Agenda for today's Env-and-Stacks WG meeting (2013-11-19)

[Marcela Mašláňová]

My apologies for the last minute agenda. We'll be holding our initial
WG meeting today at 16:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting on Freenode.  We'll
cover the various items below.  I will try and keep the meeting under
1 hour.

== Status ==
- wiki page
- trac instance https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/4124

== Next Steps ==

- PRD

== Open Floor ==

Meeting minutes - today's Env-and-Stacks WG meeting (2013-11-19)

[Marcela Mašláňová]

============================================
#fedora-meeting: Env and Stacks (2013-11-19)
============================================


Meeting started by mmaslano at 16:04:20 UTC. The full logs are available
at
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2013-11-19/env_and_stacks...
.



Meeting summary
---------------
* init process  (mmaslano, 16:07:42)
   * ACTION: pkovar will hunt handsome_pirate for content of WG wiki
     pages  (mmaslano, 16:11:59)
   * use urls like  http://fp.o/wiki/Environment and Stacks/*  (mmaslano,
     16:13:15)
   * and categories should use [[Category: Environment and Stacks]]
     (mmaslano, 16:13:52)
   * put a link to our homepage to
     https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora.next  (mmaslano, 16:17:44)

* PRD  (mmaslano, 16:19:29)
   * LINK: http://piratepad.net/PwUiH4MEPR   (abadger1999, 17:04:53)
   * ACTION: everyone to send one general thing they want the WG to
     enable and one specific thing they'd personally want to work on to
     the mailing list this week  (abadger1999, 17:37:44)

Meeting ended at 17:43:04 UTC.




Action Items
------------
* pkovar will hunt handsome_pirate for content of WG wiki pages
* everyone to send one general thing they want the WG to enable and one
   specific thing they'd personally want to work on to the mailing list
   this week




Action Items, by person
-----------------------
* handsome_pirate
   * pkovar will hunt handsome_pirate for content of WG wiki pages
* pkovar
   * pkovar will hunt handsome_pirate for content of WG wiki pages
* **UNASSIGNED**
   * everyone to send one general thing they want the WG to enable and
     one specific thing they'd personally want to work on to the mailing
     list this week




People Present (lines said)
---------------------------
* abadger1999 (101)
* mmaslano (70)
* tjanez (27)
* samkottler (17)
* drieden (14)
* pkovar (11)
* hhorak (9)
* zodbot (4)
* sochotni (2)
* nirik (1)
* bkabrda (0)
* juhp (0)
* handsome_pirate (0)




Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4

.. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot


16:04:20 <mmaslano> #startmeeting Env and Stacks (2013-11-19)
16:04:20 <zodbot> Meeting started Tue Nov 19 16:04:20 2013 UTC.  The 
chair is mmaslano. Information about MeetBot at 
http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:04:20 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea 
#link #topic.
16:04:27 <mmaslano> #meetingname env and stacks
16:04:27 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'env_and_stacks'
16:05:37 <mmaslano> #chair abadger1999 pkovar tjanez samkottler bkabrda 
handsome_pirate hhorak juhp
16:05:37 <zodbot> Current chairs: abadger1999 bkabrda handsome_pirate 
hhorak juhp mmaslano pkovar samkottler tjanez
16:06:06 <mmaslano> how many people is here?
16:06:14 <hhorak> Hi, I am
16:06:24 <tjanez> hi
16:06:24 <drieden> Hello
16:06:24 * pkovar is here
16:06:27 * sochotni
16:07:36 <mmaslano> ok, we have some members here
16:07:42 <mmaslano> #topic init process
16:08:01 <mmaslano> let's go through old stuff first
16:08:27 <mmaslano> I admit I forgot to create trac request, I opened a 
ticket now https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/4124
16:08:34 <mmaslano> what about wiki pages?
16:09:15 <pkovar> keep them where they are?
16:09:34 <pkovar> i think that other WG are also using fedora wiki, no?
16:10:03 <mmaslano> someone had to create them
16:10:06 <tjanez> I believe handsome_pirate said he'll setup our Wiki page
16:10:14 <tjanez> on Fedora wiki, of course
16:10:32 <mmaslano> I understand he will put content about WG on one place
16:10:33 <pkovar> good, i can help with that
16:10:53 <mmaslano> pkovar: do you want to poke him what's the status or 
if we have any problem?
16:11:09 * abadger1999 here
16:11:13 <pkovar> sure, will try to hunt him down :-)
16:11:42 <drieden> is handsome_pirate in Westford?  If so, want me to 
follow up with him?
16:11:43 * abadger1999 nots that "space on the wiki" should just be 
convention.
16:11:59 <mmaslano> #action pkovar will hunt handsome_pirate for content 
of WG wiki pages
16:12:15 <mmaslano> drieden: I do not know, where is he located
16:12:17 <abadger1999> with mediawiki, convention is usually like 
[[Category: Environment and Stacks]]
16:12:50 <abadger1999> but in Fedora, we like using urls like 
http://fp.o/wiki/Environment and Stacks/*
16:13:15 <mmaslano> #info use urls like  http://fp.o/wiki/Environment 
and Stacks/*
16:13:28 <abadger1999> mmaslano: We should also use categories.
16:13:44 <abadger1999> as categories have support in mediawiki (like the 
listing of all pages in the categories)
16:13:52 <mmaslano> #info and categories should use [[Category: 
Environment and Stacks]]
16:13:59 <mmaslano> abadger1999: feel free to mark it by yourself
16:14:12 <hhorak> maybe put a link to our homepage to 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora.next
16:17:44 <mmaslano> #info put a link to our homepage to 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora.next
16:17:49 <mmaslano> more comments to wiki?
16:19:21 <mmaslano> I understand no
16:19:29 <mmaslano> #topic PRD
16:19:41 <mmaslano> let's move what we want to do or should do in our group
16:20:07 <mmaslano> I asked nirik about Formulas - it's sort of dead 
project, so we can move to next topics :)
16:20:42 <mmaslano> he promised some summary about it, when he has time
16:20:55 <abadger1999> Formulas is good if someone wants to push it. 
Otherwise, there's no one to do the work.
16:21:05 * nirik subscribed but hasn't had time to send yet. will try today.
16:21:15 <mmaslano> nirik: thanks
16:21:21 <pkovar> what about stacks 2.0?
16:21:26 <abadger1999> AFAIK, there's no code.  Just an idea about 
capabilities.
16:21:45 <hhorak> btw. Dev Assistant is a bit similar project to 
formulas, afaict...
16:22:08 <mmaslano> pkovar: jan is not here, but he told me he'd like to 
plan scl-utils-2.0 with bigger changes, maybe incompatible. Re-do what 
we did wrong
16:22:36 <pkovar> ok, sounds interesting
16:23:08 <abadger1999> hhorak: Looks to me like they differ in scope.
16:23:26 <abadger1999> hhorak: formulas could (theoretically) be the 
technology that enables DevAssistant.
16:23:39 <hhorak> what we can do even now is we can submit RFE bugs for 
scl-utils if anybody has some ideas for enhancements..
16:23:42 <abadger1999> hhorak: but formulas would be more generic in scope.
16:24:17 <mmaslano> hhorak: yes, we'd like to do some planning meeting 
what Jan should do in next release
16:24:27 <abadger1999> Is there a timeframe?
16:24:29 <mmaslano> ideas are welcomed
16:24:37 <hhorak> abadger1999: thanks for explanation
16:24:44 <mmaslano> abadger1999: at Friday we will start :)
16:25:00 * abadger1999 thinks it could help with FPC if I could tell 
them -- identify things that can be changed in scls for scl2.
16:25:26 <abadger1999> takes some of the pressure off when you know that 
the next version won't have the rough edges that you found in the 
present one.
16:25:47 <mmaslano> abadger1999: I don't think we see same problems 
(packagers, fpc)
16:26:06 <mmaslano> abadger1999: could we post the plan on mailing list 
and comment on it?
16:26:13 <abadger1999> mmaslano: FPC is packagers.
16:26:14 <mmaslano> abadger1999: I guess we can put it on some public wiki
16:26:48 <mmaslano> abadger1999: I'm sorry, I ment scl heavy users has 
different issues than fpc
16:27:30 <abadger1999> mmaslano: To keep growing who is going to use 
scls the FPC issues should be addressed.
16:28:09 <mmaslano> abadger1999: as I said post your comments on env and 
stacks mailing list in short summary
16:28:20 <abadger1999> What comments?
16:28:43 <mmaslano> features?
16:28:48 <abadger1999> ?
16:28:55 <abadger1999> I don't understand the context.
16:29:06 <abadger1999> what do you want posted to the ml?
16:29:37 <mmaslano> abadger1999: you said "identify things that can be 
changed in scls for scl2". I'm saying ok, post list of those things on 
mailing list
16:29:43 <abadger1999> ah
16:30:29 <abadger1999> mmaslano: I think we probably need to reach out 
to the other FPC members.
16:31:01 <abadger1999> timeframe for knowing the requirements, ask if 
they can determine what issues exist with the current implementation by 
that time, etc.
16:31:38 <abadger1999> Alternately -- will there be an scls3?
16:32:43 <mmaslano> what should be there?
16:33:45 <abadger1999> Very likely.  The problem is that right now 
there's only one large user of scls.  As more people start using it for 
their purposes limitations and issues will crop up that will need to be 
addressed.
16:34:45 <drieden> It would be helpful to identify these use cases and 
add them to the prd.
16:34:46 <abadger1999> If scls2 is planned for, say 6 months from now... 
I don't think that enough people will be using it for fedora packages to 
identify most of the places where it makes things hard instead of easy 
for our use case.
16:35:37 <pkovar> drieden: +1. that could also help our documentation 
efforts
16:36:06 <abadger1999> drieden: Yep -- but I'm saying, it's too early to 
have identified those well.
16:36:18 <drieden> pkovar Yes, that sounds good.
16:36:43 <drieden> abadger1999 Yes, that makes sense too.  You cannot 
see into the future.  But if there are things we know of now, it would 
be helpful to document.
16:36:58 <abadger1999> We/everyone who works on an scls2 should put in 
the use cases they can think of but there's not enough of us/enough real 
scl creators to actually do a good job of that at the moment.
16:37:26 <abadger1999> That's why I'm saying, thinking about there being 
an scls3 would be a good idea.
16:37:53 <abadger1999> ie: we're thinking that this won't be the last 
opportunity to break compatibility and rethink the capabilities of hte tool.
16:38:02 <abadger1999> so we don't have to get scls2 perfect.
16:38:13 <abadger1999> it just has to be better than scls1
16:38:29 <abadger1999> Does that make sense
16:38:30 <abadger1999> ?
16:38:34 <pkovar> no software is perfect ;-)
16:38:38 <drieden> :)
16:39:03 <abadger1999> pkovar: <nod>  yes.  But sometimes we get 
(rightfully) more attached to stability and backwards compat than 
perfection.
16:39:09 <mmaslano> imho it's soon to discuss it
16:39:13 <abadger1999> For instance, rpm :-)
16:39:50 <tjanez> While I like the scls (whichever version :-)), I 
propose we take a step back and try to identify the "big picture" of our 
WG first. I think the "Charter" thread on the ML 
(https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/env-and-stacks/2013-November/00...) 
was a good start but it died off last week...
16:40:10 <abadger1999> tjanez: +1
16:40:22 <sochotni> tjanez: indeed, not everything is about SCLs
16:40:29 <abadger1999> So one thing in the Charter discussion -- I do 
not think we should be treading on the FPC ground.
16:40:51 <abadger1999> And I also think we should be careful about 
creating Guidelines that we want people to follow here.
16:40:52 <drieden> tjanez +1.
16:41:26 <tjanez> abadger1999: Are you referring to my email?
16:41:32 <abadger1999> We should be coming up with guideline drafts here 
but they should be approved elsewhere.
16:41:43 <abadger1999> tjanez: I think mmaslano's mostly, but yours as well.
16:42:06 <mmaslano> tjanez: I agree with big picture :)
16:42:26 <tjanez> abadger1999, I agree with you and I think we should 
invent a way to cooperate with FPC
16:42:48 <tjanez> having you on-board makes it easy, though :-)
16:44:01 <tjanez> Well, I would like to iterate our discussion/ideas a 
little more
16:44:06 <abadger1999> Final discussion, redrafting, and approval of 
guidelines is something that does require a great deal of attention to 
precedent and attention to the big picture in Fedora.  Whereas what we 
seem to be leaning towards is finding out both what does and doesn't 
work via experimentation with new technologies.
16:44:31 <abadger1999> tjanez: to some extent :-)  But I'm only one 
committee member.
16:44:48 <mmaslano> abadger1999: I disagree if we use different 
repository for playing with new things, it could work
16:45:12 <mmaslano> anyway that's not about what WG will do
16:45:43 <tjanez> abadger1999, I mostly agree with you
16:45:47 <abadger1999> mmaslano: I disagree but when we talk about a 
different repository, I could see having other bodies like FPC that can 
do guideline redrafting and approval for that repo.
16:46:08 <tjanez> could we say than that our WG is moving faster and is 
not restricted so much with current guidelines/policies
16:46:14 <mmaslano> in my opinion it slows down development
16:46:27 <abadger1999> mmaslano: also -- a different repository could be 
a "wild west repository"... ie: (most) anything goes.
16:46:40 <mmaslano> abadger1999: what I understood from Fedora.next 
proposal, some WGs should have less strict policies or no policies
16:46:52 <abadger1999> and in that sort of repo, I wouldn't have a 
problem with no guidelines.
16:47:05 <mmaslano> abadger1999: I would be fine with wild west for 
images, scl2, ...
16:47:33 <tjanez> So our WG is like "incubation" of ideas
16:47:52 <tjanez> and good ideas are then re-iterated and formalized
16:47:53 <abadger1999> mmaslano: I saw that a little different -- we 
would have some "repositories" with less strict policies.  But those 
weren't related to the WGs.
16:47:55 <mmaslano> tjanez: that's something to put in PRD :)
16:48:03 <abadger1999> mmaslano: Cool :-)
16:48:37 <abadger1999> mmaslano: So that might be something to put into 
our charter/prd -- one of the things we want to deliver is anything-goes 
repositories.
16:48:41 <mmaslano> tjanez: I asked Matt few weeks back, it shouldn't be 
PRD,because Env and STacks is not a real product. So starting with ideas 
should be ok
16:49:40 <tjanez> What we still have to do is at least somewhat define 
the terms environments and stacks
16:49:50 <tjanez> stacks will be easier, I think
16:50:01 <tjanez> since we all have some image of it
16:50:08 <drieden> mmaslano Is there a PRD template that we are supposed 
to use?
16:50:25 <tjanez> environments (from Matt slides) are not so clear, IMO
16:50:37 <mmaslano> drieden: no, I guess only Workstation has final 
version of PRD, but we had only list of areas/ideas
16:50:44 * abadger1999 notes -- to organize our thoughts it might be 
helpful to open a gobby doc.
16:51:00 <hhorak> tjanez: +1 defining the terms also seems essential to me
16:51:22 <tjanez> abadger1999: I haven't used gobby yet, but go ahead, 
teach us :-)
16:51:31 <drieden> mmaslano Ok.  It might be good to have our outline of 
what we are going to put into the PRD and then focus on those areas. 
The terms is a great thing to have in the PRD.
16:51:43 <abadger1999> yum install gobby
16:52:36 <abadger1999> join session
16:52:44 <abadger1999> Host: gobby.fedoraproject.org
16:52:48 <abadger1999> Port: 6522
16:52:59 <abadger1999> Name: arbitrary to identify you
16:53:12 <abadger1999> It'll ask for a passwd
16:53:18 <mmaslano> drieden: I thought we should discuss items, which 
Matt mentioned here http://mattdm.org/fedora/next/#24
16:53:27 <abadger1999> You can get that by doing: ssh fedorapeople.org 
cat /home/fedora/lmacken/gobby
16:53:47 <abadger1999> If you don't have access to fedorapeople/the ssh 
command doesn't work, I can PM it to you.
16:53:50 <mmaslano> drieden: and add some parts, which are needed by 
other WGs, like using containers
16:54:57 <drieden> mmaslano thanks, looking now.
16:56:27 <tjanez> Ok, I'm on gobby now
16:58:13 <abadger1999> tjanez: Cool.  I started a doc:Env and Stacks Charter
16:58:34 <tjanez> abadger1999: Yea, I follow you typing live
16:59:18 <drieden> abadger1999 I am unable to get gobby I get permission 
denied.
16:59:42 <abadger1999> drieden: k.  When trying to connect to 
gobby.fedoraproject.org?
16:59:48 <tjanez> mmaslano: Regarding our charter and Matt's slide 24, 
how much into details regarding the implementation details we want to go?
17:00:20 <mmaslano> tjanez: now, high level, abstract.
17:00:28 <mmaslano> tjanez: I don't we need details in Charter
17:00:51 <tjanez> mmaslano: Ok, thanks for clearing that up
17:00:56 <drieden> abadger1999 I can get to gobby.fedoraproject.org. 
Permission denied with ssh
17:01:31 <abadger1999> drieden: k.  Private messaging you the gobby.fp.o 
password.
17:01:42 <tjanez> mmaslano: I'm also in favor of a high-level document
17:03:34 <abadger1999> Okay -- we don't all have access to the gobby 
package it seems.
17:03:41 <abadger1999> Maybe something like etherpad?
17:03:56 <samkottler> sorry, my TZ's are apparently totally messed up 
today :(
17:03:59 * abadger1999 figures out where public hosting of that kind of 
thing is
17:04:00 <mmaslano> etherpad would be fine, if we have some public instance
17:04:16 * abadger1999 found one -- setting up a doc
17:04:53 <abadger1999> http://piratepad.net/PwUiH4MEPR
17:05:07 <abadger1999> Okay, hopefully that works better for everyone.
17:05:27 <abadger1999> Sorry everyone that just got gobby set up :-)
17:07:38 <abadger1999> when I read about env and stacks in mattdm's 
document... it really seemed like two words to mean the same thing.
17:08:07 <abadger1999> "stacks of software to enable running/developing 
other software"
17:08:19 <abadger1999> "isolated environments to enable 
running/developing other software"
17:08:59 <mmaslano> no, see http://mattdm.org/fedora/next/#18
17:09:08 <mmaslano> and  http://mattdm.org/fedora/next/#19
17:09:27 <mmaslano> but it's too cloud centric, we should think bigger :)
17:09:59 <mmaslano> samkottler: do you know where to put cartridges? 
http://piratepad.net/PwUiH4MEPR
17:10:07 <mmaslano> samkottler: and do you know everything about them?
17:10:40 <samkottler> mmaslano: I wouldn't say *everything* but yeah, I 
know mostly how they work :)
17:10:59 <samkottler> mmaslano: I think they fall into the environments 
group
17:11:00 <mmaslano> samkottler: I know a little. It's not clear to me 
what should we do with them
17:11:05 <samkottler> or in a third category
17:11:19 <samkottler> because they're kind of both the runtime and pull 
in the software
17:11:23 <samkottler> I would lean toward environments
17:12:01 <abadger1999> mmaslano: <nod>  I can agree with the examples... 
I just don't know that the separation he makes between them really 
exists :-)
17:12:01 <mmaslano> samkottler: and how should they change or should 
they go into some repo, to make them available easier or what?
17:12:31 * abadger1999 is a little hesitant about "desktop environments" 
but is willing to see where something specific takes that first.
17:12:44 <samkottler> mmaslano: hmm they're expected to be git repos so 
it doesn't really make sense to package them IMO
17:12:56 <samkottler> although we could work with the openshift folks to 
figure out a sane way to package them up
17:13:00 <samkottler> which I imagine will be useful for them, too
17:13:17 <samkottler> abadger1999: yeah, we might end up stepping on 
some toes with that one
17:13:20 <mmaslano> samkottler: so that's probably the goal for cartridges
17:13:26 <hhorak> Having in mind a difference between env. and stacks in 
a modularity aspect (http://mattdm.org/fedora/next/#17), then cartridges 
seem more like stacks to me
17:13:28 <abadger1999> samkottler: alternately -- the goal could be to 
eventually have a Fedora Cartridges git repo.
17:13:41 <abadger1999> ie: the git repos are the "packaging"
17:14:48 <samkottler> abadger1999: true, although I wonder if we're 
going to overlap too much with the work that the openshift team is doing
17:15:24 <tjanez> hhorak, +1, as I understand OpenShift Cartridges, they 
are more like stacks
17:15:42 <abadger1999> samkottler: I'm... not sure :-)  I guess Fedora 
got its start as providing addon packages to RHL that had a known 
quality to them.
17:15:42 <tjanez> also, Matt put them under Stacks 
(http://mattdm.org/fedora/next/#19)
17:16:11 <abadger1999> samkottler: And having community (instead of 100% 
paid people) making and maintaining those packages.
17:16:21 <abadger1999> I could see a similar relationship with the 
openshift team.
17:16:22 <mmaslano> does it matter? stacks or environment?
17:16:32 <abadger1999> mmaslano: +1 to does not matter :-)
17:16:52 <samkottler> abadger1999: yeah, we should start that 
conversation with the openshift team, though
17:16:56 <abadger1999> <nod>
17:17:23 <abadger1999> samkottler: So... probably coordination with both 
inside Fedora Groups and outside Fedora groups is one of our 
responsibilities?
17:17:27 <samkottler> mmaslano: not really beyond semantics IMO
17:17:57 <abadger1999> (like -- coordinate with openshift team about 
guidelines and what we provide vs what they provide.  Coordinate withh 
infra for being able to host a git repo for cartridges)
17:18:42 <samkottler> abadger1999: I'm not a huge fan of using 
fedorahosted for this, though
17:19:11 <abadger1999> samkottler: yeah, I.... am not sure fedorahosted 
is a good fit.
17:19:26 <abadger1999> samkottler: But wouldn't that be something we 
coordinate with infra?
17:19:48 <samkottler> abadger1999: yep, I just suspect that FH will be 
the first suggestion for where it should live :)
17:21:28 <abadger1999> Us: "We need git repos for hosting experimental 
openshift cartridges with the eventual goal of providing them similar to 
how we provide yum repositories".  Infra: "We currently have git hosting 
via fedorahosted" Us: "Once we get to $Size or $Officialness or $Other 
we probably want something more that satisfies those needs better"
17:21:44 <abadger1999> Infra: "Okay, let's talk about budget and 
timeframe for that"
17:22:08 <abadger1999> samkottler: something like that is how I suspect 
it might go?  Sound reasonable?
17:22:19 <samkottler> abadger1999: yep, WFM
17:27:36 * tjanez will have another meeting in 3 minutes
17:28:12 <mmaslano> abadger1999: I'm also leaving
17:28:19 <abadger1999> tjanez: Note -- we might want to implement the 
"definitely conflicts with pacaging guidelines" packages in a separate 
repo from the "experimental but aimed at eventually coming from the main 
fedora repos"
17:28:25 <abadger1999> as separate repositories.
17:28:31 <mmaslano> abadger1999: could you chair rest of the meeting or 
I can end meeting in few minutes
17:28:45 <abadger1999> mmaslano: I'm okay to end
17:29:04 <abadger1999> mmaslano: what do we want to do to continue the 
charter work this week?
17:29:37 <abadger1999> I can paste what we have into a wiki page.
17:29:59 <abadger1999> But people will need to add things to it if we 
expect it to see progress this week :-)
17:30:14 <tjanez> abadger1999: +1 regarding the eventually coming from 
the main Fedora repos
17:30:16 <mmaslano> abadger1999: we can continue on the piratepad, but 
please do backup :)
17:30:41 <abadger1999> mmaslano: Roger -- I'll copy to a wiki page after 
the meeting
17:31:11 <abadger1999> And set a reminder to check the piratepad later 
this week for updates.
17:31:54 <abadger1999> mmaslano: what should people do this week to move 
this forward?
17:32:37 <mmaslano> abadger1999: continue with proposal?
17:33:12 <abadger1999> mmaslano: Right :-)  I mean -- what should people 
actually focus on doing?
17:33:55 <mmaslano> probably on their area of expertise :) which is bad 
because cartridges, containers, ... not so many people
17:34:34 <mmaslano> but they can add also their ideas from their area if 
it fits into big plan of WG
17:34:36 <abadger1999> Something like: "Everyone send one general thing 
they want the WG to enable and one specific thing they'd personally want 
to work on to the mailing list this week"
17:35:21 <mmaslano> abadger1999: +1
17:35:40 <hhorak> and all can start learning something about cartridges..
17:36:58 <pkovar> sounds good to me
17:37:26 <abadger1999> Cool.
17:37:30 <drieden> sounds good to me too
17:37:43 <tjanez> abadger1999: +1 on making thing go forward
17:37:44 <abadger1999> #action everyone to send one general thing they 
want the WG to enable and one specific thing they'd personally want to 
work on to the mailing list this week
17:39:00 <abadger1999> we'll work on fitting those into the charter 
draft and maybe what we're going to actually start working on in January 
based on those.
17:41:10 <mmaslano> I'll close meeting in one minute
17:42:31 <hhorak> So, see you everyone!
17:42:38 <samkottler> cya!
17:42:49 <drieden> bye bye
17:42:51 <pkovar> bye
17:43:04 <mmaslano> #endmeeting

Meeting minutes - today's Env-and-Stacks WG meeting (2013-11-19)

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 06:46:29PM +0100, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
>  
>  * PRD  (mmaslano, 16:19:29)
>    * LINK: http://piratepad.net/PwUiH4MEPR   (abadger1999, 17:04:53)
>    * ACTION: everyone to send one general thing they want the WG to
>      enable and one specific thing they'd personally want to work on to
>      the mailing list this week  (abadger1999, 17:37:44)
>   
Here's the backup copy of the piratepad session:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Toshio/Env_and_Stacks_Charter_Brainst...

I'm not sure how persistent or reliable piratepad is.  I'll look at syncing
from piratepad to the wiki again on Friday.

-Toshio

Meeting minutes - today's Env-and-Stacks WG meeting (2013-11-19)

[Bohuslav Kabrda]

>  * PRD  (mmaslano, 16:19:29)
>     * LINK: http://piratepad.net/PwUiH4MEPR   (abadger1999, 17:04:53)
>     * ACTION: everyone to send one general thing they want the WG to
>       enable and one specific thing they'd personally want to work on to
>       the mailing list this week  (abadger1999, 17:37:44) 
As I've stated previously, I would like to work on few areas:
- Python stack - making Fedora the most appealing distro for Python developers, enabling
builds of extension packages against alternative interpreters like PyPy or Jython
- SCLs - getting SCLs into Fedora (in a pragmatical and usable way)
- Setting up development environments - DevAssistant [1]
- Better tools for packagers/packaging automation - pyp2rpm (I haven't visited that
for some time, will have to give it some time...), spec2scl, ...

So to get back to your question:
- I'd like the WG to think about how we could support building extension packages for
multiple interpreters of dynamic languages - e.g. Python+PyPy+Jython, Ruby+JRuby+Rubinius
(this will probably need to be coordinated with FPC).
- Personally, I invest lots of my time in work on DevAssistant, which IMHO is a relevant
tool for this WG (it's about setting up development environments, scaffolding source
code etc.) and I'd like to continue working on that.

Slavek.

[1] https://github.com/bkabrda/devassistant

Meeting minutes - today's Env-and-Stacks WG meeting (2013-11-19)

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 07:27:47AM -0500, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:
>  
>  So to get back to your question:
>  - I'd like the WG to think about how we could support building extension packages for
> multiple interpreters of dynamic languages - e.g. Python+PyPy+Jython, Ruby+JRuby+Rubinius
> (this will probably need to be coordinated with FPC). 
Some relevant information for multiple python interpreters:
  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Toshio/Flock2013_Python_Guidelines#pypy

With Alex Gaynor's input I'm thinking that we probably have two choices
in this area:

1) Separate (sub)packages.  Similar to what python2, python3, and python26
   in EPEL5  stacks are doing.  Precedent wise, this likely makes the most sense.

2) Move to something like Debian does but maybe with less symlinks and
   maybe build-time instead of run-time .pyc creation.  dmalcolm rejected
   the Debian approach as too hacky.  To me it's a bit too complex for what
   it enables.  But perhaps the implementation could be simplified and made
   suitable for use in Fedora.  This would be a big departure from the past
   and would affect the main python stack as well as alternate interpreters
   so it is a much bigger and time consuming task to enable than the first
   alternative.

-Toshio