17:00:13 <limburgher> #startmeeting FESCO (2012-08-13)
17:00:13 <limburgher> #meetingname fesco
17:00:13 <limburgher> #chair notting nirik mjg59 mmaslano t8m pjones mitr limburgher jwb
17:00:13 <limburgher> #topic init process
17:00:13 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon Aug 13 17:00:13 2012 UTC.  The chair is limburgher. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:00:13 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
17:00:13 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fesco'
17:00:13 <zodbot> Current chairs: jwb limburgher mitr mjg59 mmaslano nirik notting pjones t8m
17:00:22 <limburgher> Roll call
17:00:23 * limburgher here
17:00:26 <mjg59> Afternoon
17:00:27 <dan408> hi
17:00:27 * nirik is here.
17:00:32 * jwb is present
17:00:33 <pjones> hello.
17:00:47 * notting is here
17:00:54 <mmaslano> hi
17:01:34 <limburgher> t8m, mitr?
17:01:55 <bioinfornatics> .fas bioinfornatics
17:01:56 <zodbot> bioinfornatics: bioinfornatics 'MERCIER Jonathan' <bioinfornatics@gmail.com>
17:02:11 <mmaslano> t8m is online, give him a minute
17:02:15 <limburgher> 10-4.
17:04:56 <t8m> hello, sorry for being late
17:05:05 <limburgher> NP.  mitr can catch up if need be.
17:05:13 <limburgher> #topic #888 F18 Feature: UEFI Secure Boot - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/SecureBoot
17:05:19 <limburgher> .fesco 888
17:05:20 <zodbot> limburgher: #888 (F18 Feature: UEFI Secure Boot - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/SecureBoot) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/888
17:05:32 * nirik isn't sure there's anything for us to do here.
17:05:36 <mjg59> Not really
17:05:51 <t8m> nirik, I agree
17:05:51 <notting> the board ticket got updated very recently
17:05:52 <mjg59> We need to hear back from the board as to whether they want two copies of every install image
17:06:00 <limburgher> That was my impression, we should leave this for next week.
17:06:01 <abadger1999> mjg59: Yes.
17:06:01 <jwb> notting, it did?
17:06:09 <mjg59> abadger1999: Yes we need to hear back?
17:06:10 <abadger1999> That was what they asked for.
17:06:12 <pjones> notting: uh, I think that was this ticket.
17:06:34 <abadger1999> unless the question is the definition of "every"
17:06:35 <jwb> notting, board ticket was 11 days ago.
17:06:49 <pjones> abadger1999: well, that's insane, but if the board wants to make that demand on releng, then okay.
17:07:01 <notting> sorry, yes, it was this one, but was updated *by* the board, hence my confusion
17:07:09 <notting> at least, assuming abadger1999 was on behalf of the board
17:07:21 <limburgher> So ball is in feature owners' court at this point?
17:07:22 <pjones> notting: rbergero
17:07:28 <mjg59> abadger1999: That's not what inode0 said
17:07:31 <pjones> limburgher: really it's in releng's lap right now
17:07:35 <abadger1999> pjones: <nod>  The Board acknowledges that releng may not be interested in doing that.  In which case, that would not be an option that would be doable for F18.
17:07:50 <mjg59> abadger1999: So if we're hearing two different things from different members of the board then please have that discussion internally
17:08:39 <nirik> it's up to the board to clarify and feature owners to work on...
17:08:40 <nirik> also qa
17:08:40 <nirik> since 2x the images will need testing
17:09:23 <limburgher> Since that seems fairly clear in the ticket at this point, shall we move one?
17:09:27 <limburgher> s/one/on/
17:09:46 <t8m> limburgher, +1
17:09:57 <mmaslano> yes, please
17:09:59 <nirik> a clarification on "all images must have 2 versions" vs "an image (specify: dvd, netinstall, etc)" would be nice
17:10:14 <jreznik> Board asks for possibility to have a way how to get Fedora untouched by 3rd party... so now I think it's up to Feature Owner/FESCo to find the way (and it does not have to be every image x2)
17:10:39 * nirik nods. we should close the ticket and move on.
17:10:40 <jreznik> nirik: for me - the second is enough
17:11:08 <dan408> someone has to sign the cert, no? unless you sign it yourself?
17:11:27 <rbergeron> pjones: yes
17:11:30 <nirik> lets move on?
17:11:33 <mjg59> Sure
17:11:35 <limburgher> #action UEFI Secure Boot pending rel-eng work and Board clarification
17:11:41 <limburgher> #topic #932 F18 Features - progress at Feature Freeze
17:11:48 <limburgher> .fesco 832
17:11:49 <zodbot> limburgher: #832 (provenpackager request) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/832
17:11:58 <limburgher> Oops.
17:12:02 <limburgher> .fesco 932
17:12:06 <zodbot> limburgher: #932 (F18 Features - progress at Feature Freeze) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/932
17:13:09 <limburgher> So it looks like there have been a lot of updates.
17:13:19 <nirik> yeah, lots of folks updated this morning.
17:14:10 * jreznik was trying to ping as many people as possible to get an update after vacations
17:14:33 <nirik> so, how do we want to do this? pick out the ones that are marketing/non affecting others and give them a while...
17:14:49 <limburgher> I'd say the critical list would be krb5dir, selinux systemd, fontconfig.  Any objections or additions?
17:14:52 <nirik> or just go over each in turn?
17:14:59 * nirik looks again.
17:15:04 <jreznik> I'd say so and target more on critical ones (with high risk)
17:15:13 <mmaslano> let's go through the list. Some had really low percentage
17:15:22 <limburgher> sounds goo.
17:15:23 <limburgher> s
17:15:27 <limburgher> or also d.
17:15:38 <jreznik> mmaslano: I collected input from feature owners (the first category, so should be easier ;-)
17:15:41 <nirik> limburgher: I agree with your list.
17:16:18 <limburgher> To start, does anyone think anything on my list *shouldn't* be?
17:17:18 <limburgher> I think everything else could realistically be granted more time.
17:17:30 <nirik> I agree.
17:17:41 <t8m> I see that SecureBoot was recently updated to 80% - I am suspicious that the last 20% will be hard :)
17:17:46 <jreznik> +secure boot ofcourse
17:18:01 <jreznik> t8m: ok, I'll update FeatureList
17:18:02 <nirik> so on those three... we ask them to re-target for f19? or try and get some more status this week and revisit next?
17:18:07 <pjones> t8m: well, effectively the whole of changes /within/ the distro are basically in
17:18:24 <pjones> t8m: so the question becomes: how much of it is our feature, and how much of it is releng fixing things?
17:18:32 <t8m> pjones, You mean within the packages I think?
17:18:37 <pjones> t8m: yes
17:18:41 <nirik> the packages are reviewed and in...
17:18:46 <jwb> pjones, there is still a patch or three needed in the kernel
17:18:55 <pjones> jwb: sure, there's some details left.
17:19:06 <pjones> jwb: Obviously there are reasons I didn't pick "100%" :)
17:19:25 <jwb> wasn't sure what you meant by "within the distro"
17:19:27 * jreznik proposes to go through the list one by one
17:19:44 <limburgher> jreznik:  Fine by me.
17:19:44 <nirik> also, the infrastructure side for signing/etc needs sorting...
17:19:45 <nirik> but if it doesn't make it, the revert plan is really easy.
17:19:50 <pjones> jwb: I'm just saying it is actually mostly done in terms of package changes
17:19:55 <jwb> ah, yes
17:20:07 <pjones> nirik: well, if it doesn't make it, there's nothing we actually need to revert
17:20:24 <dan408> F18 Alpha freeze made things a lot more difficult this week
17:20:24 <limburgher> Clojure: 75% ​https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Clojure (updated to 75% - dependency on Maven change can be resolved)
17:20:24 <nirik> yeah. Very easy. ;)
17:21:00 <pjones> nirik: designed this way on purpose :)
17:21:42 <nirik> Clojure is a isolated feature, +1 to give them more time, and/or ask them to punt to f19 if they think they can't make it.
17:21:47 <nirik> dan408: alpha freeze?
17:21:53 <t8m> nirik, +1
17:22:05 <dan408> yeah we are currently in a state where rawhide is f19 and there is no f18 branch on bodhi.
17:22:10 <limburgher> +1
17:22:39 <DiscordianUK> I see f18 in koji
17:22:40 <jwb> that... doesn't matter
17:22:43 <nirik> dan408: thats not alpha freeze. ;) that starts tomorrow. Right now we are in post branching, pre freeze. it should be _easier_ to get things done right now.
17:22:46 <jwb> build in f18 and it shows up in f18
17:22:47 <limburgher> How long, 1 week?
17:22:48 <dan408> build root overrides were not pulling in -devel and -libs packages for packages that were in updates-testing/pending a
17:23:00 <dan408> the alpha branch
17:23:02 <nirik> dan408: can we take this outside the meeting? this is derailing us.
17:23:07 <dan408> yep
17:23:48 <limburgher> Any more votes or time suggestions?
17:24:14 <jwb> i'd suggest we email the features on the list saying we're giving them one more week and revisit next week
17:24:15 <notting> sure, give clojure more time for closure.
17:24:31 * limburgher groans
17:24:32 <jwb> because right now, that's going to likely be the result of this entire ticket
17:24:34 <nirik> jwb: +1
17:24:40 <limburgher> jwb: +1
17:24:51 * jreznik can definitely do it
17:24:59 <pjones> jwb: +1
17:25:04 <mmaslano> ok +1
17:25:09 <t8m> jwb, you mean all the features on the list?
17:25:15 <jwb> t8m, i do
17:25:19 <limburgher> That would save us some time.  Not including krb5dir, selinux systemd, fontconfig
17:25:22 <limburgher> ?
17:25:29 <limburgher> Or all?
17:25:29 <mmaslano> what about those feature with 30 and less %
17:25:38 <jwb> all of them
17:25:42 <mmaslano> it is doable to develop them on time?
17:25:59 <jwb> i am not delusional enough to pretend that the percentages are actually kept up to date or are meaningful
17:25:59 <jreznik> there's high risk... but nothing we can do...
17:26:25 <mmaslano> jwb: they should be, how else should be the status of feature tracked?
17:26:35 <limburgher> jreznik: Not entirely true, we could make them punt to f19.
17:26:36 <jreznik> jwb: most should be up to date, meaningful is another question... that's why I asked for comments
17:26:51 <jwb> mmaslano, let's not digress at this point
17:26:59 <jreznik> limburgher: if they miss the week plus, yes
17:27:15 <jwb> either you agree with my suggestion of emailing and moving on, or not.  i won't mind if you don't :)
17:27:45 <nirik> In the email I'd suggest pointing out there's no shame in f19 targeting... it will be along all too soon. ;)
17:27:51 <limburgher> Ok.  jwb's proposal to email the list with 1 more week:
17:27:52 <limburgher> +1
17:27:56 <mjg59> +1
17:28:16 <t8m> +1
17:28:22 <notting> ... sure, +1
17:28:31 <mmaslano> nirik: f19 targeting sounds fine ;-)
17:28:37 <mmaslano> +1
17:28:41 <nirik> +1
17:28:50 <jreznik> do you want me to do it? and yeah, I'll be pinging the non responsive feature owners too
17:28:57 <nirik> jreznik: that would be great.
17:29:08 <limburgher> jreznik: please.
17:29:15 <limburgher> #agreed Have jreznik contact feature owners from #932 with another week to complete or re-target to f19(+:6,-:0,0:0)
17:29:16 <jreznik> ok
17:29:30 <limburgher> Alright then. . .
17:29:31 <limburgher> #topic #933 Exception request F18 Feature: Secure Containers - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Securecontainers
17:29:38 <limburgher> .fesco 933
17:29:39 <zodbot> limburgher: #933 (Exception request F18 Feature: Secure Containers - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Securecontainers) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/933
17:30:35 <limburgher> I'm inclined to +1 this at this point, being at 90%.
17:30:47 <nirik> +1 here. I think it's a cool feature and almost done it sounds like.
17:30:54 <limburgher> Esp. since we're giving less-done features another week.
17:30:54 <t8m> Given 90% Iam +1 as well
17:30:59 <mjg59> +1
17:31:04 <jwb> +1
17:31:09 <mmaslano> it sounds like advertisement of something already there
17:31:09 <pjones> sure, +1
17:31:10 <mmaslano> +1
17:31:32 <notting> +1
17:31:44 <limburgher> #agreed Grant Secure Containers Feature Freeze Exception (+:8,-:0,0:0)
17:31:50 <limburgher> #topic #934 Exception request F18 Feature: rngd default-on - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/rngd_default_on
17:31:53 <limburgher> .fesco 934
17:31:54 <zodbot> limburgher: #934 (Exception request F18 Feature: rngd default-on - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/rngd_default_on) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/934
17:32:02 <nirik> another thing to be on by default... ;(
17:32:47 <nirik> I guess I am a slight +1, but don't like adding more things on by default in general.
17:33:00 <jwb> does it exit if /dev/hwrandom doesn't exist?
17:33:21 <jwb> also... who's supposedly doing the backport to the 3.6 kernel so it doesn't conflict with trousers?
17:33:24 <limburgher> I don't either, but it's not network-facing and should, in theory be either no-op or positive for performance.
17:33:25 <notting> that could be considered a Bug that needs fixed.
17:33:26 <t8m> nirik, I don't think the feature process can stop rngd being default it would just not be announced
17:33:49 <notting> i'm +1 to it in general. although i really really really don't understand why HW rng drivers don't just seed the entropy pool directly in the kernel
17:33:51 <t8m> +1
17:33:52 <nirik> sure, but we are supposed to approve items that can be on by default.
17:34:06 <t8m> notting, yeah, wanted to ask the same question
17:34:07 <limburgher> +1
17:34:09 <jwb> notting, WHAT IF INTEL AND THE NSA ARE IN CAHOOTS?
17:34:11 <jwb> etc etc
17:34:22 <t8m> jwb, it could be switchable by sysctl
17:34:36 <jwb> +0
17:34:47 * dan408 puts on tinfoil hat
17:34:58 <limburgher> dan408:  Whoa, yours comes off?
17:35:07 <dan408> i only put it on in times like this.
17:35:10 <dan408> :X
17:35:22 <limburgher> So they've already got to you.
17:35:29 <mjg59> I'm not entirely clear on how this works
17:35:39 <limburgher> I can +:3, -:0, 0:0.
17:35:39 <mmaslano> I see ...for setups with low entropy such as servers or virtual machines.
17:35:39 <dan408> please, continue your meeting, i do not want to interrupt.
17:35:40 <nirik> so, thats +4? do we want to ask questions and punt to next week?
17:35:42 <mmaslano> so +0 from me
17:35:49 <mjg59> It sits there, reads from a source and pushes it into the kernel entropy pool?
17:35:50 <jwb> limburgher, i'm +0
17:35:53 <notting> mjg59: yes.
17:36:00 <mjg59> When does it block?
17:36:05 <notting> mjg59: at least, "that's what it did the last time i looked"
17:36:07 <mjg59> When the kernel already has enough entropy?
17:36:17 <mjg59> Or when the source stops providing entropy?
17:36:29 <t8m> mjg59, I think both
17:36:42 <limburgher> (+:4,-:0,0:2) then?
17:37:46 <mjg59> My concern is that this will sit there waking up all the time if the hardware has an entropy source
17:37:56 <mjg59> It's not obvious from the code that it'll block
17:38:01 <limburgher> #agreed rngd default-on Feature Freeze Exception pending questions in ticket, approval vote was (+:4,-:0,0:2)
17:38:02 <nirik> so, ask questions, punt to next week?
17:38:03 <mjg59> random_add_entropy() is an ioctl
17:38:22 <t8m> limburgher, we need +5 to agree
17:38:39 <t8m> limburgher, this was not proper agreement
17:38:50 <mjg59> I'll ask questions in the ticket, I'm 0 until then
17:38:58 <limburgher> t8m:  Whoops, thought I'd just mispasted.
17:38:59 <mmaslano> let's vote again in ticket
17:39:05 <limburgher> #undo
17:39:05 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Agreed object at 0x1658fb10>
17:39:09 <pjones> I'm sortof vaguely for it
17:39:29 <limburgher> mmaslano:  Vote, and ask questions there as well.
17:39:55 <limburgher> There's certainly enough uncertainty to make for fruitful discussion there.
17:40:06 <t8m> yes, punt to next week for final vote
17:40:15 <t8m> (with votes in the ticket counted)
17:40:35 <limburgher> #action rngd default-on Feature Freeze Exception pending questions in ticket, discuss next week.
17:40:43 <limburgher> #topic #935 Exception request F18 Feature: F18 D programming - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/F18_D_programming
17:40:46 <limburgher> .feco 935
17:40:52 <limburgher> .fesco 935
17:40:53 <zodbot> limburgher: #935 (Exception request F18 Feature: F18 D programming - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/F18_D_programming) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/935
17:40:59 <limburgher> CANNOT type today, apologies.
17:41:02 <nirik> sure, +1 here...
17:41:11 <notting> this is all leaf nodes, so sure, +1
17:41:20 <jwb> +1
17:41:21 <limburgher> Leaf for sure, +1
17:41:22 <mjg59> +1
17:41:40 <pjones> +1 - we totally need more programming languages.
17:42:00 <mmaslano> sure
17:42:01 <mmaslano> +1
17:42:23 <limburgher> +1
17:42:31 <limburgher> Sorry, I'm in Chicago.
17:42:48 <t8m> +1
17:43:09 <limburgher> #agreed F18 D programming Feature Freeze Exception granted (+:8,-:0,0:0)
17:43:28 <limburgher> #topic Next week's chair
17:43:29 <bioinfornatics> I am very sorry for delay, big thanks to all
17:43:41 <nirik> bioinfornatics: it happens.
17:43:47 <t8m> I am on holidays next Monday
17:43:48 <mjg59> I can do next week
17:44:09 <limburgher> #action mjg59 will chair 2012-08-20
17:44:15 <limburgher> #topic Open Floor
17:44:21 <limburgher> Thanks mjg59!
17:44:26 <t8m> I have one thing
17:44:32 <limburgher> t8m: ok
17:44:45 * nirik has one item too to mention. Or possibly add for next week.
17:45:07 <t8m> Could we try to reschedule the meeting to Tuesday to better align with various schedules?
17:45:23 <mmaslano> it's interesting idea
17:45:47 <limburgher> Conceivable for me.
17:45:59 <mmaslano> +1 from me
17:46:11 <nirik> thats fine with me. We did have folks that couldn't make tuesdays in the past tho.
17:46:25 <jwb> i'm curious schedules, but i could do tuesdays
17:46:31 <jwb> er, ... which schedules
17:46:31 <pjones> We could certainly run a whenisgood straw poll
17:46:34 <mjg59> I could probably do tuesday
17:46:38 <mmaslano> yeah
17:46:42 <mjg59> Hm
17:46:43 <mjg59> Actually
17:46:45 <mjg59> No I couldn't
17:46:47 <mjg59> Not at this time
17:46:55 <mjg59> It's have to be some other time of da
17:47:04 <limburgher> I'll run a whenisgood and we can see.
17:47:13 <t8m> limburgher, +1 to whenisgood run
17:47:16 <mmaslano> limburgher: thanks
17:47:24 <limburgher> #action limburgher will run a whenisgood for possible tuesday meeting.
17:47:34 <pjones> limburgher: or for whichever day
17:47:38 <limburgher> nirik:
17:47:39 <t8m> limburgher, you don't have to limit it to tuesday
17:47:45 <limburgher> pjones: right
17:47:49 <limburgher> t8m:  i won't.
17:48:42 <nirik> Just a quick thing, which we could do next week: There is a new bodhi in production now... in it is finally a check to disallow submitter from adding karma to their own updates. There was a question on the list if that was the position we decided on or not.
17:48:57 <nirik> personally, I am ok with it. But if we want to revisit it we could do so.
17:49:23 <mmaslano> yeah, I was wondering if we agreed on this one
17:49:41 <nirik> My recollection was that we did... but I couldn't find the exact meeting.
17:49:50 <mmaslano> I thought we deny it because of packages, which do not have much testing
17:49:52 <notting> put it to a simple vote first? i'm +1
17:50:02 <limburgher> I'm ok with it too.
17:50:03 <limburgher> +1
17:50:05 * nirik is also +1
17:50:08 <jwb> er... can we clarify exactly what we're voting on?
17:50:15 <t8m> I am +0 as proxy vote could be acceptable.
17:50:17 <limburgher> The ban on self-karmaing
17:50:21 <jwb> -1
17:50:34 <mmaslano> -1
17:50:38 <nirik> bodhi disallows submitter from adding karma to their own submitted updates. Do we wish this behavior?
17:50:48 <jwb> imo, it's pointless
17:50:59 <jwb> they can just lower the karma requirement by 1 if they wanted
17:51:17 <jwb> and getting karma is difficult.  if the submitter actually tested it, why can't they say so with karma?
17:51:20 <nirik> currently I have seen people setting karma to 1 and adding +1
17:51:41 <limburgher> thus making the whole process pointless.
17:51:41 <nirik> so, close to 'push to stable'
17:51:42 <t8m> jwb, they cannot overcome the hard limits for critpath etc.
17:51:43 <pjones> jwb: well, that doesn't make it pointless
17:51:58 <pjones> jwb: it at least pushes them in the right direction for how it's supposed to work
17:52:04 <jwb> t8m, no, they can't.  but that doesn't matter
17:52:10 <dan408> yes, seen it, but not many "proventesters" are "Testing"
17:52:29 <dan408> someone showed me this work around too to get packages in to stable quicker
17:52:33 <pjones> jwb: it means people will default to the right behavior because the wrong behavior requires you to do something weird, not something you just didn't realize you shouldn't be doing
17:52:47 <limburgher> pjones:  My thoughts exactly.
17:52:52 <jwb> pjones, that... makes me sad.  i'm still -1
17:53:02 <nirik> I think it's good to prevent this bad behavior. Perhaps we could also call out people doing it and ask them to not.
17:53:31 <dan408> Yes, but also, there has to be a way to get past +3 / 1 week karma as well nirik, don't you think?
17:53:34 <mmaslano> and it's here again. We are doing developers life harder, because we don't have enough testers,still -1
17:53:45 <dan408> mmaslano +1
17:53:56 <nirik> dan408: is there a reason you can't wait a week? or find enough people interested in testing the package to get +karma?
17:54:07 <limburgher> So we're +3, -2, 0 1?
17:54:16 <pjones> mmaslano: I'm not sure how that's the case - developers were already supposed to be not doing that.  unless they were mucking with the numbers on purpose, their life stays the same.
17:54:19 <dan408> nirik: yeah I'm building 30 RPMs so that I'm at 80%+ by the next FESCO meeting.
17:54:28 <limburgher> Putting out a -devel post, or a blog entry saying hey, if you care, test, is simple.
17:54:34 <nirik> dan408: you packages do not need to be in a stable release for a feature.
17:54:39 <dan408> spent the entire weekend devoted to building RPMs
17:54:47 <nirik> build them in rawhide, work out the bugs, then push to stable releases.
17:54:47 <limburgher> Plus, if they're for a feature, more testing is good. :)
17:54:52 <mmaslano> nirik: if you have bigger number of packages, you usually don't wish to spend time on finding someone for testing. I usually forgot that I made some update
17:54:55 <t8m> pjones, mjg59, any votes?
17:54:57 <dan408> easier said than done
17:55:06 <nirik> mmaslano: then 1 week later you can push them?
17:55:22 <mjg59> Eh. I guess +1.
17:55:30 <limburgher> Not with a test-to-speech wordpress client. :)
17:55:31 <DiscordianUK> mate doesn't have many devs
17:55:48 <pjones> I'm +1
17:55:57 <DiscordianUK> i guess a week more would be better
17:56:11 <nirik> you don't have to be a developer to test things. ;)
17:56:32 <dan408> i just wanted to bring up the point, that's all. A week is fine, when you don't have a deadline, f18 isn't "branched" or "frozen" and you have plenty of time.
17:56:44 <DiscordianUK> I'll test when it's ready
17:56:49 <limburgher> #agreed Retain prohibition on allowing update submitters to provide karma on their own updates (+:5,-:2,0:1)
17:57:01 <limburgher> Any other business?
17:57:04 <pjones> dan408: While I do agree with that point, there's a very real argument that when you're on a tight deadline is when you do buggy dumb shit :)
17:57:06 * nirik has nothing
17:57:10 <pjones> dan408: I know that's certainly when I do.
17:57:19 <limburgher> pjones, dan408:  I'm a great example of that. :)
17:57:21 <dan408> please feel free to open any bugs on any of my packages.
17:57:25 <t8m> pjones, +1
17:57:25 <pjones> (well, that and the rest of the time ;)
17:57:32 <limburgher> :)
17:57:37 <dan408> you will see I am on release 16 of BitchX which is now in EPEL5 and EPEL6 stable.
17:57:52 <dan408> and yes I wated 2 weeks with 0 karma to pushl.
17:58:45 <jwb> EPEL has different rules
17:58:48 <lmacken> note: fesco approved this bodhi feature 2 years ago https://fedorahosted.org/bodhi/ticket/277
17:58:48 <dan408> EOF
17:58:53 <limburgher> Ok, if nothing else, I'll close out at 13:00
17:58:59 <jwb> lmacken, fesco constitution changes :)
17:59:02 <pjones> lmacken: and again today :)
17:59:15 <jwb> i'm still waiting for us to require bugs for negative karma
17:59:22 <jwb> but i think i'll be waiting quite a while
17:59:34 * nirik is waiting for bodhi 2.0
17:59:39 <jwb> that too!
18:00:46 <limburgher> #endmeeting