2024-04-15 19:01:23 <@tstellar:fedora.im> !startmeeting FESCO (2024-04-15)
2024-04-15 19:01:24 <@meetbot:fedora.im> Meeting started at 2024-04-15 19:01:23 UTC
2024-04-15 19:01:24 <@meetbot:fedora.im> The Meeting name is 'FESCO (2024-04-15)'
2024-04-15 19:01:30 <@tstellar:fedora.im> !meetingname fesco
2024-04-15 19:01:42 <@tstellar:fedora.im> !topic Init Process
2024-04-15 19:01:46 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> !hi
2024-04-15 19:01:47 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek (zbyszek)
2024-04-15 19:01:52 <@tstellar:fedora.im> !hi
2024-04-15 19:01:53 <@jistone:fedora.im> !hi
2024-04-15 19:01:53 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Tom Stellard (tstellar)
2024-04-15 19:01:54 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Josh Stone (jistone) - he / him / his
2024-04-15 19:02:05 <@jsteffan:fedora.im> !hi
2024-04-15 19:02:06 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Jonathan Steffan (jsteffan)
2024-04-15 19:04:17 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> morning
2024-04-15 19:04:18 <@tstellar:fedora.im> Only 3 so far. 
2024-04-15 19:06:05 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> fyi, this is now at the same time as another meeting for me... but oh well...
2024-04-15 19:07:36 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> Sorry, that's my fault. I looked in your work calendar and it seemed like there's a half hour window.
2024-04-15 19:08:15 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> ah, that meeting is in our team calendar
2024-04-15 19:08:23 <@tstellar:fedora.im> We only have 4.  Should we just wait 30 minutes or cancel ?
2024-04-15 19:11:24 <@jistone:fedora.im> 🤷 I can wait
2024-04-15 19:12:25 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> The network service subpackage snafu would ideally be handled today.
2024-04-15 19:12:40 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> So maybe indeed let's wait and see if we get quorum in 18 minutes.
2024-04-15 19:13:09 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> I think it could just be a zero day, so not as urgent as it first seemed
2024-04-15 19:13:52 <@tstellar:fedora.im> OK let's wait until 19:30 UTC.
2024-04-15 19:23:40 <@mhayden:fedora.im> oh noes, i failed at calendaring :|
2024-04-15 19:23:44 <@mhayden:fedora.im> !hi
2024-04-15 19:23:45 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Major Hayden (mhayden) - he / him / his
2024-04-15 19:24:58 <@zodbot:fedora.im> mhayden has already given cookies to jistone during the F39 timeframe
2024-04-15 19:25:07 <@zodbot:fedora.im> mhayden has already given cookies to tstellar during the F39 timeframe
2024-04-15 19:28:00 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> !hi
2024-04-15 19:28:02 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Neal Gompa (ngompa) - he / him / his
2024-04-15 19:28:21 <@mhayden:fedora.im> Conan Kudo: hope your trip home was good!
2024-04-15 19:28:33 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I'm still on the plane ✈️
2024-04-15 19:28:43 <@zodbot:fedora.im> mhayden has already given cookies to ngompa during the F39 timeframe
2024-04-15 19:28:49 <@mhayden:fedora.im> at least you're making progress! 😜
2024-04-15 19:31:01 <@smooge:fedora.im> next up a train
2024-04-15 19:31:06 <@tstellar:fedora.im> Ok, I count 6 now, let's begin.
2024-04-15 19:32:13 <@salimma:fedora.im> !hi
2024-04-15 19:32:15 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Michel Lind (salimma) - he / him / his
2024-04-15 19:32:16 <@tstellar:fedora.im> !topic #3196 [FastTrack] Proposal: require legacy network service to be reinstated in Fedora 40 (removal should require a Change)
2024-04-15 19:32:26 <@tstellar:fedora.im> !fesco 3196
2024-04-15 19:32:27 <@zodbot:fedora.im> **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
2024-04-15 19:33:16 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> Right. So… does anyone think that we should *not* reinstate the subpackage?
2024-04-15 19:33:37 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> 🦗s
2024-04-15 19:34:01 <@tstellar:fedora.im> Is the question more when to reinstate it?
2024-04-15 19:34:34 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> did the maintainer(s) chime in?
2024-04-15 19:34:34 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> 0-day update would be fine.
2024-04-15 19:34:40 <@jistone:fedora.im> I think it's both *should* we override the maintainer, and *how*
2024-04-15 19:34:55 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> Out of principle, I would not want this to be a zero-day update.
2024-04-15 19:35:40 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I would like it to be reinstated and incorporated into the GA repositories.
2024-04-15 19:35:44 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> it really shouldn't matter much.
2024-04-15 19:36:27 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> it seems a long way to go to do another rc for...
2024-04-15 19:36:29 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> Well, it does, since update repos do not have permanence like GA repos do.
2024-04-15 19:36:50 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> But does it make any difference in practice?
2024-04-15 19:36:51 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> we don't remove things from updates repos...
2024-04-15 19:37:19 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> Yeah, this doesn't seem to be worth delaying the release for.
2024-04-15 19:37:34 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> but sure someone could push another update removing it again
2024-04-15 19:37:54 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> And that's why I want it in GA
2024-04-15 19:38:06 <@tstellar:fedora.im> If we make this change before the final release, how long of a delay will it mean.
2024-04-15 19:38:23 <@tstellar:fedora.im> If we make this change before the final release, how long of a delay will it be?
2024-04-15 19:38:44 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> we could do it today and still make thursday go, if no other blockers are found
2024-04-15 19:38:51 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> That'd be against the update guidelines.
2024-04-15 19:39:20 <@jistone:fedora.im> even with the obsoletes?
2024-04-15 19:39:29 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> it would, yeah, but could still happen
2024-04-15 19:39:43 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> Yes, because it'd be a major change in functionality.
2024-04-15 19:40:11 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> I'm pretty sure this is not something we have to worry about, we assume good will from the maintainers.
2024-04-15 19:41:17 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> adamw: care to weigh in any here?
2024-04-15 19:41:47 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> There are some other FE's that would be nice...
2024-04-15 19:41:52 <@tstellar:fedora.im> 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?
2024-04-15 19:42:59 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> I'm not sure what you are asking? we should make a build with the revert asap... but the question is
2024-04-15 19:43:22 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> if it's a 0 day update, or we mark this a blocker and have to generate a new rc
2024-04-15 19:44:08 <@tstellar:fedora.im> OK, so generating a new rc is more work, but won't necessarily delay the final release date?
2024-04-15 19:44:32 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> right.
2024-04-15 19:45:04 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> its a lot of cpu and disk space and a new thing to test... but otherwise we can do it
2024-04-15 19:45:57 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> and if we land some fe's we could break something. or the compose could fail in some weird way...
2024-04-15 19:46:06 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> 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.
2024-04-15 19:46:16 <@tstellar:fedora.im> OK, we've been discussing for 15 minutes.  Do we have a concrete proposal to vote on or should we discuss more?
2024-04-15 19:46:27 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> proposal: The bug requesting the reinstatement of legacy network service is marked as F40-0day and F40-freeze-exception

2024-04-15 19:46:33 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> We could also compose the repos without composing images.
2024-04-15 19:46:39 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> That's always an option.
2024-04-15 19:46:51 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> no thanks. -1
2024-04-15 19:47:09 <@smooge:fedora.im> no thanks to Conan or the proposal?
2024-04-15 19:47:45 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> ha. many thanks to Conan Kudo for many things. -1 to the proposal of just redoing repos
2024-04-15 19:48:41 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> Let me rephrase.
2024-04-15 19:49:02 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> 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
2024-04-15 19:49:16 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> 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.
2024-04-15 19:49:33 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> 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.
2024-04-15 19:49:34 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> F0?
2024-04-15 19:49:38 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> there's no point in a 0day if it's an FE
2024-04-15 19:49:49 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> technically anything can be a 0day whenever
2024-04-15 19:49:54 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> well... yes...
2024-04-15 19:50:16 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> e.g. KDE Gear is getting a 0day update to a maintenance bugfix release
2024-04-15 19:50:19 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> 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".
2024-04-15 19:50:23 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> so really its down to blocker or not
2024-04-15 19:50:26 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> and Frameworks is updating to 6.1 as a 0day
2024-04-15 19:50:40 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> That is not what a 0day means at all.
2024-04-15 19:50:53 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> sure, if another blocker came up we could take it also as a fe
2024-04-15 19:50:55 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> That is not even how a 0day works.
2024-04-15 19:50:56 <@smooge:fedora.im> I think we have differening definitions due to project usage
2024-04-15 19:51:28 <@smooge:fedora.im> ack sorry I realized I am in your running meeting
2024-04-15 19:51:36 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> 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"
2024-04-15 19:51:46 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> as an update
2024-04-15 19:52:00 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> which means the GA repo stays _broken_
2024-04-15 19:52:14 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> Exactly.
2024-04-15 19:52:22 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> And this seems to be exactly what we need.
2024-04-15 19:52:38 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> And I'm saying that we shouldn't have it broken in the GA repo.
2024-04-15 19:53:17 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> Well, but we discussed this, and it doesn't make any practical difference.
2024-04-15 19:53:27 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> we already have 11 FEs, two of which have updates that we will be pulling in tonight.
2024-04-15 19:53:42 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> so lets think... this would affect: people using network-scripts, but installing with updates disabled?
2024-04-15 19:54:03 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> no? we don't do new rc's for fe's. ;)
2024-04-15 19:54:04 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> nirik: right, such as from the server dvd
2024-04-15 19:55:05 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> Using a networked system without updates is not the best idea…
2024-04-15 19:55:06 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> its not on the server dvd now? is it
2024-04-15 19:55:35 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> well it can't be at the moment since it doesn't exist
2024-04-15 19:55:49 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> but I don't know if it is or isn't
2024-04-15 19:55:52 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> historically it was
2024-04-15 19:56:05 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> it should not be
2024-04-15 19:56:18 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> nothing pulls it in that I can see... but checking
2024-04-15 19:56:57 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> what's the package name that was removed?
2024-04-15 19:57:18 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> `network-scripts` as a subpackage of `initscripts`
2024-04-15 19:57:22 <@salimma:fedora.im> network-scripts, yes
2024-04-15 19:58:07 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> 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
2024-04-15 19:58:12 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> I looked at comps, kickstarts, kiwi, pungi...
2024-04-15 19:58:14 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> oh joy, unversioned obsoletes :(
2024-04-15 19:58:35 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> we might not actually be able to put it back if it's not in the GA media
2024-04-15 19:58:36 <@salimma:fedora.im> yeah, that's how we discovered this mess
2024-04-15 19:58:42 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> it'll keep getting removed
2024-04-15 19:58:57 <@salimma:fedora.im> that got approved for FE and I have a PR to fix the upgrade path
2024-04-15 19:59:01 <@salimma:fedora.im> ouch
2024-04-15 19:59:02 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> https://repochecker.decathorpe.com has all the raw data goodness ;)
2024-04-15 19:59:35 <@salimma:fedora.im> I wonder if we need a better check for unversioned Obsoletes. they seem like they could... be a mess to deal with
2024-04-15 19:59:36 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> 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
2024-04-15 19:59:39 <@jistone:fedora.im> where do you see unversioned?
2024-04-15 20:00:05 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> oh nevermind
2024-04-15 20:00:06 <@salimma:fedora.im> actually, yeah there is a version in https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/initscripts/blob/rawhide/f/initscripts.spec#_58
2024-04-15 20:00:20 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> there is one, but not for that
2024-04-15 20:00:27 <@salimma:fedora.im> same in F40
2024-04-15 20:00:32 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> ugh, this formatting
2024-04-15 20:00:35 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> nevermind
2024-04-15 20:00:37 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I'm dumb
2024-04-15 20:00:51 <@tstellar:fedora.im> OK, we are at 30 minutes now.  Should we vote on zbyszek's proposal?
2024-04-15 20:01:34 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> I'm +1 to that proposal. I am almost +1 on blocker, but not quite yet...
2024-04-15 20:02:13 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> well, given the FTI we have to do something
2024-04-15 20:02:33 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> meh, I still would prefer it to block
2024-04-15 20:02:46 <@salimma:fedora.im> not necessarily though, the FTI is fixed by updating libteam to not ship network-scripts-teamd
2024-04-15 20:02:48 <@jistone:fedora.im> +1 to the proposal, but I don't think it deserves heroics to get in GA
2024-04-15 20:03:12 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> right, but either path means a new compose
2024-04-15 20:03:28 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> why so?
2024-04-15 20:03:53 <@tstellar:fedora.im> I'm +1 on the proposal too.
2024-04-15 20:03:59 <@tstellar:fedora.im> Any other votes?
2024-04-15 20:04:04 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> because an FE for the FTI means that it is being composed in when adamw makes the FE inclusion request
2024-04-15 20:04:23 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> but we do not do new rc's for just FE's
2024-04-15 20:04:29 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> only if there is a blocker
2024-04-15 20:04:44 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> there currently is only this one under consideration for that
2024-04-15 20:05:38 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> 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?
2024-04-15 20:06:21 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> the important thing is that the fixed version is in the "fedora" repo
2024-04-15 20:06:49 <@tstellar:fedora.im> mhayden Conan Kudo Votes?
2024-04-15 20:07:02 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> right
2024-04-15 20:07:16 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Hello, folks
2024-04-15 20:07:34 <@salimma:fedora.im> who will do the work - are the maintainers OK restoring this or does a provenpackager need to do it for them?
2024-04-15 20:07:38 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> FE by itself just means... if theres another rc, you can decide to pull this in. otherwise it becomes and update
2024-04-15 20:07:48 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> I'm prepping the PR now.
2024-04-15 20:07:56 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> 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?
2024-04-15 20:07:56 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> it will likely be a provenpackager thing
2024-04-15 20:07:57 <@zodbot:fedora.im> salimma gave a cookie to zbyszek. They now have 127 cookies, 10 of which were obtained in the Fedora 39 release cycle
2024-04-15 20:08:09 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> so no, fe by itself dores not mean its in the base repo
2024-04-15 20:08:43 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> now I'm confused :D where *does* an accepted FE go then?
2024-04-15 20:09:16 <@mhayden:fedora.im> trying to figure out what the latest version of the proposal is 🔍️
2024-04-15 20:09:27 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> 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 
2024-04-15 20:09:28 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> 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
2024-04-15 20:09:41 <@tstellar:fedora.im> This is what we are voting on:
2024-04-15 20:09:41 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Otherwise it sits in u-t as normal. 
2024-04-15 20:09:42 <@tstellar:fedora.im> 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.
2024-04-15 20:10:05 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> there's literally no point to the 0day part
2024-04-15 20:10:47 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> well it would track/make sure it was a stable update on release day, but yeah...
2024-04-15 20:10:47 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> 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. 
2024-04-15 20:11:41 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> I added the 0-day requirement because people were saying that it's important to have it at GA. 
2024-04-15 20:11:59 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> And I think it might be: e.g. if you're upgrading, and it's not there, the subpackage would be removed.
2024-04-15 20:12:06 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> Potentially breaking networking.
2024-04-15 20:12:31 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> there's a difference between "having it available at GA time" and "being in the GA (i.e. "fedora") repos"
2024-04-15 20:12:36 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> But 0day is usually a notation for the previous release
2024-04-15 20:12:54 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Something we need to push out on the release we are upgrading *from*
2024-04-15 20:12:58 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> Nope.
2024-04-15 20:13:17 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> > 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.
2024-04-15 20:13:19 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> >  AcceptedPreviousRelease is used for cases where the fix must appear as an update for one or more stable releases. 
2024-04-15 20:13:34 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Fabio Valentini: There is, but for anything not on the frozen media, it’s not generally meaningful. 
2024-04-15 20:13:50 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> zbyszek: Thanks for the correction. 
2024-04-15 20:14:16 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> apparently it is? because it makes FE useless?
2024-04-15 20:14:45 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Fabio Valentini: A freeze exception is not a blocker. 
2024-04-15 20:15:01 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> It’s an acknowledgment that if blockers happen, we could grab that too. 
2024-04-15 20:16:46 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> do what you want
2024-04-15 20:16:49 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> +1 to the proposal
2024-04-15 20:16:49 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Fabio Valentini: I think what you’re asking for is to get the fix in the frozen repo. 
2024-04-15 20:16:55 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> Fabio Valentini: FE becomes meaningful if there's a reason to respin and the package is on any media.
2024-04-15 20:17:02 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> it's clearly wrong and we shouldn't do it this way, but whatever
2024-04-15 20:17:05 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> I just don’t understand *why* you think that’s necessary 
2024-04-15 20:17:06 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> yes? because otherwise the broken version will be in "fedora" repo forever
2024-04-15 20:17:26 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> That's the point I made at the beginning of this
2024-04-15 20:17:36 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> The part you aren’t explaining is why you think that’s a problem.
2024-04-15 20:17:49 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> "shipping broken software bad"
2024-04-15 20:18:21 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Fabio Valentini: But if it’s not on install media, it’s not being shipped to users. 
2024-04-15 20:18:29 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> They can only get it via network install
2024-04-15 20:18:38 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Which includes the updates repo with the fix. 
2024-04-15 20:18:38 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> Anyway, I opened https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/initscripts/pull-request/10.
2024-04-15 20:18:42 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> it is available to *every* Fedora 40 user for its lifetime
2024-04-15 20:18:43 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> !link https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/initscripts/pull-request/10
2024-04-15 20:19:05 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> 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.
2024-04-15 20:19:14 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Fabio Valentini: And is superseded by the version in “updates”…
2024-04-15 20:19:22 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> It'll never be installed, because there's an update with a higher NEVRA. So in practice it being there doesn't mean anything.
2024-04-15 20:19:59 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> There's lots of other broken software in the main repos too... that we don't even know about and are fixed in updates...
2024-04-15 20:20:05 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> (For the record, this is *exactly* why we treat FEs differently. If we respun for every discovered bug, we would never ship.)
2024-04-15 20:20:37 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> (I would rather us have update repos that didn't get wiped out but we don't have that either)
2024-04-15 20:21:03 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> most of my problems with things being in the update repos is the lack of permanence
2024-04-15 20:21:43 <@tstellar:fedora.im> We're past 50 minutes, should we vote now or continue discussing / voting in the ticket?
2024-04-15 20:21:45 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> FTR, I’m -1 blocker. I can’t see this holding us up from shipping at Go/No-Go. 
2024-04-15 20:21:57 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I'm still +1 Blocker
2024-04-15 20:22:23 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> What's the tally for muh proposal?
2024-04-15 20:22:34 <@tstellar:fedora.im> zbyszek: +4
2024-04-15 20:22:46 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> That’s for 0day?
2024-04-15 20:23:02 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> I see +5.
2024-04-15 20:23:14 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> I’m +1 to the proposal
2024-04-15 20:23:25 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> (Had to scroll back to check what I was voting on)
2024-04-15 20:23:47 <@mhayden:fedora.im> i've been persuaded, i'll go +1 on the proposal
2024-04-15 20:23:58 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> So, where are we here?
2024-04-15 20:24:15 <@tstellar:fedora.im> It's either +6 or +7
2024-04-15 20:24:20 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> Tom Stellard: I think you forgot me, as proposer I'm implicitly +1.
2024-04-15 20:24:33 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> I think we agreed that it needs to be reinstated and shipped no later than 0day
2024-04-15 20:24:53 <@tstellar:fedora.im> I have Josh Stone @tstellar zbyszek nirik Stephen Gallagher mhayden as +1
2024-04-15 20:25:07 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> Also Conan Kudo
2024-04-15 20:25:19 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> ^here
2024-04-15 20:25:43 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> though I'm voting for it under protest that I think it's wrong
2024-04-15 20:27:13 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> 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. 
2024-04-15 20:27:27 <@tstellar:fedora.im> !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)
2024-04-15 20:27:33 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> It was already proposed for blocker status
2024-04-15 20:27:41 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> that is the whole bloody POINT of this discussion
2024-04-15 20:27:47 <@tstellar:fedora.im> !topic Next week's chair
2024-04-15 20:29:06 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Conan Kudo: That’s fair; we probably do need to at least have a vote registered explicitly on blocker status.
2024-04-15 20:29:27 <@tstellar:fedora.im> Should I undo then, so we can vote again?
2024-04-15 20:29:34 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I will make it known that I'm very upset at all of you for not even realizing this basic fact
2024-04-15 20:29:38 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Proposal: the network-scripts should block F40 GA.

I’m -1
2024-04-15 20:29:46 <@tstellar:fedora.im> !undo
2024-04-15 20:29:54 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> -1 also
2024-04-15 20:29:57 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> undo is not implemented yet
2024-04-15 20:30:02 <@salimma:fedora.im> eh, there can be two separate votes and we just combine the two parts right? they seem orthogonal
2024-04-15 20:30:10 <@tstellar:fedora.im> How do I change the topic back?
2024-04-15 20:30:17 <@salimma:fedora.im> 0day and FE has been approved, blocker can be voted separately
2024-04-15 20:30:17 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> set the topic again
2024-04-15 20:30:19 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> change it forwards 
2024-04-15 20:30:50 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> Undo forward!
2024-04-15 20:30:52 <@tstellar:fedora.im> !topic #3196 [FastTrack] Proposal: require legacy network service to be reinstated in Fedora 40 (removal should require a Change)
2024-04-15 20:30:59 <@jistone:fedora.im> -1 on blocker
2024-04-15 20:31:35 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> -1 I think it's fine as a update. If we need to respin for another blocker we can pull it in.
2024-04-15 20:31:41 <@tstellar:fedora.im> -1 blocker too.
2024-04-15 20:31:59 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> +1 blocker as we shouldn't allow low level software to be broken in the GA repo
2024-04-15 20:32:43 <@tstellar:fedora.im> Any other votes? mhayden 
2024-04-15 20:33:04 <@mhayden:fedora.im> I'm going to stick with -1 for a blocker
2024-04-15 20:33:25 <@tstellar:fedora.im> !agreed Proposal: the network-scripts should block F40 GA. REJECTED(+1,0,-6)
2024-04-15 20:33:35 <@tstellar:fedora.im> !topic Next week's chair
2024-04-15 20:33:39 <@tstellar:fedora.im> Any volunteers?
2024-04-15 20:33:54 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> I can do it.
2024-04-15 20:34:03 <@tstellar:fedora.im> !action zbyszek  will chair next meeting
2024-04-15 20:34:06 <@tstellar:fedora.im> Thank you 
2024-04-15 20:34:07 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> I’ll pick up the week after next. 
2024-04-15 20:34:38 <@tstellar:fedora.im> !action Stephen Gallagher  will chair the meeting in two weeks.
2024-04-15 20:34:41 <@tstellar:fedora.im> Thank you
2024-04-15 20:34:47 <@tstellar:fedora.im> !topic Open Floor
2024-04-15 20:35:26 <@salimma:fedora.im> so now that we agree network-scripts should be restored, any suggestion what to do with network-scripts-teamd?
2024-04-15 20:35:47 <@salimma:fedora.im> 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
2024-04-15 20:35:59 <@salimma:fedora.im> (we can restore it when someone asked for it)
2024-04-15 20:36:06 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> I'd say leave it until network-scripts is removed.
2024-04-15 20:36:20 <@salimma:fedora.im> leave it available? ok, that I can do
2024-04-15 20:36:22 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> or whatever it's upstream wants? not sure
2024-04-15 20:36:39 <@salimma:fedora.im> well... have not heard from upstream, that's how we noticed (the package got orphaned because of the FTI)
2024-04-15 20:38:08 <@salimma:fedora.im> 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
2024-04-15 20:39:19 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> Can we go to the next topic?
2024-04-15 20:39:37 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> we're already on open floor
2024-04-15 20:39:40 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> that's the end
2024-04-15 20:40:08 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> Next open floor topic.
2024-04-15 20:40:16 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> So… what time do we hold the next meeting?
2024-04-15 20:40:37 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> We moved it half hour up, but Kevin has a conflict and in it also didn't work out.
2024-04-15 20:40:40 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> didn't you already move it up by a half hour?
2024-04-15 20:41:04 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> Yeah, but it didn't "stick".
2024-04-15 20:41:06 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> you can choose to move it up another half hour, further than that runs directly against the KDE SIG meeting
2024-04-15 20:41:35 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> If it's just me I can deal with it...
2024-04-15 20:41:57 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> we will probibly have to choose a new time after the next elections anyhow.
2024-04-15 20:42:25 <@tstellar:fedora.im> Ok, so keep it at 19:00 utc then?
2024-04-15 20:42:46 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> Yeah.
2024-04-15 20:43:03 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> sure.
2024-04-15 20:43:47 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> OK, let's move on.
2024-04-15 20:44:01 <@tstellar:fedora.im> Any other topics?
2024-04-15 20:44:51 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I've got to go as the plane is descending
2024-04-15 20:44:59 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> bye everyone
2024-04-15 20:45:04 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> safe travels Conan Kudo!
2024-04-15 20:45:51 <@tstellar:fedora.im> I'll wait another minute and then end the meeting.
2024-04-15 20:46:55 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> Tom
2024-04-15 20:47:11 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> Tom Stellard: thanks for chairing
2024-04-15 20:48:15 <@tstellar:fedora.im> !endmeeting