2:46 p.m.
===================================
#fedora-meeting: FESCO (2012-03-19)
===================================
Meeting started by limburgher at 18:00:23 UTC. The full logs are
available at
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2012-03-19/fesco.2012-03-...
.
Meeting summary
---------------
* init process (limburgher, 18:00:24)
* #821 F18 Feature: PCRE 8.30 --
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/pcre8.30 (limburgher,
18:04:35)
* AGREED: F18 PCRE 8.30 is passed (+:8,-:0,0:0) (limburgher,
18:05:47)
* #822 F18 Feature: AE1000 USB wifi driver -
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/AE1000usb (limburgher,
18:05:57)
* AGREED: F18 AE1000 USB wifi driver is rejected (+:0,-:8,0:0)
(limburgher, 18:07:47)
* #823 F18 Feature: Network Manager hotspots -
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/RealHotspot (limburgher,
18:08:10)
* AGREED: F18 Network Manager hotspots is passed (+8,-:0,0:0)
(limburgher, 18:10:51)
* #824 F18 Feature: Rework Package Groups --
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/ReworkPackageGroups
(limburgher, 18:10:57)
* AGREED: F18 Rework Package Groups is passed (+6,-:0,0:2)
(limburgher, 18:12:42)
* #826 F18 Feature: KRB5 Credential Cache Move -
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/KRB5CacheMove (limburgher,
18:12:48)
* AGREED: F18 KRB5 Credential Cache Move is passed (+7,-:0,0:1)
(limburgher, 18:14:22)
* #827 F18 Feature: RPM 4.10 -
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/RPM4.10 (limburgher,
18:14:41)
* AGREED: F18 RPM 4.10 is passed (+8,-:0,0:0) (limburgher, 18:15:37)
* #828 F18 Feature: systemd-journal --
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/systemd-journal (limburgher,
18:15:45)
* AGREED: F18 systemd-journal is rejected (+0,-:8,0:0) (limburgher,
18:19:15)
* firewalld (limburgher, 18:19:36)
* LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2012-03-19_firewalld
(twoerner, 18:21:01)
* AGREED: Proposal to have FESCO test firewalld and vote in ticket is
passed (+7,-:0,0:0) (limburgher, 18:28:31)
* AGREED: Add firewalld to comps now passed (+5,-:2,0:0)
(limburgher, 18:43:40)
* #830 F18 Feature: ARM as Primary Arch --
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/FedoraARM (limburgher,
18:44:13)
* LINK:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Machine_Resources_For_Package_Maintainers
(nirik, 18:45:42)
* AGREED: ask qa, rel-eng, kernel and infra teams to provide feedback
on the proposal. Ask fesco members to come up with critera that they
would want to add and revisit next week. (+8,-:0,0:0) (limburgher,
19:09:50)
* Next week's chair (limburgher, 19:10:17)
* ACTION: mmaslano to chair next week. (limburgher, 19:10:40)
* Open Floor (limburgher, 19:10:50)
Meeting ended at 19:42:46 UTC.
Action Items
------------
* mmaslano to chair next week.
Action Items, by person
-----------------------
* mmaslano
* mmaslano to chair next week.
* **UNASSIGNED**
* (none)
People Present (lines said)
---------------------------
* limburgher (137)
* pjones (56)
* sgallagh (52)
* jonmasters (51)
* mitr (50)
* nirik (48)
* mjg59 (41)
* bconoboy (33)
* mmaslano (32)
* notting (30)
* t8m (28)
* zodbot (18)
* Viking-Ice (17)
* adamw (12)
* twoerner (12)
* abadger1999 (2)
* rbergeron (2)
* davej (1)
Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4
.. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot
--
in your fear, seek only peace
in your fear, seek only love
-d. bowie
8:26 p.m.
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Jon Ciesla <limburgher(a)gmail.com> wrote:
* #830 F18 Feature: ARM as Primary Arch --
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/FedoraARM (limburgher,
18:44:13)
* LINK:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Machine_Resources_For_Package_Maintainers
(nirik, 18:45:42)
* AGREED: ask qa, rel-eng, kernel and infra teams to provide feedback
on the proposal. Ask fesco members to come up with critera that they
would want to add and revisit next week. (+8,-:0,0:0) (limburgher,
19:09:50)
It's fairly disappointing this was discussed during this meeting without
being on the agenda that was sent out. This is a rather large item that
needs a lot of discussion among the various groups in Fedora, and I'm sure
that I'm not the only person that wasn't aware it was even going to be in
the meeting today. (Even ignoring the fact that the agenda was sent without
a proper Subject and easily skipped.)
It's plain irritating that per the logs, the proposers of this thought it
was just going to be covered in the 'Open Floor' section. Seriously, this
is not the way to start off on a great foot for such a major proposal.
josh
8:38 p.m.
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 8:26 PM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Jon Ciesla
<limburgher(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> * #830 F18 Feature: ARM as Primary Arch --
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/FedoraARM (limburgher,
> 18:44:13)
> * LINK:
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Machine_Resources_For_Package_Maintainers
> (nirik, 18:45:42)
> * AGREED: ask qa, rel-eng, kernel and infra teams to provide feedback
> on the proposal. Ask fesco members to come up with critera that they
> would want to add and revisit next week. (+8,-:0,0:0) (limburgher,
> 19:09:50)
It's fairly disappointing this was discussed during this meeting without
being on the agenda that was sent out. This is a rather large item that
needs a lot of discussion among the various groups in Fedora, and I'm sure
that I'm not the only person that wasn't aware it was even going to be in
the meeting today. (Even ignoring the fact that the agenda was sent without
a proper Subject and easily skipped.)
It's plain irritating that per the logs, the proposers of this thought it
was just going to be covered in the 'Open Floor' section. Seriously, this
is not the way to start off on a great foot for such a major proposal.
Agreed, my apologies. I'm still getting the hang of chairing meetings
and only saw the ARM feature after I sent the agenda. I added it to
the meeting thinking additional discussion would be helpful, not
necessarily that it needed a definitive vote. I'll certainly be more
careful all around next time.
-J
josh
--
devel mailing list
devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
--
in your fear, seek only peace
in your fear, seek only love
-d. bowie
9:01 p.m.
On 03/19/2012 06:38 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 8:26 PM, Josh Boyer<jwboyer(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Jon Ciesla<limburgher(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> * #830 F18 Feature: ARM as Primary Arch --
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/FedoraARM (limburgher,
>> 18:44:13)
>> * LINK:
>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Machine_Resources_For_Package_Maintainers
>> (nirik, 18:45:42)
>> * AGREED: ask qa, rel-eng, kernel and infra teams to provide feedback
>> on the proposal. Ask fesco members to come up with critera that they
>> would want to add and revisit next week. (+8,-:0,0:0) (limburgher,
>> 19:09:50)
> It's fairly disappointing this was discussed during this meeting without
> being on the agenda that was sent out. This is a rather large item that
> needs a lot of discussion among the various groups in Fedora, and I'm sure
> that I'm not the only person that wasn't aware it was even going to be in
> the meeting today. (Even ignoring the fact that the agenda was sent without
> a proper Subject and easily skipped.)
>
> It's plain irritating that per the logs, the proposers of this thought it
> was just going to be covered in the 'Open Floor' section. Seriously, this
> is not the way to start off on a great foot for such a major proposal.
Agreed, my apologies. I'm still getting the hang of chairing meetings
and only saw the ARM feature after I sent the agenda. I added it to
the meeting thinking additional discussion would be helpful, not
necessarily that it needed a definitive vote. I'll certainly be more
careful all around next time.
My apologies on this as well (EVERYWHERE TONIGHT) -
this feature went my
way late Friday, I went back and forth with feature owners a bit over
the weekend, and added the ticket as "open floor (for today) or meeting
(next week)" figuring that there was not going to be a definitive vote,
but that there was likely going to be numerous rounds of questions, and
leaving it to the discretion of FESCo to decide if they wanted to even
address it today vs. just acknowledge that "THIS IS COMING." Perhaps I
could have made that clearer in the ticket, or more inherently known
that "we cannot possibly look at a ticket without immediately having one
million questions," but I don't think this should be put on the feature
owners themselves as a bad way to start off; they were just looking to
start the discussion as way-before-F18 as possible. Throw the blame my
way, and I am pretty sure that the team of folks working on this are
well aware that this is not going to be a cut-and-dry decision, and
understand that it will likely take a while to get through the
discussion of the feature with all involved parties. They made
themselves quite available today, and I don't doubt that they will be
doing the same in future meetings should this continue to go forward.
-r
-J
> josh
> --
> devel mailing list
> devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
10:12 a.m.
Well, speaking for myself only, I read this as pretty much a "Lets
begin discussions on it". There's no way a short bit at the end of a
meeting is going to allow enough discussion.
So, this is just to start the ball rolling and collect feedback from
everyone. No need to feel bad about not being there to give feedback at
this first meeting.
kevin
10:17 a.m.
On Tue, 2012-03-20 at 09:12 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
Well, speaking for myself only, I read this as pretty much a
"Lets
begin discussions on it". There's no way a short bit at the end of a
meeting is going to allow enough discussion.
So, this is just to start the ball rolling and collect feedback from
everyone. No need to feel bad about not being there to give feedback at
this first meeting.
+1, I do not see any harm in starting the discussion on the yesterday
meeting as well.
--
Tomas Mraz
No matter how far down the wrong road you've gone, turn back.
Turkish proverb
10:21 a.m.
Once upon a time, Kevin Fenzi <kevin(a)scrye.com> said:
Well, speaking for myself only, I read this as pretty much a
"Lets
begin discussions on it". There's no way a short bit at the end of a
meeting is going to allow enough discussion.
So, this is just to start the ball rolling and collect feedback from
everyone. No need to feel bad about not being there to give feedback at
this first meeting.
Well, it was proposed as an F18 feature, which _could_ have been
approved at a single meeting.
Speaking as a mirror admin (granted of a smaller mirror), I don't have
sufficient disk space for two new architectures (the Fedora ARM team is
actually proposing two different ARM arches). I would like to see the
mirrors involved in the discussion, as there may be other (and larger)
mirrors that won't carry this.
I'm also not really sure what the gain is for moving from secondary to
primary arch.
--
Chris Adams <cmadams(a)hiwaay.net>
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
11:20 a.m.
On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 10:21:01 -0500
Chris Adams <cmadams(a)hiwaay.net> wrote:
Once upon a time, Kevin Fenzi <kevin(a)scrye.com> said:
> Well, speaking for myself only, I read this as pretty much a "Lets
> begin discussions on it". There's no way a short bit at the end of a
> meeting is going to allow enough discussion.
>
> So, this is just to start the ball rolling and collect feedback from
> everyone. No need to feel bad about not being there to give
> feedback at this first meeting.
Well, it was proposed as an F18 feature, which _could_ have been
approved at a single meeting.
I suppose. I don't see that as likely...
Speaking as a mirror admin (granted of a smaller mirror), I don't
have
sufficient disk space for two new architectures (the Fedora ARM team
is actually proposing two different ARM arches). I would like to see
the mirrors involved in the discussion, as there may be other (and
larger) mirrors that won't carry this.
Absolutely. Feedback from mirrors and also determining size would be
great things to do.
I'm also not really sure what the gain is for moving from
secondary to
primary arch.
See other posts.
kevin
9 p.m.
Josh Boyer wrote:
It's fairly disappointing this was discussed during this meeting
without
being on the agenda that was sent out. This is a rather large item that
needs a lot of discussion among the various groups in Fedora, and I'm sure
that I'm not the only person that wasn't aware it was even going to be in
the meeting today. (Even ignoring the fact that the agenda was sent
without a proper Subject and easily skipped.)
I think this should also be brought to larger discussion among packagers as
a whole. ARM as a primary arch is probably going to slow down our builds by
a lot, at least at the beginning. It also means it'd become the maintainer's
job to fix ARM-only build failures. I think ARM should NOT become a primary
arch, period. Having an actively maintained secondary arch is also the best
way to keep improving secondary arch infrastructure with the aim of reducing
the delays between primary arch and secondary arch releases, thereby helping
all secondary arches, not just ARM (and making them all primary sure
wouldn't scale). Changing ARM to a primary arch is the wrong way to get
there, and puts an undue burden on Fedora maintainers as a whole, for the
benefit of a small niche.
Kevin Kofler
12:34 a.m.
On Tue, 2012-03-20 at 03:00 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Josh Boyer wrote:
> It's fairly disappointing this was discussed during this meeting without
> being on the agenda that was sent out. This is a rather large item that
> needs a lot of discussion among the various groups in Fedora, and I'm sure
> that I'm not the only person that wasn't aware it was even going to be in
> the meeting today. (Even ignoring the fact that the agenda was sent
> without a proper Subject and easily skipped.)
I think this should also be brought to larger discussion among packagers as
a whole. ARM as a primary arch is probably going to slow down our builds by
a lot, at least at the beginning. It also means it'd become the maintainer's
job to fix ARM-only build failures. I think ARM should NOT become a primary
arch, period. Having an actively maintained secondary arch is also the best
way to keep improving secondary arch infrastructure with the aim of reducing
the delays between primary arch and secondary arch releases, thereby helping
all secondary arches, not just ARM (and making them all primary sure
wouldn't scale). Changing ARM to a primary arch is the wrong way to get
there, and puts an undue burden on Fedora maintainers as a whole, for the
benefit of a small niche.
If you think ARM's a small niche, you may have some large surprising
coming your way over the next few years...
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net
10:05 a.m.
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 03:00:39AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Josh Boyer wrote:
> It's fairly disappointing this was discussed during this meeting without
> being on the agenda that was sent out. This is a rather large item that
> needs a lot of discussion among the various groups in Fedora, and I'm sure
> that I'm not the only person that wasn't aware it was even going to be in
> the meeting today. (Even ignoring the fact that the agenda was sent
> without a proper Subject and easily skipped.)
I think this should also be brought to larger discussion among packagers as
a whole. ARM as a primary arch is probably going to slow down our builds by
a lot, at least at the beginning. It also means it'd become the maintainer's
job to fix ARM-only build failures. I think ARM should NOT become a primary
arch, period. Having an actively maintained secondary arch is also the best
way to keep improving secondary arch infrastructure with the aim of reducing
the delays between primary arch and secondary arch releases, thereby helping
all secondary arches, not just ARM (and making them all primary sure
wouldn't scale). Changing ARM to a primary arch is the wrong way to get
there, and puts an undue burden on Fedora maintainers as a whole, for the
benefit of a small niche.
I think ARM is going to be very important, especially if Raspberry Pi
or similar projects take off.
However you are right that (a) ARM is slow and (b) making ARM a
secondary arch without a way for maintainers to *easily* get access to
ARM machines to try out fixes is a quick way to encourage ExcludeArch.
Also there's a whole bunch of wider questions around Fedora on ARM,
beginning with the complete lack of a credible installer.
Rich.
--
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
virt-p2v converts physical machines to virtual machines. Boot with a
live CD or over the network (PXE) and turn machines into Xen guests.
http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-p2v
10:11 a.m.
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 03:05:07PM +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
However you are right that (a) ARM is slow and (b) making ARM a
secondary arch
Erm, s/secondary/PRIMARY/.
Rich.
--
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
virt-top is 'top' for virtual machines. Tiny program with many
powerful monitoring features, net stats, disk stats, logging, etc.
http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-top
2:24 a.m.
Josh Boyer wrote on 20.03.2012 02:26:
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Jon Ciesla
<limburgher(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> * #830 F18 Feature: ARM as Primary Arch --
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/FedoraARM (limburgher,
> 18:44:13)
> * LINK:
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Machine_Resources_For_Package_Maintainers
> (nirik, 18:45:42)
> * AGREED: ask qa, rel-eng, kernel and infra teams to provide feedback
> on the proposal. Ask fesco members to come up with critera that they
> would want to add and revisit next week. (+8,-:0,0:0) (limburgher,
> 19:09:50)
It's fairly disappointing this was discussed during this meeting without
being on the agenda that was sent out. This is a rather large item that
needs a lot of discussion among the various groups in Fedora, and I'm sure
that I'm not the only person that wasn't aware it was even going to be in
the meeting today. (Even ignoring the fact that the agenda was sent without
a proper Subject and easily skipped.)
+1
From my point of view the root of the problem is: Crucial information
is
spread over way to many places which makes it hard to stay on top. If
you want to be aware of what happens in Fedora land, that you afaics
have to keep an eye on
- this list and at least fab-list
- parts of the wiki, which is really hard (for example there is afaics
no easy way to just follow the pages that are used to track new Features )
- the talk pages to those wiki pages (see yesterdays discussion about
the proposed kernel-module, where I missed to look there)
- the tickets in trac (like the one for Fesco meetings)
- and ideally IRC and some more lists
I have no real idea how to fix this, but I tend to say we need to way
better make sure that important information and discussion get on this
list in a easy consumable way(¹), as that's the only place where
everybody looks. Sure, that can lead to a heated discussion, but then
let's deal with it.
CU
knurd
(¹) it for example always annoys me a little bit that there are no
direct links to the trac tickets in which FESCo tracks the issues it
wants to discuss in a meeting -- I know how to find them and it's just
one or two additional clicks, but those are a little bit annoying
10:16 a.m.
On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 08:24:09 +0100
Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora(a)leemhuis.info> wrote:
Josh Boyer wrote on 20.03.2012 02:26:
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Jon Ciesla <limburgher(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> * #830 F18 Feature: ARM as Primary Arch --
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/FedoraARM (limburgher,
>> 18:44:13)
>> * LINK:
>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Machine_Resources_For_Package_Maintainers
>> (nirik, 18:45:42)
>> * AGREED: ask qa, rel-eng, kernel and infra teams to provide
>> feedback on the proposal. Ask fesco members to come up with
>> critera that they would want to add and revisit next week.
>> (+8,-:0,0:0) (limburgher, 19:09:50)
>
> It's fairly disappointing this was discussed during this meeting
> without being on the agenda that was sent out. This is a rather
> large item that needs a lot of discussion among the various groups
> in Fedora, and I'm sure that I'm not the only person that wasn't
> aware it was even going to be in the meeting today. (Even ignoring
> the fact that the agenda was sent without a proper Subject and
> easily skipped.)
I really don't think it's that big a deal. It's only a "get the ball
rolling" and have some high level discussion. I'm sure there's going to
be a lot more before any decision is made and lots of feedback from
lots of parts of Fedora. This affects lots of us.
+1
From my point of view the root of the problem is: Crucial information
is spread over way to many places which makes it hard to stay on top.
If you want to be aware of what happens in Fedora land, that you
afaics have to keep an eye on
- this list and at least fab-list
- parts of the wiki, which is really hard (for example there is afaics
no easy way to just follow the pages that are used to track new
Features )
- the talk pages to those wiki pages (see yesterdays discussion about
the proposed kernel-module, where I missed to look there)
- the tickets in trac (like the one for Fesco meetings)
- and ideally IRC and some more lists
I have no real idea how to fix this, but I tend to say we need to way
better make sure that important information and discussion get on this
list in a easy consumable way(¹), as that's the only place where
everybody looks. Sure, that can lead to a heated discussion, but then
let's deal with it.
Yeah, I don't know of a great way to fix that either.
Information is spread out because it makes sense usually to be in the
place it is.
I think for the mailing list at least we could try and have someone
'summarize' discussions that go for 50 posts or something. Might help
those who can't read all the discussion.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Engineering/FY13_Plan#Mailing_List_...
may well help out someday. ;)
CU
knurd
(¹) it for example always annoys me a little bit that there are no
direct links to the trac tickets in which FESCo tracks the issues it
wants to discuss in a meeting -- I know how to find them and it's just
one or two additional clicks, but those are a little bit annoying
Is: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/report/9 not what you are looking
for?
kevin
10:57 a.m.
New subject: Rework package groups (was: Summary & minutes for today's FESCo meeting...)
Am Montag, den 19.03.2012, 14:46 -0500 schrieb Jon Ciesla:
* #824 F18 Feature: Rework Package Groups --
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/ReworkPackageGroups
(limburgher, 18:10:57)
* AGREED: F18 Rework Package Groups is passed (+6,-:0,0:2)
(limburgher, 18:12:42)
Did FESCO really know what they were voting about? Can any of the FESCo
members actually explain the feature?
I'm afraid the feature page is so vague that nobody has a clue what we
are talking about here. Does anybody - except Notting and David Lehman
actually know what this feature is and how it impacts package
maintainers or the spins SIG? Will groups still be consistent between
yum and anaconda? Will a user who runs 'yum install @foo' get the same
packages hat he had gotten wheh he selected the 'foo' group in anaconda?
Please don't get me wrong: I am very much looking forward to this
feature, but I am afraid nobody has an idea what is going on here.
Kind regards,
Christoph
11:14 a.m.
New subject: Rework package groups (was: Summary & minutes for today's FESCo meeting...)
Christoph Wickert (christoph.wickert(a)googlemail.com) said:
Does anybody - except Notting and David Lehman
actually know what this feature is and how it impacts package
maintainers or the spins SIG?
package maintainers: it won't, barring the creation of some new metadata
for optional package selection post-install, in which case they'll have to
edit that instead of the comps file.
spins SIG: the groups in the kickstart file might be different. Aside from
that, some of it is still TBD.
Will groups still be consistent between
yum and anaconda? Will a user who runs 'yum install @foo' get the same
packages hat he had gotten wheh he selected the 'foo' group in anaconda?
The groups won't be selected the same in anaconda, but they'll still be
consistent.
Bill
4441
days inactive
4442
days old
16 comments
12 participants
participants (12)
-
Adam Williamson -
Bill Nottingham -
Chris Adams -
Christoph Wickert -
Jon Ciesla -
Josh Boyer -
Kevin Fenzi -
Kevin Kofler -
Richard W.M. Jones -
Robyn Bergeron -
Thorsten Leemhuis -
Tomas Mraz