15:04:39 #startmeeting modularity_wg 15:04:39 #meetingtopic Weekly Meeting of the Modularity Working Group 15:04:39 #chair mikedep333 15:04:39 #topic Roll Call 15:04:39 Meeting started Tue Nov 13 15:04:39 2018 UTC. 15:04:39 This meeting is logged and archived in a public location. 15:04:39 The chair is nils. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 15:04:39 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 15:04:39 The meeting name has been set to 'modularity_wg' 15:04:39 Current chairs: mikedep333 nils 15:04:46 .hello nphilipp 15:04:47 nils: nphilipp 'Nils Philippsen' 15:04:51 .hello2 15:04:52 asamalik: asamalik 'Adam Samalik' 15:05:10 .hello psabata 15:05:11 contyk: psabata 'Petr Šabata' 15:05:33 #topic Agenda 15:06:14 #info [asamalik] Module lifecycles 15:06:27 #info [asamalik] Stream default changes & Fedora Changes 15:06:50 #info [asamalik] Stream branch ownership for packages & modules 15:06:50 .hello2 15:06:51 langdon: langdon 'Langdon White' 15:06:58 #chair langdon 15:06:58 Current chairs: langdon mikedep333 nils 15:07:33 #info [ignatenkobrain/sgallagh] How do we keep rawhide sane? (re: forcing people to latest modules) 15:07:50 nils: I want to talk about the fourth one as well, if you're looking for an owne... ah, yes :) 15:07:54 I'm semi-here 15:08:06 So, let's get this off. 15:08:17 #topic Module lifecycles 15:08:20 #chair asamalik 15:08:20 Current chairs: asamalik langdon mikedep333 nils 15:08:35 #link https://pagure.io/modularity/issue/112 15:08:35 #link https://pagure.io/modularity/issue/112 15:08:38 lol 15:08:40 boo 15:08:41 #undo 15:08:41 Removing item from minutes: 15:09:11 I don't think I want to re-write the issue here, but: 15:09:41 .hello2 15:09:42 ignatenkobrain: ignatenkobrain 'Igor Gnatenko' 15:10:02 #info This is a follow-up of a recent (well, a month ago?) threads on the Devel list about how we define and manage module lifecycles, containing a proposal and input from those threads in it 15:10:58 There are two points I need help with finalizing to make the proposal complete. (at the bottom of the issue) 15:11:26 Does anyone want to talk about this live now, or do we want to keep the conversation in the ticket? 15:11:28 EOF 15:12:04 I haven't looked at any of these yet so I'll contribute in the tickets when I read them 15:12:14 contyk++ 15:12:14 asamalik: Karma for psabata changed to 1 (for the current release cycle): https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any 15:12:22 * bcotton sneaks into the back of the room 15:12:43 * asamalik saw bcotton and say "Hi!" very loudly 15:12:49 *says 15:13:36 if nothing, I think we can move to the next one nils 15:14:01 my goal with these is to provide a status update + a few minute for a live discussion if there is a need 15:14:30 cool 15:14:48 #topic Stream default changes & Fedora Changes 15:14:56 I expect the most discussion about the last one that's nearly finalized 15:15:03 * asamalik waits for a link from nils this time! 15:15:27 ahh okay 15:15:31 *mumbles* 15:15:40 #link https://pagure.io/modularity/issue/114 15:16:11 #info Likely the least complex topic of the four we have today. I have a very short proposal there, already two +1's from bcotton and sgallagh 15:16:17 nils++ 15:16:17 asamalik: Karma for nphilipp changed to 1 (for the current release cycle): https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any 15:16:34 did we change the rules for this group yet? i don't remember.. what do we need to make it pass? 15:16:38 Again, anyone wants to discuss this live? or keep it for the ticket? 15:16:41 i think we need to revisit those rules 15:16:43 asamalik: I thought we already approved this long ago. It’s written in the Fedora Wiki like this already. 15:16:54 sgallagh: me too 15:17:05 sgallagh: the current agreement was "every stream change requires a fedora change" 15:17:12 initially in the wiki, moved to the docs 15:17:27 asamalik: pretty sure it was only defaults 15:17:29 this is the tracker: https://tree.taiga.io/project/modularity-wg/epic/35 15:17:40 sgallagh: excuse me, "every default changes" 15:17:45 you're right! 15:17:48 * asamalik can't type today 15:18:05 So how is this different? 15:18:20 the change here is "always" -> "based on the change's significance and its maintainer's best judgement." 15:18:23 asamalik, do I get this right, that the difference to status quo is that a Fedora Change isn't mandatory anymore? 15:18:26 so, I'm a bit behind, but I'd like this to be relaxed 15:18:51 namely when you add new content or move content to modules, I don't think you should need a change for that 15:19:00 contyk: +1 15:19:08 it's different from changing defaults, which usually involves rebasing 15:19:53 contyk: your example is covered there, proposing you don't need a change for that 15:20:26 asamalik: where is there? 15:20:35 in the #link above 15:20:39 ok 15:20:46 also you don't create change for every major package upgrade 15:20:54 that's right 15:21:09 that's why I want to change this from "always" to "based on the change's significance and its maintainer's best judgement." 15:21:10 but if you have different streams, chances are those significantly differ 15:21:22 contyk: very likely 15:21:37 but yeah, I guess it makes more sense to require Changes depending on the nature of the change rather than the mechanism of delivery 15:22:05 contyk: +1 15:22:11 the goal there is to treat new traditional package versions and new module stream defaults the same way 15:22:27 I don't want to introduce any complications / obstacles to the existing process 15:23:56 so, do we want to let people to put their +1's -1's to the ticket, or do we want to close it now? 15:24:20 per langdon's comment about the approval process, if my memory serves me well, it's a majority of +1 votes of people present in the meeting 15:24:35 * contyk would appreciate more time to go through the tickets 15:24:45 * asamalik wants to go to the next topic in up to 5 mins to have time 15:24:49 contyk: +1 15:25:08 FWIW, +1 15:25:14 #info we'll give it more time for people to give their +1's and -1's on this one 15:25:17 +1 15:25:30 * asamalik should have info'd the previous topic as well.. well, too late 15:25:35 nils: I think we're ready to go! 15:25:54 #topic Stream branch ownership for packages & modules 15:26:03 #link https://pagure.io/modularity/issue/115 15:26:59 #info A specific proposal regarding stream branch ownership. Already includes some input from recent (a month ago?) discussion about managing module lifecycles on the Devel list. 15:27:38 Again, won't rewrite the ticket here, we can either discuss or leave it to the ticket! It's new today, so I don't expect everyone has read it. 15:28:28 asamalik, I assume "not being built in any module" in the last point includes platform. 15:28:34 probably needs input from fpc 15:29:09 nils: that's right, not being buit at all 15:29:30 a stream branch not included in any module 15:30:05 although I'm just remembering we had some discussions about using stream branches without modules? or was that turned down completely? 15:31:03 langdon: ah maybe? 15:32:23 langdon: do you think we should @mention someone in particular in the ticket to get their attention? 15:32:39 probably james antill 15:32:52 langdon: do you wanna do that? :P 15:33:10 i think your last bullet is weird.. it should probably be reworded to not say a package is unmaintained if it isn't in a module 15:33:48 asamalik, I'm not sure who other than modules would use stream branches as long as platform isn't modular 15:33:54 asamalik: and, sure 15:34:33 nils: well.. it gives the package independence from versions of fedora.. like why does the version of a package get bumped just because there is a new release.. that is tooling enforcing policy 15:34:59 langdon: so that's just for a particular branch 15:35:20 asamalik: eh? 15:35:22 langdon: if there is a stream branch that isn't consumed by any module, it wouldn't have a maintainer 15:35:35 ohh.. sorry 15:35:41 you went to my earlier q 15:35:46 which is OK because it's not being built anywhere 15:35:55 we might want to retire it, but we don't have to 15:35:59 why couldn't it just be a package using the stream branch? 15:36:12 langdon: without a module? 15:36:15 yeah 15:37:29 is that a thing? 15:38:05 That would imply "platform" knows to build from the stream branch rather than the platform one (fXY, rawhide). 15:38:13 I don't think that's a thing. 15:38:23 * asamalik doesn't think that's a thing 15:38:34 me used think vs. thing correctly! 15:39:09 asamalik++ 15:39:09 bcotton: Karma for asamalik changed to 5 (for the current release cycle): https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any 15:39:28 anyway, I think that's a good question for the ticket probably, as we don't have a strong presence here today 15:39:35 i think it should be a thing :) .. this proposal has a bunch of problems.. i am trying to figure out how to rewrite it.. like you say "package" in the bullets but I think you mean "stream branch" .. sort of 15:39:45 * asamalik just looks at bcotton 15:40:11 but my caffeine level is very low this morning 15:40:57 * nils resists posting the K. Janeway "Coffee, black" Youtube compilation. 15:41:22 langdon: I see the two bullet points saying "package" vs. "package stream branch"... you're right, let me fix it 15:42:30 asamalik: i just added an edit.. see if you like that 15:43:11 I've just fixed those two points 15:43:16 will look langdon, thanks! 15:43:31 anyway, I think we can move on? nils? 15:43:43 coming up... 15:44:15 #topic How do we keep rawhide sane? (re: forcing people to latest modules) (reprise) 15:44:33 * asamalik loves langdon's edit, will just replace it there! 15:44:36 langdon++ 15:44:36 asamalik: Karma for langdon changed to 1 (for the current release cycle): https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any 15:44:37 #link https://pagure.io/modularity/issue/108 15:46:22 I guess this will be just a summary of what we came up with in the ticket and meetings, that's why "reprise". 15:47:01 so in that one we're nearly there 15:47:29 contyk, sgallagh, langdon ^^ have you had a time to look at the last three comments in this one? 15:47:36 nope 15:47:46 * contyk is totally unprepared today 15:48:29 me either :( 15:49:45 ignatenkobrain: forgot to tag you, since you've opened the ticked in the first place ^^ 15:50:03 anyway, we can also just leave the discussion to there 15:50:15 hopefully we'll be able to close some of them next time 15:51:35 #info we'll continue the discussion in the ticket 15:51:47 nils: all right! I think that's it for this one 15:51:54 good! 15:52:08 #topic Open Floor 15:52:16 Anything for open floor? 15:52:57 * asamalik has nothing 15:54:27 * nils watches the crickets cricketing 15:54:32 Alright! 15:54:35 #undo 15:54:35 Removing item from minutes: 15:54:42 everyone gets some minutes back! 15:54:49 Thanks everybody! 15:54:52 #endmeeting