slm> #info epel-packagers-sig ACL and mailing list have been created by smooge
21:20:07 <nirik> how can folks join? :)
21:20:39 <michel_slm> next step is probably that, exactly. putting up a wiki page ... and deciding how to manage membership
21:20:39 <pgreco> can we auto join the people here?
21:21:09 <michel_slm> I think the people here should be added yes.oh, you mean make the FAS membership recursive?
21:21:18 <michel_slm> nirik: is that possible? if not I can add people manually
21:21:45 <nirik> not sure what you mean...
21:22:16 <nirik> oh you want to add all of a group to another group? no, there's no way to do that aside from manually adding each one...
21:22:29 <michel_slm> can members of one FAS group automatically be member of another. ah ok
21:22:40 <michel_slm> plus I'm not sure if there's a FAS group for "EPEL SC members" anyway
21:23:10 <nirik> there's not that I am aware of.
21:23:25 <tdawson> Not that I know of either.
21:23:32 <nirik> you can make being added to one group add you to another one automatically, but you still need the add event
21:23:35 <michel_slm> so ... how about anyone who wants in here let me know and I'll add you?
21:24:01 * pgreco waves at michel_slm
21:24:04 <tdawson> michel_slm: I'm in, put me on the list
21:24:07 * nirik would like to be added.
21:24:28 * carlwgeorge raises his hand
21:25:40 <michel_slm> ok, will add. next -- maybe we can start by granting access to the packages we already comaintain and see how that works
21:26:27 <michel_slm> this was the infra ticket: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/9345
21:26:47 <tdawson> Sounds like a good next step.
21:26:48 <nirik> sure, I'm happy to add a bunch... I might keep a few of the more complex ones back to start with...
21:27:00 <michel_slm> nothing else from my end. maybe there are questions, otherwisewe can move to the next topic?
21:27:24 <michel_slm> oh, and one last thing
21:27:47 <michel_slm> #info I'll start a Pagure project to keep track of needed actions (e.g. steps that will be nice to automate)
21:28:39 <nirik> or do we want to just use the existing epel one?
21:28:50 <michel_slm> that works for me, sure
21:29:19 <nirik> we aren't using it too much, so I would think it would be fine to use for the sig too? unless anyone objects...
21:29:21 <tdawson> Any questions before we move on?
21:29:46 <michel_slm> #info epel-packagers-sig issues to be tracked in existing epel pagure
21:31:05 <tdawson> michel_slm: Thank you so much for all your efforts with the sig.
21:31:18 <tdawson> Moving on to the next topic.
21:31:22 <nirik> yeah, I hope it gives a nice influx of folks working on things. :)
21:31:33 <tdawson> #info EPEL-6 is End of Life in 2020-11. It will be moved to archives in 2020-12
21:31:34 <tdawson> #info THIS IS NOT A DRILL - Less than 2 months left
21:31:46 <nirik> oh, I have a epel6 question...
21:32:06 <tdawson> Starting next week, I'll start sending out emails once a week.
21:32:26 <tdawson> nirik: OK ... though I was going to ask you the same question.
21:32:33 <nirik> asking for a friend. :) If someone is using an epel6 container... when epel6 goes EOL does that disappear from the registry? or stick around just with no updates? anyone know?
21:33:20 <tdawson> I do not know.
21:33:28 <bstinson> an epel6 container?
21:33:41 <nirik> rhel6 sorry
21:33:42 <tdawson> Though ... if I were them, and I needed it to remain, I'd make sure i had it downloaded now.
21:33:57 <nirik> or centos6 I guess? will that stay?
21:34:18 <nirik> tdawson: yeah...
21:34:53 <bstinson> on the CentOS side, we've typically left EOL tags out there on dockerhub
21:34:55 <nirik> anyhow, we can move on, I just thought I would ask if anyone knows.
21:35:07 <nirik> bstinson: ok, great to know. thanks.
21:35:21 <bstinson> though, i'd like to clean those up *sometime*
21:35:32 <tdawson> My question was this ... when in November is it EOL ?
21:36:02 <tdawson> Just found the answer November 30
21:36:06 <bstinson> 30-Nov-2020 is the official EOL date
21:36:07 <bstinson> yes
21:36:23 * nirik nods.
21:36:48 <nirik> on the epel side we archive things, remove all the koji targets, etc... but the repos stay up on archives.
21:36:48 <tdawson> So ... maybe I'll hold off on the weekly emails until November.
21:36:49 * bstinson suggests striking the bells at midnight
21:37:01 <tdawson> :)
21:37:27 <tdawson> #topic EPEL-7
21:37:48 <pgreco> tdawson: thanks for removing those packages!
21:38:06 <pgreco> now the reports look clean, hehe, no 3 digit days
21:38:13 <tdawson> :)
21:38:35 <tdawson> It does look better.  Feels good.
21:38:53 <nirik> I have some help to ask about on a epel7 package, but perhaps the list is better for that.
21:39:38 <tdawson> Possibly.  We might know the answer, but that way others would be able to see it easier.
21:40:12 <tdawson> Any other EPEL7 stuff?
21:40:23 <nirik> well, I need several packages branched/built. no biggie.
21:40:29 <nirik> Will file bugs/bug the list
21:40:29 <pgreco> nirik: throw a teaser of that in #epel
21:41:03 <tdawson> #topic EPEL-8
21:42:04 * michel_slm looks for the issue he wants to bring up
21:42:28 <pgreco> tdawson: nodejs
21:42:36 <tdawson> Another module with the same branch showed up ... I've got a ticket for it to be removed ... but just showed me that I need to get that bodhi gating things up.
21:42:56 <nirik> we did.
21:43:57 <nirik> the check was wrong, or the exclude was wrong.
21:44:04 <nirik> needed to be el8, not epel8
21:44:23 <nirik> it should be fixed now moving forward.
21:44:33 <pgreco> thanks
21:45:10 <michel_slm> so nirik reviewed my proposed change to epel-rpm-macros to pull in lua-srpm-macros for epel8. is it fine to change this for epel7 too? I won't bother with epel6 since, EOL. https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/epel-rpm-macros/pull-request/23
21:45:41 <nirik> michel_slm: sure, fine with me.
21:45:52 <nirik> I need to push builds for another set of PRs anyhow
21:45:53 <michel_slm> nirik++
21:46:09 <nirik> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/epel-rpm-macros/pull-request/25 and https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/epel-rpm-macros/pull-request/24
21:47:16 <nirik> I guess there will be conflicts now. anyhow, will work on that after this meeting
21:48:05 <tdawson> Anything else EPEL8 ?
21:48:40 <tdawson> #topic EPEL-9
21:48:55 <pgreco> ohh, fancy new topic
21:48:58 <tdawson> :)
21:49:23 <tdawson> It was actually brought up about a month ago .... but the real question is, when do we want to start planning on EPEL8?
21:49:30 <tdawson> EPEL9
21:49:57 <pgreco> we're 6 months away from branching, right?
21:50:03 <pgreco> sort of
21:50:27 <nirik> well, depends on how we do things...
21:50:51 <nirik> for 7 we setup things at beta and had a 'rawhide epel7' until centos7 came out
21:50:56 <michel_slm> 6 months sounds fast. that's... basically around the time F34 is branched?
21:51:07 <nirik> for 8 the module changes were too much and we only had epel8 after we got that worked
21:51:34 <pgreco> I meant in RHEL, branching from ELN/F34
21:51:38 <nirik> we have eln now we could try and build against, but it might be a bit of a moving target.
21:52:01 <nirik> then there's centos stream 9 when it exists. Then beta.
21:52:03 <tdawson> If we go against ELN, I'd prefer we do a snapshot.
21:52:18 <pgreco> yeap, snapshot of ELN as tentative RHEL
21:52:33 <pgreco> we can update the snapshot if/when necessary
21:52:50 <nirik> that sounds like a lot of work to me. ;)
21:53:26 <pgreco> yeap, that's why I suggested it
21:53:26 <tdawson> Probrubly is, and that might be too early.  What about when it reaches Beta stage?
21:53:44 <michel_slm> we should try and get the auto-branching policy for epel-packagers sorted out before then to
21:53:46 <michel_slm> *too
21:54:14 <tdawson> Very good point.
21:55:16 <pgreco> 1) auto-branching policy ASAP
21:55:17 <pgreco> 2) infra (between ELN branching and beta)
21:55:17 <pgreco> 3) Soft opening (beta)
21:55:29 <nirik> I think beta is a sane point...
21:56:43 <tdawson> We're almost out of time ... anything else before we close?
21:58:27 <tdawson> OK ... good discussions ... and good outcomes.  We've almost got both playground and the sig in place, and next is coming along.
21:58:49 <tdawson> Thanks everyone for coming.
21:58:58 <tdawson> Talk to you next week, if not sooner.
21:59:10 <tdawson> #endmeeting