15:00:33 <jsmith> #startmeeting FESCO (2018-11-26)
15:00:33 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon Nov 26 15:00:33 2018 UTC.
15:00:33 <zodbot> This meeting is logged and archived in a public location.
15:00:33 <zodbot> The chair is jsmith. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
15:00:33 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
15:00:33 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fesco_(2018-11-26)'
15:00:33 <jsmith> #meetingname fesco
15:00:33 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fesco'
15:00:33 <jsmith> #chair nirik, maxamillion, jsmith, jforbes, zbyszek, tyll, sgallagh, contyk, bowlofeggs
15:00:33 <jsmith> #topic init process
15:00:33 <zodbot> Current chairs: bowlofeggs contyk jforbes jsmith maxamillion nirik sgallagh tyll zbyszek
15:00:45 <maxamillion> .hello2
15:00:45 <jforbes> .hello2
15:00:45 <zodbot> maxamillion: maxamillion 'Adam Miller' <maxamillion@gmail.com>
15:00:48 <zodbot> jforbes: jforbes 'Justin M. Forbes' <jforbes@redhat.com>
15:00:52 <contyk> .hello psabata
15:00:53 <zodbot> contyk: psabata 'Petr Šabata' <psabata@redhat.com>
15:00:55 <nirik> .hello kevin
15:00:57 <jsmith> .hello2
15:00:59 <zodbot> nirik: kevin 'Kevin Fenzi' <kevin@scrye.com>
15:01:02 <zodbot> jsmith: jsmith 'Jared Smith' <jsmith.fedora@gmail.com>
15:02:12 <jsmith> We have quorum :-)
15:02:15 <bowlofeggs> .hello2
15:02:16 <zodbot> bowlofeggs: bowlofeggs 'Randy Barlow' <rbarlow@redhat.com>
15:02:22 <jsmith> I'll wait another minute, and then get started on the tickets.
15:02:26 <zbyszek> .hello2
15:02:28 <zodbot> zbyszek: zbyszek 'Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek' <zbyszek@in.waw.pl>
15:05:41 <jsmith> Let's get started
15:05:49 <jsmith> #topic Decisions made via tickets
15:05:49 <jsmith> #topic #2014 F30 System-Wide Change: The GNU C Library version 2.29
15:05:49 <jsmith> .fesco 2014
15:05:49 <jsmith> https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2014
15:05:50 <zodbot> jsmith: Issue #2014: F30 System-Wide Change: The GNU C Library version 2.29 - fesco - Pagure.io - https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2014
15:06:08 <jsmith> This was voted on in the ticket -- I didn't see any objection, so it's approved automagically
15:06:34 <maxamillion> horray for automagic
15:06:47 <nirik> cool
15:06:51 <jsmith> #agreed #2014 System-wide change is approved via voting in the tickets (+6, 0, 0)
15:06:58 <jsmith> #topic Follow-up business
15:07:08 <contyk> :)
15:07:10 <jsmith> #topic #2013 too strict rules for branches deletion alongside with norules for theirs creations
15:07:10 <jsmith> .fesco 2013
15:07:10 <jsmith> https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2013
15:07:12 <zodbot> jsmith: Issue #2013: too strict rules for branches deletion alongside with norules for theirs creations - fesco - Pagure.io - https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2013
15:07:57 <nirik> I think we were going to wait on a script by someone? or was there more to discuss?
15:08:12 <jsmith> We've had a little more discussion on this, but I don't think we're anywhere close to a proposal we can vote on.
15:08:24 <zbyszek> There was a new proposal
15:08:26 <bowlofeggs> there is a new proposal to prevent it by default
15:08:28 <jforbes> There was the proposal for turning on the no new branches via git push by degfault
15:08:46 <contyk> we could have both
15:08:47 <nirik> ah, right.
15:08:58 <bowlofeggs> nirik: do you know if there is an easy way to get pagure to do that for all projects?
15:09:08 <bowlofeggs> or would that be a feature request?
15:09:10 <jsmith> bowlofeggs: There's not, from what I saw :-(
15:09:15 <nirik> not off hand, but we could possibly script things or poke the db
15:09:22 <jsmith> bowlofeggs: I think it would take an RFE to add it to the API.
15:09:28 <bowlofeggs> well we'd also need it to do that for new repos too
15:09:51 <bowlofeggs> i'm +1 to the idea, but without an implementation it's not gonna happen
15:09:56 <nirik> would be good to file a RFE and get pingou's input
15:10:14 <contyk> do we need to keep the ticket, though?
15:10:22 <bowlofeggs> i don't think we need a ticket
15:10:23 <contyk> we could vote on whether we're fine with the changes
15:10:46 <contyk> whether and when someone implements it, that's another thing
15:10:52 <bowlofeggs> sure
15:10:52 <jforbes> I don't think we were asked
15:11:14 <bowlofeggs> well i'm +1 to pagure defaulting to disallowing git pushing new branches, if pagure wants to add that feature
15:11:24 <zbyszek> bowlofeggs: +1
15:11:27 <jsmith> As am I
15:11:27 <contyk> so am I, +1
15:11:32 <nirik> +1 here as well...
15:11:37 <jforbes> +1
15:11:44 <nirik> would avoid the 'mistaken' ones
15:11:52 <maxamillion> +1
15:12:06 <contyk> what about private-prefixed branches?
15:12:22 <contyk> not sure if they make sense in dist-git, though
15:12:32 <bowlofeggs> contyk: people can use forks
15:12:33 <zbyszek> contyk: One can always disable this, and then have private branches as much as they want.
15:12:38 <contyk> bowlofeggs: right
15:12:49 <contyk> and that
15:12:52 <contyk> never mind then :)
15:13:08 <nirik> you can even grant people access to your fork if you want to collaborate on something
15:13:59 <jsmith> Proposal: FESCo is OK with having pagure default to disallowing git pushing to new branches, if pagure wants to add that feature
15:14:19 <zbyszek> still +1
15:14:23 <nirik> +1
15:14:23 <maxamillion> +1
15:14:33 <contyk> can we make it clear this is about pagure over dist-git?
15:14:44 <jsmith> contyk: Sure :-)
15:14:55 <jsmith> Updated Proposal: FESCo is OK with having pagure over dist-git default to disallowing git pushing to new branches, if pagure wants to add that feature
15:15:02 <contyk> +1
15:15:06 <zbyszek> +1
15:15:07 <jsmith> (and for the record, I'm +1 to the proposal)
15:15:22 <contyk> no need to say that anymore
15:15:22 <bowlofeggs> jsmith: +1
15:15:31 <jforbes> +1
15:16:05 <jsmith> #agreed #2013 FESCo is OK with having pagure over dist-git default to disallowing git pushing to new branches, if pagure wants to add that feature (+1:7,0:0,-1:0)
15:16:23 <jsmith> #topic New business
15:16:36 <jsmith> #topic #2015 Preclusion of Firefox automatic download of OpenH264 (#1359) may have been violated at some point
15:16:36 <jsmith> .fesco 2015
15:16:36 <jsmith> https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2015
15:16:38 <zodbot> jsmith: Issue #2015: Preclusion of Firefox automatic download of OpenH264 (#1359) may have been violated at some point - fesco - Pagure.io - https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2015
15:16:58 <bowlofeggs> i don't think we need to take any action on this one
15:17:01 <jsmith> Another one where I'm not sure what FESCo is being asked to do here, but it's something we should be aware of
15:17:04 <bowlofeggs> and am not sure why it was filed
15:17:28 <jsmith> I'm assuming to make us aware of the situation
15:17:33 <nirik> yeah.
15:17:50 <jforbes> Sure, though it seems the maintainer is on the issue already
15:17:53 <contyk> yeah, seems so
15:17:55 <jsmith> Agreed.
15:18:04 <bowlofeggs> Proposal: close the ticket
15:18:07 <contyk> +1
15:18:16 <zbyszek> +1
15:18:17 <jforbes> +1
15:18:20 <jsmith> +1
15:18:26 <nirik> +1
15:19:55 <jsmith> #agreed #2015 Close the ticket. (+1:5,+0:0,-1:0)
15:20:13 <jsmith> #topic  #2016 F29 – rebase of dnf, libdnf, dnf-plugins-core, dnf-plugins-extras
15:20:14 <jsmith> .fesco 2016
15:20:14 <jsmith> https://pagure.io/fesco/2016
15:20:16 <zodbot> jsmith: Issue #2016: F29 – rebase of dnf, libdnf, dnf-plugins-core, dnf-plugins-extras - fesco - Pagure.io - https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2016
15:20:37 <bowlofeggs> i would like more info on this one before making a decision
15:20:38 <jsmith> I'm still not clear on the reason that a rebase is needed
15:20:41 <bowlofeggs> proposal: wait a week
15:20:49 <jsmith> I'm fine with waiting on this one...
15:21:03 <nirik> is the update set for autokarma?
15:21:05 <contyk> ack, me too
15:21:08 <zbyszek> Well, it's called a "rebase", but it's really mostly a bunch of bugfix commmit.s
15:21:39 <maxamillion> supposedly :)
15:22:11 <jforbes> Right, from the ticket, it doesn't seem to qualify as a "rebase". I am not sure why we are being asked. It seems if it is just bug fixes, they would not ask. Is something else lurking?
15:22:11 <zbyszek> I wouldn't make a big thing out of this. It's nice that jmracek filed the ticket, but I think it'd be entirely within the update guidelines to push it without the ticket.
15:22:12 <contyk> as a packager I wouldn't be asking FESCo to ack my bugfix update
15:22:19 <contyk> so I'd expect it is a bit more than that
15:22:41 <zbyszek> It is a bit more than that, it adds a new plugin.
15:22:53 <nirik> is the plugin installed/enabled by default?
15:23:12 <zbyszek> It needs to be invoked expicitly by name, iiuc
15:23:12 <nirik> but this might also be erroring on the side of caution due to the last rebase...
15:23:34 <jforbes> Ahh, didn't think of that
15:24:06 <zbyszek> ``dnf repodiff [<options>]``
15:24:27 <jforbes> So that seems very low risk
15:24:28 <contyk> so if it's mostly a bugfix release, fully backwards compatible, I don't see a reason to block this
15:24:49 <contyk> any bugs should be caught in the standard bodhi process
15:25:03 <jforbes> meaning the new plugin. Bug fixes can always introduce new bugs
15:25:13 <contyk> of course
15:25:34 <bowlofeggs> i would still like to know why we are being asked before making a decision
15:25:41 <jsmith> bowlofeggs: Me too...
15:26:09 <nirik> there is a -1 on the update, but there's an answer from maintainers as well
15:26:56 <zbyszek> proposal: set karma threshold to +12 (it's +8 currently) and allow the update to proceed
15:27:47 <bowlofeggs> i don't want to approve or disapprove the update without answers to our questions on the ticket
15:27:53 <maxamillion> bowlofeggs: +1
15:28:21 <bowlofeggs> so i'm -1 to that proposal for now
15:28:36 <jsmith> Alternate proposal: Wait for answers to our questions in the ticket, and vote in the ticket before next week's meeting if possible
15:28:39 <nirik> proposal: hold update until questions are answered in ticket, then allow to stable
15:28:51 <jsmith> nirik: jinx!
15:29:09 <bowlofeggs> jsmith: +1
15:29:10 <contyk> are any of the bugs that this update is fixing critical?
15:29:17 <contyk> in whatever definition of that word
15:29:31 <contyk> I wouldn't want to delay major bugfixes
15:30:30 <zbyszek> 0	0 	#1066867 [RFE] [api] Support package changelog.
15:30:30 <zbyszek> 0	0 	#1541832 Inconsistent return values
15:30:30 <zbyszek> 0	0 	#1557340 config-manager --add-repo created a non-valid repo id
15:30:30 <zbyszek> 0	0 	#1595917 BaseConfig __getattr__ "cleverness" makes it unexpectedly impossible to mutate config values that appear to be lists in dnf 3+
15:30:33 <zbyszek> 0	0 	#1615164 [abrt] python3-dnf: configure(): __init__.py:841:configure:dnf.cli.CliError: None
15:30:36 <zbyszek> 0	0 	#1636480 dnf-automatic timer files: Incorrect dependency WantedBy=basic.target causing ordering cycle for systemd
15:30:39 <zbyszek> 0	0 	#1637148 dnf doesn't resolve variables in mirrorlists
15:30:42 <zbyszek> 0	0 	#1638689 dnf system-upgrade errors when excluding weak dependencies
15:30:45 <zbyszek> 0	0 	#1639998 dnf 4 output changes
15:30:47 <zbyszek> 0	0 	#1642126 libdnf crashes when displaying errors preventing a package from being updated
15:30:50 <zbyszek> 0	0 	#1643676 dnf-plugin-versionlock not accept package-spec string from versionlock.list
15:30:53 <zbyszek> 0	0 	#1644653 dnf duplicates "installed" line
15:30:56 <zbyszek> 0	0 	#1647144 "TransactionItem state is not set" / "TransactionItem not found for key" error when RPM db contains duplicate entries for a package
15:30:59 <zbyszek> 0	0 	#1648649 dnf reposync with --quiet crashes
15:31:01 <zbyszek> 0	0 	#1649284 Package.remote_location fails with AttributeError when using repository with baseurl
15:31:04 <zbyszek> 1636480 is unpleasant
15:31:23 <contyk> #1642126 sounds bad as well
15:31:47 <zbyszek> But OK, I think voting in the ticket is enough. A few days more won't make a difference.
15:31:58 <zbyszek> So I withdraw my proposal, and say +1 to jsmith
15:32:11 <jsmith> (I'm +1 to my proposal too)
15:32:23 <jforbes> +1
15:32:23 <maxamillion> jsmith: +1
15:32:51 <nirik> jsmith: +1
15:33:56 <contyk> jsmith: +1
15:34:05 <jsmith> #agreed #2016 Wait for answers to our questions in the tickets, and try to vote in the ticket before our next meeting if possible (+1:6,+0:0,-1:0)
15:34:12 <jsmith> OK, one last one...
15:34:26 <jsmith> There's one that doesn't yet have a ticket (due to a wiki gremlin)
15:34:41 <jsmith> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/GnuPG2_as_default_GPG_implementation
15:35:25 <jforbes> I can't +1 this enough
15:35:26 <jsmith> #topic https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/GnuPG2_as_default_GPG_implementation
15:35:38 <bowlofeggs> jsmith: doesn't bcotton usually give it a week on devel list before filing a fesco ticket?
15:35:45 <zbyszek> IIRC, there were some command line uses that gpg2 didn't support, and using gpg was required
15:35:52 <zbyszek> bowlofeggs: there already was a week
15:35:55 <bcotton> yes, that's the policy. i just posted it to the list this morning
15:36:01 * nirik doesn't recall seeing it on the list
15:36:10 <jsmith> I'm generally leaning towards +1, but I would lean towards making this a system-wide change, considering the broad impact of this change
15:36:26 <zbyszek> bcotton: oh, sorry, I misunderstood then
15:36:31 <bowlofeggs> i think we should give it the week on devel list to stew and vote on the ticket after bcotton files
15:36:40 <jsmith> bowlofeggs: That works for me
15:36:43 <bowlofeggs> (but i am +1 at this point ☺)
15:36:50 <bcotton> i agree with bowlofeggs
15:36:56 <zbyszek> bowlofeggs: +1
15:37:07 <jforbes> bowlofeggs: +1
15:37:14 <zbyszek> (I'm +1 too, but prefer to follow the usual process.)
15:37:24 <bcotton> i'm trying to figure out why the wiki didn't include it in the category page correctly, but there's nothing obviously wrong
15:37:42 <contyk> do we know what other distros do here? would it make us very different or bring closer together?
15:38:21 <contyk> (meaning /usr/bin/gpg being gpg2)
15:38:21 <zbyszek> bcotton: there's some confusion whether this is "system wide"
15:38:45 <zbyszek> It's in Category:SystemWideChange, but the text indicated otherwise
15:39:36 <contyk> "This change will bring Fedora in line with other major distributions, users will get consistent experience between distributions and the naive expectation that "gpg" binary is the latest and greatest implementation of GnuPG", I'll just trust this bit
15:39:42 <bowlofeggs> contyk: according to the change author, this will make us more consistent with other distros
15:40:42 <bcotton> zbyszek: are you referring to the "list of deliverables" text? that's the only inconsistency i see
15:41:34 <zbyszek> bcotton: yes
15:42:51 <contyk> so +1 to bowlofeggs
15:42:59 <jsmith> Proposal: Wait another week for discussion and clarification on scope
15:43:04 <bowlofeggs> jsmith: +1
15:43:06 <nirik> +1
15:43:10 <contyk> +1
15:43:12 <jsmith> +1
15:43:17 <jforbes> +1
15:43:43 <zbyszek> +1
15:43:47 <bcotton> ok, i'll clarify with the change owners
15:44:13 <jsmith> #agreed Wait a week for discussion and clarification on GnuPG2 as default GPG implementation
15:44:23 <jsmith> #topic Next week's chair
15:44:28 <jsmith> #undo
15:44:28 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Topic object at 0x7fe4fd8ee990>
15:44:31 <jsmith> #undo
15:44:31 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: AGREED by jsmith at 15:44:13 : Wait a week for discussion and clarification on GnuPG2 as default GPG implementation
15:44:46 <jsmith> #agreed Wait a week for discussion and clarification on GnuPG2 as default GPG implementation (+1:6,+0:0,-1:0)
15:44:48 <zbyszek> What about "ursa major"?
15:45:14 <contyk> I was also going to ask
15:45:27 <contyk> but it seems we could continue the discussion in the ticket for another week
15:45:55 <jsmith> It seems there's still a lot of discussion happening
15:46:49 <zbyszek> It's only happening on Mondays, but I agree that it's a lot of it then ;)
15:46:51 * nirik notes epel could really use it, but I guess I should add that tot he ticket
15:47:20 <zbyszek> +1 to continuing the discussion in the ticket
15:47:43 <jsmith> nirik: Please do :-)
15:48:11 <jsmith> I'm +1 to continuing in the ticket
15:50:24 <maxamillion> +1 to continuing in ticket
15:50:52 <nirik> yeah
15:51:00 <bowlofeggs> +1
15:51:44 <jsmith> #agreed Continue the discussion on ticket #2003 (Ursa Major) in the ticket (+5:0,+0:0,-1:0)
15:51:48 <jsmith> #topic Next week's chair
15:52:21 * contyk can do it
15:53:28 <jsmith> OK, thanks contyk
15:53:39 <jsmith> #action contyk to chair next week's meeting
15:53:45 <jsmith> #topic Open Floor
15:54:07 <jsmith> Nominations for the open FESCo seats are still open, if I recall
15:54:38 <jsmith> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Development/SteeringCommittee/Nominations
15:54:58 <jsmith> Please nominate yourself if you have an interest, or nominate a friend if you think they'd do a good job
15:55:12 <nirik> bugzilla 5 upgrade is still scheduled for next week (as far as I know).
15:56:29 <jsmith> nirik: That's an approximately 12-hour outage if I remember correctly, right?
15:56:34 <nirik> yeah.
15:57:06 <nirik> starting at 00:00UTC sunday in the US... so back monday morning sometime
15:57:51 <jsmith> Cool.
15:58:12 <bowlofeggs> nirik: i've heard that story like 3 times now ☺
15:58:17 <jsmith> If there's nothing else for the open floor, I'll end the meeting in a minute...
15:58:23 <bowlofeggs> buzilla 5 is a legend to me now
15:58:29 <jsmith> bowlofeggs: But it's a good story :-)
15:58:33 <bowlofeggs> haha yeah
15:58:44 * jsmith does not envy the people doing the upgrade
15:58:54 <nirik> the ballad of bugzilla 5
15:59:40 <jsmith> #endmeeting