16:03:22 #startmeeting FESCO (2017-11-17) 16:03:22 Meeting started Fri Nov 17 16:03:22 2017 UTC. The chair is bowlofeggs. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 16:03:22 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 16:03:22 The meeting name has been set to 'fesco_(2017-11-17)' 16:03:22 #meetingname fesco 16:03:22 The meeting name has been set to 'fesco' 16:03:22 #chair maxamillion dgilmore nirik jforbes jsmith kalev sgallagh bowlofeggs tyll 16:03:22 Current chairs: bowlofeggs dgilmore jforbes jsmith kalev maxamillion nirik sgallagh tyll 16:03:22 #topic init process 16:03:27 .hello2 16:03:27 .hello2 16:03:27 jforbes: jforbes 'Justin M. Forbes' 16:03:30 maxamillion: maxamillion 'Adam Miller' 16:03:30 .hello2 16:03:33 jsmith: jsmith 'Jared Smith' 16:03:37 .hello2 16:03:39 sgallagh: sgallagh 'Stephen Gallagher' 16:03:57 I'm running another meeting simultaneously, so I'll do my best to be in attendance. Ping me directly if needed. 16:04:06 morning 16:04:09 i have corrected my FESCo meeting in my calendar to say 16:00 UTC instead of 12:00 EST :) 16:04:44 +1 16:05:21 looks like we have quorum 16:05:26 r u ready 4 this 16:05:39 #topic #1767 F28 Self Contained Changes 16:05:39 .fesco 1767 16:05:41 bowlofeggs: Issue #1767: F28 Self Contained Changes - fesco - Pagure - https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1767 16:06:07 +1 for sugar 16:06:15 more specifically, we are looking at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Sugar-112 16:06:23 +1 from me 16:06:42 +1 here 16:07:06 Looks like tyll voted in the ticket, fwiw 16:07:12 +1 16:07:15 +1 16:07:52 that's 5 so far, sgallagh? 16:08:54 +1 16:09:13 #agreed Sugar change is approved (+6, 0, -0) 16:09:24 #topic #1784 libsolv and dnf maintainers: failure to respond to critical bug 16:09:24 .fesco #1784 16:09:24 bowlofeggs: Error: '#1784' is not a valid integer. 16:09:31 o rly 16:09:38 https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1784 16:10:13 i agree with what tyll_ wrote 16:10:33 yeah. same here. 16:10:48 bowlofeggs: I think you need to s/#// 16:10:55 it seems like people are trying to fix things, but it's not at all just the dnf maintainers and there are multiple issues people are lumping on to one issue 16:11:03 ignatenkobrain: ah yeah haha 16:11:20 nirik: Couldn't have said it better myself 16:11:47 it sounds like a pretty complex problem 16:11:51 It does look as though the root causes are being worked on, so I'm -1 at this time 16:12:07 because it also only seems to happen in containers, so that's another layer of complication to it 16:12:16 (and hopefully the better communication will continue) 16:13:08 Proposal: -1 to removing dnf maintainers, +1 to moving issues to bugzilla (and separating them into different tickets) 16:13:13 +1 16:13:19 bowlofeggs: +1 16:13:23 sure, +1. 16:13:45 +1 16:14:02 +1 16:14:13 sgallagh: ? 16:14:21 +1 16:15:03 #agreed dnf maintainers will not be removed. FESCo encourages reporters to file separate tickets for each issue in bugzilla (+7, 0, -0) 16:15:14 #topic #1786 Non-responsive maintainer: jcapik 16:15:14 .fesco 1786 16:15:16 bowlofeggs: Issue #1786: Non-responsive maintainer: jcapik - fesco - Pagure - https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1786 16:15:27 We've already agreed on this one, but it's time for someone to do it 16:15:31 any volunteers? 16:15:38 i dont' think i have acls to do that 16:15:50 I don't know if anyone but nirik and dgilmore do 16:15:53 (on FESCo) 16:15:55 I'm not sure I do either 16:16:02 I think tyll_ can as well. 16:16:26 but I can do it. I think the best way is a releng ticket... so we have a central place for people to ask for packages. 16:16:46 oh, like just file a releng ticket? i don't mind doing that if that's the way to go 16:16:52 since i have to do post-meeting stuff anyway 16:16:58 i'll take care of filing it 16:17:04 ok. yeah 16:17:17 #action bowlofeggs will file a releng ticket to ask for jcapik's packages to be orphaned 16:17:31 #topic 1788 Default path for root is inconsistent between su - and sudo 16:17:32 .fesco 1788 16:17:33 bowlofeggs: Issue #1788: Default path for root is inconsistent between su - and sudo - fesco - Pagure - https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1788 16:17:46 last time we talked about this, we were not in agreement on the issue 16:17:57 at that time, we had said we would discuss it on the ticket/mailing list 16:18:40 i did try to start a discussion a couple weeks ago in the ticket, but i didn't see further comments from other fesco members 16:19:02 well, 9 days ago i guess isn't a "couple weeks" 16:19:29 i'm still of the opinion that the packagers should have the freedom to decide on this one 16:19:37 There was a slight bit of discussuon on list... but not much 16:19:40 I guess at this point, I'm with bowlofeggs 16:19:54 I don't feel strongly enough about the topic to override the packagers 16:20:17 I'm in agreement with bowlofeggs 16:20:19 The setup maintainer said they would do whatever we wanted... they didn't feel strongly about it 16:20:19 (and it's easy enough for me to override on my own should I want something different) 16:21:17 Proposal: The setup and sudo package maintainers are free to make the decision about this issue without FESCo 16:21:34 Yeah, I really don't see a compelling reason to change it, and it's pretty easy for users to do so if they need to 16:21:40 +1 16:21:50 +1 16:22:04 anyone using /usr/local/ is easily able to add that... 16:22:09 bowlofeggs: +1 16:22:56 jforbes: ? 16:23:01 bowlofeggs: +1 16:23:05 +1 here 16:23:19 tyll_ didn't vote on this one, but that's 6 16:23:35 #agreed The setup and sudo package maintainers are free to make the decision about this issue without FESCo (+6, 0, -0) 16:23:55 on to new business (we are on a roll today!) 16:24:02 #topic #1790 Proposal for 3 week freeze 16:24:02 .fesco 1790 16:24:03 bowlofeggs: Issue #1790: Proposal for 3 week freeze - fesco - Pagure - https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1790 16:24:31 it's too bad dgilmore isn't here today, i'd like his feedback on this one 16:24:54 mboddu: ping - you have any thoughts on this? ^^^ 16:24:58 he made a comment on the ticket, but it doesn't really state his position on the proposal clearly to me 16:25:26 I guess I'm +1 to the change, given that we're not mandating the infra freeze, and that infra freeze exceptions aren't too difficult to get (in my opinion) 16:25:39 bowlofeggs: bah, missed it 16:25:41 as an infra member, i actually don't mind the freeze being longer, but i don't deploy bodhi extremely often anyway 16:25:46 right, this is about packages going stable freeze. 16:25:51 bowlofeggs: I am here 16:26:05 sorry I had the meeting starting in 35 minutes 16:26:06 dgilmore: awesome :) what are your thoughts on thsi one? 16:26:11 dgilmore: yeah i made the same mistake 16:26:12 bowlofeggs: on what 16:26:19 dgilmore: https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1790 16:26:23 I'm afraid it will annoy maintainers... perhaps we should try and get some list feedback? 16:26:43 bowlofeggs: it will annoy people 16:26:53 Yes, it will 16:26:57 nirik: No more annoying that the texlive breakage in rawhide :-) 16:26:59 I think for Beta it is probably wise 16:27:07 jsmith: different. ;) 16:27:07 personally I don't care much since I use rawhide, but it will annoy other people definitely because upgradepath will be "broken" for longer time 16:27:12 nils: But that's a fair point -- let's reach out on the mailing list 16:27:13 we almost always slip a week at the first milestone 16:27:20 just getting changes lined up 16:27:21 jsmith: true! 16:27:27 jsmith, ITYM nirik 16:27:46 Yeah, tab completion fail :-( 16:27:51 * jsmith hates this keyboard 16:28:21 dgilmore: interesting, so you might suggest a longer freeze on beta, but the same freeze we have now on final? 16:28:31 i'd be +1 to devel list feedback 16:28:37 bowlofeggs: I think that would be a decent comprimise 16:29:11 Proposal: Document dgilmore's compromise proposal on the ticket, and write the devel list for feedback. defer decision until next week 16:29:37 I also think if we had CI in place and kept breakages on the side that we would not need to extend teh freeze 16:29:53 bowlofeggs: I can get behind that 16:29:54 yeah CI would help a lot 16:30:16 +1 for both proposal and CI. ;) 16:30:19 ci is in progress, so it should help out 16:30:22 +1 proposal 16:30:36 reminds me I need to file an issue witha change to the schedule that was done in f27 and makes no sense 16:30:46 +! 16:30:47 +1 16:31:15 maxamillion, sgallagh, jsmith: ? 16:31:21 += 16:31:23 ugh 16:31:24 +1 16:31:27 that's my day in a nutshell 16:31:30 +1 16:31:30 haha 16:31:41 * sgallagh reads the proposal. one moment 16:32:36 OK, so longer beta freeze, same Final? 16:32:37 +1 16:32:55 #agreed Document dgilmore's compromise proposal on the ticket, and write the devel list for feedback. defer decision until next week (+7, 0, -0) 16:33:12 #action bowlofeggs will document the compromise proposal and write devel 16:33:28 only one left 16:33:34 #topic #1791 F28 System Wide Change: Ruby 2.5 16:33:34 .fesco 1791 16:33:35 bowlofeggs: Issue #1791: F28 System Wide Change: Ruby 2.5 - fesco - Pagure - https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1791 16:33:46 +1 16:33:49 +1 16:34:15 +1 16:34:53 +1 16:34:57 it doesn't meantion backwards compat, but I'm pretty sure since 1.9.3 they've not done crazy breakage in minor version bumps 16:35:00 tyll_ was +1 in the ticket 16:35:02 +1 16:35:13 maxamillion: there is a note in there that things should keep working 16:35:22 +1 16:35:24 +1 16:35:30 "The Ruby programs/scripts should behave as they were used to. " 16:35:57 #agreed Ruby 2.5 approved (+7, 0, -0) 16:36:05 #topic Next week's chair 16:36:11 oh, will we have a meeting next week? 16:36:17 it's a holiday in the US 16:36:21 and a lot of us are in the US 16:36:24 we should skip. 16:36:33 * dgilmore is on PTO all of next week 16:36:37 #topic Chair in two weeks 16:37:08 oh, i just realized i forgot a topic 16:37:09 bowlofeggs: yeah, but I was looking for some kind of statement of compat from upstream or something 16:37:16 we have one more to talk about after this, sorry 16:37:19 I can do it, I haven't in a while... this is 2017-12-01? 16:37:35 nirik: yeah 16:37:44 #action nirik will chair on 2017-12-01 16:37:45 when is the election? 16:37:57 * dgilmore thinks he missed nominating 16:38:42 wait, what? 16:38:53 I need to be better at keeping an eye on that :/ 16:39:06 Nominations start next week I thought 16:39:15 let's do my last topic, adn talk about election in open floor, if that's cool 16:39:24 nirik: thanks for hosting next time! 16:39:27 #topic #1793 Provenpackager creating branches and pushing there 16:39:27 .fesco 1793 16:39:28 bowlofeggs: Issue #1793: Provenpackager creating branches and pushing there - fesco - Pagure - https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1793 16:39:37 not very friendly, but it made me very upset yesterday 16:39:56 bowlofeggs: yep 16:40:32 i would like to hear from ppisar on this too, as tyll_ suggested 16:40:35 I'm still hoping this was miscommunication. 16:40:37 yeah 16:40:38 So, our policy is generally that we expect provenpackagers to operate in the best interests of the Project. 16:41:01 I think in this particular case, ppisar made a mistake. 16:41:16 I wish ignatenkobrain had just brought this to me rather than all of FESCo; I think we can handle this within Modularity. 16:41:17 I think that if it needs to diverge then it needs a f27 branch 16:41:29 updating master to say its f27 is not okay 16:41:32 it does appear that way but I'd like to hear from ppisar before forming an opinion about the situation 16:41:37 Proposal: I'll play moderator here 16:41:47 * jsmith is +1 for gathering more information (or having sgallagh do that) 16:41:54 I also think that particular module should not exist 16:41:58 dgilmore: It's a little more subtle than that, because these are module branches, not traditional ones 16:42:09 "master" in this case means that this module is always tracking upstream master. 16:42:11 there is a lot of known security issues with that particular stack of software 16:42:19 sgallagh: right 16:42:39 But at the moment, the "master" branch of platform (aka Rawhide) is broken and unmaintained. 16:42:54 So we wanted this to be switched to be depending on the known-working platform 16:43:00 sgallagh: that is a different issue in and of itself 16:43:04 It shouldn't have caused another branch to be split off 16:43:06 +1 to sgallagh's proposal. if that doesn't work, it can come back to FESCo 16:43:27 That was a misunderstanding on ppisar's side, and we can resolve that with a conversation I expect 16:43:40 sgallagh: a different branch, whatever makes sense for a module should be created if we are to follow it 16:44:21 dgilmore: The *intent* is that the libtom module should be able to specify a range of platform modules that it can use. 16:44:27 my IRC client doesn't work.... 16:44:30 That feature isn't ready yet, so we're in an odd shape 16:44:31 dgilmore: it doesn't need actually. but that's details. this issue was more about that pp created branch of some project he doesn't maintain and pushed something there... like if he would request some branch for rpm without being maintainer of it -- which means original maintainer of RPM would have to support it 16:45:05 Anyway, I know the situation, the participants and the technology involved, so I'll handle this. 16:45:06 but I agree with sgallagh, this could have been handled within modularity wg.. was too upset that went directly to FESCo 16:45:09 ignatenkobrain_: that happens sometimes, and I am sure as we embrace arbitory branching will happen more and more 16:45:22 proposal: let involved parties + sgallagh work it out, come back to fesco with more info if there is still a dispute. 16:45:29 dgilmore: should we make sure that person who creates branch **is** maintaining that repo? 16:45:30 nirik: +1 16:45:44 ignatenkobrain_: no one "owns" any of it, they are the maintainer and caretaker, but there is no ownership as such 16:45:54 ignatenkobrain_: I do not think so 16:46:01 nirik: +1 16:46:13 Yes, that's another point we should hammer home: the Fedora Project "owns" all of the branches. Individuals help cultivate them :) 16:46:20 ignatenkobrain_: we should make sure that people who make a branch understand that they are signing up to be the caretaker of that branch 16:46:27 nirik: +1 16:46:38 nirik: +1 16:46:42 but agree with sgallagh , we could have handled that within modularity wg 16:46:43 dgilmore: you probably didn't got me. I was basically saying that if I'm the only one maintainer of $x and someone wants to have branch, should he being assigned for that particular branch as @owner@? 16:46:44 dgilmore: it doesn't need actually. but that's details. this issue was more about that pp created branch of some project he doesn't maintain and pushed something there... like if he would request some branch for rpm without being maintainer of it -- which means original maintainer of RPM would have to support it 16:46:45 nirik: +1 16:46:55 nirik: +1 16:46:55 ignatenkobrain: I get you 16:47:01 oh, my main IRC client went live again 16:47:06 and sending old messages 16:47:26 that's 7 16:47:30 including nirik 16:47:35 ignatenkobrain: I just do not agree with you, by creating taht branch he was signing up to be the caretaker of it 16:47:50 #agreed let involved parties + sgallagh work it out, come back to fesco with more info if there is still a dispute (+7, 0, -0) 16:48:13 ignatenkobrain: I actaully am planning to get aproposal together to remove all of that stack 16:48:18 more to say on this, or open floor? 16:48:28 (since we have an agreement :)) 16:48:49 dgilmore: I think you and ignatenkobrain are in agreement, just not speaking the same language. 16:49:07 ignatenkobrain was upset because ppisar created a branch that he expected ignatenkobrain to maintain. 16:49:14 *That* was incorrect behavior 16:49:46 note: it's been 15 minutes on this topic, do we want to keep talking about it (we have an agreement), or open floor? 16:49:50 I think we're done here 16:49:52 sgallagh: perhaps, ppisar even if not intentionally took maintainership of that by his actions 16:49:58 anyway lets move on 16:50:00 oh sorry, only 10 min actually 16:50:15 #topic open floor 16:50:23 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Elections has the dates. Nominations start next week. 16:50:49 * jsmith has nothing for the open floor 16:50:54 after raising elections I realise I am not up this time 16:51:16 As per the FESCo election policy, the following FESCo members finish their terms, and the seats are up for re-election: 16:51:19 Kevin Fenzi (nirik) - elected for F26/F27 period Adam Miller (maxamillion) - elected for F26/F27 period Jared Smith (jsmith) - elected for F26/F27 period Justin Forbes (jforbes) - elected for F26/F27 period Kalev Lember (kalev) - elected for F26/F27 period 16:51:27 those are the seats up for election 16:51:34 +1 16:51:56 maxamillion: so for reals its you this time 16:52:00 haha 16:52:01 :) 16:52:02 dgilmore: Hah, beat me to it :) 16:52:07 like, for *real* 16:52:17 like for real for real 16:52:24 really? 16:52:27 maxamillion was running to have two seats last time, with two votes! 16:52:28 orly? 16:53:09 I'm a strong supporter of the one man, one vote policy: I'm The Man, I have the vote. (Apologies to Terry Pratchett) 16:53:12 * dgilmore gets ready to play with new network toys 16:53:15 yeah, someone put in a meeting that my seat was up so I entered the nominations when I shouldn't have :X 16:53:26 <.< 16:53:27 ? 16:53:29 :) 16:53:29 haha 16:53:30 >.> 16:53:46 cool, ending in 60s if no further topics 16:54:13 * sgallagh has nothing 16:54:26 * dgilmore just filed https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1794 16:54:31 but that should wait 16:54:47 #endmeeting