16:00:31 <jforbes> #startmeeting FESCO (2017-10-20)
16:00:31 <zodbot> Meeting started Fri Oct 20 16:00:31 2017 UTC.  The chair is jforbes. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:00:31 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
16:00:31 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fesco_(2017-10-20)'
16:00:31 <jforbes> #meetingname fesco
16:00:32 <jforbes> #chair maxamillion dgilmore nirik jforbes jsmith kalev sgallagh bowlofeggs tyll
16:00:32 <jforbes> #topic init process
16:00:32 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fesco'
16:00:32 <zodbot> Current chairs: bowlofeggs dgilmore jforbes jsmith kalev maxamillion nirik sgallagh tyll
16:00:35 <bowlofeggs> .hello2
16:00:36 <zodbot> bowlofeggs: bowlofeggs 'Randy Barlow' <randy@electronsweatshop.com>
16:01:08 <tyll> .hello till
16:01:10 <zodbot> tyll: till 'Till Maas' <opensource@till.name>
16:01:15 <nirik> .hello kevin
16:01:16 <zodbot> nirik: kevin 'Kevin Fenzi' <kevin@scrye.com>
16:01:25 <sgallagh> .hello2
16:01:27 <zodbot> sgallagh: sgallagh 'Stephen Gallagher' <sgallagh@redhat.com>
16:01:32 <sgallagh> I'm here, but massively split attention
16:01:41 <maxamillion> .hello maxamillion
16:01:42 <zodbot> maxamillion: maxamillion 'Adam Miller' <maxamillion@gmail.com>
16:01:52 <tyll> I will have to leave early, but I'll vote in tickets if possible
16:02:31 <jforbes> Well, that's quorum so we will get moving, hopefully it won't be too long today
16:02:45 <jforbes> #topic #1782 use of updates-testing for testing of non-update software
16:02:45 <jforbes> .fesco 1782
16:02:45 <jforbes> https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1782
16:02:48 <zodbot> jforbes: Issue #1782: use of updates-testing for testing of non-update software - fesco - Pagure - https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1782
16:03:58 <nirik> I'm good with the draft you made jforbes. :) Thanks for working on it.
16:04:20 <jforbes> NP. Happy to edit the page if everyone is happy with it
16:04:37 <maxamillion> +1
16:04:43 <tyll> +1
16:05:08 <sgallagh> +1
16:05:35 <bowlofeggs> +1
16:05:47 <jforbes> #agreed the updates-testing/bodhi text will be added to the updates-policy page (+6,0,-0)
16:06:04 <jforbes> #topic #1784 libsolv and dnf maintainers: failure to respond to critical bug
16:06:04 <jforbes> .fesco 1784
16:06:04 <jforbes> https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1784
16:06:06 <zodbot> jforbes: Issue #1784: libsolv and dnf maintainers: failure to respond to critical bug - fesco - Pagure - https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1784
16:06:49 <bowlofeggs> fwiw, this actually also hit bodhi's CI environment
16:06:53 <sgallagh> So I guess we're being asked to declare the issue a release blocker for F27?
16:07:09 <bowlofeggs> though my solution was just to do a || echo "well i couldnt dnf upgrade?" and not fail my builds
16:07:42 <bowlofeggs> i had been wondering if the issue is just that the containers need to be rebuilt?
16:07:45 <nirik> The bug is kinda a long read
16:07:48 <bowlofeggs> because i only saw this problem in containers
16:07:52 <jforbes> I don't see what else we can really do. It is not like the maintainers are being unresponsive, just that they can't seem to get it right if I am reading the ticket correctly
16:07:54 <bowlofeggs> and they also said they saw it in containers
16:08:12 <bowlofeggs> could be that we just need the base images rebuilt with the newer dnf? not sure...
16:08:45 <nirik> I see a job that did work...
16:09:24 <sgallagh> jforbes: Well, like I said, I think the only ruling we could make would be "FESCo declares this to be blocking the release of F27 GA".
16:09:31 <nirik> https://build.kde.org/view/CI%20Management/job/Docker%20Generate%20FedoraQt5.8%20Image/58/console
16:09:44 <sgallagh> Sorry, "could be asked to make".
16:09:52 <sgallagh> I don't mean to suggest it's the only valid ruling :)
16:10:27 <bowlofeggs> nirik: i don't see a dnf update in there though
16:10:45 <nirik> yeah, perhaps it's not using it anymore. unclear.
16:10:52 <jforbes> nirik: that is newer than the one in comment 63 that caused the reopen
16:10:56 <maxamillion> bowlofeggs: the base images were updated yesterday fwiw
16:11:09 <bowlofeggs> maxamillion: oh nice - i'll see if that fixes bodhi
16:11:10 <maxamillion> bowlofeggs: so if it's still happening, then it's still broken
16:11:14 <nirik> jforbes: right, I was looking to see if it was fixed since. ;)
16:11:25 <bowlofeggs> maxamillion: i can kick of a CI run without my || trick
16:11:39 <jforbes> proposal: table for a week and see if things are working now
16:11:58 <maxamillion> bowlofeggs: cool
16:12:10 <bowlofeggs> jforbes: +1
16:12:14 <maxamillion> jforbes: +1
16:12:24 <jforbes> +1
16:12:33 <nirik> +1
16:13:09 <sgallagh> +1
16:13:56 <jforbes> tyll: ?
16:14:15 <tyll> +1
16:14:22 <jforbes> #agreed Issue 1784 is tabled for a week, to see if things are working now (+6,0,-0)
16:14:32 <jforbes> #topic #1785 Mesa/Nouveau maintainer(s) should be required to ship the locking patches from the QtWebEngine Copr
16:14:32 <jforbes> .fesco 1785
16:14:32 <jforbes> https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1785
16:14:37 <zodbot> jforbes: Issue #1785: Mesa/Nouveau maintainer(s) should be required to ship the locking patches from the QtWebEngine Copr - fesco - Pagure - https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1785
16:14:39 <bowlofeggs> i kicked off https://ci.centos.org/job/bodhi-bodhi/614/console to see if that dnf bug still hits me
16:15:38 <tyll> I am -1 here without answers to my request in the ticket
16:16:02 <bowlofeggs> i agree with tyll
16:16:40 <bowlofeggs> i would like to see a response from the other side
16:16:53 <bowlofeggs> they may have good reasons
16:17:14 <tyll> and a documented attempt to ask them for merging
16:17:16 <nirik> right.
16:17:24 <jforbes> Yes, I think we need some input from the mesa maintainers here. I know Ben was working on a different solution.  I would like some input from him.
16:17:42 <jforbes> I will try to get him to comment on the ticket, in the meantime I propose we table this one
16:17:44 <maxamillion> agreed
16:17:49 <sgallagh> I find it hard to believe that the Mesa and Nouveau developers would be discarding a proposed patch out of hand.
16:18:01 <sgallagh> So yeah, I don't want to proceed on this without input from them.
16:18:02 <maxamillion> +1 to table awaiting response
16:18:03 <bowlofeggs> +1 to table (though table in british english means talk about it right now ☺)
16:18:17 <sgallagh> +1 to stick a pin in it
16:18:23 <nirik> +1 to wait for more info
16:18:25 <maxamillion> bowlofeggs: heh
16:19:09 <jforbes> #agreed Issue 1785 is delayed while we wait for input from the maintainer. Jforbes will ask for that input (+5,0,-0)
16:19:18 <jforbes> #topic #1786 Non-responsive maintainer: jcapik
16:19:19 <jforbes> .fesco 1786
16:19:19 <jforbes> https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1786
16:19:20 <zodbot> jforbes: Issue #1786: Non-responsive maintainer: jcapik - fesco - Pagure - https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1786
16:19:37 <bowlofeggs> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_(parliamentary_procedure)
16:19:55 <tyll> +1
16:20:04 <tyll> seems reasonable
16:20:05 <jforbes> This one is pretty clear, the maintainer communicated over cell
16:20:14 <jforbes> +1
16:20:29 <nirik> so, orphan their packages for interested folks to pick up (or comaintainers to step up)
16:20:46 <sgallagh> +1 and I hope jcapik's health issues are improving.
16:20:53 <sgallagh> nirik: Yes
16:21:03 <bowlofeggs> +1
16:21:05 <maxamillion> +1
16:21:07 <nirik> +1 and yeah, get well soon.
16:21:13 <bowlofeggs> and i also hope for health
16:22:17 <tyll> yes, I hope he will get better, soon, too
16:22:37 <jforbes> #agreed jcapik's packages will be orphaned and FESCo wishes get well soon. (+6,0,-0)
16:24:04 <jforbes> Okay, ignatenkobrain  asked that we bring up Rust again
16:24:29 <ignatenkobrain> .hello2
16:24:30 <zodbot> ignatenkobrain: ignatenkobrain 'Igor Gnatenko' <ignatenko@redhat.com>
16:24:34 <maxamillion> what about rust?
16:24:53 <jforbes> #topic Packaging Rust applications
16:24:54 <maxamillion> also, can we change the #topic for posterity?
16:24:56 <maxamillion> ha!
16:24:57 <maxamillion> :)
16:25:00 * maxamillion was too slow
16:25:09 <maxamillion> jforbes: thanks
16:25:22 <ignatenkobrain> FESCo made decision to re-review it once bodhi will be switched to pungi and bowlofeggs already deployed it in staging
16:25:41 <ignatenkobrain> (not production yet, but whatever)
16:25:53 <nirik> yeah, progress has been made, but until we are using it, I don't see why we need to revisit...
16:26:05 * tyll agrees with nirik
16:26:08 <ignatenkobrain> so I would like to see change proposal to be accepted now =)
16:26:29 <ignatenkobrain> hmmm
16:26:41 <nirik> ignatenkobrain: I realize you have been waiting a long time, but I think thats premature...
16:26:49 <bowlofeggs> https://fedoraproject.org//wiki/Changes/Packaging_Rust_applications_and_libraries
16:26:51 <tyll> afaiu when it is stable we can properly have a test package with rich deps again and if it works then I do not see a problem
16:26:58 <jforbes> Agreed, this is still in staging, we don't know what may come up between staging and live yet
16:27:12 <nirik> tyll: +1
16:27:21 <maxamillion> bowlofeggs: do we have an estimate of when the bodhi changes will land in prod?
16:27:21 <ignatenkobrain> jforbes: from what I know, bowlofeggs is planning to get it rolled ver soon due to modularity
16:27:34 <nirik> threebean is working on it right now in staging.
16:27:44 <bowlofeggs> maxamillion: my current plan is a deployment to prod on tuesday, pending how testing today and monday goes
16:27:48 <ignatenkobrain> s/rolled/rolled in production/
16:28:00 <jforbes> ignatenkobrain: well, sure. I can vote no now because it is not ready, or we can wait and actually discuss this when things are ready though
16:28:06 <nirik> but it's still possible (however unlikely) it will not land for some reason, and then if we push things that depend on that we are stuck.
16:28:50 * threebean waves
16:28:54 <bowlofeggs> also, pending FBR approvals, of course ☺
16:29:19 <jforbes> ignatenkobrain: I am all for progress on this issue, it is overdue, but it is too late for F27 anyway, and we have plenty of time for F28.  With the progress made it seems unlikely that F28 will be in jeapordy
16:31:05 <maxamillion> bowlofeggs: rocking
16:31:24 <maxamillion> jforbes: +1
16:31:34 <tyll> jforbes: +1
16:32:09 <bowlofeggs> i agree - let's focus on it for F28 and also wait to see bodhi working in prod
16:32:49 <nirik> well, wait, we need this  for f27... for modular server at least... and once we switch it, it should be switched right?
16:33:11 <nirik> ie, we don't plan to keep using mash on older releases do we?
16:33:18 <maxamillion> nirik: yeah, fair point
16:33:29 <maxamillion> alright, so ... what all would be needed for the Rust Change other than the bodhi update?
16:34:21 <nirik> as far as we know, thats it. (at least as far as I know)
16:35:15 <bowlofeggs> nirik: yes, pungi will be the only way anything is made if this bodhi update is deployed
16:35:33 <bowlofeggs> nirik: so technically, it would enable rich deps as a technical possibility in all releases
16:35:40 <nirik> right
16:35:58 <bowlofeggs> it was extremely difficult to support both mash and pungi in the same bodhi release
16:36:06 <bowlofeggs> so we decided to just call it 3.0 and drop mash
16:36:14 <nirik> anyhow, lets revist next week? I am -1 to just approving things before we know for sure it's landed and working
16:36:14 <ignatenkobrain> that's what I wanted to hear ;)
16:36:48 <bowlofeggs> +1 to revisit next week
16:36:49 <tyll> are rich deps already tested with it?
16:36:50 <jforbes> sure, and just like anything else, new packages get brought in across releases all the time, we just can't say "go" until we know things are ready
16:37:09 <tyll> +1 to revisit
16:37:20 <jforbes> so, official votes to revisit next week
16:37:22 <bowlofeggs> tyll: i have not tested rich deps with bodhi, but maybe ignatenkobrain and i would work to try something with stg bodhi soon
16:37:24 <jforbes> +1
16:37:27 <sgallagh> +1 revisit
16:37:31 <maxamillion> +1 revisit
16:37:33 <bowlofeggs> it's just pungi, so if pungi can do it, it should work
16:37:37 <ignatenkobrain> jforbes: for now I didn't plan to touch stable releases
16:37:54 <nirik> pungi can handle them fine.
16:37:57 <ignatenkobrain> bowlofeggs: pungi worked fine in rawhide
16:37:58 <nirik> +1 revisit
16:38:31 <jforbes> #agreed Rust packaging to be revisited next week once bodhi has pushed to live (+6,0,-0)
16:38:32 <bowlofeggs> ignatenkobrain: excelelnt
16:38:43 <ignatenkobrain> +1
16:38:44 <ignatenkobrain> thanks
16:38:52 <jforbes> #topic Next week's chair
16:39:13 * nirik will not be here next week
16:39:18 <jforbes> Any takers?
16:39:42 <maxamillion> I'll do it if nobody else does, but I do it a lot ...
16:39:55 <sgallagh> I'll take it
16:40:00 <maxamillion> sgallagh++
16:40:05 <sgallagh> I had to scrub doing it a couple weeks ago. I'm overdue.
16:40:17 <jforbes> #info sgallagh will chair next weeks meeting
16:40:20 <tyll> thx
16:40:28 <jforbes> #topic Open Floor
16:41:00 <nirik> so, we might want to revisit the kde/qt-webengine ticket...
16:41:18 <bowlofeggs> my job is still running: https://ci.centos.org/job/bodhi-bodhi/614/console
16:41:32 <bowlofeggs> if it makes it past the "docker build" phase, then i think it's resolved
16:41:48 <jforbes> nirik: revisit how?
16:42:31 <nirik> well, kkoffler said: "So, in short, I strongly urge you to reconsider this unfair decision in your next meeting. If you insist on enforcing it, I will have no other choice but to orphan the package, as I made clear from the beginning."
16:42:50 <nirik> but there's been about 10,000 comments since then, so I am not sure if he still means that
16:43:03 <nirik> https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1781#comment-472589
16:43:36 <nirik> he did not remove kde-sig from commit
16:44:02 <nirik> we could just let it go... dunno. or ask in ticket
16:45:09 <bowlofeggs> yeah i really don't know what to do about this
16:45:10 <nirik> I just thought I would bring it up. :)
16:45:16 <jforbes> Well, it is going to take me a good 20 minutes to catch up and digest the novel full of comments there, should we hold up this meeting for that?
16:46:02 <nirik> naw, but perhaps address it next meeting?
16:46:08 <jforbes> Perhaps we all review it and add it to next week's agenda
16:46:28 <jforbes> I am okay with that provided it is necessary.
16:46:48 <nirik> sure. I can vote in ticket if there's some proposal someone puts there.
16:47:12 <jforbes> Though from the interest there, I am sure if it is orphaned, it will be picked up
16:47:14 <maxamillion> same
16:47:16 <sgallagh> I'm going to be honest. I'm not reading that wall of text.
16:47:39 <maxamillion> I'll read it, but it'll be later
16:47:40 <bowlofeggs> when does this become a fedora council issue?
16:47:59 <maxamillion> maybe now?
16:48:02 <bowlofeggs> if it's personality issues, is it fesco's job still?
16:48:27 <maxamillion> yeah, I think this has gone beyond the scope of technical or otherwise engineering concerns for Fedora
16:49:08 * bowlofeggs imagines that the council meetings involve candles and hooded robes
16:49:11 <jforbes> I would agree we have given a technical solution, it seems well beyond that
16:49:21 <bowlofeggs> i guess a freenode cloak is kinda like a hooded robe…
16:49:48 <jforbes> bowlofeggs: I image more copious amounts of alcohol to get through some of the stuff they have to deal with
16:49:52 <bowlofeggs> should we close the ticket and say that if people feel it's unresolved to take it up with council, or should we just go ahead and file a council ticket?
16:49:59 <maxamillion> Proposal: As this issue is no longer focused on technical or engineering problem/solution, this be sent to the Fedora Council for a decision.
16:50:03 <bowlofeggs> jforbes: haha
16:50:10 <bowlofeggs> maxamillion: +1
16:50:13 <jforbes> maxamillion: +1
16:50:24 <tyll> +1
16:51:06 <bowlofeggs> we're like a lower court bouncing it up to the us supreme court
16:51:12 <nirik> well, it's unclear to me if he still doesn't like the decision... I'd be more in favor of saying thats what our decision is, and feel free to appeal to the council.
16:51:23 <nirik> or orphan the package
16:51:28 <bowlofeggs> yeah that's a reasonable response too
16:51:36 <jforbes> is jwb still the engineering representative?
16:51:55 <bowlofeggs> nirik: just don't forget that the kde people actually did want him to keep maintaining it
16:51:59 <jwb> yes
16:52:02 <bowlofeggs> nirik: they said he did a good job and that it was a lot of work
16:52:33 <jwb> i'm not paying attention to the meeting as i'm in another meeting.  summarize and email it to me and i'll do whatever needs to be done
16:52:44 <jforbes> jwb: will do
16:52:49 <bowlofeggs> nirik: not saying your proposal isn't a good one, just that if he orphans it…
16:53:03 <nirik> sure. But IMHO cooperating and being nice is work 1000 "rock stars"
16:53:10 <nirik> worth
16:53:20 <bowlofeggs> yeah i agree
16:53:22 <jforbes> bowlofeggs: no, it isn't an ideal solution
16:53:50 <nirik> I hope he is willing to try the arrangement we worked out and work with others...
16:53:52 <bowlofeggs> i'd +1 saying we stick to our ruling from last week, with an invitation to take it to council if they don' tlike it
16:54:12 <bowlofeggs> yeah i hope he's willing to try it too
16:55:08 <jforbes> Okay, proposal: FESCo stands by its decision and if the parties involved are not agreed, they should appeal to the council
16:55:22 <maxamillion> jforbes: +1
16:55:23 <nirik> sure. +1
16:55:30 <bowlofeggs> +1
16:55:58 <jforbes> +1
16:56:15 <jforbes> tyll sgallagh?
16:56:31 <tyll> +1
16:57:03 <sgallagh> +1
16:57:28 <jforbes> #agreed FESCo stands behind the decision on Issue 1781. If the parties involved do not agree, they can appeal to the council (+6,0,-0)
16:57:34 <jforbes> Anything else for open floor?
16:57:49 <jforbes> if not, will close in 2 minutes
16:58:09 * nirik has nothing
16:59:50 <jforbes> Thanks for coming everyone
16:59:52 <jforbes> #endmeeting