<@tstellar:fedora.im>
19:01:23
!startmeeting FESCO (2024-04-15)
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
19:01:24
Meeting started at 2024-04-15 19:01:23 UTC
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
19:01:24
The Meeting name is 'FESCO (2024-04-15)'
<@tstellar:fedora.im>
19:01:30
!meetingname fesco
<@tstellar:fedora.im>
19:01:42
!topic Init Process
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:01:46
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
19:01:47
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek (zbyszek)
<@tstellar:fedora.im>
19:01:52
!hi
<@jistone:fedora.im>
19:01:53
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
19:01:53
Tom Stellard (tstellar)
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
19:01:54
Josh Stone (jistone) - he / him / his
<@jsteffan:fedora.im>
19:02:05
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
19:02:06
Jonathan Steffan (jsteffan)
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:04:17
morning
<@tstellar:fedora.im>
19:04:18
Only 3 so far.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:06:05
fyi, this is now at the same time as another meeting for me... but oh well...
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:07:36
Sorry, that's my fault. I looked in your work calendar and it seemed like there's a half hour window.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:08:15
ah, that meeting is in our team calendar
<@tstellar:fedora.im>
19:08:23
We only have 4. Should we just wait 30 minutes or cancel ?
<@jistone:fedora.im>
19:11:24
🤷 I can wait
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:12:25
The network service subpackage snafu would ideally be handled today.
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:12:40
So maybe indeed let's wait and see if we get quorum in 18 minutes.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:13:09
I think it could just be a zero day, so not as urgent as it first seemed
<@tstellar:fedora.im>
19:13:52
OK let's wait until 19:30 UTC.
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
19:23:40
oh noes, i failed at calendaring :|
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
19:23:44
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
19:23:45
Major Hayden (mhayden) - he / him / his
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
19:24:58
mhayden has already given cookies to jistone during the F39 timeframe
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
19:25:07
mhayden has already given cookies to tstellar during the F39 timeframe
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:28:00
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
19:28:02
Neal Gompa (ngompa) - he / him / his
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
19:28:21
Conan Kudo: hope your trip home was good!
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:28:33
I'm still on the plane ✈️
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
19:28:43
mhayden has already given cookies to ngompa during the F39 timeframe
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
19:28:49
at least you're making progress! 😜
<@smooge:fedora.im>
19:31:01
next up a train
<@tstellar:fedora.im>
19:31:06
Ok, I count 6 now, let's begin.
<@salimma:fedora.im>
19:32:13
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
19:32:15
Michel Lind (salimma) - he / him / his
<@tstellar:fedora.im>
19:32:16
!topic #3196 [FastTrack] Proposal: require legacy network service to be reinstated in Fedora 40 (removal should require a Change)
<@tstellar:fedora.im>
19:32:26
!fesco 3196
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
19:32:27
**fesco #3196** (https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3196):**[FastTrack] Proposal: require legacy network service to be reinstated in Fedora 40 (removal should require a Change)**
● **Opened:** 2 days ago by adamwill
● **Last Updated:** 6 hours ago
● **Assignee:** Not Assigned
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:33:16
Right. So… does anyone think that we should *not* reinstate the subpackage?
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:33:37
🦗s
<@tstellar:fedora.im>
19:34:01
Is the question more when to reinstate it?
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:34:34
did the maintainer(s) chime in?
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:34:34
0-day update would be fine.
<@jistone:fedora.im>
19:34:40
I think it's both *should* we override the maintainer, and *how*
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:34:55
Out of principle, I would not want this to be a zero-day update.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:35:40
I would like it to be reinstated and incorporated into the GA repositories.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:35:44
it really shouldn't matter much.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:36:27
it seems a long way to go to do another rc for...
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:36:29
Well, it does, since update repos do not have permanence like GA repos do.
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:36:50
But does it make any difference in practice?
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:36:51
we don't remove things from updates repos...
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:37:19
Yeah, this doesn't seem to be worth delaying the release for.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:37:34
but sure someone could push another update removing it again
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:37:54
And that's why I want it in GA
<@tstellar:fedora.im>
19:38:06
If we make this change before the final release, how long of a delay will it mean.
<@tstellar:fedora.im>
19:38:23
If we make this change before the final release, how long of a delay will it be?
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:38:44
we could do it today and still make thursday go, if no other blockers are found
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:38:51
That'd be against the update guidelines.
<@jistone:fedora.im>
19:39:20
even with the obsoletes?
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:39:29
it would, yeah, but could still happen
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:39:43
Yes, because it'd be a major change in functionality.
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:40:11
I'm pretty sure this is not something we have to worry about, we assume good will from the maintainers.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:41:17
adamw: care to weigh in any here?
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:41:47
There are some other FE's that would be nice...
<@tstellar:fedora.im>
19:41:52
nirik: Does that mean there won't be any delay? If that is true, then what are the downsides to making this change right away?
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:42:59
I'm not sure what you are asking? we should make a build with the revert asap... but the question is
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:43:22
if it's a 0 day update, or we mark this a blocker and have to generate a new rc
<@tstellar:fedora.im>
19:44:08
OK, so generating a new rc is more work, but won't necessarily delay the final release date?
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:44:32
right.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:45:04
its a lot of cpu and disk space and a new thing to test... but otherwise we can do it
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:45:57
and if we land some fe's we could break something. or the compose could fail in some weird way...
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:46:06
What about marking it as 0day and F40 freeze exception. If it's ready, and we need to respin, it can go in. Otherwise, it'll be available upon GA.
<@tstellar:fedora.im>
19:46:16
OK, we've been discussing for 15 minutes. Do we have a concrete proposal to vote on or should we discuss more?
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:46:27
proposal: The bug requesting the reinstatement of legacy network service is marked as F40-0day and F40-freeze-exception
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:46:33
We could also compose the repos without composing images.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:46:39
That's always an option.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:46:51
no thanks. -1
<@smooge:fedora.im>
19:47:09
no thanks to Conan or the proposal?
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:47:45
ha. many thanks to Conan Kudo for many things. -1 to the proposal of just redoing repos
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:48:41
Let me rephrase.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:49:02
composes are a thing... if you modify just one part, you like break or make lies out of the other parts... or cause people confusion since things don't match
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:49:16
proposal: FESCo asks that the legacy network subpackage be reinstated for F0. The bug requesting the reinstatement is marked as F40-0day and F40-freeze-exception.
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:49:33
proposal: FESCo asks that the legacy network subpackage be reinstated for F40. The bug requesting the reinstatement is marked as F40-0day and F40-freeze-exception.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:49:34
F0?
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:49:38
there's no point in a 0day if it's an FE
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:49:49
technically anything can be a 0day whenever
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:49:54
well... yes...
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:50:16
e.g. KDE Gear is getting a 0day update to a maintenance bugfix release
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:50:19
No, the meaning is different. FE means "we'll take it if it's prepared", and 0day means "we'll not release until we have it".
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:50:23
so really its down to blocker or not
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:50:26
and Frameworks is updating to 6.1 as a 0day
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:50:40
That is not what a 0day means at all.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:50:53
sure, if another blocker came up we could take it also as a fe
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:50:55
That is not even how a 0day works.
<@smooge:fedora.im>
19:50:56
I think we have differening definitions due to project usage
<@smooge:fedora.im>
19:51:28
ack sorry I realized I am in your running meeting
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:51:36
0day means "it isn't important enough to be in the GA media, but we still want to track it to get shipped before the GA announcement"
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:51:46
as an update
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:52:00
which means the GA repo stays _broken_
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:52:14
Exactly.
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:52:22
And this seems to be exactly what we need.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:52:38
And I'm saying that we shouldn't have it broken in the GA repo.
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:53:17
Well, but we discussed this, and it doesn't make any practical difference.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:53:27
we already have 11 FEs, two of which have updates that we will be pulling in tonight.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:53:42
so lets think... this would affect: people using network-scripts, but installing with updates disabled?
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:54:03
no? we don't do new rc's for fe's. ;)
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:54:04
nirik: right, such as from the server dvd
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:55:05
Using a networked system without updates is not the best idea…
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:55:06
its not on the server dvd now? is it
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:55:35
well it can't be at the moment since it doesn't exist
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:55:49
but I don't know if it is or isn't
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:55:52
historically it was
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:56:05
it should not be
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:56:18
nothing pulls it in that I can see... but checking
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
19:56:57
what's the package name that was removed?
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:57:18
`network-scripts` as a subpackage of `initscripts`
<@salimma:fedora.im>
19:57:22
network-scripts, yes
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
19:58:07
the only package in F40 "fedora" repo that currently has a broken dependency on "network-scripts" is "network-scripts-teamd" from the "libteam" source package
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:58:12
I looked at comps, kickstarts, kiwi, pungi...
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:58:14
oh joy, unversioned obsoletes :(
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:58:35
we might not actually be able to put it back if it's not in the GA media
<@salimma:fedora.im>
19:58:36
yeah, that's how we discovered this mess
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:58:42
it'll keep getting removed
<@salimma:fedora.im>
19:58:57
that got approved for FE and I have a PR to fix the upgrade path
<@salimma:fedora.im>
19:59:01
ouch
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
19:59:02
https://repochecker.decathorpe.com has all the raw data goodness ;)
<@salimma:fedora.im>
19:59:35
I wonder if we need a better check for unversioned Obsoletes. they seem like they could... be a mess to deal with
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:59:36
yeah so even though I wanted it out of principle, we actually _do_ need to fix it in the GA media because otherwise it'll just get ripped out
<@jistone:fedora.im>
19:59:39
where do you see unversioned?
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
20:00:05
oh nevermind
<@salimma:fedora.im>
20:00:06
actually, yeah there is a version in https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/initscripts/blob/rawhide/f/initscripts.spec#_58
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
20:00:20
there is one, but not for that
<@salimma:fedora.im>
20:00:27
same in F40
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
20:00:32
ugh, this formatting
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
20:00:35
nevermind
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
20:00:37
I'm dumb
<@tstellar:fedora.im>
20:00:51
OK, we are at 30 minutes now. Should we vote on zbyszek's proposal?
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
20:01:34
I'm +1 to that proposal. I am almost +1 on blocker, but not quite yet...
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
20:02:13
well, given the FTI we have to do something
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
20:02:33
meh, I still would prefer it to block
<@salimma:fedora.im>
20:02:46
not necessarily though, the FTI is fixed by updating libteam to not ship network-scripts-teamd
<@jistone:fedora.im>
20:02:48
+1 to the proposal, but I don't think it deserves heroics to get in GA
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
20:03:12
right, but either path means a new compose
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
20:03:28
why so?
<@tstellar:fedora.im>
20:03:53
I'm +1 on the proposal too.
<@tstellar:fedora.im>
20:03:59
Any other votes?
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
20:04:04
because an FE for the FTI means that it is being composed in when adamw makes the FE inclusion request
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
20:04:23
but we do not do new rc's for just FE's
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
20:04:29
only if there is a blocker
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
20:04:44
there currently is only this one under consideration for that
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
20:05:38
given that the package doesn't seem to be on any image or deliverable (?), FE + new compose and FE + new compose + new RC are equivalent, no?
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
20:06:21
the important thing is that the fixed version is in the "fedora" repo
<@tstellar:fedora.im>
20:06:49
mhayden Conan Kudo Votes?
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
20:07:02
right
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
20:07:16
Hello, folks
<@salimma:fedora.im>
20:07:34
who will do the work - are the maintainers OK restoring this or does a provenpackager need to do it for them?
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
20:07:38
FE by itself just means... if theres another rc, you can decide to pull this in. otherwise it becomes and update
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
20:07:48
I'm prepping the PR now.
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
20:07:56
I’m trying to read the backlog here, but do I read it correct that the network-scripts package isn’t expected on any blocking media?
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
20:07:56
it will likely be a provenpackager thing
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
20:07:57
salimma gave a cookie to zbyszek. They now have 127 cookies, 10 of which were obtained in the Fedora 39 release cycle
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
20:08:09
so no, fe by itself dores not mean its in the base repo
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
20:08:43
now I'm confused :D where *does* an accepted FE go then?
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
20:09:16
trying to figure out what the latest version of the proposal is 🔍️
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
20:09:27
Fabio Valentini: If and only if another RC is forced due to blockers, an FE may be pulled in at the best judgment of releng
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
20:09:28
it sits there until there is a new rc being requested for fixing a blocker bug and QE decides if they want to add it to that compose or not
<@tstellar:fedora.im>
20:09:41
This is what we are voting on:
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
20:09:41
Otherwise it sits in u-t as normal.
<@tstellar:fedora.im>
20:09:42
proposal: FESCo asks that the legacy network subpackage be reinstated for F40. The bug requesting the reinstatement is marked as F40-0day and F40-freeze-exception.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
20:10:05
there's literally no point to the 0day part
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
20:10:47
well it would track/make sure it was a stable update on release day, but yeah...
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
20:10:47
There kind of is; we *could* opt not to do the release announcement for a day if the update doesn’t go stable in time.
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
20:11:41
I added the 0-day requirement because people were saying that it's important to have it at GA.
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
20:11:59
And I think it might be: e.g. if you're upgrading, and it's not there, the subpackage would be removed.
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
20:12:06
Potentially breaking networking.
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
20:12:31
there's a difference between "having it available at GA time" and "being in the GA (i.e. "fedora") repos"
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
20:12:36
But 0day is usually a notation for the previous release
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
20:12:54
Something we need to push out on the release we are upgrading *from*
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
20:12:58
Nope.
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
20:13:17
> Accepted0Day is used for cases where the fix does not need to appear in the final frozen release, but must be available as an update on release day.
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
20:13:19
> AcceptedPreviousRelease is used for cases where the fix must appear as an update for one or more stable releases.
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
20:13:34
Fabio Valentini: There is, but for anything not on the frozen media, it’s not generally meaningful.
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
20:13:50
zbyszek: Thanks for the correction.
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
20:14:16
apparently it is? because it makes FE useless?
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
20:14:45
Fabio Valentini: A freeze exception is not a blocker.
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
20:15:01
It’s an acknowledgment that if blockers happen, we could grab that too.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
20:16:46
do what you want
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
20:16:49
+1 to the proposal
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
20:16:49
Fabio Valentini: I think what you’re asking for is to get the fix in the frozen repo.
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
20:16:55
Fabio Valentini: FE becomes meaningful if there's a reason to respin and the package is on any media.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
20:17:02
it's clearly wrong and we shouldn't do it this way, but whatever
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
20:17:05
I just don’t understand *why* you think that’s necessary
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
20:17:06
yes? because otherwise the broken version will be in "fedora" repo forever
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
20:17:26
That's the point I made at the beginning of this
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
20:17:36
The part you aren’t explaining is why you think that’s a problem.
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
20:17:49
"shipping broken software bad"
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
20:18:21
Fabio Valentini: But if it’s not on install media, it’s not being shipped to users.
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
20:18:29
They can only get it via network install
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
20:18:38
Which includes the updates repo with the fix.
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
20:18:38
Anyway, I opened https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/initscripts/pull-request/10.
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
20:18:42
it is available to *every* Fedora 40 user for its lifetime
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
20:18:43
!link https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/initscripts/pull-request/10
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
20:19:05
BTW, the reason I am almost +1 blocker is that there _are_ a number of FE's that would be good to land... but of course there may be other unknown blockers still too.
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
20:19:14
Fabio Valentini: And is superseded by the version in “updates”…
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
20:19:22
It'll never be installed, because there's an update with a higher NEVRA. So in practice it being there doesn't mean anything.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
20:19:59
There's lots of other broken software in the main repos too... that we don't even know about and are fixed in updates...
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
20:20:05
(For the record, this is *exactly* why we treat FEs differently. If we respun for every discovered bug, we would never ship.)
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
20:20:37
(I would rather us have update repos that didn't get wiped out but we don't have that either)
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
20:21:03
most of my problems with things being in the update repos is the lack of permanence
<@tstellar:fedora.im>
20:21:43
We're past 50 minutes, should we vote now or continue discussing / voting in the ticket?
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
20:21:45
FTR, I’m -1 blocker. I can’t see this holding us up from shipping at Go/No-Go.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
20:21:57
I'm still +1 Blocker
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
20:22:23
What's the tally for muh proposal?
<@tstellar:fedora.im>
20:22:34
zbyszek: +4
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
20:22:46
That’s for 0day?
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
20:23:02
I see +5.
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
20:23:14
I’m +1 to the proposal
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
20:23:25
(Had to scroll back to check what I was voting on)
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
20:23:47
i've been persuaded, i'll go +1 on the proposal
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
20:23:58
So, where are we here?
<@tstellar:fedora.im>
20:24:15
It's either +6 or +7
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
20:24:20
Tom Stellard: I think you forgot me, as proposer I'm implicitly +1.
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
20:24:33
I think we agreed that it needs to be reinstated and shipped no later than 0day
<@tstellar:fedora.im>
20:24:53
I have Josh Stone @tstellar zbyszek nirik Stephen Gallagher mhayden as +1
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
20:25:07
Also Conan Kudo
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
20:25:19
^here
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
20:25:43
though I'm voting for it under protest that I think it's wrong
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
20:27:13
Conan Kudo: If you want to propose blocker status, we can still vote about it. I don’t get a strong sense that it’ll pass though.
<@tstellar:fedora.im>
20:27:27
!agreed proposal: FESCo asks that the legacy network subpackage be reinstated for F40. The bug requesting the reinstatement is marked as F40-0day and F40-freeze-exception. APPROVED(+7,0,0)
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
20:27:33
It was already proposed for blocker status
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
20:27:41
that is the whole bloody POINT of this discussion
<@tstellar:fedora.im>
20:27:47
!topic Next week's chair
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
20:29:06
Conan Kudo: That’s fair; we probably do need to at least have a vote registered explicitly on blocker status.
<@tstellar:fedora.im>
20:29:27
Should I undo then, so we can vote again?
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
20:29:34
I will make it known that I'm very upset at all of you for not even realizing this basic fact
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
20:29:38
Proposal: the network-scripts should block F40 GA.
I’m -1
<@tstellar:fedora.im>
20:29:46
!undo
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
20:29:54
-1 also
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
20:29:57
undo is not implemented yet
<@salimma:fedora.im>
20:30:02
eh, there can be two separate votes and we just combine the two parts right? they seem orthogonal
<@tstellar:fedora.im>
20:30:10
How do I change the topic back?
<@salimma:fedora.im>
20:30:17
0day and FE has been approved, blocker can be voted separately
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
20:30:17
set the topic again
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
20:30:19
change it forwards
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
20:30:50
Undo forward!
<@tstellar:fedora.im>
20:30:52
!topic #3196 [FastTrack] Proposal: require legacy network service to be reinstated in Fedora 40 (removal should require a Change)
<@jistone:fedora.im>
20:30:59
-1 on blocker
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
20:31:35
-1 I think it's fine as a update. If we need to respin for another blocker we can pull it in.
<@tstellar:fedora.im>
20:31:41
-1 blocker too.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
20:31:59
+1 blocker as we shouldn't allow low level software to be broken in the GA repo
<@tstellar:fedora.im>
20:32:43
Any other votes? mhayden
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
20:33:04
I'm going to stick with -1 for a blocker
<@tstellar:fedora.im>
20:33:25
!agreed Proposal: the network-scripts should block F40 GA. REJECTED(+1,0,-6)
<@tstellar:fedora.im>
20:33:35
!topic Next week's chair
<@tstellar:fedora.im>
20:33:39
Any volunteers?
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
20:33:54
I can do it.
<@tstellar:fedora.im>
20:34:03
!action zbyszek will chair next meeting
<@tstellar:fedora.im>
20:34:06
Thank you
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
20:34:07
I’ll pick up the week after next.
<@tstellar:fedora.im>
20:34:38
!action Stephen Gallagher will chair the meeting in two weeks.
<@tstellar:fedora.im>
20:34:41
Thank you
<@tstellar:fedora.im>
20:34:47
!topic Open Floor
<@salimma:fedora.im>
20:35:26
so now that we agree network-scripts should be restored, any suggestion what to do with network-scripts-teamd?
<@salimma:fedora.im>
20:35:47
I'm inclined to keep it retired as presumably network-scripts itself will eventually go away, and nobody has said they need network-scripts-teamd
<@salimma:fedora.im>
20:35:59
(we can restore it when someone asked for it)
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
20:36:06
I'd say leave it until network-scripts is removed.
<@salimma:fedora.im>
20:36:20
leave it available? ok, that I can do
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
20:36:22
or whatever it's upstream wants? not sure
<@salimma:fedora.im>
20:36:39
well... have not heard from upstream, that's how we noticed (the package got orphaned because of the FTI)
<@salimma:fedora.im>
20:38:08
so: I'll wait until Zbyszek's initscripts / network-scripts PR is landed, then revert the commit retiring the network-scripts-teamd subpackage in Rawhide and F40
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
20:39:19
Can we go to the next topic?
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
20:39:37
we're already on open floor
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
20:39:40
that's the end
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
20:40:08
Next open floor topic.
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
20:40:16
So… what time do we hold the next meeting?
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
20:40:37
We moved it half hour up, but Kevin has a conflict and in it also didn't work out.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
20:40:40
didn't you already move it up by a half hour?
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
20:41:04
Yeah, but it didn't "stick".
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
20:41:06
you can choose to move it up another half hour, further than that runs directly against the KDE SIG meeting
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
20:41:35
If it's just me I can deal with it...
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
20:41:57
we will probibly have to choose a new time after the next elections anyhow.
<@tstellar:fedora.im>
20:42:25
Ok, so keep it at 19:00 utc then?
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
20:42:46
Yeah.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
20:43:03
sure.
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
20:43:47
OK, let's move on.
<@tstellar:fedora.im>
20:44:01
Any other topics?
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
20:44:51
I've got to go as the plane is descending
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
20:44:59
bye everyone
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
20:45:04
safe travels Conan Kudo!
<@tstellar:fedora.im>
20:45:51
I'll wait another minute and then end the meeting.
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
20:46:55
Tom
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
20:47:11
Tom Stellard: thanks for chairing
<@tstellar:fedora.im>
20:48:15
!endmeeting