17:05:01 <zbyszek> #startmeeting FESCO (2023-07-13)
17:05:01 <zodbot> Meeting started Thu Jul 13 17:05:01 2023 UTC.
17:05:01 <zodbot> This meeting is logged and archived in a public location.
17:05:01 <zodbot> The chair is zbyszek. Information about MeetBot at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Zodbot#Meeting_Functions.
17:05:01 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
17:05:01 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fesco_(2023-07-13)'
17:05:01 <zbyszek> #meetingname fesco
17:05:01 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fesco'
17:05:01 <zbyszek> #chair nirik, decathorpe, zbyszek, sgallagh, mhroncok, dcantrell, mhayden, Conan_Kudo, Pharaoh_Atem, Son_Goku, King_InuYasha, Sir_Gallantmon, Eighth_Doctor, tstellar
17:05:01 <zodbot> Current chairs: Conan_Kudo Eighth_Doctor King_InuYasha Pharaoh_Atem Sir_Gallantmon Son_Goku dcantrell decathorpe mhayden mhroncok nirik sgallagh tstellar zbyszek
17:05:04 <zbyszek> #topic init process
17:05:05 <zbyszek> Sorry for the delay.
17:05:09 <decathorpe> .hi
17:05:10 <zodbot> decathorpe: decathorpe 'Fabio Valentini' <decathorpe@gmail.com>
17:05:13 <zbyszek> I have a very spotty network. If I drop, someone please take over the chair.
17:05:16 <zbyszek> Template: https://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/fesco-35.info
17:05:18 <zbyszek> (I updated the IRC template on the wiki with the election results and meeting time.)
17:05:22 <zbyszek> .hello2
17:05:23 <zodbot> zbyszek: zbyszek 'Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek' <zbyszek@in.waw.pl>
17:05:35 <Eighth_Doctor> .hello ngompa
17:05:36 <zodbot> Eighth_Doctor: ngompa 'Neal Gompa' <ngompa13@gmail.com>
17:05:40 <tstellar> .hello tstellar
17:05:40 <mhayden> .hello2
17:05:41 <zodbot> tstellar: tstellar 'Tom Stellard' <tstellar@redhat.com>
17:05:44 <zodbot> mhayden: mhayden 'Major Hayden' <mhayden@redhat.com>
17:06:29 <zbyszek> So we have 6, i.e. quorum.
17:06:34 <mhayden> Seems like zodbot needs a cup of coffee
17:06:47 <zbyszek> I definitely need a cup of coffee.
17:07:35 <zbyszek> I'll ping the remaining folks, give me one sec.
17:07:44 <mhayden> zbyszek: I would make you one but you're a bit out of reach 😉
17:08:39 * nirik arrives, was in wrong room
17:08:57 * mhroncok has a video call meeting at the same time this week, sorry about that
17:09:45 <nirik> why not #fedora-meeting? but I guess it doesn't matter.
17:09:53 <zbyszek> nirik: it was busy.
17:10:08 <zbyszek> I forgot to check and then update the schedule.
17:10:23 <zbyszek> #action zbyszek to update the wiki with meeting channel and  calendar too
17:10:36 <zbyszek> Let's start with a meta topic:
17:10:36 <zbyszek> #topic #3020 Proposal: FESCO should own creating issues for change proposals
17:10:40 <zbyszek> .fesco 3020
17:10:41 <zodbot> zbyszek: Issue #3020: Proposal: FESCO should own creating issues for change proposals - fesco - Pagure.io - https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3020
17:10:43 <nirik> huh, I don't see what it is, but ok. ;)
17:11:42 <decathorpe> I agree with the last three comments in that ticket, FWIW
17:12:24 <tstellar> Yeah, I'm fine if FESCO appoints someone.  I just wanted to make sure 1) it's documented who is doing the job and 2) FESCO knows they need to do something if that person disappears.
17:12:24 <nirik> me too
17:13:36 <decathorpe> +1
17:13:40 <nirik> right
17:13:45 <mhroncok> ack
17:14:19 <Eighth_Doctor> ack
17:15:53 <zbyszek> OK, so can we close the issue as resolved?
17:16:32 <Eighth_Doctor> shouldn't we appoint someone before doing that?
17:16:34 <gotmax23> Well, it doesn't seem decided who'll do it long term
17:16:34 <Eighth_Doctor> or did we already do that?
17:16:56 <zbyszek> I think amoloney volunteered to do it.
17:17:11 <zbyszek> > Im still happy to help out processing changes in the interim (or after!) if needed
17:17:12 <Eighth_Doctor> ah then I'm fine with confirming that
17:17:22 <zbyszek> But we can make this more formal.
17:17:45 <nirik> yes, lets confirm her for now and adjust as needed
17:18:25 <zbyszek> #proposal #action amaloney will process the change proposals (like FPM before)
17:19:04 <zbyszek> (Or however we want to phrase this.)
17:19:29 <tstellar> "amaloney is appointed ChangeWrangler" maybe?
17:19:57 <nirik> proposal: amoloney is designated as the point of contact for change proposal ticket processing.
17:20:14 <zbyszek> nirik: +1
17:20:18 <nirik> or is that too simple?
17:20:29 <Eighth_Doctor> +1
17:20:42 <zbyszek> I think it's fine. It just needs to be clear and polite.
17:20:49 <mhayden> +1 and thanks a ton to amoloney
17:20:53 <zbyszek> Yeah.
17:20:54 <tstellar> +1
17:21:06 <mhroncok> +1
17:21:15 <tstellar> Where is the best place to document this decision?
17:21:21 <decathorpe> +1
17:21:28 <zbyszek> #agreed amoloney is designated as the point of contact for change proposal ticket processing (+6,0,0)
17:21:41 <zbyszek> tstellar: It'll be announced in the meeting summary email.
17:21:44 <Eighth_Doctor> we can add it to fesco page on docs
17:22:00 <Eighth_Doctor> since it's now effectively an appointed role through fesco
17:22:00 <mhroncok> change process docs
17:22:10 <zbyszek> We can do that it if people want. PR welcome ;)
17:22:33 <zbyszek> Anything else on this topic?
17:22:52 <zbyszek> Next.
17:22:52 <zbyszek> #topic #3030 Change: FedoraWorkstationImageBuilder
17:22:52 <zbyszek> .fesco 3030
17:22:53 <zodbot> zbyszek: Issue #3030: Change: FedoraWorkstationImageBuilder - fesco - Pagure.io - https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3030
17:23:00 * Eighth_Doctor sighs
17:23:14 <Eighth_Doctor> I have reservations about this Change
17:24:03 <zbyszek> We had a weak +1 from nirik...
17:24:04 <Eighth_Doctor> there was also separate discussion in the Workstation WG
17:24:04 <Eighth_Doctor> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/384
17:24:12 <nirik> yeah.
17:24:36 <Eighth_Doctor> as things currently are, I would be okay with adding it as some kind of extra compose item for testing, but not making it the blocking Workstation live ISO for F39
17:24:50 <Eighth_Doctor> there's a lot of tune-ups the team knows that they need to execute on
17:24:57 <mhayden> I'd be +1 on it because I'd like to see us eventually get to one way to build these images. I struggle to test images with our current tools and RHEL has gone 100% with IB for those images.
17:25:07 <Eighth_Doctor> and frankly, I don't want to complicate things by having a split blocking process for image builds
17:25:52 <zbyszek> The last comment in the workstation ticket has links to three items...
17:25:56 <Eighth_Doctor> I've talked to the team about the feedback I have as workstation, cloud, and kde sig members and they're looking into addressing them, but none of them will be addressed for F39
17:26:03 <Eighth_Doctor> at the same time, I think it's important we get them into the pipeline to figure out what it looks like
17:26:28 <mhayden> Eighth_Doctor: Would you be more comfortable if this was a goal for F40?
17:26:37 <Eighth_Doctor> but I can't, in good conscious, +1 to replace the official media with an IB-based image
17:26:38 <zbyszek> "I would be okay with adding it as some kind of extra compose item" — that sounds very reasonable. Can we do that?
17:26:46 <tstellar> Aren't there still some missing features?
17:26:54 <Eighth_Doctor> yeah
17:27:16 <Eighth_Doctor> mhayden: if we have some kind of concrete roadmap they'd commit to in time for it, maybe
17:27:45 <Eighth_Doctor> I'm also very aware that IB is not primarily aimed at us, so that can complicate roadmap and development priorities
17:28:19 <zbyszek> I'd prefer if someone made a proposal, I don't know enough about this topic.
17:28:36 <mhayden> True. It could be a higher priority for the team if they had a clear path to iterate in Fedora on a compose that is on the side (not the main one)
17:28:59 <Eighth_Doctor> yeah, and I'm very okay with that idea
17:29:06 <Eighth_Doctor> let's get them wired up so they can iterate
17:29:20 <Eighth_Doctor> but I don't feel good about replacing the deliverable we ship with it
17:29:25 <nirik> I suggested they start with something smaller, but they didn't seem to like that?
17:29:31 <mhayden> I'd be +1 on the getting them a path to iterate in parallel
17:29:39 <nirik> iot already uses it (but thats not a live image)
17:30:10 <tstellar> It seems to me like this should be fixed first: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/FedoraWorkstationImageBuilder#Feedback
17:30:24 <Eighth_Doctor> and IoT isn't in our main pipeline either
17:30:25 <Eighth_Doctor> this is basically tackling replacing the majority of our images
17:31:15 <Eighth_Doctor> with the exception of our ostree-based images (Kinoite, Silverblue, CoreOS, IoT), all of our images are defined via the kickstart snippet system
17:31:39 <Eighth_Doctor> so we need a replacement for that for Image Builder to manage that properly
17:32:06 <Eighth_Doctor> it currently cannot do that, though the team has promised to investigate and implement a snippet inheritance model
17:32:08 <mhayden> Hopefully all images defined in m4 format soon
17:32:13 <Eighth_Doctor> lol no
17:32:14 <Eighth_Doctor> plz
17:32:14 <mhayden> 😉
17:32:22 <Eighth_Doctor> 🪦
17:32:34 <zbyszek> mhayden: self-documenting m4, or the plain variant?
17:32:46 * nirik shudders
17:32:49 <mhayden> Oh no we've really gone off the rails now. 😂
17:33:13 <mhayden> Apologies to the group for the derailment. I'll go sit in the corner. 🪑
17:33:32 <Eighth_Doctor> Proposal: Image Builder-based Workstation images do not replace the current image build process, but are added as non-blocking additional deliverables to allow iterating to a state where we can consider replacing livemedia-creator with osbuild-composer
17:33:41 <zbyszek> FESCo thanks mhayden for making us realize how good we have right now.
17:33:49 <mhayden> +1 on that
17:33:54 <zbyszek> Eighth_Doctor: +1
17:34:01 <Eighth_Doctor> +1 for my own proposal
17:34:19 <mhayden> I like that because then it would be like a feature flag
17:34:33 <mhayden> We could just flip a switch and change over when everything is good
17:34:37 <Eighth_Doctor> and hey, my live media modernization work helped to even make this possible :)
17:34:40 <tstellar> +1
17:34:41 <nirik> so to be clear... we don't ship them, we only ship the regular images?
17:34:47 <Eighth_Doctor> they're using it to implement live media properly in osbuild
17:34:52 <Eighth_Doctor> nirik: yes
17:35:04 <Eighth_Doctor> the regular images go through to the mirrors
17:35:06 <decathorpe> +1
17:35:22 <Eighth_Doctor> this images should go... somewhere that people can try them, but not as blocking images going to mirrors
17:35:58 <zbyszek> mhroncok?
17:36:00 <Eighth_Doctor> image builder also can't build POWER and Z images yet
17:36:07 <Eighth_Doctor> (it's noted in the change document)
17:36:10 <nirik> power is coming very soon
17:36:17 <mhroncok> sorry, cannot vote now
17:36:20 <zbyszek> #agreed Image Builder-based Workstation images do not replace the current image build process, but are added as non-blocking additional deliverables to allow iterating to a state where we can consider replacing livemedia-creator with osbuild-composer (+5, 0, 0)
17:36:25 <nirik> we don't do s390x live images. ;)
17:36:28 <mhroncok> consider me not here
17:36:32 <zbyszek> Ack.
17:36:44 <mhayden> My mouse on my mainframe is laggy anyway
17:36:44 <zbyszek> Let's jump to the fourth item, it should be quick.
17:36:47 <Eighth_Doctor> roger.
17:36:50 <zbyszek> #topic #3019 Withdraw F39 Change: AutoFirstBootServices
17:36:51 <zbyszek> .fesco 3019
17:36:52 <zodbot> zbyszek: Issue #3019: Withdraw F39 Change: AutoFirstBootServices - fesco - Pagure.io - https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3019
17:36:54 <nirik> I do like the vision of walking up to a linuxone mainframe and booting fedora workstation on it tho. ;)
17:37:25 <Eighth_Doctor> I don't know how to withdraw a change
17:37:27 <Eighth_Doctor> so ehh, hence the ticket
17:37:48 <Eighth_Doctor> Ben used to handle this for me before
17:38:01 <nirik> I think it's just moving wiki back to incomplete and then removing from the list of changes...
17:38:08 <decathorpe> probably need to update docs / wiki / whereever the accepted changes are listed
17:39:01 <davide> I'd suggest updating the feedback section on the Change page to cover the drawbacks that prompted you to withdraw this
17:39:23 <davide> will come in handy if/when this happens to resurface in the future
17:39:29 <Eighth_Doctor> sure
17:39:55 <zbyszek> OK, so is there anything to vote/do here?
17:40:29 <decathorpe> don't think so? Change Owners can always say "I'm not doing this after all"
17:40:50 <zbyszek> Eighth_Doctor: do you have enough info now?
17:41:52 <Eighth_Doctor> yes
17:42:04 <zbyszek> #action Eighth_Doctor will handle the withdraw himself.
17:42:15 <zbyszek> topic #3019 Withdraw F39 Change: AutoFirstBootServices
17:42:15 <zbyszek> .fesco 3019
17:42:16 <zodbot> zbyszek: Issue #3019: Withdraw F39 Change: AutoFirstBootServices - fesco - Pagure.io - https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3019
17:42:21 <Eighth_Doctor> I'll poke amoloney to make sure what I do actually works
17:42:25 <zbyszek> #topic #3035 Change: Build JDKs once, repack everywhere
17:42:25 <zbyszek> .fesco 3035
17:42:26 <zodbot> zbyszek: Issue #3035: Change: Build JDKs once, repack everywhere - fesco - Pagure.io - https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3035
17:42:36 <zbyszek> Sorry, wrong select&paste.
17:42:49 <Eighth_Doctor> heh
17:42:50 <tstellar> Last time we voted on this, there were some questions about voting rules.  Can we reject a proposal if not everyone votes?
17:43:18 <tstellar> Or I mean if not everyone can make the meeting.
17:43:49 <tstellar> Or do we need to allow a few days for absent members to have a chance to vote.
17:43:54 <decathorpe> technically ... if not enough people vote we don't have quorum?
17:44:10 <Eighth_Doctor> yeah, if we don't have quorum, we can't even discuss it
17:44:39 <tstellar> So if we have 5 members present, and the proposal gets +4 votes, then it is rejected right away?
17:44:50 <Eighth_Doctor> no
17:44:53 <tstellar> No chance for the others to vote?
17:44:57 <zbyszek> tstellar: that's how it works, and it's quite unfortunate.
17:45:00 <nirik> I don't think that makes sense.
17:45:07 <Eighth_Doctor> that doesn't make sense
17:45:09 * sgallagh arrives late
17:45:14 <Eighth_Doctor> otherwise we'd be stuck a lot
17:45:17 <decathorpe> IIUC that should result in "neither approved nor rejected due to insufficient votes" ...
17:45:26 <nirik> I guess it's the difference between rejecting and not approving.
17:45:50 <nirik> but if we have things that never get approved... and linger around... thats bad too
17:45:51 <Eighth_Doctor> usually if something is down to the wire like that, we punt or push it back to a ticket vote
17:46:05 <decathorpe> I'm always befuddled by the fact that voting rules for in-ticket voting are so much simpler than the ones for in-meeting votes
17:46:34 <sgallagh> That's because votes aren't supposed to GET to a meeting unless the ticket reveals it's controversial
17:46:45 <zbyszek> Eighth_Doctor: "usually" — that's certainly very unusual. I don't recall such a procedure hapenning.
17:46:51 <decathorpe> sure, I understand why it happens, it just keeps surprising me :)
17:46:52 <sgallagh> Votes in-meeting are meant to be authoritative, and thus are slightly stricter
17:47:24 <Eighth_Doctor> zbyszek: jdk was like that, and I think modularity was too
17:47:37 <sgallagh> But as for proposals, we basically have three possible outcomes:
17:47:43 <Eighth_Doctor> declaring bankruptcy on npm might have been too?
17:47:49 <Eighth_Doctor> I don't remember anymore
17:47:52 <sgallagh> (in meeting) Vote receives +5: it's approved.
17:47:59 <sgallagh> vote receives -5: it's rejected
17:48:17 <sgallagh> Vote doesn't reach either threshold: the status quo is maintained.
17:48:47 <sgallagh> Usually this is functionally equivalent to a rejection
17:49:23 <sgallagh> (Which is why I keep advocating for a "0 == lowering the quorum value" option, so it's less ambiguous)
17:49:57 <nirik> How about that, but if it doesn't meet threshold it goes back to ticket for 1 week, if it doesn't meet threshold there it's rejected?
17:50:23 <sgallagh> Well, the threshold of second-week-in-ticket is +1 and no -1's...
17:50:27 <tstellar> nirik: +1 to that.  It doesn't seem right that a propoal could be rejected just because the wrong person has a meeting conflict.
17:50:41 <zbyszek> nirik: +1
17:51:28 <sgallagh> tstellar: A person doesn't have to be present to vote at a meeting. They *can* indicate their unavailability and vote ahead of time
17:52:25 <zbyszek> sgallagh: only if they know upfront how they want to vote and are sure that their vote will not change…
17:53:59 <zbyszek> nirik: can you make a formal proposal? If we want to change the voting rules, we should vote this as any other ticket.
17:54:04 <Eighth_Doctor> we can do that?
17:54:31 <sgallagh> Conan Kudo: Was that in reply to me? If so: yes. It's happened numerous times.
17:54:44 <Eighth_Doctor> yes
17:54:47 <nirik> ok, so perhaps it should be a ticket itself? I don't want our rules to be overcomplicated... just complecated enough
17:54:49 <sgallagh> Usually as a comment in the ticket like "I can't make it to the meeting, but I'm +1 to this"
17:55:04 <sgallagh> I guess I'll open a ticket. Again.
17:55:32 <zbyszek> #action sgallagh to open a ticket about absentee voting
17:55:39 <nirik> IMHO we should leave out the 0's stuff and just make it handling the not reaching rected or approved case?
17:55:45 <sgallagh> I'll see about drawing up a detailed (but not complicated) proposal
17:55:48 <zbyszek> #action nirik to open a ticket about after-meeting voting change
17:55:52 <tstellar> nirik: +1
17:56:00 <sgallagh> nirik: No promises on the 0 front :)
17:56:18 <nirik> well, I can wait and see what Stephen Gallagher comes up with, since it's interrelated
17:56:21 <tstellar> sgallagh: I think it would be best to have the 0 vote changes in a separate ticket.
17:56:31 <zbyszek> #action sgallagh to open a ticket about 0-vote rules change
17:56:37 <nirik> or ok... I can do a seperate one if folks perfer
17:56:47 <zbyszek> Yeah, let's hear a concrete proposal and either approve or reject it.
17:56:53 <zbyszek> Then at least we'll have clarity.
17:56:57 <sgallagh> Let me just open a general ticket about voting rules changes and we can workshop from there
17:57:00 <zbyszek> Returning to the topic at hand…
17:57:07 <sgallagh> I don't think we need multiple tickets to vote on.
17:57:08 <tstellar> sgallagh: Ok, sounds good to m.e
17:57:12 <nirik> so where does that leave this change?
17:57:16 <zbyszek> sgallagh: ack.
17:57:17 <sgallagh> (What happens if some go into effect before others? :-D )
17:57:35 <sgallagh> Which Change are we currently on? I was late.
17:57:47 <zbyszek> .fesco 3035
17:57:48 <zodbot> zbyszek: Issue #3035: Change: Build JDKs once, repack everywhere - fesco - Pagure.io - https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3035
17:57:54 <sgallagh> Thanks
17:59:12 <Eighth_Doctor> I'm going to have to drop
17:59:14 <sgallagh> I'm +1 on the "it's the best of the bad choices" grounds.
17:59:22 <zbyszek> nirik: We have 6 folks here, and two of those are -1, so the proposal cannot pass.
17:59:48 <zbyszek> With Eighth_Doctor gone, it's 5-2, so even worse.
18:00:03 <sgallagh> 5-2 is a pass...
18:00:23 <decathorpe> it doesn't help that the plan for "if this is not approved, then X" sounds much more appealing to me than the actual proposal
18:00:24 <zbyszek> 5 minus 2 equals 3, and 3 < 5.
18:00:26 <sgallagh> FWIW, I'm person 7; I wasn't around when that comment happened.
18:00:56 <nirik> huh? 5 is a majority of 9 people...
18:00:57 <zbyszek> sgallagh: mhroncok and Eighth_Doctor dropped, so we're back to 5.
18:01:17 <sgallagh> If I'm reading that right, my +1 makes it (+5, 0, -2)
18:01:40 <zbyszek> Apparently my phrasing was very confusing.
18:01:45 <sgallagh> Or am I reading more +1s than there were?
18:02:26 <zbyszek> There were 4 votes in the ticket: 2×+1, 2×-1.
18:03:07 <tstellar> I think we should continue the ticket voting and punt until next meeting.
18:03:20 <sgallagh> Seems reasonable
18:03:48 <nirik> I suppose. hopefully more/all people will vote there?
18:04:34 <decathorpe> maybe adding a comment like "the votes are reset - fesco members, vote below until <next week>"  would help.
18:04:35 <zbyszek> OK.
18:04:53 <nirik> yeah. +1
18:05:14 <zbyszek> OK, so let's close this. I'll make a commment like this in the ticket.
18:05:26 <zbyszek> *close this discussion.
18:05:37 <zbyszek> #topic Next week's chair
18:06:10 * mhayden has a conflict at the meeting time next week 😢
18:06:28 <zbyszek> #undo
18:06:28 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Topic object at 0x7f1e027acda0>
18:06:42 <zbyszek> #agreed We will continue voting in the ticket, with the tally reset.
18:06:45 <zbyszek> #topic Next week's chair
18:06:47 <decathorpe> if we vote for the controversial stuff in ticket, next week's meeting will be boring anyway :)
18:07:24 <zbyszek> OK, any volunteers?
18:09:35 <zbyszek> I guess not.
18:09:43 <zbyszek> #action zbyszek will chair next meeting
18:09:48 <zbyszek> #topic Open Floor
18:10:12 <zbyszek> Or is everyone asleep and I'm the only one furiously typing?
18:10:18 <gotmax23> What's the plan for the dnf5 change?
18:10:36 <gotmax23> It seems there's multiple critical outstanding problems
18:10:47 <gotmax23> .fesco 2870
18:10:49 <zodbot> gotmax23: Issue #2870: Change proposal: Replace DNF with DNF5 - fesco - Pagure.io - https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2870
18:11:02 <nirik> perhaps leave it for now, then look at possibly pulling the contingency on the f39 branched?
18:11:20 <nirik> It would be nice to hear if they have plans to address thigns.
18:11:39 <nirik> things even. need more ☕
18:13:02 * nirik wonders if everyone else already left. ;)
18:13:52 <decathorpe> sorry. tired and distracted
18:14:03 <decathorpe> but yeah I think we need to start thinking about pulling the dnf5 plug
18:14:14 <sgallagh> I'm still here, just also formulating the voting proposal
18:14:17 <zbyszek> Frankly, the defaults thingy could be fixed or worked-around with a 5 line spec file change.
18:14:48 <gotmax23> Yes, but many things being broken or just falling back to dnf-3 is not great
18:15:13 <gotmax23> Fedora CI is a problem for packages with gating
18:15:28 <gotmax23> fedora-review is pretty essential
18:15:28 <gotmax23> Koji still isn't using it
18:15:39 <decathorpe> fedora-review being broken doesn't help the package review queue ...
18:15:44 <gotmax23> They're still pushing breaking API changes even to stable Fedora branches
18:16:19 <gotmax23> Also, users won't be able to update to Fedora 40 with it if we don't have system-upgrade implemented
18:17:09 <nirik> I don't think we can get koji builders to use it 100% until we... release a fedora with it. Or I suppose release a fully featured one that can handle things as a f38 update.
18:17:24 <nirik> yeah, there's a lot that seems missing. ;(
18:18:09 <gotmax23> At the very least, we should make sure that python3-dnf is still part of default installations, if it's not already
18:18:16 <decathorpe> I appreciate that the developers seem aware and are working on closing the gaps, but I'm not confident in that happening fast enough for F39
18:18:26 <zbyszek> sgallagh: syou have a prosposal?
18:18:27 <nirik> personally, I'd like to give them a chance to answer these concerns, but then revist after that.
18:18:46 <sgallagh> I'm making a ticket.
18:18:58 <sgallagh> We'll discuss it when it's ready
18:19:26 <sgallagh> Or was that related to the dnf situation?
18:19:46 <sgallagh> Sorry, I see the confusion now.
18:19:53 <sgallagh> I was explaining my distraction
18:19:59 <zbyszek> Oh, "voting". I see now.
18:20:04 <sgallagh> Not saying I was making a proposal for this topic
18:20:10 <sgallagh> Sorry about that
18:21:59 <decathorpe> is anybody in contact with the DNF5 people? getting their input on the roadmap for f39 would be good
18:22:03 <zbyszek> nirik: OK, so we open a ticket like "invoke dnf5 contingency plan for F39" and discuss there?
18:22:26 <sgallagh> zbyszek: That's probably a good idea. Make sure the Change owners are CCed
18:22:31 <decathorpe> ↑ sounds good to me
18:22:35 <tstellar> +1
18:22:51 <zbyszek> nirik: can I action you to open the ticket?
18:22:55 <gotmax23> I think that's reasonable
18:23:13 <nirik> sure, sounds good
18:23:21 <zbyszek> #action nirik to open a ticket about dnf5-for-f39 roadmap and possible contingency actions
18:23:30 <nirik> me?
18:23:30 <zbyszek> Anything else for Open Floor?
18:23:48 <decathorpe> should that have been me? :)
18:23:55 <nirik> ok... but I am swamped. So, no surity when I will get to it.
18:24:02 <zbyszek> #undo
18:24:02 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: ACTION by zbyszek at 18:23:21 : nirik to open a ticket about dnf5-for-f39 roadmap and possible contingency actions
18:24:16 <zbyszek> #action decathorpe to open a ticket about dnf5-for-f39 roadmap and possible contingency actions
18:24:31 <decathorpe> will do
18:24:46 <nirik> thanks!
18:24:51 <zbyszek> Thanks. My ability to do useful work finished about half an hour ago.
18:25:05 <zbyszek> If there's nothing else, I'lll close in  aminute.
18:25:21 <nirik> kinda wonder if it shouldn't be a list thread, but whatever...
18:25:38 <decathorpe> you mean discourse on Discourse?
18:25:48 <zbyszek> Or that. I guess mhroncok would vote for a mailing list thread.
18:26:20 <decathorpe> 🪦
18:26:29 <zbyszek> decathorpe: the choice is yours
18:26:42 <zbyszek> OK, thanks everyone. This was a long one.
18:26:43 <zbyszek> #endmeeting