18:00:30 #startmeeting FESCO (2012-01-09) 18:00:30 Meeting started Mon Jan 9 18:00:30 2012 UTC. The chair is limburgher. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 18:00:30 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 18:00:36 #meetingname fesco 18:00:36 The meeting name has been set to 'fesco' 18:00:37 Present and accounted for. 18:00:44 #chair notting nirik mjg59 mmaslano t8m pjones sgallagh mitr limburgher 18:00:44 Current chairs: limburgher mitr mjg59 mmaslano nirik notting pjones sgallagh t8m 18:00:51 #topic init process 18:00:57 * nirik is here. 18:01:00 * sgallagh salutes 18:01:01 Hello all 18:01:04 * limburgher here 18:01:42 Quorum'd, shall we give in a minute for others or dig in? 18:01:54 limburgher: Let's wait a few minutes. 18:01:59 The queue is getting pretty long. 18:02:40 hello. 18:02:43 hi 18:03:06 It is. 18:03:44 * notting is here 18:05:09 mjg59, t8m: ping? 18:05:27 mjg59 was around just a few minutes ago, so I expect he should be back soon. 18:05:32 18:05:43 t8m should come 18:05:57 Hi 18:07:16 Ok, let's see. . . 18:07:22 #topic #720 kay - provenpackager for /usr move 18:07:46 sure, +1 18:07:58 .fesco 720 18:07:59 nirik: #720 (kay - provenpackager for /usr move) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/720 18:08:12 nirik: Thanks. :) 18:08:23 this got referred to fesco as it didn't have enough feedback on the list. there wasn't any negative feedback, though. 18:08:44 Seems sensible to grant provenpackager if we're going to have this done by feature freeze 18:08:48 I'm +1. Would be good to have another person working on usermove, as it's going to be a fair bit of work. 18:08:51 I have no objection, I just didn't vote in the first round as I'm not acquainted. 18:08:54 +1 18:08:58 I have counted 4 commits in owned packages total, so... 18:08:58 +1 18:09:21 * fenrus02 fails to see any positive gain by doing so 18:09:24 other people didn't get provenpackager even if it was needed, so.. 18:09:38 mmaslano: That sounds like a process failure to me. 18:09:55 so, it's 0 from me, same rules for everyone 18:09:56 Just for a note he is not a maintainer of any package, just co-maintainer of 4 packages. 18:09:59 I'm inclined to say "grant it, and if he screws up, remove it later" 18:10:07 sgallagh: yeah 18:10:11 sgallagh, fine with me 18:10:12 it's kay, he's fairly competent. 18:10:36 Who's his sponsor? 18:10:39 * nb didn't vote on the sponsors list because i wasn't acquainted with them 18:10:41 (erg, that could be misconstrued. the feature is not a positive gain; nothing against kay) 18:10:56 * pingou similar to nb 18:11:01 fenrus02: Right there with you. :) 18:11:22 fenrus02: I agreed with you, but was outvoted. So since we're doing this thing, let's at least see it done properly 18:11:38 right. 18:11:43 sgallagh, fair 18:11:52 "nirik:Would be good to have another person working on usermove" > is there no-one else than him? 18:12:08 limburgher, i'll look 18:12:09 I don't know them well, but they have a good grasp of changes needed, so I am fine with pp for them. 18:12:28 pingou: yes, a few others... 18:12:43 who have provenpackager ? 18:13:03 usually are for provepackager needed some packaging skills, I can't say if he has some or not based on record in Fedora. 18:13:08 limburgher, kay's sponsor is notting 18:13:29 pingou: harald was granted as provenpackager 18:13:35 that's 2 18:13:36 pingou: harald is the other feature owner, he has pp which was granted just recently as well. 18:14:06 Right, the tickets were filed together, but more people are familiar with harald, AFAICT. 18:14:21 Sorry, I have lost logs. How does the vote stand? 18:14:26 * nirik nods. 18:14:39 it's +4 I think 18:14:45 Argh, hi, sorry 18:14:57 so far +4: me, nirik, limburgher, sgallagh. mmaslano abstaining. 18:15:06 +1 18:15:27 i don't have any real reason to vote *against* it, so +1 from me 18:16:05 That settles it then... I'd still like the http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Provenpackager_policy to be opened up to reflect reality, but let's leave that to another meeting 18:16:06 notting: I would have assumed sponsoring him was an implicit +! 18:16:38 #agreed #topic #720 kay - provenpackager for /usr move 18:16:45 mitr, just wondering, how does it not reflect reality? 18:17:13 sgallagh: well, you can sponsor someone as a packager, but not think they are ready to be a provenpackager. ;) 18:17:15 nb: "experienced in a wide variety of package types" - I don't mind softening the criterion and opening provenpackager more 18:17:26 yeah true 18:17:46 Ok. . . 18:17:48 #topic #739 GCC-4.7 rebuild 18:17:53 .fesco 739 18:17:55 limburgher: #739 (GCC-4.7 rebuild) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/739 18:18:12 nirik: I think I misread the above conversation 18:18:19 It sounded like notting had proposed him for pp 18:18:22 I'll all for the rebuild, but we need to fix file first at least. ;) 18:18:23 Nothing to do here, correct? 18:18:51 I need rpm fix a bug first 18:18:56 sooner than we start 18:18:56 yeah, it passed, so on to rel-eng to work it. ;) 18:19:02 Right. 18:19:11 #topic #740 Security updates should consult affected packages' maintainers to prevent breakages. 18:19:16 .fesco 740 18:19:17 limburgher: #740 (Security updates should consult affected packages' maintainers to prevent breakages.) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/740 18:20:06 Proposal: Autokarma pushes should be disabled if a package receives any negkarma (critpath or all packages: discuss) 18:20:21 i thought it was that way already, tbh 18:20:30 This also ties into the complaint I was going to make in the open floor about https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2011-16663 18:20:46 sgallagh: maybe just critpath, but certainly critpath. 18:20:59 We don't have a way to detect API/ABI changes, and most packages miss a test suite. It would be nice to change all this :) 18:21:16 mitr: huh... we had something to detect ABI changes before... 18:21:26 mitr: as part of rhts, so probably fedora doesn't have it :/ 18:21:44 pjones: Some software is being talked about on fedora-devel right now, sounds promising 18:21:44 sgallagh, +1 to the proposal (for all packages) - note this is just proposal for disabling of autopush not a manual push 18:21:48 mitr: That may be true, but I think it's reasonable to require that someone actually looks at the karma replies before it gets pushed, if some of them are negative 18:21:59 sgallagh: sure 18:21:59 Correct. Manual pushes can override. 18:22:14 Right, the manual push may be for a good reason and should be able to be done if needed. 18:22:30 However, I think we need to educate people on when to do a manual push (see https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2011-16663 as mentioned above, where the advisory was pushed with ONLY negative karma replies...) 18:22:37 yeah, it doesn't seem to be the case currently... 18:22:59 * sgallagh is just bitter because he got bit by that Eclipse update. 18:23:07 I don't know that it solves this issue, but does at least let us blame whoever pushes it. ;) 18:23:28 nirik: WHich is also a good way to direct users to someone who can explain the issue. 18:23:35 Eclipse is large enough that introducing a few bugs may be inevitable... 18:23:49 Anyway, +1 to the proposal - for everything (primarily to minimize the coding work) 18:23:52 nirik: Well, I think the NSS update in question would probably have been held back for a bit if not for Firefox advocates pushing it through autokarma 18:23:56 nss updates are buggy enough that I fear they will often cause issues too. ;( 18:24:30 mitr: In that particular case it was "breaks anyone who had used eclipse prior to the upgrade" 18:24:31 yeah, I am +1 to the proposal. I'd be ok if it was all packages honestly. 18:24:32 mitr: My only concern with moving beyond critpath is that some my cry "red tape", but generally I agree. 18:24:38 +1 18:24:42 +1 all packages 18:25:13 +1 from me 18:25:15 +1 18:25:27 limburgher: It may be red tape, but I'd at least like to be able to strangle someone with it if they push something despite known major issues :) 18:25:41 sgallagh: Bingo. :) 18:26:14 who wants to file the bodhi ticket and work on pushing the change through? 18:26:19 yeah, I'm +1 for it as well. 18:26:38 nirik: I'll file the bodhi ticket. Not sure what's involved in pushing the change through 18:26:43 #agreed #topic #740 Security updates should consult affected packages' maintainers to prevent breakages. (+:8,-:0,0:0) 18:26:49 Is that "harass lmacken" or "write a patch"? 18:26:57 sgallagh: any of the above. ;) 18:27:08 #topic #725 F17 Feature: Erlang R15 - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Erlang_R15 18:27:09 Understood 18:27:10 also, do we wish any other action on this ticket? or does that close it? 18:27:16 .fesco .725 18:27:16 limburgher: An error has occurred and has been logged. Please contact this bot's administrator for more information. 18:27:31 .fesco 725 18:27:32 limburgher: #725 (F17 Feature: Erlang R15 - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Erlang_R15) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/725 18:27:39 +1 18:27:45 +1 18:28:06 +1 18:28:06 nirik: I think that's as much as we can do (RE: 740). We can't force communication, 18:28:14 +1 rubber-stamp 18:28:14 nirik: close i think 18:28:18 sgallagh, nirik: Or reading. 18:28:18 +1 on erlang. 18:28:27 +1 18:28:28 yeah, +1 18:28:32 +1 with feature process disclaimer 18:28:34 +1 to Erlang (although concerned about the 0% status) 18:28:43 limburgher: Well, the passed proposal *does* force reading negkarma reports at least 18:28:51 mitr: yes,but there is no rule for non 0 18:29:09 Not until Feb 7 anyway 18:29:11 #agreed #topic #725 F17 Feature: Erlang R15 - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Erlang_R15 (+:8,-:0,0:0) 18:29:15 sgallagh: It's a start. 18:29:27 mmaslano: Right, there's plenty of time 18:29:28 #topic #726 F17 Feature: GCC 4.7 - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/GCC47 18:29:33 The journey of a thousand miles begins with filling the gas tank 18:29:33 .fesco 726 18:29:35 limburgher: #726 (F17 Feature: GCC 4.7 - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/GCC47) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/726 18:29:50 sure, time marches on. +1 18:29:51 Again, rubber-stamp 18:29:52 +1 18:29:57 Horse, barn door, etc. 18:29:58 +1 18:29:59 +1 18:29:59 +1 18:29:59 Especially since we already approved a mass-rebuild 18:29:59 limburgher, please use something descriptive for the #agreed 18:30:26 t8m: Sure, sorry, first chairing of anything. Suggestions welcome. 18:30:26 +1 18:30:30 limburgher, in the #740 it was not clear what proposal we agreed upon 18:30:54 t8m: I'll comment on the ticket. 18:31:00 +1 18:31:04 limburgher, thanks 18:31:19 t8m: I understood 740 to be passed for all packages. 18:31:19 limburgher: Please edit the minutes when you send them out too, so it's clear that we're changing bodhi process 18:31:32 sgalllagh: Will do. 18:31:33 Also, there should have been a #action for me to handle bodhi 18:31:59 Ok. 18:33:27 #agreed F17 GCC 4.7 Feature is passed, (+:8,-:0,0:0) 18:33:47 #topic #727 F17 Feature: GHC 7.4 - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/GHC74 18:33:52 .fesco 727 18:33:53 limburgher: #727 (F17 Feature: GHC 7.4 - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/GHC74) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/727 18:33:58 +1 with feature process disclaimer 18:33:59 +1 18:34:13 +1 18:34:19 +1 18:34:19 +1 18:34:25 +1 18:34:44 +1 18:34:59 +1 18:35:30 This appears to be for F18, correct? 18:35:49 limburgher: no... 18:35:52 (also I'm +1) 18:35:59 well, that's what the feature page says. oops 18:36:05 # Targeted release: Fedora 18 18:36:12 hum, ok... thats early. ;) 18:36:39 I assume they'll correct that then? 18:36:54 oh, well, then either that or it being on our list is a mistake. 18:37:07 I assume something if prepared for F-17, but that's strange 18:37:16 Based on the dates I'd guess F17. 18:37:17 might be a typo 18:37:21 Anyway, we're probably happy to have it in either 18:37:36 Scope says 17 so I say run with it. 18:38:15 #agreed F17 GHC 7.4 Feature is passed (+:9,-:0,0:0) 18:38:23 #topic #728 F17 Feature: GIMP 2.8 - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/GIMP_2.8 18:38:29 .fesco 728 18:38:30 limburgher: #728 (F17 Feature: GIMP 2.8 - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/GIMP_2.8) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/728 18:38:34 +1 18:38:37 +1 18:38:46 +1 18:38:53 +1 here as well. 18:38:54 +1 18:39:01 +1 18:39:05 +1 18:39:09 +1 18:40:15 #agreed F17 GIMP 2.8 Feature is passed (+:8,-:0,0:0) 18:40:24 #topic #729 F17 Feature: GNOME 3.4 - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Gnome3.4 18:40:28 .fesco 729 18:40:29 limburgher: #729 (F17 Feature: GNOME 3.4 - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Gnome3.4) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/729 18:40:39 * pjones is +1 here as well 18:41:00 * sgallagh wonders what would happen if I said -1 18:41:01 +1 18:41:07 +1, echoing sgallagh 18:41:07 sgallagh: you'd get outvoted? 18:41:09 +1 in all serious 18:41:20 +1 18:41:20 +1 18:41:21 +1 18:41:25 +1 18:41:30 +1 18:42:36 pjones: ? 18:42:52 18:40 * pjones is +1 here as well 18:43:24 I thought that was re: GIMP. 18:43:43 limburgher: He +1ed there as well 18:43:57 So he did. (cleans glasses) 18:44:05 #agreed F17 GNOME 3.4 Feature is passed (+:9,-:0,0:0) 18:44:12 #topic #730 F17 Feature: Lohit Unicode 6.0 support - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/IndicUnicode6 18:44:15 .fesco 730 18:44:16 limburgher: #730 (F17 Feature: Lohit Unicode 6.0 support - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/IndicUnicode6) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/730 18:44:23 +1 18:44:28 +1 18:44:33 +1 18:44:41 sure, +1 18:44:56 +1 18:44:57 +1 18:44:58 +1 18:45:05 +1 18:45:11 Though I'm wary of the completion state 18:45:19 I was thinking I 18:45:27 'd seen some of these go in. 18:45:31 AFAICS this is a single-package feature, only necessary for the single-line release note... we should really think of something better long-term. 18:46:27 well, to the group of folks that would need/want those it would be a important feature. 18:46:47 #agreed F17 Lohit Unicode 6.0 support Feature is passed (+:8,-:0,0:0) 18:46:57 #topic #731 F17 Feature: Kernel Target - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/KernelTarget 18:47:00 .fesco 731 18:47:01 limburgher: #731 (F17 Feature: Kernel Target - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/KernelTarget) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/731 18:47:09 +1 18:47:11 +1 18:47:23 +1 18:47:27 +1 18:47:30 +1 18:47:32 Would like the status of the old solution clarified, but +1 18:47:52 +1 18:47:56 +1 18:48:19 I'm assuming the kernel folks are ok with enabling it since it's already in 18:48:23 the old solution was a pain in the ass, so +1 18:49:14 #agreed F17 Kernel Target Feature is passed (+:9,-:0,0:0) 18:49:21 #topic #732 F17 Feature: OpenStack using libguestfs - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/OpenStack_using_libguestfs 18:49:24 .fesco 732 18:49:25 limburgher: #732 (F17 Feature: OpenStack using libguestfs - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/OpenStack_using_libguestfs) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/732 18:49:31 +1 18:49:48 +1 18:49:52 +1 18:49:55 +1 18:50:02 sure, +1 18:50:04 +1 18:50:22 +1 looks to be finished already 18:50:29 Indeed. 18:50:35 +1 18:50:39 +1 18:50:48 #agreed F17 OpenStack using libguestfs Feature is passed (+:9,-:0,0:0) 18:50:56 #topic #733 F17 Feature: Package Service Presets - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/PackagePresets 18:51:00 .fesco 733 18:51:04 limburgher: #733 (F17 Feature: Package Service Presets - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/PackagePresets) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/733 18:51:41 systemd seems to have that functionality in F16 already. 18:51:49 +1 here. I like it. We might want to look at aligning this with spins and such to actually use it. 18:51:50 I think this makes sense 18:52:01 +1 18:52:01 But yeah, communicating it to the spins would be great 18:52:02 nirik: I think that's the point of this feature 18:52:03 +1 18:52:12 To coordinate this feature with the assorted spins 18:52:13 +1 18:52:13 I'm -1 to the feature, annoucing presets when only few packages support it doesn't really make sense 18:52:14 also, FPC might have to look at changes to snippets 18:52:18 I like it, but it should be added into guidelines 18:52:43 and RPM developers have similar idea with group post scripts.. 18:52:57 mitr, yeah we need at least the core packages changed 18:52:59 ... which is unfortunately not ready for F17 18:53:33 Also, I'm really not thrilled about centralizing the default state - it means additional manpower to maintain the centralized information. 18:53:38 So I see +4 and -1. 18:53:57 mitr: doesn't appear as if it would be hard to fix remaining packages 18:53:58 Hmm, these are good points. 18:54:07 I'm revising my vote to -1, try for F18 18:54:11 mitr, yeah that's a valid point too 18:54:16 -1 18:54:21 i think centralizing it makes more sense than distributing it to each individual package 18:55:03 So we're at +3, -3. 18:55:19 Who's the tie breaker? 18:55:24 notting: Well, it's ~360 packages. If people would commit to doing the work (a la usrmove), I'd feel happier about it... although waiting for the shared scripts still seems sensible to me 18:55:26 * nirik looks futher, so can you override presets? 18:55:45 enable/disable overrides preset 18:55:49 nirik: No, presets override platform defaults I think 18:55:53 Well, that too 18:56:04 ah, it's a ordering thing. 18:56:23 fedora has a default, spins could override that, local user/admin could override that 18:56:25 is there any example? 18:56:42 I think this should be discussed further on fedora-devel 18:56:57 t8m: Agreed, revising to -1. 18:57:01 nirik: That would probably require seting up a sysv-stile PRIORITYname system or something 18:57:05 +2, -4. 18:57:33 it's alpha ordering... 18:57:36 I am -1 for now as well 18:57:42 +1, -5. 18:58:02 mitr: huh? that's already covered 18:58:10 well, I agree it needs more discussion and we should perhaps not advertise it until we are actually using it... 18:58:11 What should our comments for f18 be? 18:58:16 i'm +1 to it, would be willing to help convert packages 18:58:26 but can we not do it in f17? 18:58:29 notting: which "that"? 18:58:39 +2, -5 18:58:43 mitr: the feature 18:58:56 mitr: ordering of distro vs. spin defaults 18:59:05 proposal: ask FPC to look at changes here and see what guidelines need updating and ask spins if they could update to using this system? 18:59:21 nirik, +1 18:59:39 notting: "files are read in alphabetical order" 19:00:11 so if you have: 00-local, 01-security-lab, fedora-default it would read them in that order. 19:00:22 nirik: that's what I was thinking 19:01:01 * nirik wonders how much it would change per spin tho. 19:01:20 What do spins currently do to enable/disable services? Is this noticeably better? 19:01:36 they use %post in their kickstart file 19:01:55 they call systemctl and chkconfig a bunch in their kickstart's %post 19:01:59 things like: 'systemctl --no-reload disable mdmonitor.service 2> /dev/null || :' 19:02:13 and just sort of assume nothing is changing out from under them 19:03:36 so, where are we here? just rejecting this? getting more info and revisiting next week? 19:03:56 ask to fpc about it? 19:04:10 and discuss at fedora-devel? 19:04:16 yes 19:04:27 FPC needs to approve the scriptlet guideline update in any case 19:04:45 but do we particularly care that it is before the feature is approved? 19:05:02 Looks like +3, -5? 19:05:18 Hi everyone 19:05:29 #agreed F17 Package Service Presets Feature is not passed (+:3,-:5,0:0) 19:05:39 #topic #734 F17 Feature: PHP 5.4 - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Php54 19:05:43 .fesco 734 19:05:44 * RemiFedora is here if any question 19:05:44 limburgher: #734 (F17 Feature: PHP 5.4 - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Php54) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/734 19:05:52 +1 19:05:54 +1 19:06:02 +1, great work preparing all of those patches 19:06:07 +1 19:06:28 RemiFedora: will the gcc mass rebuild take care of the rebuild of these? 19:06:30 sure, +1 19:06:31 or it's too soon? 19:06:33 +1 19:06:34 RemiFedora: Any backwards-compatibility gotchas to look out for? 19:06:35 +1 in any case. 19:06:49 sure, +1 19:07:22 nirik, yes if php 5.4 in the repo "before" mass rebuild 19:07:41 but some package need some works... 19:07:46 RemiFedora: ok. 19:08:18 #agreed F17 PHP 5.4 Feature is passed (+:8,-:0,0:0) 19:08:24 #topic #735 F17 Feature: Riak - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Riak 19:08:27 .fesco 735 19:08:28 limburgher: #735 (F17 Feature: Riak - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Riak) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/735 19:08:44 +1 19:08:48 +1 19:08:56 +1 19:08:58 sure, +1 19:09:07 sure, +1 19:09:14 +1, does interact with or depend on R15? 19:09:33 +1 19:09:41 +1 19:10:41 #agreed F17 Riak Feature is passed (+:8,-:0,0:0) 19:10:47 #topic #736 F17 Feature: libpinyin - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/libpinyin 19:10:50 .fesco 736 19:10:54 limburgher: #736 (F17 Feature: libpinyin - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/libpinyin) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/736 19:11:13 +1 19:11:14 sure. 19:11:16 +1 19:11:24 +1 19:11:31 +1 19:11:35 +1 19:11:36 +1 19:11:45 +1 19:11:47 +1 19:11:59 #agreed F17 libpinyin is passed (+:8,-:0,0:0) 19:12:06 #topic #737 F17 Feature: oVirt - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/oVirt 19:12:10 .fesco 737 19:12:11 limburgher: #737 (F17 Feature: oVirt - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/oVirt) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/737 19:12:17 * sgallagh feels like we've seen this before 19:12:40 this is new and improved ovirt 19:12:43 +1 19:12:44 +1 19:12:50 sure, +1 19:12:54 +1 19:12:55 +1 19:12:57 +1 19:13:04 Completion status is missing 19:13:06 +1 19:13:14 +1 19:13:42 Sure +1 19:13:57 Review looks like it's moving along. 19:14:13 #agreed F17 oVirt is passed (+:9,-:0,0:0) 19:14:30 though depending on sysvinit is a bit weird at this point. 19:14:45 pjones: One would hope that would be fixed in the review. 19:15:04 That looks like it for this week. 19:15:10 #topic Next week's chair 19:15:44 Any takers? 19:15:45 I can do that. 19:15:58 I'm not sure I'll be back from fudcon at this point next week... not entirely sure. 19:16:03 We decided to skip the feature pages that rbergeron submitted this morning, then? 19:16:09 sgallagh: yes. 19:16:11 ok 19:16:14 sgallagh: that's our policy ;) 19:16:30 * nirik is happy to address them if folks would like, or do them next week. 19:16:49 Same here ... or vote in the tickets 19:16:59 I'd rather stick with the "if they don't make it in time for the agenda, they don't make it" policy. 19:17:03 I'd say skip them, we had too many +1 already today :D 19:17:04 we could acked features, which are new packages... 19:17:11 It's the only way to actually be reasonably prepared for the meeting IMO. 19:17:13 t8m: agreed. 19:17:25 I'm +1 to being lazy :) 19:17:31 we skipped several meetings for the holidays and feature freeze is coming up. ;) 19:17:44 so we should try and meet next week if possible, IMHO 19:18:02 nirik, sure 19:18:05 I can. I'm OK with voting in tickets if folks need to miss next weel. 19:18:08 week. 19:18:16 pjones: right, we shouldn't encourage late-breaking agenda items... but then the feature authors are innocent 19:18:36 Well, maybe if I'm stuck as a passenger on I95 I'll see what FESCo-via-sprint is like. 19:18:36 I see just pjones that doubts that he will be able to attend, anybody else? 19:18:38 so, if you can't make next week, do go vote in tickets I would say. ;) 19:18:54 #info mitr will chair 2012-01-16 meeting 19:19:26 * limburgher will be here, most likely. 19:19:38 #topic Open Floor 19:19:49 nirik: yeah, I'll try to vote on everything /at/ fudcon. 19:19:56 Nothing from me, I'll end in 5 if noone has anything. 19:20:09 Just wanted to mention that Eclipse bug 19:20:22 It's far from the first time that a stable update has broken eclipse 19:20:36 The "workaround" is to manually remove ~/.eclipse 19:20:47 But that's not an acceptable answer for the average user 19:21:03 (Especially if they had existing custom settings that are now demolished) 19:21:26 I think it was unacceptable for the maintainer to force-push an update with only negkarma knowing that it would break users. 19:21:49 Yeah, it really should be rawhide-only and release-noted, unless there was a compelling security rationale. 19:22:30 sgallagh: which update was this exactly? 19:22:56 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2011-16663 19:23:38 yeah, that looks non ideal for sure. 19:24:14 hullo 19:24:29 RemiFedora: Any backwards-compatibility gotchas to look out for? => only some new warnings, compatibility for web app seems very good, and the only removed extension is not in fedora 19:24:41 RemiFedora: Thanks :) 19:25:37 Anything else? 19:25:40 Yes 19:25:55 sgallagh: so, we could formally chastise the maintainer and ask them not to do this again? 19:26:05 Our meeting in 2 weeks time is Jan 23, the feature submission deadline is Jan 24 - are we OK with that? 19:26:37 mitr, that's submission deadline and not approval deadline 19:26:44 so, the last meeting with features would be the next meeting after that? 19:26:45 If we cover what's in trac next week (or cover it in trac over the next week) and that's the bulk, yes. 19:26:59 nirik: I suppose that's the best we can do. 19:27:06 (RE: eclipse) 19:28:21 nirik: Do we do anything WRT that other than this discussion? 19:28:33 * rbergeron wonders if there will actually *be* a meeting next week... 19:28:47 perhaps one of us ( sgallagh ?) would mail them our concerns? 19:28:59 * nirik should be available to meet next week. 19:29:00 rbergeron, we hope it will 19:29:01 * rbergeron reads upwards 19:29:02 rbergeron: only one person claimed out so far 19:29:03 rbergeron: so far, sounds like yes... 19:30:54 Ok. See most of you next week then. Thanks! 19:30:57 #endmeeting