15:00:00 <bowlofeggs> #startmeeting FESCO (2018-09-10)
15:00:00 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon Sep 10 15:00:00 2018 UTC.
15:00:00 <zodbot> This meeting is logged and archived in a public location.
15:00:00 <zodbot> The chair is bowlofeggs. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
15:00:00 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
15:00:00 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fesco_(2018-09-10)'
15:00:00 <bowlofeggs> #meetingname fesco
15:00:00 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fesco'
15:00:00 <bowlofeggs> #chair nirik, maxamillion, jsmith, jwb, zbyszek, tyll, sgallagh, contyk, bowlofeggs
15:00:00 <bowlofeggs> #topic init process
15:00:00 <zodbot> Current chairs: bowlofeggs contyk jsmith jwb maxamillion nirik sgallagh tyll zbyszek
15:00:17 <contyk> o/
15:00:28 <zbyszek> .hello2
15:00:29 <zodbot> zbyszek: zbyszek 'Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek' <zbyszek@in.waw.pl>
15:00:30 <contyk> .hello psabata
15:00:32 <zodbot> contyk: psabata 'Petr Šabata' <psabata@redhat.com>
15:00:36 <nirik> morning
15:00:39 <sgallagh> .hello2
15:00:40 <zodbot> sgallagh: sgallagh 'Stephen Gallagher' <sgallagh@redhat.com>
15:01:04 <bcotton> .hello2
15:01:05 <zodbot> bcotton: bcotton 'Ben Cotton' <bcotton@redhat.com>
15:01:05 <maxamillion> .hello2
15:01:07 <zodbot> maxamillion: maxamillion 'Adam Miller' <maxamillion@gmail.com>
15:01:28 <tyll> .hello till
15:01:29 <zodbot> tyll: till 'Till Maas' <opensource@till.name>
15:01:29 <jforbes> .hello2
15:01:32 <zodbot> jforbes: jforbes 'Justin M. Forbes' <jforbes@redhat.com>
15:01:42 <bowlofeggs> cool, we have quorum
15:01:48 <bowlofeggs> let's get this party started
15:01:55 <bowlofeggs> ain't no party like a fesco party
15:01:55 <bowlofeggs> hay
15:01:57 <bowlofeggs> ho
15:02:01 <maxamillion> lol
15:02:05 <bowlofeggs> #topic #1988 Josh Boyer has resigned
15:02:05 <bowlofeggs> .fesco 1988
15:02:06 <zodbot> bowlofeggs: Issue #1988: Josh Boyer has resigned - fesco - Pagure - https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1988
15:02:21 <tyll> AFAICS contyk needs to vote
15:02:27 <sgallagh> Because FESCo parties just don't... stop. *cries*
15:02:35 <maxamillion> sgallagh++
15:02:36 <zodbot> maxamillion: Karma for sgallagh changed to 13 (for the current release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
15:02:38 <contyk> I haven't yet?
15:02:39 <maxamillion> too true
15:02:44 * contyk checks
15:02:45 <bowlofeggs> i count +7 on the ticket
15:03:04 <bowlofeggs> i think we are missing maxamillion's vote actually
15:03:06 <tyll> contyk: sorry, old page
15:03:20 <tyll> ah, yes, he, too
15:03:23 <tyll> or only he
15:03:51 <bowlofeggs> maxamillion: can you vote on my proposal (first comment)?
15:04:29 <maxamillion> bowlofeggs: voted in ticket for posterity
15:04:50 <maxamillion> (vote of +1 jforbes for meeting logs)
15:04:50 <bowlofeggs> excellent
15:05:48 <bowlofeggs> #agreed FESCo chooses Justin Forbes (@jforbes) to fill the seat until the next election. (+8, 0, -0)
15:05:58 <bowlofeggs> #chair jforbes
15:05:58 <zodbot> Current chairs: bowlofeggs contyk jforbes jsmith jwb maxamillion nirik sgallagh tyll zbyszek
15:06:04 <contyk> congratulations :)
15:06:09 <jforbes> Thanks
15:06:15 <tyll> who will update the permissions?
15:06:15 <nirik> welcome back jforbes
15:06:22 <tyll> nirik: ?
15:06:27 <nirik> I can sure.
15:06:28 <bowlofeggs> i don't think i have access
15:06:37 <bowlofeggs> i can try to edit the fesco wiki page to add him though
15:06:38 <zbyszek> jforbes: are you OK with the current meeting time?
15:06:41 <maxamillion> jforbes: congratulations and/or we're sorry ;)
15:06:42 <bowlofeggs> assuming i have perms for that
15:06:46 <jforbes> I am
15:06:57 <bowlofeggs> #action nirik will give jforbes access to fesco'y things
15:07:01 <nirik> so question: jwb is/was also the engineering rep to the council ?
15:07:06 <bowlofeggs> #action bowlofeggs will update the fesco wiki page
15:07:38 <maxamillion> nirik: "engineering" == "red hat platform engineering"
15:07:40 <maxamillion> ?*
15:07:46 <bowlofeggs> nirik: oh i didn't realize that. so we need a volunteer to do that?
15:07:49 <jwb> nirik, true.  i filled that role while not eing on fesco before
15:08:12 <sgallagh> maxamillion: No, a liason to the Fedora Council
15:08:24 <maxamillion> ohhh
15:08:40 <bowlofeggs> jwb: does that mean you will continue to do that going forward?
15:08:50 <tyll> according to https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/council/ FESCO coordinates the seat
15:08:59 <nirik> jwb: are you able/willing to keep filling that role?
15:09:49 <bowlofeggs> it doesn't seem to say it has to be a fesco member though, so if jwb wants to keep doing it we are probably ok
15:10:14 <bcotton> afaict, the engineering representative isn't required to be a FESCo member, but it seems to me that they should be (not that i don't love having jwb around)
15:10:39 <jwb> nirik, bowlofeggs: if FESCo thinks there is a better suited candidate, it's up to them to decide.  that role is a bit less time consuming and i would like to try for a bit to continue there, but i won't stand in the way if there is a better person
15:11:35 <bowlofeggs> i don't see any reason to change things for now since jwb is willing to continue
15:11:38 <nirik> cool. I'm fine with you continuing that... and if you don't have time or whatever we can look for a new person for that...
15:11:41 <bowlofeggs> shall we move on to next topic?
15:11:42 <zbyszek> me too
15:11:42 * nirik nods.
15:11:48 <nirik> thanks jwb!
15:11:56 <contyk> \o/
15:12:30 <maxamillion> jwb++
15:12:30 <zodbot> maxamillion: Karma for jwboyer changed to 2 (for the current release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
15:12:54 <jwb> thank you all.
15:12:57 * jwb goes back to work meeting
15:13:34 <bowlofeggs> ok, next topic
15:13:41 <bowlofeggs> #topic #1967 Fedora 29 incomplete changes
15:13:41 <bowlofeggs> .fesco 1967
15:13:43 <zodbot> bowlofeggs: Issue #1967: Fedora 29 incomplete changes - fesco - Pagure - https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1967
15:14:29 <zbyszek> Let's go one-by-one again
15:14:34 <bowlofeggs> indeed
15:14:44 <bowlofeggs> let's skip dbus since it got its own ticket as you noted
15:14:58 <bowlofeggs> let's look at festival?
15:15:04 <zbyszek> For festival, I'the two package managers to update festival to the latest version
15:15:10 <bowlofeggs> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Update_festival_to_2.5
15:15:17 <zbyszek> The package seems to be working, but there's still some packaging cleanups to be done.
15:15:40 <zbyszek> I think we should just wait until this is done and push in the new version after beta if it is ready before GA.
15:16:01 <bowlofeggs> that sounds ok to me, esp since things are broken now anyway
15:16:04 <tyll> +1
15:16:06 <nirik> +1
15:16:08 <contyk> that sounds better than the current state of festival
15:16:17 <contyk> so +1
15:16:33 <jforbes> +1 here
15:17:00 <sgallagh> +1
15:17:30 <bowlofeggs> maxamillion, jsmith: ?
15:18:15 <maxamillion> +1
15:18:51 <bowlofeggs> oh right, jsmith isn't here today
15:18:51 <bowlofeggs> haha
15:19:18 <bowlofeggs> #agreed we will wait for festival to be done and push in the new version after beta if it is ready before GA (+8, 0, -0)
15:19:46 <bowlofeggs> next topic: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/CloudProviderImageUpdates
15:20:10 <zbyszek> From the ticket:
15:20:13 <zbyszek> > This change is an internal process change that has no code changes inside of Fedora 29. This change should not block the release of Fedora 29.
15:20:36 <sgallagh> Didn't we decide last week that this wasn't tied to the release schedule?
15:21:13 <contyk> definitely not last week
15:21:22 <bowlofeggs> last decision was AGREED: cloud image updates: defer and check next week, it's unclear
15:21:22 <bowlofeggs> to me what would need to be done before beta as this change deals
15:21:22 <bowlofeggs> with post GA content (+7, 0, -0)  (contyk, 16:51:37)
15:21:24 <nirik> yeah, just ack it and make sure they know they have to be ready after GA
15:21:33 <bowlofeggs> nirik: +1
15:21:36 <jforbes> It doesn't look to be other than monthly after
15:21:54 <zbyszek> nirik: +1
15:22:09 <jforbes> nirik: +1
15:22:37 <sgallagh> +1
15:23:27 <contyk> +1
15:23:35 <tyll> +1
15:23:47 <bowlofeggs> maxamillion: ?
15:25:12 <bowlofeggs> ok, i'll count maxamillion as an abstension?
15:25:42 <contyk> should we vote on that proposal? ;)
15:25:44 <maxamillion> sorry, my kid just broke a coffee cup in the other room ... he's home sick today
15:25:51 <maxamillion> +1
15:25:57 <bowlofeggs> #agreed FESCo acks the cloud image updates change and notes that they need to be ready after GA (+8, 0, -0)
15:26:11 <sgallagh> maxamillion: Giving him coffee probably isn't helping that
15:26:25 <bowlofeggs> last one: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Silverblue
15:26:49 <bowlofeggs> still no activity on this
15:27:16 <bowlofeggs> our last decision was:
15:27:17 <maxamillion> sgallagh: lol
15:27:19 <bowlofeggs> let folks work on
15:27:19 <bowlofeggs> it today, if not done in time for freeze, they can ask for an
15:27:19 <bowlofeggs> exception or move to f30.
15:27:19 <nirik> well, a bunch has been done, but I don't know if it's complete.
15:27:27 <maxamillion> sgallagh: it was an empty cup I mistakenly left in his reach
15:28:22 <bowlofeggs> it has been difficult to get communication about this change
15:28:33 <bowlofeggs> any proposals?
15:28:33 <sgallagh> kalev: Can you answer any questions about Silverblue?
15:28:33 <tyll> so move to f30?
15:28:49 <zbyszek> If we wanted to, could we realistically postpone this, considering that the new name is already visible in various places?
15:29:26 <sgallagh> Yeah, I'm concerned that we may be past the point of no (realistic) return
15:29:30 <contyk> we keep postponing this despite getting no updates...
15:29:48 <nirik> the I know the ostree ref is changed.
15:30:06 <nirik> not sure about the other items. Looks like the anaconda changes are reviewed, but not merged yet
15:31:18 <zbyszek> https://silverblue.fedoraproject.org/ looks quite good
15:31:25 <nirik> so I guess the 3 options are: 1) try and back it out and go for f30, 2) let it land after beta or 3) block beta on it being done
15:31:40 <bowlofeggs> i'd vote for #1 or #3
15:31:45 <bowlofeggs> #2 seems risky to me
15:31:56 <bowlofeggs> is that a release blocking change?
15:32:05 <bowlofeggs> maybe if it's not a release blocker #2 is ok too
15:32:17 <maxamillion> yeah, 1 or 3 is good for me as well but I'd be interested in adamw's opinion about it if he's available to chime in
15:32:20 <nirik> well, with 2 we loose out on any beta testing...
15:32:22 <maxamillion> adamw: ping - you around?
15:32:41 <jforbes> Right, with anaconda changes, beta would be pretty important
15:32:53 <bowlofeggs> oh right
15:32:53 <zbyszek> I'd certainly vote against #2 with what I know now
15:32:57 <bowlofeggs> yeah #2 seems no good
15:33:19 <bowlofeggs> also, since there has been little to no communication, #3 doesn't seem great eithe frankly
15:33:36 <sgallagh> otaylor: So we're discussing the current state of Silverblue and whether it's better to block Beta for it to finish or to try to back it out
15:33:38 <bowlofeggs> because blocking on a change that you can't get updates about seems unwise, right?
15:34:15 <otaylor> "finish" here means what?
15:34:19 <sgallagh> otaylor: We're suffering an acute lack of visibility into the project, so we don't know where we are
15:34:31 <bowlofeggs> but #1 would also require the change owners to do work and communicate (and would also block the beta?)
15:34:40 <nirik> anaconda changes to add variant, pungi-fedora channges to change image names and possibly other stuff...
15:35:02 <sgallagh> We know some parts of this have already landed
15:35:21 <sgallagh> But we're not sure what remains to be done and whether it's more work to proceed with it or back it out at this point.
15:35:38 <sgallagh> And frankly the Workstation WG has not been highly communicative
15:35:39 <otaylor> I don't think anybody is scrambling to finish a finite set of changes for Beta - so I don't think that blocking on that would make sense
15:36:51 <sgallagh> An option would be to assert that Silverblue (formerly Atomic Workstation) is non-blocking for F29 by FESCo ruling
15:36:54 <otaylor> There's a distinct lack of engineering ownership for Silverblue I'm afraid - it's falling between the cracks of the workstation wg and volunteers interested in it in particular
15:37:12 <bowlofeggs> otaylor: do you think we should postpone the change to fedora 30?
15:37:23 <sgallagh> bowlofeggs: I don't think postponing really makes sense
15:37:32 <sgallagh> It's replacing a non-blocking medium anyway
15:37:40 <nirik> sgallagh: thats basically 2 above right? just letting it land after beta?
15:37:43 <sgallagh> (Atomic Workstation has always been a preview)
15:37:44 <bowlofeggs> sgallagh: right, but it also needs anaconda changes, right?
15:37:51 <bowlofeggs> sgallagh: and we wouldn't want to allow that post-beta?
15:37:59 <sgallagh> bowlofeggs: Hmm
15:38:23 <nirik> perhaps thats not so bad...
15:38:24 <jforbes> I guess that would depend on how isolated those anaconda changes are
15:38:35 <maxamillion> jforbes: +1
15:38:54 <nirik> the anaconda changes seem pretty small: https://patch-diff.githubusercontent.com/raw/rhinstaller/anaconda/pull/1510.patch
15:38:58 <bowlofeggs> if we were sure it didn't risk blocking releases, i'd be happy to allow it post beta, but that does seem to be a risk area
15:39:14 <zbyszek> https://github.com/rhinstaller/anaconda/pull/1510/files
15:39:29 <zbyszek> is that the relevant PR for anaconda? Is there something more?
15:39:37 <bowlofeggs> yeah that does look small
15:39:41 <nirik> there might be a lorax change...
15:40:11 <sgallagh> bowlofeggs: I think the month between Beta and GA is time enough to roll it back if it breaks anything
15:40:34 <jforbes> So, not only small, but isolated addition of an InstallClass, it shouldn't  have any impact on other InstallClasses so would be safe
15:41:08 <nirik> I can't find any lorax change, but I think a small one is needed. Also websites will need to change/adjust...
15:41:08 <jforbes> I don't see much risk in that particular anaconda change landing post beta
15:41:11 <bowlofeggs> ok, so are we thinking that we can just keep waiting to see what happens?
15:41:44 <bowlofeggs> honestly, i'd be more into waiting and seeing if we were getting communication
15:41:51 <sgallagh> bowlofeggs: My view is "let them keep at it" and treat it as non-blocking. If they make a change that causes a blocking failure, that change must be reverted
15:42:11 <zbyszek> sgallagh: that seems very risky
15:42:19 <jforbes> sgallagh: +1
15:42:25 <zbyszek> anaconda changes have a high regression potential
15:42:35 <jforbes> zbyszek: not that one
15:42:38 <nirik> bringing it up at the next workstation WG meeting might also be a good idea... find someone to try and make sure all the parts land.
15:42:39 <otaylor> I'd suggest waiting - mclasen should be back from LAS today I think - I'll discuss the situation with him.
15:42:41 <bowlofeggs> keep in mind that people not involved with making the change will have to notice the problem (work) and report it (work) and/or back it out (work)
15:42:43 <sgallagh> I think he means future changes
15:43:01 <jforbes> oh, right
15:43:15 <nirik> otaylor: thanks.
15:43:24 <bowlofeggs> and difficulty to communicate with the change owners will complicate things too
15:43:40 <bowlofeggs> my biggest concern really is the lack of communication
15:43:46 <contyk> mine too
15:43:55 * tyll agrees
15:44:00 <contyk> I was proposing to move this to f30 two weeks ago and would still choose that
15:44:10 <bowlofeggs> it makes it seem like this change isn't important to the owners
15:44:17 <otaylor> what form of communication would be helpful here? eeping the change page updated? anything else?
15:44:23 <bowlofeggs> which makes it seem like it isn't important to grant an exception to?
15:44:44 <bowlofeggs> otaylor: yeah, and answering questions in the bz https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1598405
15:44:46 <sgallagh> otaylor: Well, the owners were pinged on the Change BZ several times
15:44:48 <tyll> otaylor: regular status reports with a clear list of items that need to  be addressed
15:45:10 <zbyszek> otaylor: responsing to need-info's in bugzilla also
15:45:12 <bowlofeggs> i'll point out that the owners haven't even asked us for an exception
15:45:34 * otaylor wonders how much bugzilla traffic mclasen gets every day
15:45:52 <maxamillion> ugh, I can't even imagine
15:46:15 <otaylor> (Not saying he's at all unique in that ... just saying that it's not the most reliable form of communication)
15:46:47 <tyll> otaylor: he was also present in last meeting
15:47:45 <nirik> This kind of change also does go accross many teams too, which makes it harder... anaconda, lorax, releng, websites, etc... some of them more responsive than others.
15:47:54 <bowlofeggs> this is a tough one
15:48:07 <bowlofeggs> nirik: also true
15:48:51 <bowlofeggs> i don't see a clear "good" choice for us here
15:48:52 <nirik> proposal: allow this change to land after beta, but also try and get updated status and vote in ticket if new information warrents it
15:49:03 <tyll> nirik: this makes it more important to collect all the items somewhere ... nothing blocks or is mentioned in  the tracking bug and the wiki does not contain links for all issues in the scope
15:49:41 <sgallagh> We could also require that nothing touching Anaconda or compose-tools can be merged without FESCo's review?
15:49:48 <zbyszek> Yeah, "allow this change to land" is undefined
15:49:56 <tyll> I also see the problem with reverting that there is probably also nobody who would oversee that it would be properly reverted, therefore trying to not block on it seems to be the only option
15:50:02 <bowlofeggs> if we told them "wait until f30", would that risk anything for f29?
15:50:05 <sgallagh> Or not necessarily all of FESCo, but a representative
15:50:21 <nirik> bowlofeggs: well, some things (the ostree ref at least) are already changed.
15:50:23 <sgallagh> bowlofeggs: Press coverage
15:50:41 <sgallagh> We've definitely had some pick-up of the name in the press, this would mean negative coverage.
15:50:48 <sgallagh> But we've dealt with that before
15:51:16 <bowlofeggs> would anything "break" due to that ostree ref being silverblue?
15:51:31 <bowlofeggs> what if we told them to do a phase1/phase2 type thing?
15:51:40 <bowlofeggs> like f29 just gets that ostree ref and whatever else is done now
15:51:44 <bowlofeggs> the rest wait for f30?
15:51:47 <nirik> I am not sure. Might prevent updates from atomic workstation media/
15:51:48 <nirik> ?
15:51:49 <bowlofeggs> could that work?
15:51:55 <bowlofeggs> ah
15:52:25 <zbyszek> Hmm, the anaconda PR was reviewed and approved on June 20th. That's almost 3 months with no action.
15:53:50 <zbyszek> otaylor: do you think you could talk with mclasen withing let's say two days and provide an update in the fesco ticket?
15:54:05 * nirik notes the beta go/no-go is thursday
15:54:29 <otaylor> zbyszek: Yes, I'll talk to him today or tomorrow.
15:54:30 <maxamillion> yeah, rgr
15:54:35 <maxamillion> otaylor++
15:54:35 <zodbot> maxamillion: Karma for otaylor changed to 6 (for the current release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
15:55:47 <bowlofeggs> we've been on this a long time
15:55:50 <nirik> so how about we file a 'f29 silverblue name change' fesco ticket and collect status/any needed votes there?
15:55:56 <zbyszek> proposal: we wait for a status update from otaylor or mclasen, and vote in ticket on one of the #1-#2-#3 proposals as updated.
15:56:07 <bowlofeggs> how about a combo of those two? ☺
15:56:14 <zbyszek> (in separate ticket as nirik says)
15:56:16 <nirik> +1
15:56:24 <bowlofeggs> +1
15:56:29 <jforbes> +1
15:56:51 <maxamillion> +1
15:56:54 <sgallagh> +1
15:57:01 <tyll> +1
15:57:27 <bowlofeggs> contyk: ?
15:58:33 <contyk> I abstain
15:59:20 <bowlofeggs> ack
15:59:45 <bowlofeggs> #agreed we will file a separate fesco ticket about the silverblue change, ask for status there, and vote there (+8, 1, -0)
15:59:54 <zbyszek> #action zbyszek to create the ticket
15:59:54 <bowlofeggs> #action bowlofeggs will file the fesco ticket about silverblue
15:59:57 <bowlofeggs> hahah
16:00:14 <bowlofeggs> uh, zbyszek you can do it ☺
16:00:20 <zbyszek> OK, I'll do it.
16:00:30 <zbyszek> #undo
16:00:30 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: ACTION by bowlofeggs at 15:59:54 : bowlofeggs will file the fesco ticket about silverblue
16:00:32 <bowlofeggs> ok that's all of them
16:00:40 <bowlofeggs> next topic
16:00:45 <zbyszek> pfff
16:00:52 <adamw> sorry, just got here.
16:00:57 <bowlofeggs> #topic #1974 Problematic blocker for F29: dnf 'offline' module tracking
16:00:57 <bowlofeggs> .fesco 1974
16:01:00 <zodbot> bowlofeggs: Issue #1974: Problematic blocker for F29: dnf 'offline' module tracking - fesco - Pagure - https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1974
16:01:15 <bowlofeggs> adamw: we decided to move it to a ticket - we'll ping you there
16:01:20 <adamw> rgr
16:01:23 <sgallagh> I have no new information on this since the last meeting.
16:01:41 <bowlofeggs> adamw: but this is also your ticket ☺
16:02:42 <adamw> i'm also running a blocker meeting...
16:02:58 <adamw> if the answer to this is 'we're fine doing nothing for beta', then that's okay.
16:03:54 <kalev> sgallagh: sorry, I'm not up to date with silverblue renaming, can't really provide any info right now
16:04:06 <sgallagh> adamw: That was my recommendation last meeting. The hang-up seems to be around GA blocking or not.
16:04:30 <sgallagh> I think we need to block there, but there's no clear indication from the DNF team whether they can deliver on that timeframe :(
16:04:35 <nirik> sgallagh: do we have any sense when the fix might land?
16:04:41 <nirik> ah, bummer
16:05:06 <sgallagh> contyk: Have you heard anything new here that I may have missed?
16:05:39 <contyk> no, I don't think there's any concrete plan at this point
16:05:50 <nirik> I don't see as we have much alternative here... I guess we could disable the modular repos until it's fixed, but...
16:05:55 <contyk> it is clear that the DISTTAG check is impossible to do in this timeframe
16:06:12 <contyk> but I still hope that storing modulemd for installed RPMs + enabled modules should be doable
16:06:25 <bowlofeggs> wouldn't it be bad to disable the modular repos in the beta if it intend to enable them in GA?
16:06:30 <contyk> even if they just dump them in a directory somewhere
16:06:34 <bowlofeggs> s/if it/if we/
16:06:43 <jforbes> bowlofeggs: that does seem ungood
16:07:03 <sgallagh> I don't think that was proposed
16:07:19 <contyk> I don't think we should be disabling the repos
16:07:25 <sgallagh> I agree
16:07:37 <nirik> right, I was just saying there wasn't much else we could do ffor beta.
16:07:43 <sgallagh> Before GA, we're somewhat protected by the fact that U-T is available
16:07:44 <nirik> I guess block beta
16:08:03 <sgallagh> This mitigates the most serious risk of this bug
16:08:13 <jforbes> blocking beta also seems unwise
16:08:19 <bowlofeggs> yeah i'm a bit inclined to block beta too, because it sounds like there isn't yet a plan for GA
16:08:21 * nirik agrees
16:08:28 <sgallagh> But once we get to GA, it needs to be fixed or we're going to have problems with anyone who installs a module update from a temporarily-enabled U-T
16:08:42 <sgallagh> nirik: Agrees with whom?
16:08:49 <contyk> it might also affect system upgrades in some unpredictable way
16:08:51 <nirik> I was agreeing with jforbes.
16:09:18 <sgallagh> contyk: Hmm, I hadn't considered that, but you might be right
16:09:33 <nirik> I think we move this to a final blocker and also add a common bugs for beta and hope for the best.
16:09:41 <contyk> it depends on what exactly happens and in what order
16:09:49 <contyk> nirik: +1
16:09:51 <zbyszek> nirik: +1
16:09:52 <bowlofeggs> i'm concerned that there isn't a plan to solve this problem before GA and that the known solutions aren't viable for the time frame (am i right in these claims?)
16:09:52 <sgallagh> nirik: That's basically what I proposed last time, so +1
16:10:05 <sgallagh> bowlofeggs: No
16:10:14 <contyk> sgallagh and I will try to form an action plan for the dnf team, too
16:10:16 <bowlofeggs> oh, there are viable solutions?
16:10:21 <contyk> right?
16:10:23 <nirik> bowlofeggs: the 'keep info about repos you installed from' plan should be doable
16:10:26 <sgallagh> The known, viable solution is unclear if it's viable in the current timeframe
16:10:30 <sgallagh> It might mean slipping a bit.
16:11:12 <bowlofeggs> oh ok, i think i'm ok with it
16:11:13 <contyk> well, there are two things dnf needs to do to properly handle these things
16:11:20 <bowlofeggs> i think i had misunderstood some comments in the ticket
16:11:36 <contyk> one is doable (storing modulemd files for enabled modules and installed modular RPMs), the other is not (DISTTAG verification)
16:11:38 <bowlofeggs> proposal: FESCo considers this a GA blocker but not a beta blocker
16:12:05 <zbyszek> bowlofeggs: this is a subset of what nirik proposed
16:12:12 <jforbes> +1
16:12:13 <bowlofeggs> oh right
16:12:29 <bowlofeggs> nirik's proposal then:  we move this to a final blocker and also add a common bugs for beta and hope for the best.
16:12:34 <bowlofeggs> esp the bit about hope ☺
16:12:36 <sgallagh> contyk: the DISTTAG verification is more of a fallback if the stored metadata doesn't prove sufficient though
16:12:37 <zbyszek> +1 again
16:12:37 <bowlofeggs> i'm +1
16:12:41 <maxamillion> +0
16:12:42 <sgallagh> It's for really esoteric cases
16:12:50 <jforbes> +1
16:12:55 <sgallagh> +1
16:13:00 <contyk> +1
16:13:03 <sgallagh> s/esoteric/pathological/
16:13:15 <tyll> +1
16:13:15 <nirik> +1
16:13:51 <bowlofeggs> #agreed  we move this to a final blocker and also add a common bugs for beta and hope for the best (+7, 1, -0)
16:14:06 <bowlofeggs> #topic #1976 Review of release-blocking deliverables for Fedora 29
16:14:07 <bowlofeggs> .fesco 1976
16:14:07 <zodbot> bowlofeggs: Issue #1976: Review of release-blocking deliverables for Fedora 29 - fesco - Pagure - https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1976
16:14:37 <bowlofeggs> i think this one just needs rubber stamps, but didn't get the +3 at the time i put it on the agenda
16:14:37 * nirik had no problems with this list. +1
16:14:39 * zbyszek knows nothing about this, so he's happy to just follow the majority
16:14:48 <bowlofeggs> +1
16:15:00 <jforbes> +1
16:15:10 <sgallagh> +1
16:15:37 <tyll> +1
16:15:39 <contyk> I was kinda surprised so few things are release blocking
16:15:40 <bowlofeggs> zbyszek: it's just the list of artifacts that we declare should block the release
16:15:56 <zbyszek> yes, but if one is missing, I'm not the one to spot it ;)
16:15:57 <contyk> especially regarding arches
16:16:44 <contyk> is there a reason why we don't block on all of them?
16:16:48 <sgallagh> contyk: We like shipping once in a while
16:16:49 <bowlofeggs> we are at +6 i think (including jsmith)
16:17:10 <contyk> heh
16:17:16 <bowlofeggs> contyk: not everything has dedicated full time engineers working to get it release ready
16:17:32 <bowlofeggs> maxamillion: ?
16:17:33 <contyk> well, +1 anyway
16:17:38 <sgallagh> Right, anything that doesn't block release is still welcome to ship if it manages to stay in shape
16:17:52 <maxamillion> +1
16:17:57 <sgallagh> And any bug that would be a blocker on a blocking media pretty much gets an automatic FE for non-blocking media
16:18:07 <bowlofeggs> zbyszek: i count +8. do you want ot be a +0, or a +1? ☺
16:18:17 <zbyszek> I can be +1, nice and friendly ;)
16:18:20 <bowlofeggs> haha
16:18:28 <bowlofeggs> #agreed APPROVED (+9, 0, -0)
16:18:39 <bowlofeggs> #topic Next week's chair
16:19:06 <sgallagh> I haven't done it in a while. I suppose I should volunteer.
16:19:16 <bowlofeggs> #action sgallagh will chair next week's meeting
16:19:21 <bowlofeggs> #topic open floor
16:19:36 <zbyszek> I have something
16:19:43 <tyll> I would like to discuss https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1970
16:19:58 <tyll> zbyszek: you were first
16:20:13 <zbyszek> I started working on converting FESCo wiki pages to antora to make
16:20:13 <zbyszek> them part of docs.fedoraproject.org.
16:20:13 <zbyszek> (History would be preserved in git, but text/formatting would be
16:20:13 <zbyszek> completely redone to go from mediawiki to asciidoc.)
16:20:13 <zbyszek> The advantages are that
16:20:16 <zbyszek> a) there would be better history control and less cruft
16:20:18 <zbyszek> b) it would be possible to file and discuss PRs for changes
16:20:21 <zbyszek> c) FESCo docs would be in the same format as Council docs, and it will be easier to link between them.
16:20:24 <zbyszek> Before I countinue to work on this (the formatting needs a bit of polish, and I missed some pages in the first conversion), I'd like an ack that such conversion is wanted in general. If yes, I'd try to produce a working version before next week's meeting, and I'd ask antora maintainers to provide the necessary hookups. It probably needs to be a separate repo to provide the correct ACLs.
16:20:36 <bowlofeggs> b is compelling
16:20:49 <maxamillion> yeah, I'm in
16:20:55 <maxamillion> +1 for antora
16:21:01 <tyll> +1
16:21:05 <bowlofeggs> +1
16:21:09 <nirik> +10
16:21:11 <jforbes> I don't see a downside there
16:21:12 <jforbes> +1
16:21:16 <contyk> +1
16:21:20 <sgallagh> +1
16:21:42 * bowlofeggs makes some sarcastic joke about how much he likes mediawiki markdown
16:21:47 <zbyszek> OK, thanks, so I'll create a ticket when ready so we can discuss details.
16:22:07 <bowlofeggs> cool
16:22:09 <bowlofeggs> tyll: ?
16:22:18 <tyll> .fesco 1970
16:22:20 <zodbot> tyll: Issue #1970: Action needed: Orphan packages will be retired if they remain orphaned for six weeks - fesco - Pagure - https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1970
16:22:39 <tyll> last time we discussed this, we wanted to retire/re-assign packages after a week - this time is now passed
16:23:20 <tyll> however, it seems that there were no notifications about pkgs being orphaned before
16:23:24 <nirik> so... this would be rawhide and f29?
16:23:35 <tyll> therefore many maintainers were probably not be aware of this
16:23:52 <zbyszek> tyll: what about need-info's in bugzilla?
16:23:54 <tyll> nirik: rawhide and f29 makes most sense
16:24:01 <tyll> zbyszek: there is no need info about orphans
16:24:08 <tyll> it is not FTBFS
16:24:13 <zbyszek> A, right, sorry.
16:24:23 <nirik> then I am -1 to doing it now. We should not possibly disrupt the beta. ;) So, I think we should do this like the week after beta is out.
16:24:43 <bowlofeggs> is it easy to send those notifications in the mean time?
16:25:13 <nirik> well, they have gone to devel list right?
16:25:44 <tyll> I can send the reports, but there are no live notifications afaik
16:26:00 <bowlofeggs> yeah there were e-mails to devel right?
16:26:03 <bowlofeggs> i forgot about that
16:26:10 <bowlofeggs> actually i think i even took some maybe?
16:26:16 <bowlofeggs> or am i just thinking of lmacken
16:26:24 <tyll> there seems to be a pagure fedmsg topic for owner changes but it might be that the dist-git pagure does not map the repos to packages
16:26:26 * nirik took a few
16:26:31 <tyll> bowlofeggs: you took some from Luke
16:26:54 <tyll> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/GYUFNAQENEMHJEIDNIBTUWNUEKS7XZ2U/
16:26:59 <tyll> This is the latest report
16:27:28 <tyll> 436 orphaned packages
16:27:45 <tyll> + 264 packages that depend on orphaned packages
16:28:15 <bowlofeggs> whoah a lot
16:28:26 <tyll> actually 264 depending on orphans that are older than 6 weeks, 327 pkgs depend on all orphan pkgs
16:28:33 <bowlofeggs> i agree that doing it the week after beta would be ideal
16:29:01 <tyll> there was also the proposal to re-assign to co-maintainers first
16:29:09 <bowlofeggs> oh that's true
16:29:12 <tyll> we could do this now and do the retirement later
16:29:13 <bowlofeggs> that wouldn't be disruptive
16:29:18 * nirik would really like taking over point of contact on orphans to be a easier process, but thats another topic
16:29:40 <bowlofeggs> nirik: +a lot
16:29:50 <nirik> yeah, reassign to co-maintainers would be good. I'm +1 for that anytime
16:29:58 <bowlofeggs> yeah me too
16:29:59 <tyll> nirik: yes, even if we found enough maintainers for these orphans, it would create a DoS for releng
16:30:05 <bowlofeggs> hahaha
16:30:27 <nirik> indeed.
16:30:41 <bowlofeggs> anything else?
16:30:47 <zbyszek> I see openjfx which is required by java-1.8.0-openjdk on this list
16:30:59 <zbyszek> And openjfx has no comaintainers
16:31:50 <tyll> about re-assigning, I will see if I can get this done this week and otherwise file a releng ticket
16:32:08 <bowlofeggs> cool
16:32:15 * bowlofeggs lights the 60 s fuse
16:32:22 <zbyszek> tyll++
16:32:22 <zodbot> zbyszek: Karma for till changed to 11 (for the current release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
16:32:57 <nirik> thanks tyll!
16:33:14 <bowlofeggs> #endmeeting