15:01:46 <maxamillion> #startmeeting FESCO (2018-08-20)
15:01:46 <maxamillion> #meetingname fesco
15:01:46 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon Aug 20 15:01:46 2018 UTC.
15:01:46 <zodbot> This meeting is logged and archived in a public location.
15:01:46 <zodbot> The chair is maxamillion. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
15:01:46 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
15:01:46 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fesco_(2018-08-20)'
15:01:46 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fesco'
15:01:46 <maxamillion> #chair nirik, maxamillion, jsmith, jwb, zbyszek, tyll, sgallagh, contyk, bowlofeggs
15:01:46 <maxamillion> #topic init process
15:01:46 <zodbot> Current chairs: bowlofeggs contyk jsmith jwb maxamillion nirik sgallagh tyll zbyszek
15:01:52 <maxamillion> .hello2
15:01:53 <zodbot> maxamillion: maxamillion 'Adam Miller' <maxamillion@gmail.com>
15:01:54 <bowlofeggs> .hello2
15:01:54 <jsmith> .hello2
15:01:56 <contyk> .hello psabata
15:01:56 <zodbot> bowlofeggs: bowlofeggs 'Randy Barlow' <rbarlow@redhat.com>
15:01:59 <zodbot> jsmith: jsmith 'Jared Smith' <jsmith.fedora@gmail.com>
15:02:02 <zodbot> contyk: psabata 'Petr Šabata' <psabata@redhat.com>
15:02:06 <bcotton> .hello2
15:02:07 <zodbot> bcotton: bcotton 'Ben Cotton' <bcotton@redhat.com>
15:02:13 <zbyszek> .hello2
15:02:14 <zodbot> zbyszek: zbyszek 'Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek' <zbyszek@in.waw.pl>
15:02:19 * jsmith is traveling, and will have limited connectivity, but will try to respond as quickly as possible in the meeting.
15:02:37 <nirik> morning
15:02:58 <sgallagh> I'm in the middle of recovering a bad F29 update, so I'm on my phone. Will try to vote, but probably won't be talkative
15:03:22 <zbyszek> sgallagh: you can probably send some emoticons easy
15:03:37 <sgallagh> 🖕
15:03:49 <maxamillion> confirmed
15:04:05 <contyk> 🥕
15:04:07 <bcotton> sgallagh: "finger" is not one of the four Fs
15:04:08 <maxamillion> alright, we have the votes ... let's get rolling
15:04:15 <maxamillion> #topic #1935 Remove packages which has a consistent bad security record from the distribution.
15:04:15 <maxamillion> .fesco 1935
15:04:15 <maxamillion> https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1935
15:04:16 <zodbot> maxamillion: Issue #1935: [Security] Remove packages which has a consistent bad security record from the distribution. - fesco - Pagure - https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1935
15:04:23 <maxamillion> this is  a follow-up from last week
15:04:37 <zbyszek> Two weeks ago?
15:04:37 <contyk> or two weeks ago
15:04:52 <contyk> also jsmith and I attended the flock talk
15:05:03 <sgallagh> bcotton: Apologies. Frustrating morning.
15:05:15 <nirik> do we have a concrete proposal here?
15:05:41 <maxamillion> zbyszek: yes ... many weeks ago I think
15:05:45 <contyk> I'd be in favor of triggering the ftbfs process for leaf packages that have had open and unaddressed security issues for two releases
15:06:31 <jsmith> And I would as well -- especially if the security issues are High or Critial and/or have a CVSS score of 8.0 or higher.
15:06:41 <sgallagh> contyk: Of at least medium severity?
15:06:41 <zbyszek> I don't think we should stick to leaf packages.
15:06:44 <nirik> I can be in favor of that, but note someone has to manage that process.
15:07:08 <contyk> no preference on the severity
15:07:13 <misc> how would users be notified ?
15:07:28 <misc> (cause we do have a example with cobbler currently)
15:07:33 <zbyszek> Quite the opposite, especially if it is not a leaf package, we should go through the process of annoying the maintainers, and possibly orphaning and then retiring the package.
15:08:02 <sgallagh> contyk: I really couldn't care less if the maintainers ignored bugs like "If you already have root on the system, you can do other stuff in this specific app"
15:08:26 <bowlofeggs> i agree - non-leaf packages could be more important to pay attention to since they affect more of the distribution
15:08:49 <contyk> during the talk, huzaifas said he would like to see at least some response to the report
15:08:50 <zbyszek> sgallagh: maintainers should jsut close such bugs with WONTFIX and a short message.
15:09:01 <contyk> if it's of the type sgallagh is mentioning, even just closing it with wontfix is fine
15:09:11 <zbyszek> It's better for everybody involved than an unmanagable pile of CVEs.
15:09:20 <jsmith> WORKSFORME
15:09:31 <sgallagh> I can see my way to agreeing to that
15:09:37 <bowlofeggs> yeah i also think ack'ing it could be enough if it's not severe
15:09:38 <nirik> or even a assigned with 'working on a fix, but it could be a while' is much better than silence.
15:10:20 <orc_fedo> may I ask that a minimum CVSS3 threshold be part of this .. ther eis gamesmanship on getting CVE's that are not exploitable in the broader community
15:10:20 <bowlofeggs> yeah
15:10:54 <bowlofeggs> there is a technical problem to solve with CVSS scores - i don't know that bugzilla has an easy way to query by them
15:10:56 <bowlofeggs> (or does it?)
15:11:02 <sgallagh> orc_fedo: That was kind of what I was suggesting, but the counter-argument holds merit: the maintainer should at least make a statement that they are ignoring or deferring it
15:11:19 <orc_fedo> bowlofeggs they are in tag: Whiteboard
15:11:33 <orc_fedo> sgallagh: see eg: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1618891
15:11:34 <nirik> if we are using the ftbfs process all they have to do is change the bug state... wontfix, assigned, etc right?
15:11:42 <sgallagh> right
15:13:03 <zbyszek> I guess this should be enough. If there are specific cases where this is not enough, FESCo can override the process.
15:14:09 <maxamillion> any proposals?
15:14:17 <contyk> so, ftbfs process for all packages, not just leaves, with security bugs in the NEW state for at least two releases?
15:14:37 <zbyszek> I think it should be different, let me type a counter-proposal up
15:14:39 <contyk> the bug list in the ticket was pretty long; do we know how many packages this means?
15:15:40 * nirik notes we don't actually have anyone doing the ftbfs process, so we should note who will manage this. perhaps rotating fesco members? but that will need a good SOP
15:17:04 <zbyszek> nirik: I think we should discuss this during open floor
15:18:28 <bowlofeggs> zbyszek: are you still typing up a counter?
15:19:10 <zbyszek> proposal: If a CRITICAL or IMPORTANT security issue is open against a package at the branch point, trigger a procedure similar to long-standing FTBFS immediately, with 8 weeks of weekly notifications to maintainers and subsequent orphaning and then subsequent removal from distribution. This applies to all packages, not just leaf.
15:19:40 <zbyszek> I know this is pretty harsh.
15:19:53 <bowlofeggs> zbyszek: would that remove it from the branched release?
15:19:57 <bowlofeggs> or just rawhide?
15:20:03 <zbyszek> Both.
15:20:16 <bowlofeggs> that could impact the schedule of the branched release
15:20:23 <bowlofeggs> i wonder if we should start earlier than branched?
15:20:36 <zbyszek> I was wondering about that too.
15:20:36 <bowlofeggs> depending on which packages, of course
15:20:39 <maxamillion> zbyszek: I'm not against the proposal as written, but I worry about the implications / fall-out of it applying to all packages
15:20:44 <contyk> it's also rather different from the original proposal where we grant them 2 releases time
15:20:55 <bowlofeggs> 2 releases is a long time for a critical
15:20:57 <nirik> does someone have a search handy for that? ie, how many does that affect?
15:20:59 <zbyszek> Yes, but 2 releases time is very long.
15:21:02 <contyk> I would also like to do it for all severities, as noted before
15:21:08 <nirik> also that leaves stuff less critial just lingering
15:21:25 <bcotton> i'm not sure what other anchor point in the schedule would fit. though we could just add it as an explicit milestone with some offset from the branch point
15:22:34 <bowlofeggs> i do think it's sensible to have different requirements based on severity
15:22:42 <bowlofeggs> because low sev CVEs are often silly
15:23:09 <zbyszek> nirik: so what about doing "If a CRITICAL or IMPORTANT security issue is open, or an issue of lower severity has been open for at least 6 months, at the branch point ..."?
15:23:33 <orc_fedo> there are presently 2438 moderate or critical CVE's in bugzilla
15:23:33 <nirik> bowlofeggs: any status of CVE can be silly. ;)
15:23:49 <bowlofeggs> nirik: hahah true, for different reasons of "silly"
15:24:01 <bowlofeggs> what i meant was more that a lot of them start with "if the attacker has root..."
15:24:16 <nirik> so, perhaps we should punt this to next week and ask people to write up concrete proposals rather than trying to draft something in meeting?
15:24:24 <bowlofeggs> nirik: +1
15:24:27 <zbyszek> nirik: +1
15:24:35 <bowlofeggs> though i think zbyszek's proposal is close to what i'd want
15:24:43 <maxamillion> nirik: +1
15:24:47 <bowlofeggs> i just worry about the schedule and the severity
15:25:05 <contyk> nirik: +1
15:25:15 <zbyszek> I'll put my proposal in the ticket and then maybe we can hammer out the details there.
15:25:16 <jsmith> +1
15:27:32 <maxamillion> #agreed - Postpone decision until next week, awaiting zbyszek's proposal in ticket
15:27:36 <maxamillion> #undo
15:27:36 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: AGREED by maxamillion at 15:27:32 : - Postpone decision until next week, awaiting zbyszek's proposal in ticket
15:27:47 <maxamillion> #agreed - Postpone decision until next week, awaiting zbyszek's proposal in ticket (+5, -0, +0)
15:27:59 <nirik> sure, +1, lets move on
15:28:00 <maxamillion> #topic #1955 Let's get rid of filedeps (FESCo edition)
15:28:01 <maxamillion> .fesco 1955
15:28:01 <maxamillion> https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1955
15:28:03 <zodbot> maxamillion: Issue #1955: Let's get rid of filedeps (FESCo edition) - fesco - Pagure - https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1955
15:29:52 <zbyszek> This issue is a bit circular, with various actions only making sense if other stuff is done, which in turn somewhat depends on those initial issues.
15:30:06 <nirik> really the big win would be lazy loading in dnf...
15:30:16 <bowlofeggs> this issue also seems like an FPC issue to me
15:30:29 <contyk> well, we sent them to fpc before
15:30:30 <bowlofeggs> though i guess it's here because they are undecided on it?
15:30:31 <contyk> now it's back
15:30:44 <maxamillion> fun :)
15:30:58 <nirik> they still also have a ticket I think.
15:31:00 * jsmith is still waiting to see if zchunk makes this much less of an issue.
15:31:01 <contyk> fpc thinks there's nothing to change in the guidelines; they already discourage the usage of file deps
15:31:07 <zbyszek> My proposal would be to say: "we are doing this", and ask FPC to update the guidelines to forbid deps outside of /usr/[s]bin, and initiate cleanup of packages, and in parallel start working on dnf, createrepo_c, libsolv
15:31:10 <contyk> I also think zchunk will help a lot here
15:31:18 <zbyszek> contyk: current guidelines are inadequate
15:31:34 <zbyszek> contyk: zchunk is orthogonal to this
15:31:53 <bowlofeggs> zbyszek: i think they wanted to allow /etc/ too, but it sounds fine to me
15:31:57 <contyk> it won't help with the dnf startup time
15:32:26 <bowlofeggs> i feel like there was a comment somewhere about allowing /etc anyway...
15:33:07 <zbyszek> I'm not really sure about /etc, I'm not sure if I see the point, but this is a minor detail.
15:33:15 <bowlofeggs> agreed
15:33:45 <bowlofeggs> tibbs suggested just closing the issue
15:33:50 <bowlofeggs> in https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1955#comment-524412
15:33:51 <nirik> https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/714
15:34:15 <nirik> FPC did agree on some changes, see the end of that ticket
15:34:46 <nirik> it's just not been announced yet
15:34:57 <tibbs> It is written into the guidelines, though.
15:35:08 <bowlofeggs> cool
15:35:18 <bowlofeggs> they went with SHOULD NOT and not MUST NO
15:35:19 <bowlofeggs> t
15:35:31 <bowlofeggs> so, if they came to an agreement, do we need to decide anything?
15:35:38 <zbyszek> Yes
15:36:02 <zbyszek> Well, we don't really have to, but it'd be good if fesco gave a +1 to doing the changes in packages and dnf
15:36:29 <nirik> well, we can ask dnf developers to consider it and put it on their road map... but we cannot force them to do soemthing.
15:36:29 <sgallagh> I need to drop, folks. Is that going to kill quorum?
15:37:05 <zbyszek> True.
15:37:26 <bowlofeggs> sgallagh: i think we still have 5?
15:37:40 <nirik> proposal: ask dnf folks to put this on their roadmap, close ticket
15:37:48 <zbyszek> nirik: +1
15:37:51 <bowlofeggs> me, zbyszek, nirik, contyk, jsmith, and maxamillion (so, 6)
15:38:06 <bowlofeggs> nirik: +1
15:39:17 <maxamillion> +1
15:39:48 <contyk> nirik: could you be more specific with "this"?
15:40:23 <nirik> implement lazy loading or other ways of reducing initial repodata downloads
15:40:57 <maxamillion> #agreed ask dnf folks to put lazy loading (or reduced repodata loads) on their roadmap, close ticket (+1: 6, -1: 0, +0: 0)
15:41:00 <maxamillion> good?
15:41:14 <zbyszek> contyk didn't vote I think
15:41:20 <zbyszek> (yet)
15:41:31 <contyk> I only see three votes after nirik's proposal
15:41:53 <contyk> but I'm +1 to lazy loading in dnf
15:42:40 <maxamillion> oh, sorry ... I was counting what bowlofeggs said about votes
15:42:44 <maxamillion> #undo
15:42:44 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: AGREED by maxamillion at 15:40:57 : ask dnf folks to put lazy loading (or reduced repodata loads) on their roadmap, close ticket (+1: 6, -1: 0, +0: 0)
15:43:00 <maxamillion> jsmith: sgallagh: what say you?
15:43:10 <contyk> sgallagh said he was leaving
15:43:21 <bowlofeggs> maxamillion: haha i was just telling sgallagh that we had quorum (he had to leave)
15:43:47 <jsmith> maxamillion: +1
15:45:26 <zbyszek> jsmith: your +1 is for nirik's proposal, I presume
15:45:33 <jsmith> Yes
15:45:35 <maxamillion> oh, I missed that
15:45:38 <maxamillion> sgallagh: nvm :)
15:45:39 <jsmith> (Sorry, juggling multiple cats)
15:45:41 <maxamillion> bowlofeggs: we do
15:46:00 <maxamillion> #agreed ask dnf folks to put lazy loading (or reduced repodata loads) on their roadmap, close ticket (+1: 5, -1: 0, +0: 0)
15:46:09 <maxamillion> #topic #1962 F29 Change: Cloud Provider Image Updates
15:46:10 <maxamillion> .fesco 1962
15:46:10 <maxamillion> https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1962
15:46:11 <zbyszek> Actually it's +6 now
15:46:12 <zodbot> maxamillion: Issue #1962: F29 Change: Cloud Provider Image Updates - fesco - Pagure - https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1962
15:46:18 <zbyszek> No matter
15:46:22 <nirik> +1 here if I wasn't already in ticket.
15:46:34 <maxamillion> zbyszek: I apparently can't count ... sorry about that one
15:47:25 <zbyszek> +1 too, I guess the details will have be figured out during implementation
15:47:52 <contyk> +1
15:47:53 <jsmith> +1 too, although I'd still like feedback from releng
15:48:05 <maxamillion> +1 - agreed about feedback from releng
15:48:09 <maxamillion> mboddu: ping - you around?
15:48:17 <bowlofeggs> +1
15:48:21 <mboddu> maxamillion: Yes
15:48:47 <maxamillion> mboddu: do you mind commenting on https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1962 ?
15:50:22 <mboddu> Sure, will take a look now
15:51:03 <maxamillion> mboddu: thank you
15:53:28 <bowlofeggs> <crickets>
15:53:51 <zbyszek> the sound of eyeballs moving
15:55:19 <bowlofeggs> so, uh...
15:55:30 <bowlofeggs> maxamillion: i think i count +6?
15:55:45 <maxamillion> bowlofeggs: oh crap
15:55:56 <maxamillion> I'm still not used to the new process, that's on me
15:56:04 <jdoss> .hello2
15:56:07 <zodbot> jdoss: jdoss 'Joe Doss' <joe@solidadmin.com>
15:56:31 <maxamillion> #agreed  F29 Change: Cloud Provider Image Updates - Approved by in-ticket votes (+1: 6, -1: 0, +0: 0)
15:56:35 <maxamillion> mboddu: sorry
15:56:45 <maxamillion> #topic #1964 Nonresponsive maintainer: wolnei (kio-gdrive)
15:56:45 <maxamillion> .fesco 1964
15:56:45 <maxamillion> https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1964
15:56:46 <zodbot> maxamillion: Issue #1964: Nonresponsive maintainer: wolnei (kio-gdrive) - fesco - Pagure - https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1964
15:57:27 <jdoss> Sorry I'm late. I can answer any questions about #1916 but I looks like it's approved :)
15:58:07 <mboddu> maxamillion: I commented on it and I am +1 to the change but we need some help/changes which I commented on the ticket
15:58:11 <jdoss> Sorry #1962
15:58:52 <nirik> +1 to this ticket, I can just do it now.
15:59:15 <bowlofeggs> is there a non-responsive BZ ticket here?
15:59:22 <maxamillion> +1
15:59:28 <bowlofeggs> ah yes there is
15:59:40 <bowlofeggs> i'm +1 to reassign
16:00:01 <contyk> same, +1
16:00:07 <zbyszek> +1 to reassign
16:01:24 <maxamillion> #agreed reassign wolnei (kio-gdrive) packages (+1: 5, +0: 0, -1: 0)
16:01:30 <nirik> note that it just needs one fesco member to ack it... :) so done. move on.
16:01:35 <maxamillion> #topic #1967 Fedora 29 incomplete changes
16:01:36 <maxamillion> .fesco 1967
16:01:36 <maxamillion> https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1967
16:01:39 <zodbot> maxamillion: Issue #1967: Fedora 29 incomplete changes - fesco - Pagure - https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1967
16:02:21 <bowlofeggs> should we go 1x1?
16:02:41 <nirik> the last update was 5 days ago, some of them may be marked done now?
16:02:54 <zbyszek> yeah, 1x1
16:03:00 <bowlofeggs> mpfr seems unresponsive maybe
16:03:05 <bowlofeggs> well more than maybe
16:03:13 <nirik> one by one seems good, we can check them as we go.
16:03:15 <bowlofeggs> proposal: kick mpfr down to f30
16:03:20 <nirik> +1
16:03:39 <zbyszek> +1
16:04:37 <bowlofeggs> contyk, maxamillion, jsmith: ?
16:04:52 <maxamillion> +1
16:04:53 <contyk> +1
16:06:16 <bowlofeggs> <crickets>
16:06:31 <bowlofeggs> we do have a +5. shall we move on?
16:06:38 <zbyszek> please do
16:06:58 <bowlofeggs> maxamillion: ?
16:07:22 <bowlofeggs> dbus looks good as noted by zbyszek
16:07:34 <maxamillion> bowlofeggs: we have +5?
16:07:43 <maxamillion> bowlofeggs: I see +4
16:07:54 <zbyszek> bowlofeggs, let's do each one separately, we risk chaos otherwise
16:07:57 <bowlofeggs> maxamillion: well i think it's reasonable to interpret a proposal as an implicit +1
16:08:22 <bowlofeggs> zbyszek: sure, so let's discuss dbus
16:08:26 <maxamillion> #agreed Defer mpfr to Fedora 30 (+1: 5, -1: 0, +0: 0)
16:09:01 <zbyszek> So, re dbus, nirik merged the remaining PRs yesterday, so it's ready to be tested by unsuspecting users ;)
16:09:08 <bowlofeggs> zbyszek: heh
16:09:19 <nirik> we need a build tho right? or did you do one?
16:09:20 <bowlofeggs> so is there anything to do re: dbus, or come back to it in a week?
16:10:01 <zbyszek> nirik: I didn't do a build. I asked a few times, and I was always told that only releng people should work on this package
16:10:25 <nirik> no problem, mboddu or I can do a build. just wanted to make sure
16:10:52 <zbyszek> Well, if I can do builds, I wouldn't do the dance of "send a pr, then 8 reminders" so many times
16:11:45 <nirik> you can't now that I think about it, it's in a special channel. but PR's are good anyhow.
16:11:56 <zbyszek> I would prefer to have an explicit ack from the maintainers before doing that though.
16:12:13 <zbyszek> ah, OK, so if you or mboddu could do the build that'd be great
16:14:03 * nirik nods.
16:14:07 <nirik> so where are we?
16:14:17 <zbyszek> Would it be possible for the maintainers to *always* do a build of fedora-release after merging a batch of stuff, just to avoid the state where it's merged, but not available?
16:14:43 <zbyszek> Well, a discussion for another time and place, let's move on.
16:15:06 <maxamillion> +1 let's move on
16:15:23 <zbyszek> Let's discuss "Update festival to 2.5"
16:15:53 <jsmith> +1 to moving on
16:15:54 <zbyszek> I'll look into sponsoring  Lukáš Tyrychtr. It seems he did a lot of good work, it'd be a shame to waste it.
16:16:07 <contyk> sounds good, thanks
16:16:19 <zbyszek> This is a leaf package, so I think it's OK to let the change slip a bit
16:16:20 <bowlofeggs> proposal: see where this stands in a week after zbyszek helps out?
16:16:37 <zbyszek> +1
16:16:39 <nirik> +1
16:17:22 <contyk> +
16:17:23 <contyk> +1
16:17:30 <jsmith> +1
16:18:47 <bowlofeggs> maxamillion: ?
16:19:02 <maxamillion> +1
16:19:17 <zbyszek> #action zbyszek to talk to change owner about sponsorship
16:20:00 <maxamillion> #agreed defer "update festival to 2.5" until next week, zbyszek to take point on following up (+1: 6, +0: 0, -1: 0)
16:20:26 <zbyszek> Let's move on to "Let's Label Our Variants!"
16:20:54 <zbyszek> It was supposed to be done during the past week, seems it wasn't.
16:21:32 <contyk> do we still have mboddu?
16:21:41 <mboddu> contyk: kinda
16:22:14 <bowlofeggs> i don't see anything here https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fedora-release/pull-requests?status=0
16:22:19 <bowlofeggs> or with status=1 either
16:22:27 <mboddu> Label our variants thing is not done, I might need some help with that with lua scripts
16:22:48 <bowlofeggs> should we postpone this one to f30?
16:23:10 <mboddu> bowlofeggs: We can still get it, my plan is to get it done before freeze
16:23:29 <nirik> I guess pbrobinson was going to work on it some?
16:23:44 <bowlofeggs> the contingency plan is that it's fine if some get done and not others
16:23:49 * nirik guesses which peter is meant)
16:24:01 <bowlofeggs> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Label_Our_Variants#Contingency_Plan
16:25:42 <mboddu> bowlofeggs: Lets go with contingency plan 1 if I cannot get it done before beta freeze, is that okay?
16:26:05 <bowlofeggs> fine with me, +1
16:26:11 <bowlofeggs> proposal: what mboddu said
16:26:15 <contyk> +1
16:26:39 <maxamillion> +1
16:27:22 <zbyszek> -0, it's late for a change that could potentially break unrelated stuff
16:27:38 <nirik> +1
16:28:05 <bowlofeggs> zbyszek: what do you think it is at risk of breaking?
16:28:26 <zbyszek> (By "late" I mean that if this goes in right before beta freeze, and users report issues with the beta image, it'll be pretty late in the cycle to fix.)
16:28:38 <zbyszek> bowlofeggs: I don't know, but many things read that
16:29:00 <zbyszek> E.g. various non-distro scripts conditionalize on VARIANT_ID
16:29:06 <bowlofeggs> it is an additive change though afaiu
16:29:20 <bowlofeggs> my laptop actually doesn't have those vars defined
16:29:22 <maxamillion> jsmith: ?
16:29:34 <maxamillion> ermmm... we might not have the votes anymore
16:29:41 <bowlofeggs> i would expect an additive change to be pretty low risk
16:30:00 <bowlofeggs> yeah we only have +4
16:30:12 <jsmith> Sorry, give me a second to catch up...
16:30:13 <bowlofeggs> i could also vote to defer to f30 though
16:30:18 <bowlofeggs> imo it's not a critical change
16:31:20 <nirik> it should be easy enough to revert too, no? if it's breaking lots of things...
16:31:46 <zbyszek> OK, I'll change to +1, but let's watch out for regressions and not merge this right before the beta freeze
16:31:53 <mboddu> zbyszek: Its an additive change and easy to revert and will be done before beta freeze and not before the beta release
16:31:55 <jsmith> I guess I'm OK, as long as it's easy to revert
16:32:38 <maxamillion> zbyszek: oh no, I meant I was worried we didn't have quorum
16:33:02 <maxamillion> #agreed Label Out Variants will be go with Contingency Plan 1 if not completed by beta freeze (+1: 5, -1: 0, +0: 1)
16:33:29 <jsmith> maxamillion: I'm slow, but I'm still here :-)
16:34:16 <maxamillion> alright
16:34:21 <maxamillion> let's talk about -> Merge Dstat And Performance Co-Pilot
16:35:23 <bowlofeggs> looks like someone just got needinfo'd today about this
16:35:23 <zbyszek> It looks like there was a confusion with issue assignment, so the needifno flag was only set today
16:35:29 <bowlofeggs> proposal: wait a week on this one?
16:35:33 <zbyszek> bowlofeggs: +1
16:35:40 <maxamillion> +1
16:35:44 <nirik> +1
16:36:17 <maxamillion> contyk: jsmith: ?
16:36:41 <contyk> +1
16:37:32 <maxamillion> #agreed allow a week to get an update on the state of Merge Dstat And Performance Co-Pilot (+1: 5, -1: 0, +0: 0)
16:37:33 <pbrobinson> nirik: mboddu: I was working on it, I was awaiting lua help
16:37:53 <maxamillion> Let's talk about -> Stop building 389-ds-base on i686
16:38:08 <zbyszek> That's done, right?
16:38:23 <bowlofeggs> zbyszek: yeah zbyszek's comment is that it's done
16:38:26 <maxamillion> I thought it was
16:38:41 <zbyszek> I mean we requested the change page after the fact
16:38:47 <maxamillion> #info Stop building 389-ds-base on i686 is actually complete and no longer requires discussion as an incomplete Change
16:39:14 <maxamillion> Let's talk about -> Rename Atomic Workstation to Silverblue
16:39:29 <bowlofeggs> mclasen: is https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1598405 done?
16:39:33 <bowlofeggs> dustymabe: ^
16:40:00 * dustymabe wakes from the dead
16:40:53 <dustymabe> any question for me?
16:42:03 <bowlofeggs> dustymabe: is https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1598405 done?
16:42:13 <maxamillion> dustymabe: you happen to know what's up with Silverblue vs Atomic Workstation?
16:42:31 <lobocode> .fas lobocode
16:42:31 <zodbot> lobocode: lobocode 'Vitor Lobo Ramos' <lobocode@gmail.com>
16:42:48 <dustymabe> maxamillion: I know some part of it was done recently
16:42:53 <dustymabe> mboddu: helped us out there
16:43:14 <dustymabe> https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/pull-request/631
16:43:27 <maxamillion> it seemed like there was progress on it from the discussion of Silverblue at Flock but I don't know how much of that was "this is what we want to do" vs "this is what we've done"
16:43:32 <dustymabe> i imagine there are some few things left to rename
16:44:35 <dustymabe> so "some progress has been made"
16:44:45 <dustymabe> will have to get official update from mclasen in the future??
16:45:26 <mclasen> bowlofeggs: it was on my list for this week to find out the status
16:45:48 <maxamillion> alright
16:45:50 <bowlofeggs> proposal: wait one more week for a status update
16:45:52 <maxamillion> +1
16:45:57 <zbyszek> +1
16:46:55 <nirik> +1
16:47:00 <contyk> +1
16:47:14 <jsmith> +1
16:48:04 <maxamillion> #agreed wait one more week for a status update on Silverblue rename (+1: 6, -1: 0, +0: 0)
16:49:08 <maxamillion> #topic #1968 Proposed F30 Schedule
16:49:08 <maxamillion> .fesco 1968
16:49:08 <maxamillion> https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1968
16:49:09 <zodbot> maxamillion: Issue #1968: Proposed F30 Schedule - fesco - Pagure - https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1968
16:49:29 <nirik> did we finish all the items from the not ready ticket?
16:49:40 <maxamillion> nirik: we did
16:49:46 <nirik> ok, cool
16:49:49 <maxamillion> at least I'm pretty sure we did
16:49:53 <contyk> we did
16:49:59 <maxamillion> +1
16:50:02 <jsmith> +1 from me.
16:50:05 <jsmith> Looks pretty solid
16:50:16 <nirik> +1
16:50:17 <zbyszek> +1
16:50:18 <contyk> well, +1
16:50:20 <bowlofeggs> i put a +1 in ticket
16:50:48 <jsmith> (again, with the caveat that we may need to adjust for any new Objectives that might come up)
16:51:41 <bcotton> afaict, there's no real timing for when objectives may come up, so that's always going to be a concern. i plan on working with the council to better define that (or at least make it more readily obvious)
16:52:15 <bcotton> for F31, i'd like to have objectives be an explicit part of the schedule if possible
16:52:29 <maxamillion> #agreed F30 Schedule (+1: 6, -1: 0, +0: 0)
16:52:37 <maxamillion> #topic #1969 Nonresponsive maintainer: dbmacartney
16:52:37 <maxamillion> .fesco 1969
16:52:37 <maxamillion> https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1969
16:52:38 <zodbot> maxamillion: Issue #1969: Nonresponsive maintainer: dbmacartney - fesco - Pagure - https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1969
16:53:05 <zbyszek> It's +5 in the ticket
16:53:08 <maxamillion> bah!
16:53:26 <maxamillion> #agreed Nonresponsive maintainer: dbmacartney was handled in ticket, no discussion necessary
16:53:35 <zbyszek> We need a volunteer to do the deed
16:53:38 <maxamillion> #topic Next week's chair
16:54:59 <maxamillion> crickets ....
16:55:02 <contyk> sure
16:55:04 <contyk> I'll do it
16:55:13 <maxamillion> #action contyk to chair next week's meeting
16:55:16 <maxamillion> #topic Open Floor
16:55:22 <maxamillion> anything to discuss here?
16:55:28 <contyk> nirik had something
16:56:20 <nirik> Note: I filed https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1619368 for the dnf RFE for lazy loading
16:56:31 <jsmith> Thanks nirik
16:56:57 <nirik> for non responsive maintainer tickets, anyone mind if I add a template? that would help people fill in the right info...
16:57:19 <bowlofeggs> +1
16:57:21 <contyk> sounds good
16:57:27 <zbyszek> nirik: +1, great idea
16:57:31 <maxamillion> nirik++
16:57:32 <zodbot> maxamillion: Karma for kevin changed to 26 (for the current release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
16:57:54 <nirik> I dont think I had anything else...
16:58:08 <maxamillion> alright, I'll wait 60 seconds and then hit the button
16:58:10 <zbyszek> We need to discuss ftbfs policy
16:58:36 <zbyszek> Well, not the policy, but the implementation of the policy
16:58:53 <maxamillion> alright
17:00:07 <zbyszek> The specified time is up for many packages. My proposal would be to ping the maintainers of the packages which are still failing and in NEW state by main now, and wait another week, and then do the orphaning.
17:00:26 <bowlofeggs> zbyszek: +1
17:00:43 <zbyszek> I'm not particularly eager to do this myself, but I'll do it if nobody else can
17:00:46 <nirik> is there a list?
17:01:08 <zbyszek> nirik: no, I think we need some scripting to generate a proper list
17:01:29 <nirik> ok
17:02:29 <zbyszek> OK, I'll open a fesco ticket with the list and detailed procedure, and let's vote on that.
17:02:42 <nirik> might I suggest when we orphan and announce that, we point everyone to a single releng ticket and people can ask for packages they want there... instead of all over the place.
17:02:59 <zbyszek> Yes.
17:03:32 <zbyszek> It's unfortunate that the de-orphaning procedure is now manual. If people could just pick up packages, that'd be much easier on releng.
17:04:09 <bowlofeggs> yeah so many things are manual now
17:04:15 <bowlofeggs> that were automated a year ago :/
17:05:27 <nirik> well, the orphaning/retiring wasn't automated I don't think...
17:05:43 <nirik> a human had to run scripts... but yes, the scripts now need rework
17:07:49 <zbyszek> OK, let's move on.
17:08:22 <zbyszek> maxamillion: there are 4 issues tagged pending announcement
17:09:41 <zbyszek> The normal procedure would be list them in the announcement email, but they can go in the summary email too
17:10:47 <maxamillion> "normal procedure" ... I've never seen that tag before
17:12:34 <zbyszek> Anyway, I have two more things...
17:12:59 <zbyszek> One, did anything happen with the "man page tracker" bug? Do we just ignore it?
17:13:21 <zbyszek> Two, do we have a volunteer to reassign ownership in #1969?
17:13:34 <bowlofeggs> this meeting has been going on for a long time
17:13:36 <nirik> maxamillion: you may have been out at the time... but see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FESCo_meeting_process (tickets voted on in ticket just get announced)
17:13:44 <bowlofeggs> should we call it and schedule those items for next week?
17:14:10 <nirik> I can reassign things in 1969.
17:14:25 <zbyszek> Thanks.
17:14:36 <zbyszek> Sorry for being such a bore, but I don't want things to slip through.
17:14:45 <maxamillion> nirik: fair, the last three months have been really spotty for me
17:14:56 <maxamillion> I have to go, we've reached the meeting time threshold
17:15:08 <maxamillion> if someone else wants to take over, go for it but I need to bounce
17:15:13 <maxamillion> o/
17:15:21 <zbyszek> Yep, let's close.
17:16:13 * nirik isn't sure what to do about the man pages thing. perhaps it could be discussed on list?
17:16:58 <zbyszek> Or just ignored? Maybe just ignoring it is the way to go.
17:18:37 <zbyszek> maxamillion: endmeeting ?
17:19:43 <zbyszek> OK, let's close.
17:19:53 <zbyszek> #endmeeting