17:00:17 #startmeeting FESCO (2022-04-05) 17:00:17 Meeting started Tue Apr 5 17:00:17 2022 UTC. 17:00:17 This meeting is logged and archived in a public location. 17:00:17 The chair is mhroncok. Information about MeetBot at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Zodbot#Meeting_Functions. 17:00:17 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 17:00:17 The meeting name has been set to 'fesco_(2022-04-05)' 17:00:17 #meetingname fesco 17:00:17 The meeting name has been set to 'fesco' 17:00:22 #chair nirik, decathorpe, zbyszek, sgallagh, mhroncok, dcantrell, mboddu, tstellar, Conan_Kudo, Pharaoh_Atem, Son_Goku, King_InuYasha, Sir_Gallantmon, Eighth_Doctor 17:00:22 Current chairs: Conan_Kudo Eighth_Doctor King_InuYasha Pharaoh_Atem Sir_Gallantmon Son_Goku dcantrell decathorpe mboddu mhroncok nirik sgallagh tstellar zbyszek 17:00:26 #topic init process 17:00:33 .hi 17:00:34 morning everyone. 17:00:34 sgallagh: sgallagh 'Stephen Gallagher' 17:00:38 .hi 17:00:39 trodgers: trodgers 'Thomas Rodgers' 17:00:40 .hello ngompa 17:00:42 Eighth_Doctor: ngompa 'Neal Gompa' 17:00:43 .hello tstellar 17:00:46 .hello churchyard 17:00:47 tstellar: tstellar 'Tom Stellard' 17:00:50 mhroncok: churchyard 'Miro Hrončok' 17:00:57 .hello2 17:00:58 dcantrell: dcantrell 'David Cantrell' 17:01:01 (wrong one first) 17:01:04 .hello2 17:01:04 zbyszek: zbyszek 'Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek' 17:01:18 dcantrell: who's on first 17:01:27 hehe 17:02:05 .hello2 17:02:06 bcotton: bcotton 'Ben Cotton' 17:02:40 do we have siosm or jrybar? 17:03:08 if not, let's start with trodgers so they don't need to wait 17:03:27 I'm not going anywhere any time soon ;-> 17:03:28 #topic #2774 provenpackager for trodgers 17:03:35 .fesco 2774 17:03:36 mhroncok: Issue #2774: provenpackager for trodgers - fesco - Pagure.io - https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2774 17:03:42 .hello mohanboddu 17:03:43 mboddu: mohanboddu 'Mohan Boddu' 17:04:24 #info mhroncok plans to help trodgers pushing the boost bumps this time, it hasn't happened yet, but mhroncok is ready 17:05:00 I expect to be ready by late this week 17:05:31 trodgers: would you still prefer to become provenpackager now, in the light of that? 17:05:56 that solves the near term problem, and codonnell has offered himself and Florian to help with future releases, I only plan to rebase Boost once per year, so on the one hand it is not imperative that I gain PP status 17:05:59 .hello2 17:06:00 decathorpe: decathorpe 'Fabio Valentini' 17:06:21 I would however note that jwakely has PP, with four packages, one of which is dead, and two others have or are transitioning to me 17:06:53 so I do kinda disagree with the idea that this a "numbers game" on package count which was what one of the package sponsors seemed to imply 17:07:04 in their response 17:07:19 note that for me, not only packages count, but any track of previous work 17:07:34 * nirik is still +1, but I've known trodgers forever and knows he knows what he's doing and is trustworthy, etc. 17:07:35 packaging work, that is 17:07:39 almost all of my work is upstream of Fedora 17:08:10 technically, PPs are approved by sponsors, but this request has not gained enough support (only +1 - nirik, who knows them) 17:08:10 I only maintain two Fedora packages, that count is only every likely to grow by one-ish in the forseeable future 17:08:15 most of the boost cleanup is also likely upstream... fixing things that broke this time due to boosts api changes... 17:08:17 so now fesco votes 17:08:25 my only issue is that I don't know trodgers much 17:08:40 the cotes in the ticket are +1,0,-3 17:08:46 *votes 17:08:48 I dont know trodgers much, but I trust nirik 17:08:54 I haven't seen posts from them on list 17:09:25 and I have revdeps of boost and haven't interacted with them 17:09:37 only jwakely so far 17:09:47 I trust nirik as well but I am a bit worried to set a precedence of "1 FESCo member trusts somebody => they become PP" 17:09:58 FWIW, the fact that I know somebody personally is not really relevant. Packaging work != upstream work != being a trustworthy person in general. 17:09:59 jwakely has tended to handle them in the past, he is about to relenquish maintainer of boost 17:10:19 so just don't know what way to vote on this, and in absence of info or anything, I can't comfortably vote +1 17:10:49 My vote from the ticket still stands. 17:10:59 like even if trodgers had PRs to prove packaging stuff, or did package reviews, or anything, that would help 17:11:07 well, perhaps we could revisit after this boost work? would that give folks enough information? 17:11:26 mhroncok: FWIW I agree with precedent 17:11:48 I don't particularly care that trodgers only maintains a few packages 17:11:49 as I said before, I would very much prefer to create that track record now and reopen this request later 17:11:51 that's not a huge deal to me 17:11:55 nirik: I think that is more or less what mhroncok agreed in our initial offline discussion anyway 17:12:05 what's more important is that there's some record of expertise I can see 17:12:11 +1 to what mhroncok said. 17:12:32 Same, +1 to mhroncok / nirik 17:12:33 well, if everyone is ok with that... I'm +1 for revisiting after boost work too.. 17:12:45 Yeah, +1 for what mhroncok said 17:12:52 so to be clear, I'm not saying trodgers is bad or anything. I just don't have anything to work with to feel comfortable voting +1 17:13:00 I'm cool with revisiting after a boost cycle 17:13:03 trodgers: would you consider withdrawing your request for now and reopening it later? 17:13:11 same for me 17:13:15 I have done the majority of the packaging work for the past two Fedora releases, I have done all of the work for this release, modulo the package bumps 17:13:16 The question for me is are we allowed to consider our interactions without someone outside of Fedora? Because if so this would be an easy +1 for me. 17:13:16 17:13:24 mhroncok: +1 17:13:40 tstellar: what do you mean by that? 17:13:52 I'm not sure I understand the question 17:13:55 tstellar: you are allowed you use your own best judgement, hence yes 17:14:22 Eighth_Doctor: Like if we know someone in some other context, like work, upstream, etc. do we factor that in, or are we only supposed to consider work done in the Fedora community? 17:14:37 tstellar: I see. Yeah if you want to, yes. 17:14:43 I read trodgers's +1 as an agreement to withdraw the request for now 17:14:47 so no need to vote 17:15:02 I do factor that in myself, but I also have examples of "good upstream work & bad downstream packaging expertise" 17:15:11 just to avoid any discontent, I think that is the best thing at this point 17:15:26 we can get this release done, and I'll come back early next year :) 17:15:34 sounds good to me 17:15:34 awesome 17:15:47 #info trodgers withdrw 17:15:49 trodgers: if you would also consider doing some package reviews too, that would seriously help :) 17:15:53 #undo 17:15:53 Removing item from minutes: INFO by mhroncok at 17:15:47 : trodgers withdrw 17:15:54 cat 17:16:02 Eighth_Doctor: noted 17:16:28 #info trodgers withdraws their provenpackager request for now, and will retry later 17:16:46 trodgers: what I look for is an indication that you have good knowledge of RPM packaging and Fedora conventions around packaging, as well as awareness of the distribution impact of packaging choices/changes/etc. 17:16:49 thank you trodgers 17:16:57 so package reviews to me are a good substitute for actually having packages 17:17:01 trodgers++ 17:17:01 mhroncok: Karma for trodgers changed to 1 (for the current release cycle): https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any 17:17:13 trodgers++ 17:17:13 Eighth_Doctor: Karma for trodgers changed to 2 (for the current release cycle): https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any 17:17:22 next topic? 17:17:26 oh yay, the bot works for me again :D 17:17:46 #topic #2766 Change proposal: Make pkexec and pkla-compat optional 17:17:48 Eighth_Doctor: are you on irc or bridged? 17:17:53 .fesco 2766 17:17:54 mhroncok: Issue #2766: Change proposal: Make pkexec and pkla-compat optional - fesco - Pagure.io - https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2766 17:18:16 say what you need to say 17:18:28 if there is nothing more to be said, we can vote 17:18:34 I plan to abstain 17:19:01 (which works more or less as voting against, I know) 17:19:28 * mhroncok saves his -1s for worst things 17:19:58 FWIW, I think the idea has some merit, but probably not enough to overcome all the destractors. 17:20:05 *detractors 17:20:12 This seems not worth it... -1 from me. 17:20:25 0 17:20:37 0 17:20:50 -1 17:20:52 -1 17:20:56 0 17:20:58 -1 17:21:05 -1, I feel like the change is not worth it 17:21:13 I forgot who is here and who isn't 17:21:25 Fabio Valentini: ? 17:22:10 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQT08NFsf4w) 17:22:25 #agree REJECTED (+0, 3, -5) 17:22:44 #topic #2759 Proposal: periodic check on packagers reachability 17:22:50 .fesco 2759 17:22:51 mhroncok: Issue #2759: Proposal: periodic check on packagers reachability - fesco - Pagure.io - https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2759 17:23:04 so, this is on the agenda for one reason 17:23:13 please go read it and vote there 17:23:22 it is sitting there for too long 17:23:30 * mhroncok is guilty as well 17:23:52 we don't need to discuss it here, but we can, in case there is something to discuss 17:24:13 I don't think I can internalize this quickly enough to have a discussion here today. 17:24:16 Who is going to write and maintain the scripting? 17:24:39 that is a very good question 17:24:48 and in fact, it popped in y head as well 17:24:53 *my 17:25:29 we can at least allow it to be written and approve the policy, if in reality nobody does it, we can revert 17:25:40 I'd propose the following: let's approve the policy provisionally, and only merge the PR when we have an implementatino. 17:25:44 (I imagine nobody is highly motivated to write the script before they know it will be approved) 17:25:45 or make the policy contingent 17:25:50 (Or what mhroncok said.) 17:25:52 right 17:25:55 (Or nirik.) 17:25:58 both works for me 17:26:01 who will run the script, too? 17:26:17 I'm happy to help deploy it and fix simple things, but I don't want to write it 17:26:32 IMHO it would be best to be deployed in infra... 17:26:34 who runs the provenpackager script? 17:26:43 i do 17:27:06 nirik: BTW I have many things that would be best to be deployed in infra... :D 17:27:21 Ben Cotton (he/him): so you run this one as well :) 17:27:23 yeah... 17:27:39 it's called decentralized infra 17:27:47 that should be explicitly reflected in the policy, then 17:28:00 Hmm, why? 17:28:05 and also, that would make me pay more attention to what it says :-) 17:28:19 (i've mostly ignored this proposal until now) 17:29:00 BTW when we revisited FTBFS/FTI policies, I made sure that everybody can do the steps manually or write a script or run the script -- that way, thepolociy was not blocked on implementation 17:29:11 *the policy 17:29:21 thats another nice want to do it... however... 17:29:41 this policy calls for specific times. It's harder for a human to do that than a cronjob. 17:29:41 zbyszek: why what? 17:29:49 right 17:29:57 bcotton: "that should be explicitly reflected in the policy, then" 17:30:01 more flexible times would help 17:30:24 Maybe releng can take over it? Write the script and put it as a cron job some where in the fedora infra? 17:30:42 zbyszek: because that makes it clear who is responsible as opposed to "oh, someone will do that" 17:30:47 mboddu: is releng available to do that? 17:30:52 mboddu: in their copious spare time? 17:30:52 Wasn't there some early version of the script posted? 17:31:27 bcotton: I don't think that needs to be part of the written policy. Who does the work is often not mentioned at all in our rules. 17:31:28 mhroncok: I can check with jednorozec 17:31:40 what defines reachable? is it just activity in src.fedoraproject.org? 17:31:56 zbyszek: i'm not opposed to it being added to the FPgM's responsibilities, but having it explicit helps with continuity 17:32:01 * mboddu wont be available as a full time release engineer in couple of weeks time 17:32:10 Eighth_Doctor: please read the proposal 17:32:10 zbyszek: arguably, that's a bug in the current policies :-) 17:32:26 I did, but it's very long and a little confusing 17:32:44 that's why I am asking 17:33:14 since not everybody is 100% up to date with the proposal, we can continue this asynchronously. I just added it on the agenda, to remind us that the proposal exists 17:34:14 "any activity in the last 12 months period in the following places:", and there's a list of 5 places. 17:34:44 Isn't this clear enough? 17:36:08 seems clear enouh to me 17:36:15 anyway... 17:36:45 #info FESCo, please post your votes to the ticket and nitpicks to the PR 17:37:06 #topic Next week's chair 17:37:46 I might need to leave 30 minutes after the meeting starts next week 17:37:54 so I prefer not to chair 17:40:14 I guess i've not done it in a while... 17:40:31 #action nirik will chair next meeting 17:40:41 nirik++ 17:40:48 #topic Open Floor 17:41:13 How is F36 coming along? 17:41:22 Freeze just started :) 17:41:25 Anything particularly on fire? 17:41:40 Just out of curiosity... how many fesco members are on from matrix currently? or still on from irc I guess would be better to ask... 17:41:53 irc here 17:41:53 I am still on irc 17:41:55 matrix here 17:42:01 I'm on both, but typing in irc. 17:42:12 zbyszek: https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/milestone/36/final/buglist 17:42:13 mhroncok: if you're on from matrix, how do you not have the silly '[m]' suffix? 17:42:16 matrix 17:42:29 ok. Just wondering if we could use the matrix polling feature for votes... ;) But seems not yet. 17:42:33 dcantrell: I've chnaged it somewhere, but I don't recall 17:42:34 I have the problem with the graphical clients that they display previews of all links, and the previous are 99% useless. 17:42:41 you can set the nick in the appservice 17:42:50 yes, appservice 17:42:52 zbyszek: you can turn that off. 17:42:55 !nick whatever 17:42:55 PRs for the redhat-rpm-config repo are starting to pile up again (some are from me). 17:43:02 I did the same thing, so that's why Conan Kudo is Eighth_Doctor 17:43:46 tstellar: I was hoping somebody will beta me to it, but if not, ping me directly during my working hours and I can have a look 17:43:47 for f36: lots of blockers known need fixing. ;( Scientific KDE is failing due to Julia... which appears to be a gcc thing 17:43:49 tstellar: I'm planning on reviewing them later this week, I also need to sit down and fix some brokenness about how redhat-rpm-config is actually versioned and maintained 17:43:51 *beat 17:44:15 If someone can suggest me a great client for matrix, then I would love to jump 17:44:17 the main reason I hadn't gotten to them yet is that both Workstation and KDE have been on fire with blocker bugs for the past three weeks 17:44:26 that's finally doused so I can get to looking at them 17:44:35 mboddu: I've been slowly trying to figure out matrix via weechat 17:44:38 mhroncok, Eighth_Doctor: Ok thanks. 17:44:44 "fix some brokenness about how redhat-rpm-config is ... maintained" -- well, it is not maintained 17:44:46 mboddu: all of them have their faults... element is probibly the best bet right now. ;( 17:44:56 mboddu: it's less objectionable than the libpurple plugin 17:44:56 dcantrell: Ohhh, let me know how it goes 17:45:00 sure 17:45:27 nirik: Yeah, but it feels like bloted and always lags (at least for me) 17:45:28 I sidetracked and migrated all of my existing chat from irssi over to weechat and now am trying to add in matrix 17:45:30 but....ugh 17:45:38 I use Element right now, though I continually try NeoChat 17:45:46 nirik: thanks, I see the option in element now. No idea how i missed it before. 17:45:54 Element is pretty nice. 17:45:57 It seems the new thunderbird has support for matrix, waiting to try it out 17:46:18 it also seems like we might get Element in the distro with having a potential nodejs-electron implementation 17:46:40 asn is asking for co-maintainers to help with it before submitting it for review 17:47:23 ok folks 17:47:51 let's move matrix discussion to another channel if you wish 17:48:13 I plan to end this meeting if no other topic pops out 17:48:20 pops up? 17:49:12 What I like about Matrix is that I can see who's up to date wit my recent messages here 17:49:30 (currently that is nobody) 17:50:03 👍️ 17:50:16 #endmeeting