18:00:02 <nirik> #startmeeting FESCO (2015-06-17)
18:00:02 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Jun 17 18:00:02 2015 UTC.  The chair is nirik. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
18:00:02 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
18:00:02 <nirik> #meetingname fesco
18:00:02 <nirik> #chair ajax dgilmore jwb mitr nirik paragan rishi thozza sgallagh
18:00:02 <nirik> #topic init process
18:00:02 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fesco'
18:00:02 <zodbot> Current chairs: ajax dgilmore jwb mitr nirik paragan rishi sgallagh thozza
18:00:11 <jwb> hello
18:00:27 <rishi> hello
18:00:30 <ajax> hey
18:00:44 <sgallagh> hello
18:00:52 <jkurik> hi
18:01:19 <dgilmore> hola
18:01:35 <nirik> welcome everyone. I guess lets go ahead and dive on in...
18:01:46 <nirik> #topic #1445 F23 Self Contained Changes
18:01:46 <nirik> .fesco 1445
18:01:48 <zodbot> nirik: #1445 (F23 Self Contained Changes) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1445
18:02:08 <thozza> hi all
18:02:09 <nirik> mitr was +1 to all 3 of them
18:02:40 * nirik is also +1 to all of them
18:02:49 <dgilmore> I think ​Containerized Server Roles shoudl be system wide
18:02:50 <sgallagh> I am also +1 to all of them (though I an the owner of two of them, so take that as you will)
18:03:08 <jwb> yes, these are fine with me.  +1
18:03:14 <ajax> +1
18:03:15 <rishi> Yes, +1 to all three.
18:03:24 <sgallagh> dgilmore: I'm interested to hearing your reasoning.
18:03:28 <sgallagh> -ing
18:03:58 <thozza> +1 for all of them
18:05:04 <dgilmore> sgallagh: because I think it would be good to use https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Layered_Docker_Image_Build_Service to build containered services
18:05:13 <dgilmore> I am +1 for them all
18:05:43 <sgallagh> dgilmore: Hmm, that doesn't exactly agree with my planned implementation
18:06:02 <sgallagh> (Which specifically avoids needing an image repository)
18:06:03 <dgilmore> sgallagh: right
18:06:33 <nirik> #agreed All this weeks self contained changes approved (+8,0,0)
18:06:36 <dgilmore> I think its a useful way to deliver it though, and would allow us to push out updates
18:06:44 <dgilmore> sgallagh: its really semantics
18:07:04 <sgallagh> I'm fine with moving this to a System-wide Change in order to explore that possibility, I guess
18:07:53 <dgilmore> sgallagh: I guess just keep it in mind
18:07:54 <nirik> sounds good. anything further here? or shall we move on and discuss that out of meeting?
18:08:01 <dgilmore> lets move on
18:08:11 <sgallagh> dgilmore: I've got most of the relevant people around in the office today. I'll try to hash it out with them
18:08:31 <nirik> #topic #1448 orphan vicodans packages
18:08:32 <nirik> .fesco 1448
18:08:33 <zodbot> nirik: #1448 (orphan vicodans packages) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1448
18:08:40 <dgilmore> +1
18:08:40 <nirik> sadly, we are unable to contact dan...
18:08:54 <thozza> sadly +1
18:09:09 <jwb> orphan
18:09:11 * rishi clicks
18:09:14 <sgallagh> I'm concerned; he owns some very core packages.
18:09:26 <jwb> then they'll get picked up quickly
18:09:28 <sgallagh> Some (like dbus-python) that I'm not sure anyone else knows how to properly maintain
18:09:40 <rishi> 2015-05-17 doesn't sound too long ago. 1 month.
18:09:59 <nirik> his email and bugzilla are out of sync, so any bugs filed will go to... no one.
18:09:59 <sgallagh> rishi: I've been trying to contact him about some bugs for almost 18 months
18:10:18 <rishi> sgallagh: Ah, ok. I see.
18:10:20 <nirik> I'm not sure that any of the packages are particularly coreish
18:10:30 <sgallagh> He's functionally out of contact if not literally
18:10:44 <nirik> and there's co-maintainers that could take point of contact on much of it.
18:10:44 <rishi> nirik: He used to be one of the MATE people.
18:10:59 <ajax> whee, gnome2 forks
18:11:06 <nirik> rishi: I know.
18:11:29 <sgallagh> nirik: well, dbus-python is the one that makes me most nervous (particularly since the rolekit house of cards is balanced on it)
18:11:35 <sgallagh> Also firewalld
18:11:35 <nirik> anyhow, +1 to removing him as point of contact...
18:11:38 <ajax> +!
18:11:41 <ajax> +1 even
18:11:42 <sgallagh> But yeah, +1 to removing him.
18:11:42 <dgilmore> rishi: He had a pretty bad accident not long before Flock Charleston, and has not been involved since
18:12:01 <rishi> dgilmore: Oh. :(
18:12:04 <rishi> Sad.
18:12:07 <nirik> sgallagh: well, rdieter and stefanok are co-maintainers there
18:12:25 <dgilmore> rishi: indeed
18:12:34 <nirik> and really if there had been any maintaining needed, he would not have done it anyhow. ;)
18:12:35 <sgallagh> /me did not realize that
18:12:59 <jwb> given the list of committers, i don't think it will go unmaintained
18:13:04 <rishi> I am new to this, but my impression from previous such "conflicts" was that we tried to give the offending party some time.
18:13:11 <rishi> I recall the issue with Christopher Meng.
18:13:18 <jwb> rishi, 18 months isn't enough time?
18:13:30 <nirik> rishi: this isn't a conflict tho...
18:13:45 <rishi> Yeah, conflict was not the right word.
18:13:48 <nirik> it's just that their email we know doesn't map to bugzilla.
18:13:53 <rishi> Anyway, I won't block this. +1
18:14:16 <nirik> #agreed orphan packages (+7,0,0)
18:14:23 <kalev> I am happy to pick up any gnome packages he had that are used in Workstation
18:14:36 <nirik> kalev: thanks. I don't think there would be many tho...
18:14:39 <nirik> #topic #1449 F23 System Wide Change: Boost 1.59 Uplift
18:14:39 <nirik> .fesco 1449
18:14:40 <zodbot> nirik: #1449 (F23 System Wide Change: Boost 1.59 Uplift) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1449
18:14:48 <nirik> +1 rubber stamp
18:14:57 <sgallagh> nirik: You beat me to it. +1
18:14:59 <jwb> +1
18:15:25 <rishi> Sure, +1.
18:15:40 <thozza> +1
18:16:00 <ajax> +1
18:16:15 <dgilmore> +1
18:16:38 <nirik> #agreed change approved (+7,0,0)
18:16:42 <sgallagh> mitr was +1 in the ticket
18:16:45 <sgallagh> So that's +8
18:16:51 <nirik> oh right sorry
18:16:53 <nirik> #undo
18:16:53 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: AGREED by nirik at 18:16:38 : change approved (+7,0,0)
18:16:57 <nirik> #agreed change approved (+8,0,0)
18:17:14 <kalev> sad that it didn't land before the mass rebuild, but such is life
18:17:18 <nirik> we got one more last minute after the agenda went out.
18:17:30 <sgallagh> Python 3
18:17:34 <nirik> the python3 as default change. Do we want to discuss that today? or punt it to next week?
18:17:43 <nirik> #topic #1450 F23 System Wide Change: Python 3 as the Default Implementation
18:17:43 <nirik> .fesco 1450
18:17:45 <zodbot> nirik: #1450 (F23 System Wide Change: Python 3 as the Default Implementation) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1450
18:17:55 <nirik> if we want to defer it thats fine... ;)
18:18:16 <thozza> it came too late for me, but I can check
18:18:24 <dgilmore> I know anacoda is making the switch already
18:18:50 <dgilmore> In theory I am all for it
18:19:11 <sgallagh> I'm all for it as well. I'm actively porting what I can over to Python 3 on the Server DVD.
18:19:13 <nirik> yeah, I think once again it may not be some kind of complete thing, but it should be a lot further than 22 had
18:19:16 <rishi> I recall Colin had raised a concern.
18:19:19 <jwb> i'm kind of skeptical
18:19:19 * rishi checks the archives
18:19:20 <nirik> dnf is over. anaconda is over.
18:19:25 <sgallagh> (FreeIPA won't change, but we can probably get the default install to Python 3-only)
18:19:40 <nirik> rishi: yeah, ansible isn't python3 yet, so needs a python2 still around
18:19:52 <jwb> ansible is impacted, which requires python2 on atomic (and cloud if they keep python at all)
18:19:52 <dgilmore> but I would like it to be a bit clearer what it means as python3 as default
18:19:53 <rishi> Right, ansible.
18:19:59 <sgallagh> Right, so the Atomic image will probably remain dual-stack
18:20:17 <sgallagh> dgilmore: I think the idea is to get everything installed by default on Python 3 as best we can
18:20:28 <sgallagh> And live with a few stragglers like ansible
18:20:31 <dgilmore> sgallagh: yeah, just seems very vague
18:20:48 <nirik> well, the scope of the change page lists things.
18:20:53 <jwb> live with seems strange
18:20:54 <sgallagh> Right
18:21:08 <sgallagh> jwb: I didn't mean "indefinitely"
18:21:21 <jwb> given it just won't work on the client machines out of the box until someone manually installs python2...
18:21:43 <ajax> mmm
18:21:43 <rishi> sgallagh: So, Server will also stay dual-stack?
18:22:03 <sgallagh> rishi: Out of the box, I think we can actually get it down to Python 3 only.
18:22:20 <kalev> for what it's worth, Workstation has been dual-stack for at least 2 releases now
18:22:23 <sgallagh> Deploying a Domain Controller will pull it in, so Python 2 will still be on the install media
18:23:13 <sgallagh> rishi: by "out of the box" I mean the set of packages installed if you just select "Fedora Server" and no optional packages
18:23:24 <rishi> sgallagh: Ok.
18:23:32 <nirik> kalev: but should be able to go all 3 for f23?
18:23:42 <kalev> nirik: I believe so
18:23:42 <rishi> kalev: Trying to figure out whether Workstation needs python2 anymore
18:23:46 <rishi> Ah, ok.
18:23:55 <nirik> cool.
18:24:05 <ajax> fedora-packager -> koji -> python(abi) = 2.7
18:24:23 <nirik> yeah, lots of that stuff still needs fixing.
18:24:28 <nirik> posting. whatever
18:24:48 <kalev> also, yum-compat or what's it called, would have to to from the default install if we're switching to python3-only
18:24:51 <jwb> are those going to be done in 2 months?
18:25:00 <nirik> so what do we want to do here? vote on this now? wait a week for more looking into things?
18:25:11 <ajax> if workstation is the "developer experience" product then...
18:25:22 <jwb> saying we're "default python 3" when we can't use the tools to build fedora without python2 installed seems pretty ballsy
18:25:36 <ajax> it'd be slightly odd not to have the tools for developing fedora installed in the fedora developer image
18:25:54 <nirik> those things aren't listed in the scope. ;) Perhaps they should be.
18:26:17 <jwb> i'm -1 at this point.
18:26:27 <ajax> nirik: i mean, it does say "python3 only on the workstation live dvd"
18:26:59 <rishi> ajax: But things like fedora-packager are not installed by default, are they?
18:27:04 <sgallagh> ajax: The WS Live doesn't have very many apps at all, actually
18:27:17 <sgallagh> It relies on GNOME Software to make that stuff available.
18:27:23 <sgallagh> (Yes, this statement is a slight cop-out)
18:27:46 <ajax> to the extent that i'm invested in the workstation product, i think that's an error on our part
18:28:18 <ajax> i'm broadly fine with changing the default, but i expect it'll be like trying to keep perl off the damn livecd
18:28:28 <jwb> ignoring workstation itself, it still seems wrong to claim default when we can't get by with only that for _creating_ fedora
18:28:30 <ajax> a mallet whacking a mole, forever
18:28:42 <rishi> I am inclined to agree with jwb
18:29:27 <kalev> I'm not fesco, but I'd say that such a Change is mostly for advertisement
18:29:29 <rishi> What gets installed by default by the products is important, sure, but not being able to create Fedora with the "default" Python implementation is a bit strange.
18:29:35 <nirik> proposal: discuss change more on list, revisit next week
18:29:37 <dgilmore> ajax: and no work has started on making koji, fedpkg, fedora-packager etc work with python 3
18:29:46 <jwb> kalev, it's been an advertisement for 3 releases now
18:29:59 <kalev> maybe accept it with the clause that if they manage to pull off getting python2 off the WS live media, it gets accepted, otherwise it gets automatically postponed?
18:30:05 <thozza> I think that leaving python2 will not help with moving those missing pieces to use python3
18:30:16 <rishi> kalev: The advertisement becomes a bit hollow considered that our distro building tools still neeed python2.
18:30:35 <sgallagh> I still think we should be planning further in advance than this release.
18:30:42 <kalev> right, but as much as the end users see, it's off the default install
18:30:52 <jwb> thozza, i disagree.  progress is clearly being made on this.  just perhaps not as rapidly as everyone would like
18:31:00 <kalev> I am just saying that there is advertisement value for saying 'We no longer ship Python 2 in the default install'
18:31:05 <jwb> but calling it done before it's actually done seems like cheating
18:31:06 <sgallagh> For example, I'd be interested to see what sort of response I'd get if we tried for "Fedora 24 does not ship a python2 interpreter"
18:31:30 <thozza> jwb the change is still helping them to communicate the changes in community and make others to really do something about it
18:31:45 <jwb> thozza, then rename the change to "continue python3 porting progress"
18:31:47 <nirik> sgallagh: pitchforks and anger. ;)
18:31:49 <thozza> if postponing, we should clearly state what should be changed
18:31:52 <rishi> kalev: That is true, but the default install is not the only important thing, IMHO.
18:32:08 <dgilmore> sgallagh: quite possibly it would be that you get told fine. but we have to remove the tools used to make fedora :(
18:32:09 <kalev> rishi: right. but it's still a thing :)
18:32:12 <thozza> jwb: it kind of is :)  see the Scope
18:32:23 <sgallagh> dgilmore: How long do you need to port them?
18:32:34 <dgilmore> the compose tools have not yet started being ported to python3
18:32:36 <jwb> thozza, no, it really isn't.  in a world of short attention spans, the title is what counds
18:32:39 <jwb> counts
18:32:42 <sgallagh> Python 2 is on life-support, basically only limping along because Red Hat and SUSE are paying people to care
18:32:52 <dgilmore> sgallagh: no idea, its not been looked at because we have not had the time to do even that
18:33:03 <jwb> we literally had this discussion for f22.  as much as i love repeating things, i still don't see how this is "Default"
18:33:27 <dgilmore> jwb: me either.
18:33:39 <nirik> well, we have dnf and anaconda over now... but yeah, 'default' means different things to different people.
18:33:41 <sgallagh> Perhaps we can take a more concrete step in F23 like banning the addition of new python2-only modules?
18:33:50 <nirik> sgallagh: thats part of this change actually
18:33:58 <thozza> jwb: well, I agree to the extent that claiming python3 by default for 3 releases and still not being fully the case is confusing
18:33:59 <sgallagh> I must have missed that.
18:34:25 <nirik> All applications that use only a single python version MUST use python3 (unless they have a good reason not to do so).
18:34:35 <nirik> (hows that for exacting!)
18:34:41 <thozza> nirik: that means something else IMHO
18:34:54 <rishi> thozza: Do we already claim that python3 is the default?
18:35:01 <dgilmore> rishi: we do not
18:35:19 <dgilmore> we have claimed we are taking steps towards it
18:35:20 <thozza> but technically we had the change already for F22
18:35:39 <dgilmore> I think its hard to define when it is done when we do not know where teh finish line is
18:35:39 <nirik> and 21 I think too?
18:35:55 <thozza> dgilmore: yes, that is true and maybe not well understood
18:36:26 <dgilmore> I would like us to define the finish line
18:36:59 <rishi> dgilmore: Ah, ok. I got confused by thozza saying "claiming default for 3 releases ...".
18:37:01 <thozza> dgilmore: 2020 when python2 goes EOL? :)
18:37:09 <dgilmore> anaconda uses python3 is a big thing to advertise, though many people probably will not care
18:37:29 <rishi> Plus dnf.
18:37:35 <dgilmore> right
18:37:55 <dgilmore> so if we do not hit the finish line there is wins to sell and advertise
18:38:00 <sgallagh> /me posted a big patchset today to move rolekit over as well, and firewalld makes the jump in F23 as well
18:38:14 <rishi> sgallagh: Cool.
18:38:34 <dgilmore> but knowing where we are aiming to get to should be pretty critical
18:38:38 <nirik> I'm not sure what the finish line would be... I guess 'no packages in the fedora collection use python2' ?
18:38:43 <rishi> I wonder how long it will take to port fedora-packager, koji and friends.
18:38:57 <dgilmore> rishi: honestly no idea
18:39:00 <rishi> nirik: That would be a bit extreme, in my opinion.
18:39:02 <sgallagh> nirik: That's likely not possible in the forseeable future.
18:39:07 <dgilmore> no one has even looked at it
18:39:26 <nirik> then whats the finish line?
18:39:27 <sgallagh> Which is why we've been running with "no python3 shipped on any of our install media/cloud images"
18:39:28 <dgilmore> rishi: koji has to run all the way back to RHEL 5
18:39:47 <nirik> dgilmore: perhaps koji 2.0
18:39:48 <rishi> nirik: I would be happy to put the finish line at "no python2 on default installs and distro building process".
18:39:56 <rishi> But now dgilmore mentions RHEL 5. :/
18:40:00 <thozza> could we use Google Summer of Code or something similar for porting fedora-packager to python3?
18:40:08 <sgallagh> thozza: Too late this year
18:40:21 <sgallagh> We're coming up on midterms in two weeks :)
18:40:40 <dgilmore> rishi: the build/compose tools have to work on very old environments in addition to modern ones
18:40:45 <dgilmore> :(
18:40:49 <kalev> mc
18:40:53 <kalev> sorry
18:40:57 <nirik> so perhaps we should ask change owners if any of them have resources to port build tools?
18:41:02 <sgallagh> dgilmore: Could you explain why?
18:41:17 <nirik> dgilmore: could do 2/3 packages for them and only build 2 on old releases?
18:41:30 <jwb> right
18:41:32 <rishi> So maybe only aim to port the client side tools instead of the ones that run on the servers?
18:41:53 <dgilmore> nirik: yes, the code needs to run on rhel 5
18:41:53 <thozza> rishi: I think that is a good start
18:42:22 <thozza> dgilmore: can you use EPEL?
18:42:23 <dgilmore> sgallagh: because there is rhel 5 builders used to build things
18:42:27 <jwb> dgilmore, _some_ code needs to run on rhel5.  there is nothing that says identical code must run on rhel5 and Fedora 23
18:42:42 <sgallagh> dgilmore: And those builders cannot be updated to use RHEL 7?
18:42:58 <dgilmore> jwb: sure. and koji 2 is planning to support the older os's in a different manner
18:43:13 <dgilmore> but koji 1.X has to run everywhere
18:43:20 <dgilmore> sgallagh: they can not
18:43:30 <sgallagh> ok
18:43:49 <dgilmore> koji is planning for python 3 support in koji 2 but that is in early planning
18:43:51 <thozza> although it is not easy, here are ways to support Python2 and Python3
18:44:21 <dgilmore> it is still some ways off actually delivering something we will use
18:44:44 <nirik> ok, then where are we with the goalposts?
18:44:54 <rishi> Ok, so what about this: aim to port the client side tools instead of the ones that run on the servers, and no python2 on the default installs?
18:45:26 <dgilmore> nirik: I would propose that we advertise the changes to move things to python3 in Fedora 23
18:45:29 <nirik> I'm not sure where we are at all for bodhi and pkgdb and such... I'd have to talk to folks
18:45:32 <sgallagh> rishi: I'm fine with that. To me, that's enough to call it "default"
18:45:46 <dgilmore> but we define what state we need to be in to say we are moved to python3
18:46:03 <nirik> also, if we do that we should define 'client side tools' ...
18:46:10 <nirik> everything in the fedora-packager group?
18:46:22 <rishi> sgallagh: Yes. Saying that we can't completely port the server-side because of RHEL5 and infra' sounds reasonable to me.
18:46:31 <dgilmore> rishi: you do realise in the koji case large amoounts of the server and client side are shared
18:47:02 <dgilmore> FYI https://lists.fedorahosted.org/pipermail/koji-devel/2015-June/000000.html announcement for koji 2.0 planning
18:47:43 <sgallagh> /me says "screw it" and starts rewriting everything in Go
18:47:52 <rishi> dgilmore: :(
18:48:25 <dgilmore> rishi:  large parts of it is in the koji python library which they all use
18:48:38 <thozza> sgallagh: I hope you are joking ;)
18:48:54 <sgallagh> thozza: More like "threatening"
18:48:58 <thozza> :D
18:49:02 <dgilmore> thozza: if he is not I will have to visit him
18:49:10 <sgallagh> :-D
18:49:15 * nirik thinks we are in the weeds. :)
18:49:22 <dgilmore> nirik: we are
18:49:48 <sgallagh> So, nobody disagrees that this work should advance and that the targets set in the Proposal are valid and achievable, right?
18:50:02 <dgilmore> #proposal we define what python3 by default means, and document and advertise the steps towards it in F23
18:50:16 <nirik> sgallagh: aside from the atomic wanting to have python2 for ansible (thats not reflected on the change wiki page anyhow)
18:50:18 <sgallagh> So I suggest we tell them to go ahead and do it and just worry about the wordsmithing of the release announcement at the end
18:50:33 <rishi> No chance of ansible being ported in the near future?
18:50:53 <nirik> rishi: v2 should be out before long and it's much more python3 friendly, but they aren't saying it will be 100% then.
18:51:00 <jwb> sgallagh, i'd agree as long as we change the title first
18:51:16 <rishi> nirik: Ok.
18:51:42 <jwb> because i don't want to be approving "Python 3 as Default" until it's actually going to be default.  just call it "Python 3 porting"
18:51:43 <sgallagh> jwb: Sure, a red shed sounds nice. If we want to call it "Python 3 progress in F23", sure.
18:51:51 <nirik> "The road to python3"
18:52:16 <sgallagh> "... is paved with the tears of developers"
18:52:29 <nirik> dgilmore: except that we haven't defined that yet and I'm not sure we are going to now in this meeting. ;)
18:52:33 <jwb> you can jest all you want.  it won't change the fact that phoronix and other media are going to pick up on this, and then be very confused when we keep saying python3 is the default.
18:52:47 <dgilmore> nirik: rigth, and I did not propose that we do it now
18:52:55 <dgilmore> nirik: just that we say we will do it
18:53:09 <nirik> well, we kinda did last cycle too... and I don't think we did. ;)
18:53:19 <sgallagh> jwb: Well, I was only half-joking. To me, the more important part is the content.
18:53:31 <kalev> jwb: maybe rename it to say "Workstation ported to use Python 3" or something ?
18:53:44 <sgallagh> kalev: Except that's not the full scope
18:53:46 <jwb> something that reflects what is actually happening and reality, sure
18:54:01 <nirik> I'm also in favor of changing it... but I would want the change owners to be involved in that...
18:54:02 <jwb> not something that is an end goal we aren't going to reach in this release
18:54:15 <nirik> "here's your change, we renamed it and modified it for you, hope you agree"
18:54:17 <sgallagh> proposal: Ask them to rename the change "Progress towards Python 3 in Fedora 23"
18:54:39 <jwb> frankly, moving to python3 might be better suited as a Council engineering objective
18:54:42 <jwb> not a Change
18:54:43 <rishi> Or how about "python2 won't be installed by default" ?
18:54:44 <sgallagh> /me has a hard stop in five minutes
18:54:44 <thozza> "Progress towards Python 3 in Fedora 23 by default" ;)
18:55:04 <jwb> at least Council objectives have a realistic 18 month timeframe already set
18:55:30 <sgallagh> thozza: That does not parse well in English.
18:55:30 <dgilmore> jwb: probably a worthwhile exercise
18:55:34 <sgallagh> In any rearrangement
18:56:00 <thozza> sgallagh: :-/
18:56:17 <thozza> well, I tried...
18:56:36 <nirik> how about asking them to rename it without 'default' in it. ;)
18:56:52 * rishi also has a hard stop coming up
18:56:56 <jwb> just Python 3?
18:57:01 <sgallagh> s/default/preferred/ the end
18:57:10 <thozza> Does it really matter, since we already had the same change for 2 releases?
18:57:12 * nirik thinks bikeshedding this without the change owners is weird.
18:57:14 <thozza> what changed now?
18:57:29 <jwb> thozza, the fact that we've had THE SAME CHANGE FOR 3 RELEASES
18:57:34 <jwb> it's stupid
18:57:42 <thozza> jwb: ok, fair enough
18:57:56 <thozza> maybe they should version it
18:57:58 <rishi> Can we invite the change owners to the meeting next week and defer till then?
18:58:11 <thozza> I think that is a good idea
18:58:37 <sgallagh> Gotta run, folks. Sorry.
18:58:38 * nirik suggested further discussion on list about 45min ago. ;)
18:59:12 <nirik> so, yes, I am in favor. I'll even post to the list about this.
18:59:47 <dgilmore> proposal: table this for followup with the Change owners, we need to define the end game, and make the change reflective of what will actually be delivered in Fedora 23, ideally with some kind of rough plan to get to the end game
19:00:08 <ajax> +1 table
19:00:13 <nirik> sure, +1
19:00:28 <jwb> +1
19:00:48 <thozza> dgilmore: +1
19:01:32 <nirik> #agreed table this for followup with the Change owners, we need to define the end game, and make the change reflective of what will actually be delivered in Fedora 23, ideally with some kind of rough plan to get to the end game (+5,0,0)
19:01:38 <nirik> #topic Next weeks chair
19:01:41 <nirik> who wants it?
19:01:51 <nirik> exciting life in the chair lane...
19:02:13 <thozza> I can take it
19:02:54 <nirik> thanks thozza
19:03:00 <nirik> #action thozza to chair next week
19:03:03 <nirik> #topic Open Floor
19:03:07 <nirik> any items for open floor?
19:03:24 <rishi> I wanted to discuss an issue with the local DNS resolver change that we approved last week.
19:03:29 <rishi> But I got to run *now*.
19:03:32 <rishi> So we can do it later.
19:03:38 <rishi> See you next week!
19:03:52 <nirik> ok, fair enough.
19:04:19 <nirik> anything else? if not, will close in a minute
19:04:25 <thozza> rishi: ok, I'll ask the rest of change owners to participate
19:04:29 <dgilmore> nothing here
19:05:23 <nirik> Thanks for coming everyone!
19:05:25 <nirik> #endmeeting