20:00:21 #startmeeting EPEL (2021-03-31) 20:00:21 Meeting started Wed Mar 31 20:00:21 2021 UTC. 20:00:21 This meeting is logged and archived in a public location. 20:00:21 The chair is tdawson. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 20:00:21 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 20:00:21 The meeting name has been set to 'epel_(2021-03-31)' 20:00:22 #meetingname epel 20:00:22 The meeting name has been set to 'epel' 20:00:24 #chair nirik tdawson bstinson pgreco carlwgeorge michel_slm 20:00:24 Current chairs: bstinson carlwgeorge michel_slm nirik pgreco tdawson 20:00:25 #topic aloha 20:00:50 .hi 20:00:51 dcavalca: dcavalca 'Davide Cavalca' 20:00:55 .hello salimma 20:00:56 michel_slm: salimma 'Michel Alexandre Salim' 20:01:11 morning 20:01:12 be there in a few mins 20:01:52 * carlwgeorge waves 20:02:01 Hi dcavalca 20:02:08 Hi michel_slm 20:02:12 Hi nirik 20:02:16 Hi carlwgeorge 20:02:52 tdawson: put me down for an open floor item today 20:03:27 carlwgeorge: will do 20:04:44 hi all! 20:05:14 #topic Old Business 20:05:29 michel_slm Just in time for EPEL-Packaging-SIG 20:06:02 Does anyone know if the "collaborators requesting branches" stuff has made it into production? 20:06:05 IIRC last we left it we have one remaining issue with Bodhi (collaborators can't create updates) 20:06:20 that needs a new bodhi release right? 20:06:22 related: do we know which version it will be in? 20:07:11 here 20:07:18 Hi smooge 20:08:06 Do we have a place where we list what packages the SIG is maintaining? (or wants to maintainer) 20:08:17 michel_slm: the next one? but we need to get someone to do a release, and I am not sure who that is currently 20:08:36 tdawson: not that I know of, but that would definitely be useful 20:08:54 tdawson: for what we actually maintain, I guess we can look at Pagure. for what we want to maintain... yeah, what's the best way of tracking it? 20:09:39 the wiki has a query for finding stale branch requests, but that's more a starting off point, I suspect there are things we would like to have but are not there yet, and not all of the requests we'd care about 20:09:59 I think we could do that in pagure, maybe one file for ones we are maintaining, one for where we've asked if we can maintain it. 20:10:07 and some may want to do things themselves... 20:10:23 https://src.fedoraproject.org/group/epel-packagers-sig 20:10:51 * dcavalca looks for a request to join button 20:10:58 looks like ... right now it's really only two packages. what's complicated is there are some that we maintain individually but we're only granted commit/collaborator access so we can't add epel-packagers-sig to the ACL 20:11:37 it'd be good to formalize what we expect maintainers to do here, and write it up somewhere 20:11:58 I had a few tickets where I had to walk the maintainer through adding me in pagure, and then fixing it because they botched the ACL or something like that 20:12:11 yeah. I think we were blocked for a while on the workflow we want (use collaborator access on epel* branches) not actually working 20:12:11 hi everybody, sorry for the delay 20:12:22 Hi pgreco 20:12:32 but once we have that we should work on a standard template for requesting access 20:12:48 Yep 20:12:57 related issue: the issue Davide noticed that the template for ACL in Pagure incorrectly lists el* branches. I need to debug why my PR failed CI 20:12:58 * carlwgeorge waves at pgreco 20:13:28 or Pingou won't merge it (and he is a bit busy with migration stuff). hopefully I can repro by running the test script locally 20:14:25 well I can merge it myself, but CI keeps failing :( 20:14:33 baby crying, I'll lurk 20:14:38 oh crap, CI failure is blocking merge? 20:14:43 Yep 20:14:53 are other PRs broken too or just this one 20:14:56 technically I can override it, but the errors seem serious 20:17:02 irritatingly, Jenkins keeps wiping the logs shortly after the job is done, so I don't know if all of them are affected the same way or not 20:17:04 but there are a few failing right now 20:17:10 uh oh 20:17:20 FAS migration related? 20:17:29 since it seemed related to credentials 20:19:51 So, back to the part of listing packages we are working on, as well as those already done ... it looks like if they are already being maintined by the sig, they are listed here - https://src.fedoraproject.org/group/epel-packagers-sig ... so we just need a place to list the ones we are asking for. 20:20:17 yup 20:20:34 wiki page? space off pagure.io ? 20:20:37 dcavalca: I tried adding you but the add button broke 20:20:50 Do we think putting it in a file here somehwere ? https://pagure.io/epel/ 20:21:07 yeah, a file is probably best for now. we're trying to kill off the wiki, right? 20:21:19 Hopefully in a couple months the wiki will be changed to real docs, so I'd like to keep it in the pagure git repo 20:21:24 yeah 20:21:36 Yep 20:21:42 we can start having this file be in asciidoc so it can be easily added to the new site 20:22:15 Good idea, then it can be and actual doc, that get's updated. 20:22:33 sure. +1 20:22:38 +1 20:22:45 need to change diapers, pleae go ahead without me 20:22:53 Sure thing 20:23:00 Anything else for the SIG before we move on? 20:23:45 Moving on - epel8-next 20:24:03 waiting on https://pagure.io/fedpkg/pull-request/429 to be merged 20:24:38 humf. ;( 20:25:08 * nirik piles on 20:25:33 That green merge button continues to taunt me. pressing on it does nothing for me. 20:25:59 tdawson: I feel less alone, but I kinda knew I couldn't merge that 20:26:10 :) 20:26:24 i mean it's not technically blocking, we could proceed with koji/bodhi changes without it, i just haven't bugged nirik or mboddu for time to implement those yet with this pr not finished 20:26:38 It's usually greyed out, or not shown ... I think. 20:28:26 carlwgeorge: Well, maybe we could go ahead and get the koji/bodhi changes in ... that way when this get's merged, it can be properly tested in a real request. 20:28:32 * michel_slm is back 20:28:57 yup, i'm gonna try to steal mboddu off other work soon to do that 20:29:15 is there a Pagure enhancement request for not showing that green button unless you have permissions to merge? the first time I see it it's super confusing 20:29:26 carlwgeorge: Its not mid way yet :P 20:29:30 Anyway, I am here now 20:29:33 * mboddu reading back 20:29:36 Hi mboddu 20:29:41 i've been told epel stuff is "not part of our team remit" so i haven't been successful in getting it added as a card 20:29:42 Hi tdawson 20:29:59 mboddu: this isn't even what warned you about, that's later during open floor 20:30:09 :) 20:30:12 so ignore the pings 20:30:13 * mboddu runs away when he has the chance :P 20:30:46 anyways, nothing really new for epel-next, we can move on 20:31:00 queueing topic for open floor since I missed the packagers SIG window 20:31:01 OK, moving on. 20:31:29 As far as I can tell, that's it for old business 20:31:34 #topic EPEL-7 20:31:50 I haven't seen any EPEL7 stuff this past week. are w ok here? 20:32:31 carlwgeorge: you were retiring one package, right? 20:32:43 with your new superpowers? 20:32:55 yes but i don't remember which one it was 20:33:07 whatever it was, it went smoothly, nothing to report 20:33:29 Moving on 20:33:35 #topic EPEL-8 20:33:43 at some point i should write some automation to find all packages in epel that are now in rhel, i think i forgot about a few that were added in 8.3 that i never circled back on 20:35:06 it's really not easy to automate. ;( 20:35:06 Related to that, my request that they open a bug, instead of an email, was approved, and I *think* it might be in their documentation at this point. 20:35:20 tdawson: nice 20:35:24 Meaning when they are adding packages to RHEL. 20:35:44 in the future... shouldn't we be able to tell because there'll be a c8s repo? 20:35:52 or... is that not always going to be true? 20:36:27 It should always be true, that's for RHEL8, and should move on to 9 as well. 20:36:53 I'm hoping they automate it, instead of just document it. that way it will be more consistent. 20:37:10 but it's tricky as we agreed a package shouldn't be retired from epel until it's in rhel proper, and it could be in cs 6-8 months sooner than that 20:37:33 Correct, but with a bug, vs an email, it's easier to track and not forget. 20:37:37 at least that should teach them to push a 'newer' version. ;) 20:38:38 Anything else for EPEL8, before we move to open floor? 20:39:08 #topic General Issues / Open Floor 20:39:13 hmm. maybe we should consider tagging the git repos when the package first enters a stable EL release, that way we can based automation off that 20:39:33 carlwgeorge: you had the first open floor topic, I think 20:39:36 carlwgeorge: You're first. 20:40:36 * mboddu waiting :D 20:40:46 i recently noticed an epel8 package that fails to install. when i checked for open bugs, i found it also had an F33FailsToInstall bug (not related). that bug was made automatically. 20:41:28 i would like to have the same automation run for epel. i pinged igor about it, and he said it would require modification to https://pagure.io/releng/blob/main/f/scripts/ftbfs-fti/follow-policy.py 20:41:46 mboddu, this is the thing i wanted you to weigh in on 20:41:49 +1. would be nice to have 20:42:18 Oohhh ... I wondered where Igor's script was. 20:42:45 Yeah, +1 to it 20:42:54 I dont see any issues doing it 20:43:03 tdawson: Now you know :) 20:43:15 And I've put it in my notes. :) 20:43:20 I need to clone that repo, seems super useful 20:43:20 tdawson: If you cant find anything, then its in releng repo :P 20:43:29 so we all like the idea, just need someone to volunteer to do the work (not necessarily me :P ) 20:43:38 michel_slm: Lot of releng scripts are in that repo 20:43:45 igor mentioned that releng would need to run the script with different arguments as well 20:43:52 Yeah 20:44:16 What arguments is it currently ran with? 20:44:37 * carlwgeorge defers to mboddu 20:45:14 tdawson: Currently its running with 35 or f35 (rawhide release) 20:45:26 Ah, just 35 20:46:11 So, its need to be updated to run with 8? or epel8 (based on the changes)? 20:46:16 If nobody else wants to, I'll take it. It's something I've wanted to do. 20:46:31 hmm, ideally we should be able to pass it the name of the branch, for consistency 20:46:41 ^ agreed 20:48:22 yeah 20:48:42 Sorry, I was reading through the code. Does anyone else want to take it, or work on it with me? 20:48:47 tdawson: I've been swamped at work lately, but I could be useful if you need someone to bounce off ideas while you're doing that 20:49:05 pgreco: OK 20:50:05 tdawson: Same here, let me know if you need any help 20:50:56 carlwgeorge: mboddu: So when we get this working, we need to get a pull request in for this, and then have you setup something automatic that runs with a different command option, correct? 20:51:20 tdawson: Yes 20:51:28 Cool 20:51:30 that's my understanding of the process, yes. looks like it will also need a tracker bug for each branch. 20:51:43 And also need to create the fti bug 20:51:49 in BZ 20:52:17 ok, sounds good. 20:52:42 Anything else for open floor? 20:52:52 epel-packagers-sig membership flow 20:53:27 I guess this hasn't really come up before, but... I noticed someone requesting to join in FAS before (probably lost it in the move to the new accounts system), and dcavalca also just asked to join 20:53:53 Hmm ... I didn't get any notification 20:53:56 I suppose we should document this. maybe ask for the person to either post to epel-devel or attend this meeting? 20:53:57 long long ago, pkgdb had a request thing... but it was pretty pointless. 20:54:19 since then, there has not been any request method, you are supposed to use whatever method the group wants... mail someone, etc. 20:54:21 or ask them to file an issue. yeah, you won't see it unless you log in to admin.fedoraproject.org/accounts (and I don't know how it works with the new system) 20:54:58 yeah, and the pkgdb system is noisy since... whenever I actually sponsor someone I would have to first add then approve :p. looks like in the new flow a sponsor can just add a new member, I added dcavalca 20:55:00 fas did have a thing to request, but most groups were set to invite only because people would just spam all groups 20:55:33 anyhow, the new way(tm) is to have a process and then add them after they follow it. 20:55:37 (or not) 20:55:44 I guess I already had this written: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/Packagers#How_can_I_contribute.3F 20:56:19 so woops :p 20:57:12 yeah filing a ticket or asking via email/meeting seems reasonable here 20:57:26 I think the groups have a field for this. 20:57:38 michel_slm: "Sponsors vote in the FESCo ticket." -- I think you mean EPEL ticket? 20:58:04 you can tell where I copy pasted from 20:58:11 :) 20:58:30 I'll add the "ask in meeting" option since that's more lightweight 20:58:32 michel_slm: grabbed ideas from, not copy-paste ;) 20:59:02 or... should we require a ticket anyway? 20:59:34 I sorta like the idea of a ticket. That way they have to have some Fedora experience. 20:59:53 dcavalca: mind filing one retroactively? 20:59:57 happy to file a ticket to test drive the process :) 21:00:17 yeah 21:00:37 thanks! 21:01:01 Looks like our time is up ... thank you everyone for coming this week. 21:01:08 thanks tdawson ! 21:01:15 We'll talk to you next week. 21:01:22 thanks folks 21:01:24 thanks, talk next week!! 21:01:24 michel_slm: https://pagure.io/epel/issue/110 21:01:27 #endmeeting