10:12 a.m.
WG meeting will be at 16:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting on Freenode.
== Next Steps ==
- I suggest copying first two paragrahps for our so called PRD from
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Cloud_PRD as was discussed two weeks ago.
- PRD - based on discussion on env-and-stacks mailing list
(some discussion on pad: http://piratepad.net/PwUiH4MEPR) If we don't
have any other input from other areas, we could sum up what we discussed
and create list of tasks for future work (Review tool, taskotron, ...).
== Open Floor ==
10:32 a.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marcela Mašláňová" <mmaslano(a)redhat.com>
To: "Fedora Environment and Stacks Working Group mailing list"
<env-and-stacks(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>, "Development
discussions related to Fedora" <devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 11:12:15 AM
Subject: Agenda for today's Env-and-Stacks WG meeting (2013-12-17)
WG meeting will be at 16:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting on Freenode.
I assume you mean tomorrow?
== Next Steps ==
- I suggest copying first two paragrahps for our so called PRD from
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Cloud_PRD as was discussed two weeks ago.
- PRD - based on discussion on env-and-stacks mailing list
(some discussion on pad: http://piratepad.net/PwUiH4MEPR) If we don't
have any other input from other areas, we could sum up what we discussed
and create list of tasks for future work (Review tool, taskotron, ...).
== Open Floor ==
_______________________________________________
env-and-stacks mailing list
env-and-stacks(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/env-and-stacks
9:53 p.m.
I've been sick all day. I probably won't make the meeting tomorrow. I
need to get some sleep tonight to recover.
-Toshio
On Dec 16, 2013 8:12 AM, "Marcela Mašláňová" <mmaslano(a)redhat.com> wrote:
WG meeting will be at 16:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting on Freenode.
== Next Steps ==
- I suggest copying first two paragrahps for our so called PRD from
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Cloud_PRD as was discussed two weeks ago.
- PRD - based on discussion on env-and-stacks mailing list
(some discussion on pad: http://piratepad.net/PwUiH4MEPR) If we don't
have any other input from other areas, we could sum up what we discussed
and create list of tasks for future work (Review tool, taskotron, ...).
== Open Floor ==
_______________________________________________
env-and-stacks mailing list
env-and-stacks(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/env-and-stacks
11:13 a.m.
New subject: Meeting minutes from Env-and-Stacks WG meeting (2013-12-17)
============================================
#fedora-meeting: env and stacks (2013-12-17)
============================================
Meeting started by mmaslano at 16:01:35 UTC. The full logs are available
at
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2013-12-17/env_and_stacks...
.
Meeting summary
---------------
* init process (mmaslano, 16:06:46)
* Big Data specific case: right now, if you want to use Scala for real
work on Fedora, your option is basically to install a bunch of
binaries maintained by upstreams. It would be great if we were able
to better support "new" language ecosystems wholly in Fedora.
(mmaslano, 16:31:08)
* ACTION: tjanez will sum up Big Data SIG needs (mmaslano, 16:58:29)
* ACTION: everyone will look at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Mmaslano/Draft:Env_and_Stack_PRD
and think/work on tasks. (mmaslano, 17:05:11)
Meeting ended at 17:10:52 UTC.
Action Items
------------
* tjanez will sum up Big Data SIG needs
* everyone will look at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Mmaslano/Draft:Env_and_Stack_PRD
and think/work on tasks.
Action Items, by person
-----------------------
* tjanez
* tjanez will sum up Big Data SIG needs
* **UNASSIGNED**
* everyone will look at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Mmaslano/Draft:Env_and_Stack_PRD
and think/work on tasks.
People Present (lines said)
---------------------------
* mmaslano (70)
* tjanez (51)
* mattf (30)
* hhorak (18)
* willb (14)
* sochotni (10)
* zodbot (7)
* Subfusc (5)
* pingou (3)
* pkovar1 (1)
* drieden (1)
* samkottler (1)
* bkabrda (0)
* abadger1999 (0)
* juhp (0)
* handsome_pirate (0)
* pkovar (0)
Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4
.. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot
16:01:35 <mmaslano> #startmeeting env and stacks (2013-12-17)
16:01:35 <zodbot> Meeting started Tue Dec 17 16:01:35 2013 UTC. The
chair is mmaslano. Information about MeetBot at
http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:01:35 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea
#link #topic.
16:01:45 <mmaslano> #meetingname env and stacks
16:01:45 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'env_and_stacks'
16:01:59 <mmaslano> #chair abadger1999 pkovar tjanez samkottler bkabrda
handsome_pirate hhorak juhp
16:01:59 <zodbot> Current chairs: abadger1999 bkabrda handsome_pirate
hhorak juhp mmaslano pkovar samkottler tjanez
16:02:30 * samkottler waves & will have to leave in about 15 minutes for
a doctor's appointment
16:03:01 * pkovar1 is here
16:03:05 <mmaslano> who else is here
16:03:30 <mattf> o/
16:04:05 <willb> I'm here
16:05:28 * tjanez is being late
16:06:17 <drieden> I'm here too
16:06:46 <mmaslano> #topic init process
16:06:55 <mmaslano> great, let's start
16:07:04 <mmaslano> we don't have much time for something like PRD
16:07:17 <hhorak> Hi, sorry for being late..
16:07:38 <mmaslano> so I created something inspired by Cloud PRD
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Mmaslano/Draft:Env_and_Stack_PRD
16:07:53 * pingou around (and late, sorry)
16:08:26 <mmaslano> the real tasks are still little fuzzy, but I plan to
work on them more if you agree with it
16:08:53 <mmaslano> mattf: great you are here. You can tell us what you need
16:09:07 <mmaslano> mattf is from Big data SIG
16:09:17 <mattf> willb, would you start?
16:10:25 <mattf> mmaslano, willb has been feeling most of the pain
dealing w/ non-primary (c/c++,python,perl) language stacks in fedora
16:10:37 <willb> I think a lot of our headaches in Big Data relate to
language packaging ecosystems vs Fedora
16:10:46 <willb> in particular, I have been working on Scala lately
16:12:29 <willb> in short, the main issues are widespread Ivy for
dependency management (mizdebsk has been working on this) and very
brittle versioning (there is the expectation that you'll be able to have
particular versions of the runtime, compiler, and libraries to run any
nontrivial application)
16:14:22 <willb> like a lot of language stacks (e.g. rubygems, maven,
eggs), there is the assumption that any developer would just be using
the language stack instead of downstream dependency management, so I've
had to work around a lot of those sorts of issues
16:15:15 <mattf> all those places where we have to work around things
the language community does are hurdles to eventually automating /
reducing maintenance package work
16:16:28 <mmaslano> we were already speaking about automation of
packaging (not ready) and hosting such packages in separated repositories
16:16:29 <mattf> we also ran into this around node.js, which has its
package/dep management tool available in fedora, but very little of the
language ecosystem / base libraries available
16:17:04 <mmaslano> what would be good solution for you?
16:17:18 <mmaslano> SCL, or latest versions from upstream?
16:17:22 <mattf> for us the application is where we want to focus our
time, but we find ourselves in the toolchain management and not getting
to the application
16:18:07 <tjanez> willb, mattf, I'm glad to hear your perspective w.r.t.
Stacks. Problems like you describe are very aligned with the scope of our WG
16:18:30 <mattf> the one dep i've been harping on lately is jetty. the
latest from upstream doesn't support the java version that our app
upstream wants to use. so having the latest in fedora is a problem.
16:18:59 <willb> jetty seems to touch a staggering number of projects in
our SIG, too
16:19:54 <mattf> mmaslano, something that would have helped (and
probably will in the future) is a way to provide language ecosystems in
fedora in a way that aligns w/ how the language itself is used
16:20:27 <mattf> all the modern languages have their own dep & ver
management tooling
16:20:37 <mattf> and most of it doesn't align well w/ fedora
16:21:34 <mattf> mmaslano, as for SCL, they could very likely help.
however, they represent an add-on to fedora
16:22:04 <mattf> almost like rpm fusion, or all the extra repos from
early fedora version
16:22:09 <sochotni> so what was that about jetty?
16:22:15 <willb> in the scala case, Fedora would allow us to provide
scala 2.9 and 2.10 packages in the same release, but to really work with
scala, we'd need both of those resolvable via Ivy, and not just
"scalac29" and "scalac210" binaries
16:22:30 <mmaslano> mattf: yes, on last fesco meeting was decided, that
additional repositories are acceptable, but content has to be reviewed
anyway
16:23:53 <mattf> sochotni, rsquared is the best person to talk about the
jetty situation. the exec summary is the version of jetty in fedora does
not work w/ java 6 and the hadoop upstream isn't ready to abandon java
6. so we end up maintaining a patch to hadoop for jetty 9 that will live
purely in fedora for quite a while to come
16:25:02 <mattf> sochotni, i believe there was some chatter about compat
packages for jetty libs too. that might be a workaround for f21/22 or
so, but ultimately there's a mismatch in expectations between fedora and
languages like java / scala / js that should be resolved
16:25:26 <mattf> (i should note, there's been a lot of good work on
figuring it out for java)
16:25:29 <sochotni> mattf: we don't jave JDK 6 in Fedora 18+
16:26:08 <mattf> sochotni, i believe the compat lib discussion hinged on
fedora policy and the compat library working w/ java 7
16:26:26 <sochotni> mattf: compat lib of what package?
16:26:27 <mattf> of course that workaround might stop working if the
only jetty code doesn't work w/ say java 8 or java 9
16:26:58 <mattf> sochotni, we should chat w/ rsquared on the specifics
16:27:03 <tjanez> So, the question is, is WG willing to work towards
integrating upstream language packaging systems
16:27:31 <tjanez> This could complement the existing RPM-based packaging
16:28:17 <mmaslano> tjanez: good point
16:28:30 <tjanez> It would certainly benefit the needs of the Big Data SIG
16:28:43 <sochotni> this is probably too specific task
16:28:44 <tjanez> The Big Data SIG use case could also be put in the PRD
16:28:55 <sochotni> might be a good test case but that's probably it
16:29:03 <mattf> i'd argue that steps in that direction will benefit the
needs of groups that want to bring applications written in "new"
languages to fedora
16:29:52 <mattf> (where "new" == actually really old languages)
16:29:55 <tjanez> mmaslano, do you feel upstream packaging is in our
scope or not?
16:30:13 <sochotni> tjanez: that's not something you will solve in a WG
16:30:14 <mmaslano> tjanez: I thought we agreed it could be done
automatically
16:30:22 <sochotni> you need someone who will *actually* work on the code
16:30:24 <mmaslano> tjanez: at least for some languages
16:30:41 <willb> again with my specific case: right now, if you want to
use Scala for real work on Fedora, your option is basically to install a
bunch of binaries maintained by upstreams. It would be great if we were
able to better support "new" language ecosystems wholly in Fedora.
16:30:43 <sochotni> all you can agree is "yes we want to do that"
16:31:08 <mmaslano> #info Big Data specific case: right now, if you want
to use Scala for real work on Fedora, your option is basically to
install a bunch of binaries maintained by upstreams. It would be great
if we were able to better support "new" language ecosystems wholly in
Fedora.
16:31:26 <mattf> nice
16:31:31 <tjanez> sochotni: well, I hope our WG will start working on
things we put in the PRD
16:31:31 <tjanez> and by working I mean coding
16:31:51 <mmaslano> still someone has to write automation for "new"
language and maintain it
16:32:07 <mmaslano> also I don't think packages without review can get
into Fedora
16:32:12 <mmaslano> legal issues..
16:32:47 <hhorak> mmaslano: reviews could be done the first time and
every-time something big changes in the package, but simple rebase could
be done outomatically
16:33:07 <tjanez> sochotni: First I would like to see if we at least
agree that complementing RPM packaging with upstream packaging is a
viable way for the future
16:33:13 <mattf> that's an interesting point. there's always going to be
a human component to packaging. however, we could probably write down
that small list and try to automate the rest.
16:33:25 <mmaslano> tjanez: I agree
16:33:44 <tjanez> mmaslano: well, we would start with one language
16:33:52 <hhorak> so the packaging tool should be able to say "this
rebase is suspiciously serious, we need a manual review"
16:34:13 <tjanez> mmaslano: but the common thing with all languages
would be the concept of co-existance with RPM packages
16:34:28 <mmaslano> now I'm confused
16:34:39 <mmaslano> mattf: do you want to package upstream into rpm or not?
16:34:49 <sochotni> what I *could* imagine is some wrapper around
pip/rubygems or alternative packaging systems
16:35:11 <hhorak> mmaslano: I think the tool should produce rpms in the end
16:35:18 <tjanez> mmaslano: +1 good question
16:35:25 <sochotni> but policy of updates...my head starts to hurt just
thinking about it
16:35:37 <mattf> mmaslano, i want to package upstream into something
that fedora will happily include directly in its ecosystem
16:35:59 <mmaslano> mattf: I'd like to see something like that too
16:36:20 <mattf> in other words, the form (rpm, deb, npm, other) isn't
as important to me
16:36:41 <hhorak> sochotni: even now many people do big updates that
introduce new issues according to guidelines and only if someone notices
it it gets resolved..
16:36:48 <mmaslano> #proposal add automatic packaging of upstreams into
WG goals
16:36:59 <mattf> hhorak, too true!
16:37:47 <tjanez> mattf, well from the consumer (aka big data user)
point-of-view, the form is not important, from the distribution
point-of-view it is
16:38:14 <mattf> hhorak, there's little infrastructure that i see for CI
around fedora. you're a lib that has 12+ users, well when you update you
should maybe rebuild your deps to find breaks.
16:38:24 <mattf> hhorak, fedora has a very reactive model atm
16:38:26 <hhorak> what I can't imagine is including a really new package
without a review.. I mean at least initial review would have to be done
manually, but with something like fedora-review it shouldn't be too hard
16:38:36 <mattf> tjanez, that's fair
16:40:03 <mmaslano> #proposal add automatic packaging of upstreams into
WG goals. Initial review of packages will be neded.
16:40:03 <tjanez> mmaslano, I'm ok with that, I would just like to
clarify a bit more what the final form of that packaging would look like
16:40:03 <tjanez> would it be Fedora-approved subset of upstream
packaging repositories
16:40:03 <tjanez> and the users would use tools like pip
16:40:04 <tjanez> or would it be an rpm repository automatically
generated with *2rpm tools
16:40:05 <mmaslano> any votes?
16:40:07 <tjanez> and the users use dnf (distro tools)
16:40:18 <hhorak> mmaslano: +1
16:40:29 <mmaslano> tjanez: I would stay with rpm, we alredy know how it
works
16:40:33 <mmaslano> (most of the time)
16:41:01 <willb> tjanez, to some extent, the existing processes are
important for consumers as well as for the distro. For any reasonable
list of advantages we can list for using Fedora, most of them come from
being well-integrated with the Fedora ecosystem and from having packages
that follow Fedora processes.
16:42:25 <hhorak> tjanez: I don't think we should provide any bits
outside rpms, it would require to solve all the issues that rpm solves
today again and again for every language stack
16:42:36 <willb> hhorak, +1
16:43:07 <tjanez> Ok, you convinced me
16:43:22 <tjanez> I just wanted to put it out so we discuss it
16:43:23 <hhorak> tjanez: what I can imagine is creating something that
would work like pip, but would actually work with rpms in the
background.. (not familiar to pip, so maybe it is not easy)
16:44:01 <willb> IMHO RPM/rubygems integration and xmvn are good
examples of language-specific packaging systems working well in Fedora
16:44:15 <mmaslano> hhorak: why? we have dnf/yum already. it's not
obvious to me, why create another tool for installation
16:44:18 <tjanez> hhorak: +1
16:44:49 <tjanez> mmaslano: it would be just a conveniece wrapper for
dnf/yum
16:45:10 * pingou doesn't see the point of wrapping wrapper
16:45:18 <mmaslano> tjanez: I wouldn't say just in case of dnf
16:46:37 <mmaslano> it seems to me Fedora users need some way how
automatically generate packages from upstream. Implementation details
can be solved later
16:47:02 <tjanez> well, the use case I can see is to attract developers
with different backgrounds
16:47:03 <tjanez> they maybe very familiar with pip/rubygems/...
16:47:19 <tjanez> ok, fair enough
16:48:33 <mmaslano> tjanez: yeah, but which tool would you pick?
pip/rubygems? you would probably have to patch all these tools
16:49:12 <tjanez> mmaslano, I would change your proposal to something
like: automatic packaging of upstream language repositories into
rpm-based repositories. Initial review of distributed packages would
still be needed
16:49:17 <hhorak> mmaslano: I understand that as users just don't want
to use dnf, because the style of work is way different from their
language-specific tools.. that's why they would like to use what they
use in other distributions (language specific ways, pip for example)..
but command name doesn't matter, it's more about style of work, so if
dnf can be as easy to use as these language-specific tools, then we can
stay with pure dnf.. Maybe I didn't ca
16:50:14 <mmaslano> hhorak: we are missing end of sentence, not all irc
clients can display so long messages ;-)
16:50:18 <mmaslano> tjanez: ok +1
16:50:24 <tjanez> mmaslano: yes, you would have to patch all of them. Or
rather, replace them with commands that have the same CLI
16:51:02 <tjanez> mmaslano: but yea, this is an implementation detail
that can be added or not later
16:51:08 <mmaslano> tjanez: at this moment it seems to me as far away
future, because we don't even have the automatic packaging :)
16:51:10 <hhorak> mmaslano: sorry ;) my point was to try to understand
why people don't like dnf/rpm/yum and prefer language specific tools
16:51:32 <Subfusc> the advantage of distribution tools for language
specific purposes is not that they can install $random_language_pack but
that they work in isolated environments (like with python-virtualenv)
16:51:50 <Subfusc> atleast that is how i see it
16:52:00 <pingou> mmaslano: we do have a number of *spec tools :)
16:52:01 <mmaslano> Subfusc: I guess in near future everything will be
in container. So that's solved
16:52:40 <tjanez> #proposal Add to tasks/goals of our WG: Automatic
packaging of upstream language repositories into rpm-based repositories.
Initial review of distributed packages would still be needed
16:53:46 <tjanez> My proposal would actually just clarify the "The
automatic packaging" task in mmaslano's PRD draft
16:53:49 <mmaslano> tjanez: still +1
16:54:46 <hhorak> tjanez: +1
16:55:37 <tjanez> It would be great if we also add a short summary of
what mattf and willb said earlier
16:55:39 <hhorak> Subfusc: thanks for that point. After quick reading it
seems like virtualenv is kind of a python version of software
collections, or do I understood it wrong?
16:56:17 <tjanez> Maybe as a "problem case" the WG is solving with that
particular task
16:56:19 <mmaslano> tjanez: do you want to sum it up?
16:56:40 <tjanez> Yes, I can and then put it in the wiki
16:57:11 <willb> tjanez, if you want some more detail, I wrote up some
of the Scala-specific issues in August
(http://chapeau.freevariable.com/2013/08/making-fedora-a-better-place-for-...)
and have been posting updates to the wiki here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/bigdata/packaging/Scala
16:57:23 <tjanez> Maybe better if I do it after the meeting
16:57:42 <tjanez> willb, thanks, I will look at it
16:57:49 <willb> thanks
16:58:29 <mmaslano> #action tjanez will sum up Big Data SIG needs
16:58:40 <Subfusc> hhorak: I'm not that familiar with software
collections, but it works in complete isolation with every virtualenv
having its own libraries and it lives on $HOME so that non-admins can
administer it. Software collections does not seem to completely envelop
this concept
16:59:20 <Subfusc> the install in home folder is the primary feature
that makes virtualenv easy to use for developers
16:59:33 <tjanez> mmaslano: should "problem cases" be a new section or
just a sub-bullet under automated packaging task
16:59:41 * mmaslano will need to leave in few minutes
16:59:56 <mmaslano> tjanez: the whole task section is open for editing
17:00:04 <hhorak> Subfusc: right, user-specific installation is missing..
17:00:06 <mmaslano> I guess the rest is okay
17:00:22 <mmaslano> tjanez: I copied topic which were discussed in last
few weeks
17:00:36 <tjanez> Ok, are there any takers for writing up other tasks in
the PRD?
17:00:59 <hhorak> if the task list gets longer in the future, tasks
could be separated into two groups as discussed two weaks back, to
primary and secondary (less priority) tasks
17:01:18 <Subfusc> hhorak: its also easy to install and edit libraries
without affecting anything else (which a system wide installation could
not emulate)
17:01:20 <tjanez> We have to speed things up a bit
17:01:38 <tjanez> Jan 14th is coming very quickly
17:01:40 <mmaslano> tjanez: I'll try to specify some. But it should be
short definition up to 6 sentences
17:01:55 <mmaslano> tjanez: yeah, that's the reason why I've started
with prd without discussion
17:01:58 <tjanez> When will we have our next meeting?
17:02:06 <hhorak> tjanez: you mean what we discussed so far or some new
tasks?
17:02:24 <tjanez> hhorak: the things from our discussions
17:02:30 <mmaslano> tjanez: imho January 7
17:02:54 <mmaslano> not much time, let's add as many tasks as possible now
17:03:01 <mmaslano> and we can review it by email
17:03:04 <tjanez> I think we have to look through the IRC logs and
extract the things already said
17:03:41 <mmaslano> I tried to do it on my blog, but only from last 3
meetings
17:04:11 <tjanez> Ok, I'll look at your blog post
17:04:43 <mmaslano> for the record http://mmaslano.livejournal.com/
17:04:51 <tjanez> I'll certainly help, since I'll have more free time
around the holidays
17:05:11 <mmaslano> #action everyone will look at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Mmaslano/Draft:Env_and_Stack_PRD and
think/work on tasks.
17:05:32 <mmaslano> #info deadline for PRD is January 17th
17:05:44 <hhorak> mmaslano: ^date -d '2014-01-07' +"%V" says 02 so
it
should be at 13:00UTC
17:05:45 <mmaslano> or 14th?
17:05:47 <tjanez> I hope others will join to create a better PrD
17:06:02 <mmaslano> tjanez: hopefully
17:07:02 <tjanez> mmaslano: well it's actually Jan 13 (see:
https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1196)
17:07:10 <mmaslano> #undo
17:07:10 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Info object
at 0x11d6e7d0>
17:07:16 <mmaslano> #info deadline for PRD is January 14th
17:07:43 <mmaslano> #info next meeting will be on 13:00UTC January 7th
17:07:50 <mmaslano> tjanez: thanks
17:08:01 <mmaslano> if you don't have any other topics, I would like to
close the meeting
17:08:09 <mattf> mmaslano, thanks for having us
17:08:24 <tjanez> mmaslano, you still put in the wrong date?
17:08:44 <tjanez> or has it been changed from Jan 13 to Jan 14?
17:09:15 <willb> thanks all
17:09:42 <mmaslano> aaa
17:09:49 <mmaslano> #undo
17:09:49 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Info object
at 0xf892910>
17:09:55 <hhorak> thank you all and enjoy Chrismas!
17:10:02 <mmaslano> #undo
17:10:02 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Info object
at 0xf892dd0>
17:10:10 <mmaslano> #info deadline for PRD is January 13th
17:10:17 <mmaslano> #info next meeting will be on 13:00UTC January 7th
17:10:20 <tjanez> mmaslano: sorry for the trouble
17:10:35 <mmaslano> I hope meeting log will be nice :)
17:10:42 <mmaslano> let's go home
17:10:48 <mattf> ciao
17:10:49 <tjanez> Thank you for a good meeting
17:10:52 <mmaslano> #endmeeting
8:54 a.m.
============================================
#fedora-meeting: env and stacks (2014-01-07)
============================================
Meeting started by mmaslano at 13:00:41 UTC. The full logs are available
at
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2014-01-07/env_and_stacks...
.
Meeting summary
---------------
* init process (mmaslano, 13:01:15)
* PRD (mmaslano, 13:04:16)
* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Mmaslano/Draft:Env_and_Stack_PRD
(mmaslano, 13:04:20)
* ACTION: tomorrow will be finished first draft (mmaslano, 14:17:39)
Meeting ended at 14:17:43 UTC.
Action Items
------------
* tomorrow will be finished first draft
Action Items, by person
-----------------------
* **UNASSIGNED**
* tomorrow will be finished first draft
People Present (lines said)
---------------------------
* tjanez (42)
* juhp_ (37)
* mmaslano (28)
* samkottler (14)
* hhorak (10)
* bkabrda (6)
* pkovar (5)
* pingou (4)
* zodbot (4)
* pkovar1 (2)
* sochotni (2)
* hhorak1 (1)
* abadger1999 (0)
* juhp (0)
* handsome_pirate (0)
13:00:41 <mmaslano> #startmeeting env and stacks (2014-01-07)
13:00:41 <zodbot> Meeting started Tue Jan 7 13:00:41 2014 UTC. The
chair is mmaslano. Information about MeetBot at
http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
13:00:41 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea
#link #topic.
13:00:51 <mmaslano> #meetingname env and stacks
13:00:51 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'env_and_stacks'
13:01:07 <mmaslano> #chair abadger1999 pkovar tjanez samkottler bkabrda
handsome_pirate hhorak juhp
13:01:07 <zodbot> Current chairs: abadger1999 bkabrda handsome_pirate
hhorak juhp mmaslano pkovar samkottler tjanez
13:01:15 <mmaslano> #topic init process
13:01:18 * samkottler is here
13:01:28 <juhp_> hi
13:01:31 <tjanez> Hi
13:02:19 <bkabrda> hi
13:02:22 <pkovar> hi there
13:02:53 <mmaslano> hi guys
13:02:57 <hhorak1> Hi
13:04:16 <mmaslano> #topic PRD
13:04:20 <mmaslano> #info
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Mmaslano/Draft:Env_and_Stack_PRD
13:06:05 <mmaslano> did you have time to read it?
13:06:30 <samkottler> I've gone through it a bit, I think one big gap is
that we don't have user stories
13:06:44 <mmaslano> feel free to define them
13:07:40 <tjanez> samkottler: I was thinking about it since I had a
homework last to time to summarize the Big Data SIG use case
13:08:42 <tjanez> Should we have an additional section in the PRD for
Use cases?
13:08:52 <tjanez> Or should we emulate Personas?
13:09:58 <juhp_> probably use cases would be ok?
13:11:31 <hhorak> I guess use cases could be part of the particular
taks' definition, I don't think we have some general group use cases, do we?
13:12:06 <pkovar> hhorak, +1
13:13:49 <tjanez> hhorak, your proposal is probably ok for simpler use
cases, but a more complex description of, for example, what the Big Data
SIG wishes from our WG should be described separately
13:15:04 <bkabrda> tjanez: but if the Big Data SIG wants that, they
should provide use cases and we should think about how we solve them, right?
13:16:11 <mmaslano> tjanez: if I remember correctly, they wanted scl
13:16:21 <tjanez> bkabrda, agreed. That's why I was in favor of having a
separate section in the PRD.
13:17:30 <tjanez> mmaslano, they want a way to provide language
ecosystems in fedora that aligns w/ how the language itself is used
13:17:37 <juhp_> I think the PRD tasks list looks pretty good - though
maybe a bit ambitious of one year :)
13:17:47 <juhp_> of = for
13:18:11 <tjanez> SCLs are a part of the solution
13:18:11 <hhorak> tjanez: if these use cases are covered by more tasks,
then yes. But I don't think we have such general use cases right now.
13:18:26 <mmaslano> tjanez: I'm not against their usecase, but I guess
we don't have time to create so many Personnas as Server did
13:18:48 <tjanez> Ok, I agree it would look a bit odd to only have one
use case
13:19:12 <mmaslano> tjanez: feel free to add it. I don't think we have
people for doing more
13:19:13 <tjanez> in that case it would be better to put it as an
example under one task
13:20:11 <mmaslano> samkottler: do you have more usecases on your mind?
13:20:24 <mmaslano> samkottler: um user stories?
13:20:28 <samkottler> I think the main ones from my perspective are:
13:20:37 <samkottler> 1) the big data stuff they've asked for
13:20:50 <samkottler> 2) the 'developer who deploys code' use case
13:21:12 <samkottler> 3) people who want to redistribute applications
using SCL
13:21:32 <samkottler> there are a lot more, but those are the main
overview ones
13:24:05 <mmaslano> samkottler: can you add it there?
13:24:20 <tjanez> I agree that the PRD task lisk is pretty big. Do we
want to eliminate the tasks that we deem not to important / out-of-scope
or do we want to put "everything we came up with" in the PRD?
13:24:21 <samkottler> mmaslano: yeah, I'll write up my thoughts on it
after the meeting
13:24:43 <samkottler> tjanez: I think we can remove very specific stuff
and just make it high level
13:25:16 <tjanez> samkottler, I have something for the big data stuff
user story in mind. Want me to take it?
13:25:28 <samkottler> tjanez: sounds good
13:25:37 <samkottler> or we can talk after and figure out where things
overlap and go from there
13:25:38 <juhp_> samkottler, I agree good to have user stories to
motivate the task list
13:26:25 <tjanez> samkottler, ok
13:26:41 <hhorak> tjanez: Some kind of highlighting was also on my mind
-- at least labeling some tasks as important and consider the rest as
nice to have
13:26:49 <juhp_> there might be some user stories in the Workstation PRD
too - eg developers wanting latest stacks etc
13:27:02 <samkottler> well the PRD shouldn't really be a task list, it
should be a document showing our purpose
13:27:10 <samkottler> tasks can be defined completely outside of that
13:27:15 <juhp_> true
13:27:52 <tjanez> hhorak, yes that would be good. We don't want to
promise too much and then underdeliver
13:28:54 <hhorak> samkottler: I agree, but what we have that is actually
what I'd expect, just call it differently than "tasks", maybe
"goals"?
13:29:09 <samkottler> hhorak: +1 to goals
13:29:15 <juhp_> I will probably re-read the draft Workstation PRD and
can try to pick out any potential user stories for this WG at the same time
13:29:16 <tjanez> samkottler, I agree with you that our PRD should also
include a paragraph about the general purpose of our WG
13:30:06 <juhp_> yeah Goals sounds better probably
13:30:19 <tjanez> +1 for goals
13:30:51 <juhp_> we can break out more detail tasks etc latter based on
the Goals list :)
13:32:23 <tjanez> Regarding the purpose/aim of our WG, I have two proposals:
13:32:29 <tjanez> Our WG incubates ideas, some will be later abandoned,
some will be re-iterated and formalized and then put into Fedora
*proper* (we also need to define Fedora *proper*)
13:32:35 <tjanez> 2) We are working on enabling new things (including
new ways to get Fedora, new things that are Fedora)
13:32:45 <tjanez> Both are from our previous IRC meetings
13:36:36 <juhp_> I missed the last meetings last month so may be missing
some context, but personally I feel more excited and motivated by (2)
13:37:45 <hhorak> tjanez: I understand "proper" as "stable"
13:39:37 <juhp_> do we have a deadline for the current scoping/planning
phase or for the "PRD" at least?
13:40:02 <hhorak> juhp_ I guess the deadline is on Monday
13:40:20 <juhp_> ok right
13:40:28 <tjanez> hhorak, "stable" is probably also too vague. I was
thinking more in terms of "Officially released and endorsed (supported?)
by the Fedora Project."
13:40:32 <pkovar> yep, it should be jan 13
13:41:20 <juhp_> official Fedora
13:42:10 <hhorak> tjanez: juhp_: that seems fine to me
13:42:31 <juhp_> so we probably need a draft ready within the next
couple of days for final review?
13:43:06 <mmaslano> yes
13:44:23 <tjanez> Should we leave the task list as it is and work on
polishing the PRD or do we want to shorten it, pick focus?
13:45:56 <mmaslano> tjanez: mostly there are listed tasks, which have
dedicated developer
13:45:57 <bkabrda> tjanez: I'm for shortening. let's leave out the
things that are marked as "out of scope" (CI, scl-utils v2)
13:47:48 <hhorak> bkabrda: I'd rather leave it there, maybe move it to
special category "out of scope", since otherwise somebody can come up
with the same topic in a year again and again, while not knowing that it
is out of scope..
13:48:22 <pkovar> yes, that makes sense
13:48:44 <bkabrda> hhorak: sounds good
13:48:51 <pkovar> i think a special section at the bottom can't hurt
13:49:42 <juhp_> so should we add a Goals section?
13:50:18 <tjanez> juhp_, I though we want to rename the Tasks section to
Goals
13:51:50 <juhp_> yes
13:51:57 <juhp_> just checking :)
13:52:36 <tjanez> ok :)
13:52:57 <mmaslano> so, when do you plan to finish it?
13:53:12 <mmaslano> because we should approve it before saying it's okay
13:53:19 <juhp_> right
13:54:04 <juhp_> we might need a couple of rounds of drafts - time is
certainly short
13:55:14 <hhorak> If we want to label some tasks/goals as our priority,
I'd propose those that have some requirement already: taskotron, scls,
copr, documentation for scl
13:55:38 <juhp_> +1
13:56:10 <mmaslano> +1
13:56:14 <tjanez> hhorak, +1
13:56:48 <juhp_> I like some of the Automation stuff too
13:57:49 <juhp_> but I agree focusing is good
13:58:06 <tjanez> If pingou plans on working on "Automated package
review tools", we could also mark that as a pripority
13:58:18 <juhp_> ah yeah
14:00:35 <tjanez> Some parts of the Tasks/Goals list seem to terse to me
(e.g. Build systems, SCL). Does anyone share that opinion?
14:01:20 <juhp_> so can we have a final draft ready by Thursday so we
can all vote/approve it by Friday hopefully?
14:01:26 <juhp_> tjanez, I tend to agree
14:02:00 <juhp_> probably good to reword some of it after changing Tasks
to Goals
14:02:15 <tjanez> juhp_, +1 for Thursday
14:03:22 <juhp_> or is Thu too late? well maybe we need a initial draft
for review tomorrow?
14:03:58 <tjanez> juhp_, yes, we need to polish the wording and make it
understandable for someone not coming from our WG (Fedora even).
14:03:58 <mmaslano> I'm fine with Thursday, but I already wrote what I want
14:04:44 <juhp_> mmaslano, okay :)
14:06:03 <juhp_> mmaslano, it is ok for us to edit that page right? :)
14:06:36 <mmaslano> right
14:06:47 <tjanez> I don't know enough about the details of the Build
systems, SCLs and CI, but I would ask someone knowledgeable to expand
and clarify those parts
14:07:20 <juhp_> probably good if people can post to the mailing list
after making larger changes to it anyway - I will try to keep an eye on
the page and also help with editing
14:07:38 <juhp_> tjanez, +1
14:07:53 <tjanez> CI is probably not critical, since it will be put in
the Out-of-scope section, right
14:08:03 <pkovar1> (i can also help with editing)
14:08:04 <pingou> tjanez: my idea was about moving the packge review off
bugzilla and integrate it with fedora-review, so "tools" might be a
little excessive :)
14:08:43 <tjanez> pingou, thanks for dropping in :)
14:08:47 <pingou> sure thing
14:08:55 <mmaslano> pingou: sounds lovely
14:09:18 <pingou> mmaslano: gotta say, I've had the idea for a little
while :]
14:09:19 <tjanez> well, feel free to edit that part of the PRD. I wrote
it based on the email by sochotni
14:10:14 <tjanez> I put a general term "Automated package review tools"
in the PRD, since PRDs are suppose to be general
14:10:35 <juhp_> and for things we think should be
changed/updated/expanded maybe good to post specific
suggestions/question to the ml to get attention
14:10:47 <pingou> tjanez: well that part seems like a nice TODO list for
the tool :D
14:11:22 <tjanez> pingou: yes, I agree :)
14:12:23 <tjanez> juhp_: yes, it's probably best to highlight the
"controversial" parts and discuss them on the ML
14:13:03 <mmaslano> could someone finish meeting instead of me? I have
to go to another meeting
14:13:49 <tjanez> mmaslano, I can finish it, just tell me where to find
a cheat-sheet for the commands
14:13:50 <juhp_> tjanez, right or like you said things one is unsure about
14:14:25 * bkabrda needs to go, too
14:14:51 <sochotni> tjanez: https://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot
14:15:13 <sochotni> at least I think so :-0
14:15:25 <tjanez> sochotni, thanks
14:16:11 <tjanez> Well, do we agree that the first draft should be ready
tomorrow?
14:16:16 <mmaslano> +1
14:16:20 <tjanez> And the final draft on Thursday
14:16:25 <juhp_> +1
14:16:31 <hhorak> +1
14:16:32 <juhp_> sounds good to me
14:16:35 <bkabrda> +1
14:16:47 <mmaslano> or do you want to close meeting right now?
14:16:55 <tjanez> +1
14:17:00 <tjanez> mmaslano, you can close
14:17:04 <juhp_> +1
14:17:13 <pkovar1> +1
14:17:39 <mmaslano> #action tomorrow will be finished first draft
14:17:43 <mmaslano> #endmeeting
9:34 a.m.
New subject: Meeting minutes Env-and-Stacks WG meeting (2014-01-07)
This should be obviously yesterday meeting minutes.
On 01/07/2014 03:54 PM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
============================================
#fedora-meeting: env and stacks (2014-01-07)
============================================
Meeting started by mmaslano at 13:00:41 UTC. The full logs are available
at
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2014-01-07/env_and_stacks...
.
Meeting summary
---------------
* init process (mmaslano, 13:01:15)
* PRD (mmaslano, 13:04:16)
* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Mmaslano/Draft:Env_and_Stack_PRD
(mmaslano, 13:04:20)
* ACTION: tomorrow will be finished first draft (mmaslano, 14:17:39)
Meeting ended at 14:17:43 UTC.
Action Items
------------
* tomorrow will be finished first draft
Action Items, by person
-----------------------
* **UNASSIGNED**
* tomorrow will be finished first draft
People Present (lines said)
---------------------------
* tjanez (42)
* juhp_ (37)
* mmaslano (28)
* samkottler (14)
* hhorak (10)
* bkabrda (6)
* pkovar (5)
* pingou (4)
* zodbot (4)
* pkovar1 (2)
* sochotni (2)
* hhorak1 (1)
* abadger1999 (0)
* juhp (0)
* handsome_pirate (0)
13:00:41 <mmaslano> #startmeeting env and stacks (2014-01-07)
13:00:41 <zodbot> Meeting started Tue Jan 7 13:00:41 2014 UTC. The
chair is mmaslano. Information about MeetBot at
http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
13:00:41 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea
#link #topic.
13:00:51 <mmaslano> #meetingname env and stacks
13:00:51 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'env_and_stacks'
13:01:07 <mmaslano> #chair abadger1999 pkovar tjanez samkottler bkabrda
handsome_pirate hhorak juhp
13:01:07 <zodbot> Current chairs: abadger1999 bkabrda handsome_pirate
hhorak juhp mmaslano pkovar samkottler tjanez
13:01:15 <mmaslano> #topic init process
13:01:18 * samkottler is here
13:01:28 <juhp_> hi
13:01:31 <tjanez> Hi
13:02:19 <bkabrda> hi
13:02:22 <pkovar> hi there
13:02:53 <mmaslano> hi guys
13:02:57 <hhorak1> Hi
13:04:16 <mmaslano> #topic PRD
13:04:20 <mmaslano> #info
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Mmaslano/Draft:Env_and_Stack_PRD
13:06:05 <mmaslano> did you have time to read it?
13:06:30 <samkottler> I've gone through it a bit, I think one big gap is
that we don't have user stories
13:06:44 <mmaslano> feel free to define them
13:07:40 <tjanez> samkottler: I was thinking about it since I had a
homework last to time to summarize the Big Data SIG use case
13:08:42 <tjanez> Should we have an additional section in the PRD for
Use cases?
13:08:52 <tjanez> Or should we emulate Personas?
13:09:58 <juhp_> probably use cases would be ok?
13:11:31 <hhorak> I guess use cases could be part of the particular
taks' definition, I don't think we have some general group use cases, do
we?
13:12:06 <pkovar> hhorak, +1
13:13:49 <tjanez> hhorak, your proposal is probably ok for simpler use
cases, but a more complex description of, for example, what the Big Data
SIG wishes from our WG should be described separately
13:15:04 <bkabrda> tjanez: but if the Big Data SIG wants that, they
should provide use cases and we should think about how we solve them,
right?
13:16:11 <mmaslano> tjanez: if I remember correctly, they wanted scl
13:16:21 <tjanez> bkabrda, agreed. That's why I was in favor of having a
separate section in the PRD.
13:17:30 <tjanez> mmaslano, they want a way to provide language
ecosystems in fedora that aligns w/ how the language itself is used
13:17:37 <juhp_> I think the PRD tasks list looks pretty good - though
maybe a bit ambitious of one year :)
13:17:47 <juhp_> of = for
13:18:11 <tjanez> SCLs are a part of the solution
13:18:11 <hhorak> tjanez: if these use cases are covered by more tasks,
then yes. But I don't think we have such general use cases right now.
13:18:26 <mmaslano> tjanez: I'm not against their usecase, but I guess
we don't have time to create so many Personnas as Server did
13:18:48 <tjanez> Ok, I agree it would look a bit odd to only have one
use case
13:19:12 <mmaslano> tjanez: feel free to add it. I don't think we have
people for doing more
13:19:13 <tjanez> in that case it would be better to put it as an
example under one task
13:20:11 <mmaslano> samkottler: do you have more usecases on your mind?
13:20:24 <mmaslano> samkottler: um user stories?
13:20:28 <samkottler> I think the main ones from my perspective are:
13:20:37 <samkottler> 1) the big data stuff they've asked for
13:20:50 <samkottler> 2) the 'developer who deploys code' use case
13:21:12 <samkottler> 3) people who want to redistribute applications
using SCL
13:21:32 <samkottler> there are a lot more, but those are the main
overview ones
13:24:05 <mmaslano> samkottler: can you add it there?
13:24:20 <tjanez> I agree that the PRD task lisk is pretty big. Do we
want to eliminate the tasks that we deem not to important / out-of-scope
or do we want to put "everything we came up with" in the PRD?
13:24:21 <samkottler> mmaslano: yeah, I'll write up my thoughts on it
after the meeting
13:24:43 <samkottler> tjanez: I think we can remove very specific stuff
and just make it high level
13:25:16 <tjanez> samkottler, I have something for the big data stuff
user story in mind. Want me to take it?
13:25:28 <samkottler> tjanez: sounds good
13:25:37 <samkottler> or we can talk after and figure out where things
overlap and go from there
13:25:38 <juhp_> samkottler, I agree good to have user stories to
motivate the task list
13:26:25 <tjanez> samkottler, ok
13:26:41 <hhorak> tjanez: Some kind of highlighting was also on my mind
-- at least labeling some tasks as important and consider the rest as
nice to have
13:26:49 <juhp_> there might be some user stories in the Workstation PRD
too - eg developers wanting latest stacks etc
13:27:02 <samkottler> well the PRD shouldn't really be a task list, it
should be a document showing our purpose
13:27:10 <samkottler> tasks can be defined completely outside of that
13:27:15 <juhp_> true
13:27:52 <tjanez> hhorak, yes that would be good. We don't want to
promise too much and then underdeliver
13:28:54 <hhorak> samkottler: I agree, but what we have that is actually
what I'd expect, just call it differently than "tasks", maybe
"goals"?
13:29:09 <samkottler> hhorak: +1 to goals
13:29:15 <juhp_> I will probably re-read the draft Workstation PRD and
can try to pick out any potential user stories for this WG at the same time
13:29:16 <tjanez> samkottler, I agree with you that our PRD should also
include a paragraph about the general purpose of our WG
13:30:06 <juhp_> yeah Goals sounds better probably
13:30:19 <tjanez> +1 for goals
13:30:51 <juhp_> we can break out more detail tasks etc latter based on
the Goals list :)
13:32:23 <tjanez> Regarding the purpose/aim of our WG, I have two
proposals:
13:32:29 <tjanez> Our WG incubates ideas, some will be later abandoned,
some will be re-iterated and formalized and then put into Fedora
*proper* (we also need to define Fedora *proper*)
13:32:35 <tjanez> 2) We are working on enabling new things (including
new ways to get Fedora, new things that are Fedora)
13:32:45 <tjanez> Both are from our previous IRC meetings
13:36:36 <juhp_> I missed the last meetings last month so may be missing
some context, but personally I feel more excited and motivated by (2)
13:37:45 <hhorak> tjanez: I understand "proper" as "stable"
13:39:37 <juhp_> do we have a deadline for the current scoping/planning
phase or for the "PRD" at least?
13:40:02 <hhorak> juhp_ I guess the deadline is on Monday
13:40:20 <juhp_> ok right
13:40:28 <tjanez> hhorak, "stable" is probably also too vague. I was
thinking more in terms of "Officially released and endorsed (supported?)
by the Fedora Project."
13:40:32 <pkovar> yep, it should be jan 13
13:41:20 <juhp_> official Fedora
13:42:10 <hhorak> tjanez: juhp_: that seems fine to me
13:42:31 <juhp_> so we probably need a draft ready within the next
couple of days for final review?
13:43:06 <mmaslano> yes
13:44:23 <tjanez> Should we leave the task list as it is and work on
polishing the PRD or do we want to shorten it, pick focus?
13:45:56 <mmaslano> tjanez: mostly there are listed tasks, which have
dedicated developer
13:45:57 <bkabrda> tjanez: I'm for shortening. let's leave out the
things that are marked as "out of scope" (CI, scl-utils v2)
13:47:48 <hhorak> bkabrda: I'd rather leave it there, maybe move it to
special category "out of scope", since otherwise somebody can come up
with the same topic in a year again and again, while not knowing that it
is out of scope..
13:48:22 <pkovar> yes, that makes sense
13:48:44 <bkabrda> hhorak: sounds good
13:48:51 <pkovar> i think a special section at the bottom can't hurt
13:49:42 <juhp_> so should we add a Goals section?
13:50:18 <tjanez> juhp_, I though we want to rename the Tasks section to
Goals
13:51:50 <juhp_> yes
13:51:57 <juhp_> just checking :)
13:52:36 <tjanez> ok :)
13:52:57 <mmaslano> so, when do you plan to finish it?
13:53:12 <mmaslano> because we should approve it before saying it's okay
13:53:19 <juhp_> right
13:54:04 <juhp_> we might need a couple of rounds of drafts - time is
certainly short
13:55:14 <hhorak> If we want to label some tasks/goals as our priority,
I'd propose those that have some requirement already: taskotron, scls,
copr, documentation for scl
13:55:38 <juhp_> +1
13:56:10 <mmaslano> +1
13:56:14 <tjanez> hhorak, +1
13:56:48 <juhp_> I like some of the Automation stuff too
13:57:49 <juhp_> but I agree focusing is good
13:58:06 <tjanez> If pingou plans on working on "Automated package
review tools", we could also mark that as a pripority
13:58:18 <juhp_> ah yeah
14:00:35 <tjanez> Some parts of the Tasks/Goals list seem to terse to me
(e.g. Build systems, SCL). Does anyone share that opinion?
14:01:20 <juhp_> so can we have a final draft ready by Thursday so we
can all vote/approve it by Friday hopefully?
14:01:26 <juhp_> tjanez, I tend to agree
14:02:00 <juhp_> probably good to reword some of it after changing Tasks
to Goals
14:02:15 <tjanez> juhp_, +1 for Thursday
14:03:22 <juhp_> or is Thu too late? well maybe we need a initial draft
for review tomorrow?
14:03:58 <tjanez> juhp_, yes, we need to polish the wording and make it
understandable for someone not coming from our WG (Fedora even).
14:03:58 <mmaslano> I'm fine with Thursday, but I already wrote what I want
14:04:44 <juhp_> mmaslano, okay :)
14:06:03 <juhp_> mmaslano, it is ok for us to edit that page right? :)
14:06:36 <mmaslano> right
14:06:47 <tjanez> I don't know enough about the details of the Build
systems, SCLs and CI, but I would ask someone knowledgeable to expand
and clarify those parts
14:07:20 <juhp_> probably good if people can post to the mailing list
after making larger changes to it anyway - I will try to keep an eye on
the page and also help with editing
14:07:38 <juhp_> tjanez, +1
14:07:53 <tjanez> CI is probably not critical, since it will be put in
the Out-of-scope section, right
14:08:03 <pkovar1> (i can also help with editing)
14:08:04 <pingou> tjanez: my idea was about moving the packge review off
bugzilla and integrate it with fedora-review, so "tools" might be a
little excessive :)
14:08:43 <tjanez> pingou, thanks for dropping in :)
14:08:47 <pingou> sure thing
14:08:55 <mmaslano> pingou: sounds lovely
14:09:18 <pingou> mmaslano: gotta say, I've had the idea for a little
while :]
14:09:19 <tjanez> well, feel free to edit that part of the PRD. I wrote
it based on the email by sochotni
14:10:14 <tjanez> I put a general term "Automated package review tools"
in the PRD, since PRDs are suppose to be general
14:10:35 <juhp_> and for things we think should be
changed/updated/expanded maybe good to post specific
suggestions/question to the ml to get attention
14:10:47 <pingou> tjanez: well that part seems like a nice TODO list for
the tool :D
14:11:22 <tjanez> pingou: yes, I agree :)
14:12:23 <tjanez> juhp_: yes, it's probably best to highlight the
"controversial" parts and discuss them on the ML
14:13:03 <mmaslano> could someone finish meeting instead of me? I have
to go to another meeting
14:13:49 <tjanez> mmaslano, I can finish it, just tell me where to find
a cheat-sheet for the commands
14:13:50 <juhp_> tjanez, right or like you said things one is unsure about
14:14:25 * bkabrda needs to go, too
14:14:51 <sochotni> tjanez: https://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot
14:15:13 <sochotni> at least I think so :-0
14:15:25 <tjanez> sochotni, thanks
14:16:11 <tjanez> Well, do we agree that the first draft should be ready
tomorrow?
14:16:16 <mmaslano> +1
14:16:20 <tjanez> And the final draft on Thursday
14:16:25 <juhp_> +1
14:16:31 <hhorak> +1
14:16:32 <juhp_> sounds good to me
14:16:35 <bkabrda> +1
14:16:47 <mmaslano> or do you want to close meeting right now?
14:16:55 <tjanez> +1
14:17:00 <tjanez> mmaslano, you can close
14:17:04 <juhp_> +1
14:17:13 <pkovar1> +1
14:17:39 <mmaslano> #action tomorrow will be finished first draft
14:17:43 <mmaslano> #endmeeting
3765
days inactive
3788
days old
env-and-stacks@lists.fedoraproject.org
5 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Marcela Mašláňová -
Sam Kottler -
Toshio Kuratomi