18:02:30 <dgilmore> #startmeeting FESCO (2015-09-23)
18:02:30 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Sep 23 18:02:30 2015 UTC.  The chair is dgilmore. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
18:02:30 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
18:02:30 <dgilmore> #meetingname fesco
18:02:30 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fesco'
18:02:31 <dgilmore> #chair ajax dgilmore hguemar jwb nirik paragan rishi thozza sgallagh
18:02:31 <zodbot> Current chairs: ajax dgilmore hguemar jwb nirik paragan rishi sgallagh thozza
18:02:31 <dgilmore> #topic init process
18:02:34 <jkurik> .hello jkurik
18:02:35 <zodbot> jkurik: jkurik 'Jan Kurik' <jkurik@redhat.com>
18:02:36 <dgilmore> hi all
18:02:42 <dgilmore> sorry for the late agenda
18:02:45 <ajax> hello teenage america
18:02:53 <paragan> Hi
18:03:03 <nirik> morning
18:03:07 <thozza> hi
18:03:09 <number80> .fasinfo hguemar
18:03:10 <zodbot> number80: User: hguemar, Name: Haïkel Guémar, email: karlthered@gmail.com, Creation: 2006-07-18, IRC Nick: number80, Timezone: Europe/Paris, Locale: en, GPG key ID: 26613DF3, Status: active
18:03:13 <dgilmore> jkurik: since you are here we have an item we need removed from the schedule.  legal has told me that we no longer need to file for export compliance
18:03:13 <zodbot> number80: Approved Groups: +gitovirt cla_fedora cla_done fedorabugs ambassadors cla_fpca gitbeefymiracle +packager python-sig provenpackager
18:04:03 <dgilmore> lets wait for a few more people
18:04:08 <jkurik> dgilmore: I am in the process of reworking the schedule, so I am just collecting this type of info
18:04:19 <jkurik> thanks for letting me know
18:05:57 <dgilmore> I think we have qurom
18:06:10 * jwb is 1/2 here
18:06:46 <dgilmore> #topic #1427 List of release blocking deliverables
18:06:46 <dgilmore> .fesco 1427
18:06:47 <dgilmore> https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1427
18:07:36 <zodbot> dgilmore: #1427 (List of release blocking deliverables) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1427
18:07:43 <nirik> I tried to make a more clear table of these.
18:09:14 <jkurik> I am +1 (even I am not a FESCo member) to use nirik's page without restricting access to it
18:09:31 <nirik> well, if people are ok with the table I can fold it into the existing page...
18:09:59 <nirik> and... I would suggest we also make a f24 one now (which we can adjust up to f24 alpha)
18:10:13 <dgilmore> I feel like perhaps a better place for the data is a git repo on pagure
18:10:31 <number80> jkurik: everyone is free to express their opinion here :)
18:10:44 <dgilmore> I would like to be able to write some tooling to verify that a compose has in it everything that is supposed to be there
18:10:51 <number80> dgilmore: is that a proposal?
18:11:02 <dgilmore> number80: I guess
18:11:15 <number80> I don't mind using pagure, as people could submit easily pull requests
18:11:28 <paragan> already voted in ticket, +1 to nirik's changes https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Kevin/Fedora23_release_deliverables
18:11:34 <dgilmore> ideally the data is presented in a human readable form. but can also be used by tooling to verify a compose
18:11:38 <number80> +1 to dgilmore proposal of using pagure to manage data
18:12:02 <number80> dgilmore: I don't mind the format as long as it's not xml :)
18:12:05 <nirik> sure, that seems fine but until we have it... (I suspect there may be formatting bikeshedding and such)
18:12:19 <dgilmore> number80: I think json would probably make sense
18:12:21 * jkurik is -1 for XML as well :)
18:12:55 <dgilmore> as a start what nirik has done will work
18:13:08 <dgilmore> but it will mean manual verification
18:13:20 <dgilmore> I guess I just signed up to do some work
18:13:28 <nirik> how about we use the wiki now and when we have a json one we switch to it.
18:13:40 <dgilmore> that is fine
18:13:44 <number80> nirik: you were faster than me +1
18:15:17 <number80> we have +3 for nirik proposal
18:15:29 <number80> thozza, paragan, jwb?
18:15:29 <thozza> +1 from me
18:15:30 <jkurik> so for F23 & F24 we will have wiki page and during F24 we will convert the wiki to json/pagure. Right ?
18:15:37 <paragan> number80, already +1
18:15:43 <number80> paragan: sorry :)
18:15:49 <paragan> np
18:15:54 <dgilmore> Proposal #agreed: we will use nirik's wiki page until we can egt something in a better format that can be used to visualise and by tools to verify a compose
18:16:02 <jkurik> I was thinking of extending template for Changes with a question whether list of deliverables will be affected by a Change. Does it make sense ?
18:16:26 <dgilmore> jkurik: I thought that was already part of the change process
18:16:29 <nirik> I'll update wiki pages in the next few days and note it in the ticket.
18:16:35 <number80> thanks
18:17:05 <number80> jkurik: if it's not explicit already, just do it (there's no harm in adding the question)
18:17:08 <jkurik> dgilmore: not explicitly; there is a question whether an RCM work is needed
18:17:42 <jkurik> ok, I will explicitly mention it there
18:17:49 <dgilmore> jkurik: okay, there really should be a clear list of new deliverables as part of a change
18:18:34 <dgilmore> at least in the form of livecd's, cloud images, disk images, install media, layered image, docker base image, etc
18:19:01 <dgilmore> or some new format
18:19:15 <dgilmore> which requires much more coordination and tooling work
18:20:39 <dgilmore> I am really not quite sure where we stand here and what exactly is our current proposal
18:21:14 <jkurik> I believe the proposal you wrote above is still valid
18:21:29 <paragan> yes its still valid and can be approved
18:21:36 <dgilmore> okay
18:21:48 <dgilmore> #agreed: we will use nirik's wiki page until we can egt something in a better format that can be used to visualise and by tools to verify a compose
18:21:54 <dgilmore> just going with that
18:21:56 <nirik> sure
18:22:45 <dgilmore> #topic #1452 F23 System Wide Change: Two Week Atomic
18:22:46 <dgilmore> .fesco 1452
18:22:46 <dgilmore> https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1452
18:22:47 <zodbot> dgilmore: #1452 (F23 System Wide Change: Two Week Atomic) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1452
18:23:24 <dgilmore> the automated testing is not ready yet
18:23:29 <dgilmore> but is being worked on
18:23:45 <paragan> I see mattdm's proposal looks good here
18:24:10 <nirik> I guess I'm ok with the plan as listed.
18:24:22 <number80> the same
18:24:40 <dgilmore> we produce f22 trees nightly for this today
18:25:06 <nirik> so they need testing and f23 added?
18:25:21 <number80> automated testing should be coming soon (if that's what kushal and sayan were working on these last days)
18:25:28 <dgilmore> well at some point we will switch to f23 based nightly composes
18:25:52 <dgilmore> there was miscomunication over what was supposed to be tested
18:25:54 <thozza> it looks reasonable
18:26:01 <dgilmore> so some of it is not being done
18:26:21 <kushal> we should be on production next week
18:26:28 <kushal> the automated testing part.
18:26:57 <dgilmore> historically we would have said this has to wait until f24 as it has missed the boat for f23
18:27:19 <dgilmore> so i am going to vote 0 here as I feel my view may be a bit tainted
18:28:01 <dgilmore> likely it will be ready sometime shortly after f23 is released
18:29:00 <nirik> any other votes? where are we?
18:29:31 <dgilmore> looks like we have 3 +1 nirik, paragan, number80 and my 0
18:29:44 <nirik> and +1 more from thozza ?
18:30:00 <dgilmore> i guess thozza's looks good could be a +1
18:30:08 <dgilmore> looks reasonable
18:30:09 <ajax> +1
18:30:10 <thozza> right
18:30:12 <dgilmore> not looks good
18:30:17 <number80> \o/
18:30:42 <number80> well, I'd rather not postpone this to next meeting as it's an important topic for Cloud WG
18:30:53 <dgilmore> #agreed mattdm's proposal is accepted (5,0,1)
18:31:24 <dgilmore> #topic #1480  F24 Schedule
18:31:25 <dgilmore> .fesco 1480
18:31:25 <dgilmore> https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1480
18:31:26 <zodbot> dgilmore: #1480 (F24 Schedule) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1480
18:32:25 <jkurik> I would like to have reviewed these milestones https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/24/Schedule
18:32:29 <dgilmore> my only concern with it is 2015-12-29 Change Checkpoint: Proposal submission deadline (System Wide Changes)
18:32:32 <nirik> well, I don't like the proposals deadline before the holidays.
18:32:37 <dgilmore> that is when Red Hat is on shut down
18:32:54 <dgilmore> I think we need to aim for the end of May not the start
18:33:10 <dgilmore> and give a little time in the new year for proposals to come in
18:33:13 <jkurik> I can move it for one week to have it in first week of January
18:33:27 <nirik> often folks rest up and have time to think over the holidays...
18:33:41 <nirik> so then they might well come up with some change they had time to ponder on
18:33:43 <paragan> also same date for Beta freeze and Beta release
18:33:49 <ajax> i'd take either jan 5 or jan 12 for the swc deadline
18:33:51 <number80> +1 for delaying it
18:33:56 <dgilmore> jkurik: what not release on may 24 or may 31?
18:34:02 <dgilmore> why not
18:34:06 <kushal> That would be really good.
18:34:51 <nirik> paragan: yeah, that seems like a typo for beta release there. ;)
18:34:52 <dgilmore> paragan: indeed, that is not possible
18:34:52 <jkurik> ok, no problem to delay the swc deadline to jan 5 or jan 12
18:35:08 <number80> 12 for me, as 5 is new year eve in many eastern europe countries
18:35:09 <dgilmore> jkurik: i would go for the 12th over the 5th
18:35:27 * nirik nods.
18:35:27 <jkurik> dgilmore: ok
18:35:29 <dgilmore> number80: i think the 5th is too near to new years for the whole world
18:35:38 <dgilmore> people will still be getting back into work mode
18:35:45 <number80> yeah
18:36:45 <dgilmore> proposal: jkurik to adjust the schedule to have change submission deadline (system wide changes) be on Jan 12th
18:36:58 <number80> +1
18:37:03 <thozza> +1
18:37:09 <paragan> +1
18:37:10 <nirik> sure. +1
18:37:23 <nirik> do we want to revist next week? or just assume everything lines up ok after that?
18:37:26 <jkurik> I am just looking at the dates for Beta and it seems like a typo ... let me correct it ...
18:37:31 <dgilmore> I think we should revist
18:37:44 <paragan> yes we should revisit with new changes
18:37:55 <dgilmore> +1 to my proposal
18:38:10 <dgilmore> agreed: jkurik to adjust the schedule to have change submission deadline (system wide changes) be on Jan 12th (5,0)
18:38:34 <number80> ack for revisiting
18:38:35 <dgilmore> #info we will revisit the schedule next week with the changes in place
18:38:38 <jkurik> Beta dates corrected
18:38:53 <dgilmore> #topic #1481  Decision on distro-sync during upgrades with dnf-plugin-system-
18:38:56 <dgilmore> upgrade
18:38:58 <dgilmore> .fesco 1481
18:38:59 <dgilmore> #topic #1481  Decision on distro-sync during upgrades with dnf-plugin-system-upgrade
18:39:00 <zodbot> dgilmore: #1481 (Decision on distro-sync during upgrades with dnf-plugin-system-upgrade) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1481
18:39:03 <dgilmore> https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1481
18:40:08 <paragan> looks like this ticket is actually proposed for discussion in next week
18:40:39 <dgilmore> I personally feel like distro-sync should be used, if you have a fully updated f22 system and a month after release of 23 you upgrade without updates enabled you will likely hit issues that distro-sync will take care of
18:40:55 <dgilmore> paragan: yeah, it had the meeting keyword already
18:41:14 <paragan> ah okay
18:41:16 <dgilmore> In my rush i just looked to see if it was new or old business
18:41:19 <jwb> why would you ahve a fully updated f22 but have updates disabled for an upgrade to f23?
18:41:29 <dgilmore> jwb: I do not know
18:41:37 <dgilmore> but I can see some people would
18:41:43 <jwb> doesn't dnf system-upgrade default to whatever is enabled on the current instal?
18:41:59 <nirik> I don't think so, it has it's own setting
18:42:11 <jwb> does it default to updates enabled?
18:42:18 <jwb> because if it doesn't that seems suboptimal
18:42:39 * nirik isn't sure
18:42:46 <jwb> and yeah, i can see someone maybe being in that situation.  i can also see someone manually removing files with 'rm' and then being broken too
18:43:17 <nirik> The bigger question is 3rd party stuff...
18:43:38 <nirik> do we remove it, or leave it installed but possibly broken.
18:43:40 <jwb> well, system-upgrade is kind of broken all around there.  i don't think distro-sync is going to help
18:43:44 <dgilmore> nirik: that is a bigger issue, but we do not have much control on it
18:44:07 <Southern_Gentlem> commonbug disable 3rd party repos
18:44:13 <nirik> well, we could do one of those two things. ;)
18:44:20 <dgilmore> I think "dnf distro-sync" offers a safer path than "dnf update"
18:44:26 <jwb> Southern_Gentlem, that doesn't fix things.  that still leaves broken systems
18:44:30 <dgilmore> but it is far from perfect of problem free
18:44:47 <dgilmore> s/of/or/
18:44:50 <nirik> we could also try and present to the user the choice.
18:45:01 * nirik leans toward removing.
18:45:18 <jwb> i'm opposed to removing
18:45:52 <jwb> someone installed that stuff for a reason.  if they have the choice between "upgrade to the next release but ahve a broken system" or "don't upgrade", they are likely going to chose not to upgrade
18:45:58 <nirik> how about removing with user ack? ie, 'these packages will be removed: ... ' ok/abort
18:46:18 <jwb> that's fine
18:46:25 <nirik> anyhow if this was for next week. perhaps we should invite the authors of the plugin and discuss it more then?
18:46:34 <jwb> yes
18:46:37 <dgilmore> nirik: yeah
18:46:56 <number80> +1 for inviting dnf folks
18:47:04 <ajax> aye
18:47:20 <dgilmore> #info ticket had meeting keyword but is worded for furture meeting, FESCo to invite stakeholders to the FESCo meeting next week to discuss
18:47:45 <dgilmore> #topic Next week's chair
18:47:53 <dgilmore> who wants to run things next week?
18:48:02 <jwb> i will almost certainly miss next week
18:48:14 <nirik> I've not in a while, I guess I can.
18:48:24 <number80> I'm still in the middle of finishing a release at $DAYJOB
18:48:29 <number80> nirik++
18:48:30 <dgilmore> #action nirik to run the next meeting
18:48:43 <dgilmore> #topic Open Floor
18:48:45 <Southern_Gentlem> jwb less brork system and a upgrade path is better than no upgrade path
18:48:56 <dgilmore> nirik: want to go over the discussion in #fedora-devel
18:49:01 <nirik> I had one quick item:
18:49:14 <nirik> there's a dnf build that landed in todays rawhide that doesn't work. ;(
18:49:26 <number80> Southern_Gentlem: you may start a discussion on fedora-devel list (but please keep it civil)
18:49:32 <nirik> Would fesco be ok if we untagged it so people who didn't update today might be ok?
18:49:59 <number80> nirik: as long as releng is ok, yes
18:50:16 <paragan> nirik, +1 to untag it
18:50:19 <nirik> the current policy is that we don't untag packages once they have gone out... unless fesco approves.
18:50:27 <nirik> (which we might look at revisiting)
18:50:33 <dgilmore> we probbaly should look at starting a discussion to consider changing our policy on things never going backwards, as a few people in the last 6 months have wanted to do it
18:50:48 <number80> nirik: consider this as +1
18:51:04 <ajax> yeah, honestly for a lot of rawhide corner cases i think it's reasonable to expect "koji download-build" to be able to rescue you
18:51:06 <nirik> I'm +1 to untagging it. Won't help that much, but wont hurt either. ;)
18:51:38 <ajax> although tsk tsk how did this go out with no test catching it
18:51:48 <dgilmore> ajax: indeed
18:51:53 <nirik> no idea. It doesn't error, just doesn't do anything.
18:52:09 <number80> ajax: let us remain silent about dnf way of doing things :)
18:52:14 <dgilmore> this is the second time in recent memory that dnf has broken silently
18:52:17 <nirik> so, good chance to improve testing. ;)
18:52:28 <number80> +1 let's stay positive
18:52:35 <nirik> any other votes for untagging? how many is that?
18:52:42 <thozza> nirik: +1
18:52:45 <ajax> +1
18:52:50 <number80> quorum reachead
18:52:51 <thozza> I think it makes sense
18:53:09 <dgilmore> I would rather we do not untag, but I do not feel so strongly about it that i would stand in the way of it happening
18:53:24 <dgilmore> #agreed untag the broken dnf build
18:54:17 <dgilmore> Does anyone have anything else to bring up
18:54:19 <dgilmore> ?
18:54:27 <number80> can we ask QA to join the discussion next week?
18:54:36 <number80> they may help dnf folks to get some testing
18:54:44 <number80> adamw, roshi ^
18:54:57 <dgilmore> number80: the system-upgrade discussion?
18:55:00 <number80> yeah
18:55:17 <roshi> yeah, I can be here for a discussion next week
18:55:24 <number80> roshi: thank you :)
18:55:24 <dgilmore> number80: FESCo to invite stakeholders to the FESCo meeting next week to discuss  to me includes QA as they are a stakeholder
18:55:24 <adamw> sure, someone's gonna have to poke me though
18:55:28 <adamw> chances of me remembering are 0
18:55:36 <roshi> I'll poke you
18:55:42 <number80> adamw: well, I'll remind you
18:55:45 * dgilmore pokes adamw with a smelly trout
18:55:50 <number80> then, I'm done
18:56:16 <dgilmore> if nothing else then lets wrap up
18:56:18 <number80> Thank you dgilmore for chairing and everyone else who attended the meeting
18:56:49 <dgilmore> 3
18:56:58 <dgilmore> 2
18:57:09 <dgilmore> 1
18:57:12 <dgilmore> #endmeeting