19:00:01 <nirik> #startmeeting Infrastructure (2012-01-19)
19:00:01 <zodbot> Meeting started Thu Jan 19 19:00:01 2012 UTC.  The chair is nirik. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
19:00:01 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
19:00:01 <nirik> #meetingname infrastructure
19:00:01 <nirik> #topic Robot Roll Call
19:00:01 <nirik> #chair smooge skvidal Codeblock ricky nirik abadger1999 lmacken dgilmore mdomsch
19:00:01 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'infrastructure'
19:00:01 <zodbot> Current chairs: Codeblock abadger1999 dgilmore lmacken mdomsch nirik ricky skvidal smooge
19:00:07 * skvidal is here
19:01:06 * nirik waits for more folks to wander in.
19:01:12 <nirik> will start in a few.
19:01:39 * CodeBlock here
19:03:16 <nirik> well, at least a few of us here...
19:03:30 * jac1bat0 is here
19:03:43 <nirik> #topic New folks introductions and apprentice tasks/feedback
19:04:04 <nirik> any new folks want to introduce themselves? or any apprentice folks want to ask about tickets or process or tasks?
19:04:59 <nirik> #topic Post fudcon tasks and plans
19:05:11 <nirik> ok, I had several items post fudcon to discuss.
19:05:19 <nirik> #topic 2 factor auth
19:05:25 <nirik> herlo was working on this...
19:05:29 <nirik> so where are we at?
19:05:43 <skvidal> dangling from that preposition
19:05:44 <skvidal> :)
19:05:45 <skvidal> zing
19:05:56 <skvidal> okay - so it looks like we have a pam module thanks to npmcallum and herlo
19:05:59 <skvidal> which will do sudo, definitely
19:06:09 <nirik> cool.
19:06:15 <skvidal> and will PROBABLY do logins - provided we force it in a few ways
19:06:18 <nirik> do we have the cgi part too? or just the pam module so far?
19:06:26 <herlo> hi
19:06:37 <skvidal> we don't have a cgi hooked into fas, no
19:06:46 <herlo> I have an rpm built for pam_otp, testing proves promising
19:07:24 <nirik> cool. So, more testing and poking needed, revisit next week?
19:07:41 <herlo> yes, skvidal pointed out that pam_otp expects a second form of auth, but it works well for sudo with a dummy cgi
19:07:47 <herlo> nirik: sounds like a plan
19:08:06 <nirik> One thing we didn't really discuss at fudcon that I'm wondering about: what about our web apps? we would need to make the cgi able or callable somehow to allow them to do 2 factor via it... or they would have to add their own code
19:08:25 <nirik> so thats something to consider as we move forward.
19:08:31 <skvidal> nod - not sure about that actually.
19:08:40 <skvidal> I've thought about it
19:08:41 <nirik> it would be nice to do things in a way that would allow them to use the same path for 2fauth
19:08:46 <skvidal> but... let's just say I'm full of waffles on that
19:08:50 <herlo> I do think that's a separate component, but could use the same cgi maybe...
19:08:52 <nirik> yeah.
19:08:53 <skvidal> I concur a single path would be nice
19:09:00 <herlo> yes
19:09:03 <skvidal> if only b/c you have to hit the same location
19:09:06 <nirik> perhaps we can see what abadger1999 thinks on it...
19:09:10 <skvidal> to store the 'used OTP'
19:09:21 <skvidal> so one way or the other...
19:09:56 <nirik> yeah.
19:10:00 <nirik> just something I wanted to note.
19:10:07 <nirik> anything else on 2fauth?
19:10:33 * herlo thinks that's enough :)
19:10:56 <nirik> thanks for working on it herlo and skvidal. :)
19:11:03 <nirik> #topic staging rework
19:11:06 <herlo> and thanks to npmccallum
19:11:08 <skvidal> and npmcallum
19:11:11 <skvidal> right
19:11:13 <herlo> :P
19:11:16 <nirik> oh yeah, def. Sorry.
19:11:43 <nirik> so, on the staging rework. I am thinking we look at doing that next week once folks are back and recovered from fudcon.
19:11:51 <herlo> nirik: I'm excited to help with this stuff.
19:12:03 <herlo> there's some good fun in that I think
19:12:17 <nirik> we save our current repo off. We save off a staging checkout. We switch staging to use prod repo. we fix what breaks.
19:12:19 <herlo> and some interesting problems to solve
19:12:28 <herlo> aye
19:12:30 <nirik> yeah, it will be fun for sure.
19:13:03 <nirik> I will also want to rebuild a few stg machines... that are rhel5 still.
19:13:06 <pingou> do you expect it to be that bad ?
19:13:21 * abadger1999 here now
19:13:31 <nirik> pingou: hard to say. It shouldn't affect production, but it could break the staging hosts pretty bad
19:13:43 <nirik> we may need to merge in things that never got merged
19:13:45 <nirik> hey abadger1999
19:13:59 <skvidal> nirik: I like the idea you suggested of switching the machines in 'staging' to the production environment
19:14:02 <skvidal> and fixing them as we go
19:14:12 <skvidal> that way we'll know we can nuke staging when no boxes live in there naymore
19:14:17 <nirik> yeah, then we can examine differences on each vs their prod counterpark
19:14:20 <nirik> counterpart
19:14:33 <skvidal> nod
19:14:44 <herlo> very nice
19:15:00 <nirik> one other random thought on this: would this be a time to make a new puppet repo (ie, drop history) and look at possibly auditing it so we could make it public?
19:15:30 <skvidal> nirik: would it be okay if we did the staging drop first
19:15:34 <skvidal> got ourselves on a single branch
19:15:39 <skvidal> and then did the refresh?
19:15:41 <nirik> yes, I think that would be a pre-req
19:15:44 <skvidal> oh okay
19:15:50 <nirik> also, we have a bunch of cruft still.
19:15:52 <skvidal> I thought you were saying do both of them at once
19:15:54 <nirik> things we don't use at all anymore.
19:16:06 <nirik> well, around this time since we are messing with the repo.
19:16:11 <abadger1999> +1 to that plan.
19:16:49 <nirik> cool. Anything else on staging rework?
19:16:54 <skvidal> nirik: +10 to nuking stuff we don't use
19:17:02 <herlo> +1 here
19:17:12 <nirik> abadger1999: did you see the discussion above about 2factor and applications? any ideas there? or should we revisit later?
19:17:32 <pingou> could it be integrated into fas itself ?
19:17:45 <nirik> pingou: which?
19:17:54 <pingou> the 2factor bits
19:17:55 <abadger1999> nirik: We shouldn't let work on the web apps stop deploying this for sudo/login
19:18:02 <pingou> the cgi could become a call to fas no ?
19:18:09 <nirik> abadger1999: agreed. Just wanted it on the radar. ;)
19:18:44 <nirik> pingou: not sure. Perhaps someday. ;)
19:18:53 <abadger1999> nirik: I think once we get the cgi going, we can write something to do that.
19:19:00 <nirik> ok.
19:19:24 <nirik> #topic Any other fudcon todos
19:19:39 <nirik> Anyone have other items from fudcon that we should put on our radar/discuss?
19:19:39 <skvidal> torrents!
19:19:43 <skvidal> one thing
19:19:53 <nirik> oh yeah, torrents. ;)
19:19:53 <skvidal> does anyone in here have any strong feelings about the torrents?
19:20:09 <skvidal> is anyone going to raise a ruckus if we were to propose discontinuing that service?
19:20:49 <pingou> at release time, I'm sure some people will
19:20:50 * nirik doesn't feel strongly for them, but since we do have them working on rhel6 now, my desire to kill it has diminished some.
19:21:53 <nirik> skvidal: I have an email for the board written up, but was waiting for a new stats page...
19:21:57 <herlo> skvidal: are we thinking after F17?
19:22:02 <herlo> or sooner?
19:22:07 <nirik> I'd be happy to propose it, and see what the board thinks.
19:22:24 <skvidal> nirik: nod - I have the new stats thing on my very short list
19:22:40 <skvidal> nirik: trying to decide if it is worth converting the stats to json or not
19:23:07 <nirik> right now, I think nothing at all uses the stats other than humans looking at it.
19:23:20 <skvidal> torrent stats on fcomm does
19:23:23 <lmacken> yep
19:23:26 <skvidal> I know b/c that's why the json stats exist
19:23:27 <skvidal> :)
19:23:28 * abadger1999 would go with infra's recomendation on the Board.. stats would be very helpful for swaying the other members I'm sure.
19:23:34 <nirik> oh, whoops. right.
19:23:40 <nirik> and spins
19:24:02 <nirik> spins rank by torrent downloads
19:24:11 <skvidal> that exists now
19:24:14 <skvidal> in ot
19:24:18 <nirik> ok
19:24:20 <skvidal> top10
19:24:38 * nirik can't recall how it polls that
19:24:49 <skvidal> the json outputs
19:24:55 <skvidal> they get pulled hourly and daily
19:24:58 <skvidal> it uses the hourly for updates
19:25:59 <nirik> ok
19:26:11 <nirik> so, lets finish that, then propose to the board and see what happens?
19:26:24 <skvidal> sure
19:26:30 <skvidal> sunds like a plan
19:27:26 <dgilmore> heya all
19:27:34 <nirik> if we don't end up retiring them, hopefully we will at least get a idea what level of usage they would have to be down to to do that.
19:27:42 <skvidal> nod
19:27:42 <nirik> morning dgilmore
19:27:44 <skvidal> hi dgilmore
19:27:58 <skvidal> nirik: I will see if I can get the json stats regenerating today
19:28:02 <skvidal> shouldn't take too long
19:28:11 <skvidal> if anyone wants to look at the stats themselves
19:28:16 <skvidal> you can login to torrent02 locally and run
19:28:37 <skvidal> wget -O - http://torrent02.fedoraproject.org:6969/stats?mode=everything
19:28:50 <nirik> cool.
19:29:04 <skvidal> this is the important part
19:29:05 <skvidal> <peers>
19:29:06 <skvidal> <count>3498</count>
19:29:06 <skvidal> </peers>
19:29:06 <skvidal> <seeds>
19:29:06 <skvidal> <count>3255</count>
19:29:07 <skvidal> </seeds>
19:29:14 <skvidal> take total peers and subtract total seeds
19:29:18 <nirik> thats /howmanytorrents?
19:29:19 <skvidal> and you get the number of 'clients'
19:29:24 <skvidal> right
19:29:43 <skvidal> so in this case right now it is 243
19:30:10 <skvidal> and then you can also fetch
19:30:11 <skvidal> http://torrent02.fedoraproject.org:6969/stats?mode=top10
19:30:29 <skvidal> anyway
19:30:41 <nirik> ok, anything else from fudcon and/or on torrents?
19:30:45 <skvidal> nothing from me
19:30:57 <skvidal> well not on torrents
19:31:03 <skvidal> one thing from fudcon - not yet gotten to but want to
19:31:29 <skvidal> does anyone want to try out the latest glusterfs to see if setfacl/getfacl/chgrp etc
19:31:30 <skvidal> all work like we want them to work?
19:31:47 <skvidal> talking to jdarcy suggests this is all fixed now
19:32:10 <nirik> I could look at that...
19:32:21 <nirik> is that latest in fedora? or epel?
19:32:26 <skvidal> he said epel
19:32:32 <nirik> cool.
19:32:32 <skvidal> so... maybe?
19:32:49 <skvidal> nirik: you could take junk05 - setup some vm's on it and try it maybe?
19:32:55 <nirik> so, if that was working, what does that give us?
19:32:59 <nirik> yeah, it's got the space
19:33:09 <skvidal> mirrored fs
19:33:13 <skvidal> that can be mounted from other systems
19:33:31 <skvidal> and written two either of them
19:33:46 * nirik needs to re-look at it. it's been a while and I've seen so many fs/cluster things I can't remember which could do what
19:34:06 * abadger1999 looks at his notes from the fudcon wrap up.
19:34:18 * CodeBlock writes two skvidal :P
19:34:21 <skvidal> nirik: but potentially it could give us a way to replicate fedorapeople, for example, other than drbd
19:34:32 <skvidal> CodeBlock: :)
19:34:39 <skvidal> I was thinking 'two' servers
19:34:41 <nirik> that would sure help us in both distributing things more and avoiding spof of one site.
19:35:06 <skvidal> nirik: the question is how capable it is over a WAN
19:35:10 <skvidal> which is not obvious to me
19:35:17 <nirik> yeah.
19:35:30 <nirik> #info will test some glusterfs out and see how it looks.
19:35:37 <skvidal> the only other thing I can think of being able to do is to have a gluster backend that a series of webservers access for data
19:35:55 <skvidal> but right now we don't have so much web data that we can't just do the replication we do now
19:36:15 <nirik> yeah.
19:36:23 <skvidal> I was thinking something like 2 VMs in a single gluster share
19:36:25 <nirik> might speed up the web build tho, which is... slow right now
19:36:27 <skvidal> that then all the proxy servers mount
19:36:42 <skvidal> but read only
19:36:52 <nirik> yeah, could work.
19:36:56 <skvidal> and then that space could be (maybe) mounted rw from fedorapeople or bastion
19:37:18 <nirik> oh, one other fudcon thing: how's smolt? can we do anything to help there? or just wait and see...
19:38:07 <abadger1999> openshift
19:38:13 <CodeBlock> latest I heard on that was it was being rewritten to use mongodb and openshift
19:38:13 <skvidal> abadger1999: it's running there now?
19:38:23 <abadger1999> skvidal: not yet but that sounded like the plan
19:38:29 <nirik> yeah, but wanted to know if thats going ok or anything we could do to help.
19:38:34 <nirik> I guess we need to ask directly. ;)
19:38:50 <abadger1999> We'll need to talk to npmccallum
19:38:55 <nirik> yep.
19:38:58 <nirik> ok.
19:38:58 <skvidal> abadger1999: excellent
19:39:04 <nirik> shall we move on?
19:39:08 <skvidal> sure
19:39:17 <abadger1999> See if he still has time to work on it now that fudcon is over.
19:39:17 <nirik> #topic applications
19:39:39 <nirik> So, I thought I would try and add in a applications section to the meeting... talk about current stuff going on with the apps we maintain.
19:39:53 <nirik> and see if abadger1999 and lmacken could provide us updates on things. ;)
19:39:59 <nirik> lmacken: you around?
19:40:00 <abadger1999> Cool.
19:40:02 <lmacken> yeah
19:40:05 <skvidal> nirik: great
19:40:17 <nirik> so, whats the status on the new community/tagger?
19:40:26 <lmacken> as far as fedora packages & tagger goes -- we need to get them properly deployed so we can start breaking things in dev again.
19:40:30 <nirik> are we going to want to look at replacing the current one soon in prod? or more work needed first?
19:40:35 <abadger1999> That leads into the FUDCon decision to try to integrate the web dev and sysadmin sides of infra better :-)
19:40:44 <nirik> abadger1999: yep.
19:40:49 <lmacken> I would like us to port the statistics widgets before we remove the old community for good
19:40:59 <lmacken> but, it's not a blocker for killing it, imo
19:41:20 <nirik> lmacken: ok. also, should we see if abadger1999 wants to remove pkgdb stuff in favor of community before we deploy in prod?
19:41:45 <lmacken> we could potentially do some merging beforehand.. but I don't think it's a blocker
19:41:49 <nirik> note that the current community is rhel5 running only, and I'd love to start moving app servers to rhel6. ;)
19:42:19 <lmacken> ok, so I think I can probably fix the rhel5-only thing pretty quickly, now that fudcon is over
19:42:26 <abadger1999> I'd like to figure out what we are going to remove and how we're going to provide/how long until we provide it in the new community.
19:42:38 <abadger1999> But we don't necessarily have to remove the duplication beforehand.
19:43:06 <lmacken> yeah, the merging will be a little more long term. Right now, getting a prod instance of tagger/packages is crucial for us to keep iterating quickly on it.
19:43:15 <skvidal> coupld of minor questions
19:43:17 <nirik> lmacken: in the old community? that might be good if the new one is going to be a while before landing I guess.
19:43:32 <lmacken> we've been holding up just fine with 1 beefy box for packages & tagger. Although, in prod it may be nice to have a seperate machine for the rpm indexer
19:43:32 <abadger1999> I don't want us to get stuck maintaing both interfaces because tagger is just missing a few things that pkgdb has, though.
19:43:51 <nirik> lmacken: right, you want to push out what you have to prod so you can work on the next version(s)?
19:43:53 <abadger1999> lmacken: We'd want at least two boxes for failover
19:43:59 <lmacken> nirik: right
19:44:02 <abadger1999> if we're going to be making it more central to what we do.
19:44:02 <lmacken> abadger1999: yeah
19:44:24 * nirik thinks 2 boxes for it, and 1 db box (this would tie into our making things more silo like)
19:44:35 <lmacken> nirik: sounds good to me
19:44:37 <nirik> then we can load balance over those two.
19:45:02 <skvidal> 1. which db backend is the new community using? (and tagger)?
19:45:15 <skvidal> 2. do we want to maintain consistent access for old community urls?
19:45:30 <lmacken> skvidal: community & packages both do not use a db. tagger is currently using sqlalchemy & postgres on db02.stg
19:45:34 <skvidal> 3. is there any merit in trying to have a slave db?
19:45:48 <skvidal> lmacken: thanks
19:46:04 <nirik> also, we need to determine a url... admin.fedoraproject.org/community, or community.fedoraproject.org or packages.fedoraproject.org or something.
19:46:30 <abadger1999> For #2, I'd say no -- I don't think many people were using the old community and the urls IIRC, weren't sufficient to pull up the same page in a new tab... (lmacken Is that right?)
19:46:33 * lmacken likes packages.fp.o
19:46:57 <nirik> the new one has static-y urls, which is awesome.
19:47:06 <pingou> +1²
19:47:13 <abadger1999> lmacken: ehh... I don't
19:47:13 <lmacken> abadger1999: a bunch of people do use the old community, more than I expected actually
19:47:19 <abadger1999> b/c we already have pkgs.fp.o
19:47:27 <abadger1999> Which is kind of a bummer
19:47:45 <skvidal> abadger1999: also the bugz.fp.o
19:47:52 <skvidal> that will need some redirects, right?
19:48:01 <lmacken> pkgs.fp.o should really be git.fp.o
19:48:07 <lmacken> since git.fp.o has no web interface
19:48:09 <nirik> if we want it to go to community instead of pkgdb, it would
19:48:11 <skvidal> lmacken: too confusing with git.fedorahosted.org
19:48:32 <abadger1999> lmacken: ah.  Were the urls staticy enough that they're valuable to keep working?
19:48:37 <lmacken> nirik: I think we're trying to phase out the 'fedora community' name
19:48:41 <lmacken> since it's already overloaded as it is
19:48:46 <nirik> yeah, true.
19:48:55 <lmacken> abadger1999: for the old /community urls? nah, I don't think so
19:48:57 <abadger1999> skvidal: Yeah -- although we might just point all of bugz.fp.o to the relevant new-community page.
19:49:08 <nirik> what is the proper name here then? packages and tagger (two related, but seperate apps)
19:49:22 <skvidal> abadger1999: sounds fine to me
19:49:36 <abadger1999> lmacken: git.fp.o does have a web interface.  What it doesn't have is an index page.
19:49:40 <lmacken> I think we were going to start breaking them out into seperate pages... like "Fedora Packages", "Fedora Statistics", etc
19:49:46 <abadger1999> lmacken: sorry
19:49:58 <abadger1999> lmacken: d/git.fp.o/pkgs.fp.o/
19:50:05 <lmacken> abadger1999: yeah, true. of pkgs.fp.o was the index of git.fp.o that would free up that url
19:50:10 <lmacken> s/of/if/
19:51:04 <nirik> so, I fear most choices could be confusing. ;)
19:51:11 <lmacken> so it seems like some more thought needs to be put into the naming & url structure of our new apps :)
19:51:23 <nirik> yeah. we need to come up with something.
19:51:25 * skvidal uses pwgen for a new hostname
19:51:32 <skvidal> Gaemohd5.fedoraproject.org
19:51:37 <lmacken> haha
19:51:38 <skvidal> and we'll change it every week
19:52:01 * skvidal goes to register Gaemohd5.org now
19:52:03 <nirik> hunt the wumpus. ;)
19:52:15 <skvidal> so our concerns are
19:52:31 <skvidal> 1. existing urls
19:52:37 <skvidal> 2. simplicity of the new url
19:52:39 <nirik> the thing that would make the most sense to me: rename pkgs to git, then use packages for this app/interface. But thats likely to be kinda painful.
19:52:41 <skvidal> 3. futureproofing
19:52:50 <nirik> yes
19:52:52 <skvidal> so
19:52:59 <skvidal> since pkgs is 'fedora packages'
19:53:01 <lmacken> nirik: yeah, that's my initial thought as well
19:53:14 <skvidal> and since the interface pkgers use to do their work is fedpkg
19:53:18 <abadger1999> nirik: I think mmcgrath had some reasons for not wanting git.fedoraproject.org.. not sure of all of them though.
19:53:20 <skvidal> would fedpkg.fedoraproject.org
19:53:30 <skvidal> be a better idea than 'git.fp.o'
19:53:31 <skvidal> ?
19:54:02 <abadger1999> perhaps, confusion with git.fedorahosted; futureproofing for if we change scms again.... not really sure though.
19:54:03 <nirik> how about this: lets take this discussion to the list and try and come up with some plan by next week?
19:54:14 <skvidal> +1 or sooner
19:54:22 <nirik> sure, if we can come up with something.
19:54:23 <lmacken> sounds good.
19:54:24 <abadger1999> yeah .... +1
19:54:44 <nirik> lmacken: any other news from packages/tagger and/or bodhi ?
19:55:05 <lmacken> nirik: no bodhi news, I have a bunch of bugfixes & enhancements that I'm working on now
19:55:09 <abadger1999> and lmacken's idea that we have the new-community web interface serve as the index to the pkgs.fp.o gitweb has merit.
19:55:16 <nirik> you're gonna start hammering on bodhi 2.0 right? when should we look at making a 'bodhi01.dev' for early testing? ;)
19:55:46 <lmacken> nirik: yeah, I need to talk with spot & ralph about it, but I think bodhi 2.0 will be getting some cycles in the near future
19:55:53 <skvidal> where is ralph?
19:55:56 <skvidal> i thought he was starting
19:55:59 <lmacken> next week
19:56:03 <skvidal> ah
19:56:03 <lmacken> officially
19:56:09 <nirik> would someone like to post to the list on this url naming stuff? I could, but I think others might have more of a horse in the race that I?
19:56:14 <lmacken> nirik: yeah, I don't think we need a bodhi dev box just yet
19:56:25 <skvidal> nirik: I can work on it
19:56:32 <abadger1999> lmacken: When is the webdev meeting where we'll start talking together for the first time?  Wed  next week?
19:56:33 <skvidal> the summary email
19:56:36 <nirik> ok, just wondering. I think it would be good to do that early, so we get feedback and don't surprise people.
19:56:37 <skvidal> and we can argue from there
19:56:47 <nirik> skvidal: thanks.
19:56:58 <nirik> #info skvidal to send email about url 's for web apps
19:56:59 <lmacken> abadger1999: it's usually thursdays @ 11, but we're up for changing that to make sure it's at a time where all interested parties can attend
19:57:13 <nirik> abadger1999: you have any fas or pkgdb news to share?
19:57:20 <abadger1999> lmacken: If you can adjust that later by one hour that would work for me.
19:57:28 <lmacken> abadger1999: ok, I'll talk to spot about it
19:57:44 <abadger1999> lmacken: cool.  I'll try to make it at 8:00 this coming week.
19:58:08 <abadger1999> (Thursdays, this is my only meeting but I've been filling my morning increasingly with family obligations)
19:58:15 <tatica> 5/back
19:58:18 <tatica> sry
19:58:18 * nirik would live to be there especially if it's here. ;)
19:58:36 <abadger1999> fas, I'm slipping the release schedule 1 week -- I'll cut a beta on Monday.
19:58:44 <abadger1999> We just didn't get around to it during fudcon.
19:59:02 <abadger1999> python-fedora will be the next thing I cut a new release of after that
19:59:29 <nirik> ok, so final looking at 2012-02-07 for fas?
19:59:31 <abadger1999> lmacken: If you or threebean can put some cycles into python-fedora, the issues that I'm resolving are in the tg2 identity stuff.
19:59:36 <abadger1999> nirik: yeah.
19:59:59 * pingou wouldn't mind to be around
20:00:01 <abadger1999> lmacken: So it's kinda up your eventual alley (I'm assuming that the new f-comm and tagger are tg2 based?_
20:00:15 <lmacken> abadger1999: yeah, we use the faswho middleware in tagger, w/o problems
20:00:19 <nirik> cool. Any new pkgdb on the horizon? or waiting for things to shake out with packages/tagger before doing anything?
20:00:23 <abadger1999> lmacken: ahh
20:00:28 <abadger1999> lmacken: but not with BaseClient :-)
20:00:40 <abadger1999> lmacken: that's where the issues I'm resolving are.
20:00:54 <lmacken> abadger1999: ah, interesting. point me at some tickets and I'll have a look.
20:01:17 <abadger1999> lmacken: Cool.  I'll catch you guys up on the remaining issues today or tomorrow.
20:01:31 <abadger1999> nirik: pkgdb will be next after python-fedora.
20:01:40 <nirik> ok, cool.
20:01:47 <abadger1999> nirik: No release dates yet but the plan is:
20:02:24 <abadger1999> One  0.5.x release which catches us up on hotfixes and some of the API stable changes from fchiulli and others.
20:02:43 <abadger1999> Then I'll be merging with the  devel branch and we'll make an API  changing release.
20:02:54 <nirik> sounds good.
20:03:05 <abadger1999> In the future, I think we're going to be moving away from strict API stability
20:03:23 <pingou> (or increase the releases ? :))
20:03:24 <abadger1999> Instead, we'll document when API changes and porting tips.
20:03:29 <abadger1999> pingou: :-)
20:03:31 <nirik> sounds reasonable
20:03:39 <nirik> I guess we could discuss https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/3094 quickly now?
20:03:42 <nirik> it's tagged meeting.
20:03:47 <abadger1999> pingou: I'm hoping that not having to keep API stability will increase the number of releases we can make.
20:04:08 <pingou> abadger1999: finger crossed ;-)
20:04:34 <nirik> dgilmore: you have any thoughts on the above ticket?
20:05:30 <dgilmore> nirik: not really
20:05:34 <nirik> ok.
20:05:57 <dgilmore> nirik: id be ok with just removing acls from eol release branches
20:06:36 * nirik is fine with that too.
20:07:00 <nirik> abadger1999: you want me to take it to fesco?
20:07:07 <abadger1999> Sounds good to me.  So whatever gitolite allows (open or closed) would be our default.
20:07:12 <abadger1999> nirik: Sure.
20:07:14 <nirik> I think default is closed
20:07:31 <abadger1999> wfm
20:07:48 * nirik sees we are running long.
20:07:56 <nirik> #topic Upcoming tasks
20:08:04 <nirik> #info 2012-01-19 - infrasturcture meeting.
20:08:05 <nirik> #info 2012-01-24 - reinstall ibiblio01 (tenative)
20:08:05 <nirik> #info 2012-01-25 - send meeting agenda
20:08:05 <nirik> #info 2012-01-26 - infrasturcture meeting.
20:08:05 <nirik> #info 2012-01-31 - fas 0.8.11 final release.
20:08:07 <nirik> #info 2012-02-01 - nag fi-apprentices.
20:08:09 <nirik> #info 2012-02-01 - 2012-02-03 dgillmore is at phx2
20:08:11 <nirik> #info 2012-02-10 - drop inactive fi-apprentices
20:08:15 <nirik> #info 2012-02-14 to 2012-02-28 - F17 Alpha Freeze
20:08:33 <nirik> anything else upcoming folks want to schedule or talk about?
20:08:45 <nirik> I'd like to note that we are down to 20 rhel5 instances.
20:08:54 <nirik> I'm going to keep working to make that 0
20:08:54 * skvidal was summarizing the apps/urls discussion and I wanted to ask something when we have a chance
20:09:06 <nirik> #topic Open Floor
20:09:09 <nirik> skvidal: go for it
20:09:18 <skvidal> so I was re-reading it
20:09:29 <skvidal> lmacken: you said you wanted to get away from one overall 'app'
20:09:32 <skvidal> that is everything
20:09:51 <skvidal> would it make any sense for us to have apps.fedoraproject.org/substuff AND have a top level name for it?
20:10:05 <skvidal> or does that just overly complicate our llayout?
20:10:35 * skvidal listens to the crickets
20:10:36 <nirik> I think users might find that confusing to find...
20:10:37 <lmacken> skvidal: that could work
20:10:46 <nirik> but then again I always use history...
20:10:51 <nirik> and I bet many others do too
20:10:58 <skvidal> I'll just send the summary email and see what replies we get
20:11:10 <lmacken> well, as far as finding apps, ralph and I had the idea of a peice of WSGI middleware that added a google-like bar at the top of the app that made it trivial to navigate around
20:12:06 <nirik> that might be nice.
20:13:03 <nirik> anything else for open floor? or shall we call it a meeting?
20:13:32 <abadger1999> I'm sure there's other stuff, but there's always next week :-)
20:13:37 <skvidal> if anyone is looking for things to work on
20:13:39 <skvidal> come see me
20:13:48 <skvidal> and I'll see if I can dish stuff their way
20:14:09 <nirik> skvidal: if any can be easyfix we could use some more for apprentices.
20:14:21 <skvidal> none of them are EASYFIX
20:14:30 <nirik> ok.
20:14:30 <skvidal> but some of them might be INTERESTINGFIX
20:15:07 <nirik> ok, thanks for coming everyone. ;)
20:15:14 <nirik> #endmeeting