12:05 p.m.
16:30 < mmcgrath> #startmeeting
16:30 < zodbot> Meeting started Tue Jul 21 16:30:32 2009 UTC. The chair is
mmcgrath. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:30 < zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
16:30 < mmcgrath> abadger1999: ping
16:30 < mmcgrath> rishi: ping
16:30 < mmcgrath> err
16:30 < mmcgrath> ricky: ping
16:30 < mmcgrath> rishi: sorry
16:30 < abadger1999> yep.
16:30 < mmcgrath> lmacken: ping
16:30 < ricky> pong
16:30 < mmcgrath> spot: ping
16:30 < mmcgrath> J5: ping
16:30 -!- tc141516 [i=blewis@fedora/tc1415] has joined #fedora-meeting
16:31 < J5> pong
16:31 -!- Viking-Ice [n=johannbg(a)valhalla.rhi.hi.is] has quit "Ex-Chat"
16:31 -!- nixdude [n=jhp(a)pool-70-109-10-41.atl.dsl-w.verizon.net] has joined
#fedora-meeting
16:31 -!- Viking-Ice [n=johannbg(a)valhalla.rhi.hi.is] has joined #fedora-meeting
16:31 * spot is here
16:31 -!- drago01 [n=linux(a)chello062178124130.3.13.univie.teleweb.at] has joined
#fedora-meeting
16:31 * nixdude 1s too
16:32 < mmcgrath> I've not seen lmacken today so I'll assume he's not
able to make it.
16:32 < mmcgrath> So this meeting's just a quick round up of what happened
during the fedora community deployment, trying to shake out some communication issues, and
hopefully clear up any misunderstandings.
16:32 < mmcgrath> or missed emails or notifications or anything
16:32 < mmcgrath> We have a hard stop in 30 minutes when the packaging committee
meets and I hope it won't go anywhere near that long.
16:33 < mmcgrath> There's two main points of contention that I know of
16:33 < mmcgrath> 1) deployment times/expectations and 2) is the very late in the
game license change.
16:33 < mmcgrath> anyone have anything they'd like to add to that?
16:33 < abadger1999> General communication is an issue but could be talked about
some other time.
16:33 < mmcgrath> K, so I'll knock 1) out because I think it's more straight
forward then 2)
16:33 < mmcgrath> yeah
16:34 < mmcgrath> So around the F10 launch, just a day or so before the launch J5
came to me asking for fedora community to be deployed.
16:34 < smooge> ok here I am
16:34 < ricky> s/10/11 :-)
16:34 < mmcgrath> We didn't know much about it at that time
16:34 < mmcgrath> ricky: this was F10
16:34 < ricky> Oh, wow, my mistake :-)
16:34 -!- neverho0d [n=psv(a)62.68.142.214] has quit Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)
16:34 < mmcgrath> it was in our final freeze and I made it known that it was just
not possible to deploy it at that time.
16:34 < mmcgrath> that final 2 week freeze is critical
16:35 < mmcgrath> So flash forward to F11.
16:35 < mmcgrath> We had a few minor issues when deploying to test,
16:35 < mmcgrath> we got it ready in staging.
16:35 < mmcgrath> but at no point in time did I have a date for when this was to go
live.
16:35 < mmcgrath> Now, on the F11 release date, lmacken told me that it was to go
live that day and that spot said so.
16:35 < mmcgrath> This put me in a horribly ackward position.
16:36 < mmcgrath> spot is very much one of us, but he's also the boss (both my
manager and the Fedora Project Engineering lead)
16:36 < spot> So, we definitely had a communication breakdown here.
16:36 -!- stickster is now known as stickster_food
16:36 < spot> In our Fedora Community meetings, I repeatedly asked luke to make sure
you knew about our schedule
16:37 < spot> I'm not sure where it fell apart, but we definitely can do
better.
16:37 < mmcgrath> So if it was just a communications breakdown (that happens) then
there's not much else to discuss on it. We'll just all be more careful next
time.
16:37 < mmcgrath> There were also some announcements that went out about it being
live before it was actually live
16:37 < spot> Yeah, we had every intent of giving you advance notice.
16:37 -!- shepherd [n=shepherd@unaffiliated/shepherd] has quit Read error: 60 (Operation
timed out)
16:37 < mmcgrath> but I don't think those were public
16:38 -!- sm|test-1ox [n=morpheus(a)209.132.186.254] has joined #fedora-meeting
16:38 < spot> mmcgrath: yeah, that was because it was mentioned in the early F11
interviews
16:38 -!- runa_b [n=runab(a)209.132.186.254] has joined #fedora-meeting
16:38 < mmcgrath> <nod>
16:38 < spot> before the instance was live
16:38 < J5> It partly has to do with not being clear on what checkmarks need to be
hit to get things deployed. What do you do to get it into staging and then what was
needed after things were in staging to say ok it is good to go
16:38 -!- paragn_ [n=paragn(a)209.132.186.254] has joined #fedora-meeting
16:38 -!- shepherd [n=shepherd@unaffiliated/shepherd] has joined #fedora-meeting
16:39 < mmcgrath> so one note I think I'd like to make more clear (not related
to fedora community directly) is that maybe we should have a more clear feature process
similar to the OS.
16:39 < mmcgrath> our livecycle is very tied to the Fedora releases.
16:39 < J5> agreed
16:39 < abadger1999> J5: Partly but not all -- we would not make a new app go-live
date coincide with the release date no matter what.
16:39 < mmcgrath> and I think we're starting to get into a little groove where
stuff that gets deployed is related to the Fedora release (start.fedoraproject.org,
mirrorlist, etc) all could directly impact users.
16:39 < abadger1999> We could announce it was live on that date but it would have
already been deployed on the production instance long before that date.... just the
announcement would coincide.
16:40 -!- runab__ [n=runab(a)209.132.188.254] has joined #fedora-meeting
16:40 < spot> abadger1999: sure. that makes sense.
16:40 -!- paragn__ [n=paragn(a)209.132.188.254] has joined #fedora-meeting
16:40 -!- sm|test-box [n=morpheus@fedora/sankarshan] has quit Read error: 104 (Connection
reset by peer)
16:40 < mmcgrath> Ok, so does anyone have anything else on the deployment thing? It
seems we all agree communication could be better and I don't think anyone is against a
better documented Fedora-Infrastructure -> Fedora (OS) lifecycle
16:41 < mmcgrath> Ok,
16:41 -!- azneita [n=azneita(a)121.97.142.237] has quit Remote closed the connection
16:41 < mmcgrath> the next bit is the licensing.
16:41 < mmcgrath> which has come under more light over the last couple of meetings.
16:41 -!- paragn [n=paragn@fedora/paragn] has quit Read error: 60 (Operation timed out)
16:41 < mmcgrath> in particular things like hot patching concern me as an operations
guy.
16:42 < mmcgrath> I'm still learning how the agpl will affect us
16:42 -!- giallu [n=giallu@fedora/giallu] has quit Read error: 60 (Operation timed out)
16:42 < mmcgrath> So what happened there? Is it too late to go back and release it
under a GPL license?
16:42 < spot> well, we really want it under the AGPL
16:43 < spot> the reason we didn't use the GPL is because the GPL is not a good
fit for web apps
16:43 -!- runa_b [n=runab(a)209.132.186.254] has quit Read error: 60 (Operation timed out)
16:43 -!- sm|test-box [n=morpheus(a)209.132.188.254] has joined #fedora-meeting
16:43 < spot> we wanted to encourage people to use the FC/moksha code, but we also
want to get back improvements
16:43 < mmcgrath> who's "we", because it's not the infrastructure
team. AGPL means a lot more process, and higher barriers to running this app then
before.
16:43 < spot> under the GPL, someone (*cough*google*cough*canonical*cough*) could
take moksha and FC, make a ton of changes, and run it
16:44 < spot> without any requirement that they share their fixes, or changes, or
anything
16:44 < mmcgrath> and that's a problem for who?
16:44 < mmcgrath> it's just not something we wanted to allow them to do?
16:44 < abadger1999> spot: Did you get the email I sent you: I believe Subject:
Licensing Part II ?
16:44 < spot> we want to be able to get those fixes
16:44 < spot> and encourage open development
16:44 < mmcgrath> spot: I have to be honest, the license in mokesha will probably
prevent me from ever using it in any of my projects.
16:44 < abadger1999> spot: we == moksha & Fedora Community.
16:44 < spot> mmcgrath: why exactly?
16:45 < mmcgrath> it's just too much of a pain to comply with. especially from
an operations point of view.
16:45 < spot> mmcgrath: really? a url to fixes is too much of a pain?
16:45 < mmcgrath> I can't just go in and make a change.
16:45 < jwb> mmcgrath, maybe if you state your concerns first, it might help
16:45 < mmcgrath> spot: a week ago mirrormanger broke and I had a pot on the stove.
16:45 < abadger1999> jwb: The concerns were in the Licensing Part II email.
16:45 < mmcgrath> It took a couple of seconds to fix.
16:45 < jwb> abadger1999, ok
16:45 < spot> mmcgrath: to comply with the AGPL, you just need to have a link to the
source that is running.
16:46 < mmcgrath> that couple of seconds, takes much longer when I have other stuff
to do with linking to this or that and publishing, etc.
16:46 < spot> that could be a link to the base source control and a link to the
hotfixes
16:46 < mmcgrath> except none of our code currently does that.
16:46 < abadger1999> spot: I think infra needs to know more about what compliance to
the AGPL means in order to understand how costly/inexpensive it is to comply.
16:46 < spot> honestly, you should be tracking your hotfixes anyways
16:46 < jwb> spot, that is sort of orthogonal
16:46 < spot> no, not really
16:46 < mmcgrath> awhat about config files?
16:47 < spot> mmcgrath: config files aren't code.
16:47 < jwb> yes, sure. but if they don't right now, they aren't violating
a license
16:47 < mmcgrath> additionally if I worked at either of the last two places I worked
with, they'd immediatly say no to using it.
16:47 < ricky> With something like mod_wsgi, code and configuration can be very
mixed at times.
16:47 < mmcgrath> just because of that.
16:47 < ricky> But I think the bigger concern is exactly how we have to link to
hotfixes
16:47 < abadger1999> spot: But they're in the tarball along with the code and
the only license in the tarball is AGPLv3.
16:47 < J5> A lot of people say no to GPL
16:47 < spot> mmcgrath: because they ran proprietary web apps
16:47 < spot> we don't.
16:47 < abadger1999> So how do we differentiate.
16:47 < J5> because of the same reasons
16:47 < abadger1999> J5: Yeah, once of the infra developers does, in fact.
16:47 < mmcgrath> spot: they also ran open source apps, it took a long time to get
them to do it.
16:48 < mmcgrath> now imagine if the barrier to using those apps was even higher.
16:48 * abadger1999 notes meeting reaches halfway point.
16:48 < spot> abadger1999: well, we've never been that anal about configs in any
other fedora package
16:48 < spot> abadger1999: but we can explicitly relicense the configs if it helps
people sleep at night
16:48 < abadger1999> spot: We've never had a license that might require us to
release them.
16:48 < smooge> spot, config files may be code depending on how they are implemented
and if the file has a "AGPL" header in it. I couldn't find an exclusion to
config files in the AGPL :/
16:49 < mmcgrath> I'm not talking about developing code, I'm talking about
very practical operations issues.
16:49 < spot> abadger1999: thats not true, there are plenty of licenses that could
be interpreted that way
16:49 < J5> I personally think LGPL would make sense in some of the code in Moksha
16:49 < smooge> spot, I am not against the AGPL, I just want to make sure we have a
process in place so that we know the following:
16:49 < spot> mmcgrath: the issue is this, you need to make the code that is running
available.
16:49 -!- sassmann [n=sassmann(a)g229133070.adsl.alicedsl.de] has quit Read error: 113 (No
route to host)
16:49 < abadger1999> spot: We just need to know what the rules are for compliance.
If there's some escape hatch built into the code vs config that says configs are
uncopyrightable therefore they are freely copyable/do not fall under AGPL, that's
fine.
16:49 < spot> to the user of the web app
16:49 -!- jeff_hann [n=arares(a)188.24.37.69] has quit "Leaving"
16:49 < mmcgrath> spot: and alter the webapp to point at it.
16:50 < spot> well, the webapp can point to a directory or a git tree or a url where
source can be found
16:50 < smooge> a) How do we run in staging. Who are the 'customers' we need
to publish the code for. {If some joe comes across it do we have to show them the exact
code at that moment?}
16:50 -!- rishi [n=rishi@gnu-india/supporter/debarshi] has quit "Ex-Chat"
16:50 < ricky> One thing we were concerned about is how we need to link to
hotfixes.
16:50 < spot> it doesn't have to be an explicit link
16:50 < spot> you just have to be able to get it from there
16:50 < abadger1999> spot: Are you talking Fedora or Fedora Infra?
16:50 * spot sighs
16:50 < ricky> OK, and what about what smooge said? Does this entire process need
to be followed for our staging environment too just because it's web accessible?
16:50 < spot> this is a royal pain to do over irc.
16:50 < mmcgrath> but git trees and directories don't come out of thin air. We
have to put them somewhere, we have to back them up
16:50 < mmcgrath> etc, etc.
16:50 -!- jeff_hann [n=arares(a)188.24.37.69] has joined #fedora-meeting
16:51 < mmcgrath> spot: imagine being legally liable for it.
16:51 < J5> ricky: why wouldn't a hotfix go into version control and the app be
packaged first?
16:51 < spot> mmcgrath: guess what, i am. ;)
16:51 < smooge> spot I agree. I will send my problems via email and we can work out
a process there.
16:51 < spot> no, lets try this again.
16:51 < spot> the webapp
16:51 < spot> has to have a link to the source of the code it is running
16:51 < spot> thats it.
16:51 < jwb> and if someone hotfixes a python bit that's live?
16:51 < mmcgrath> and the benefit to us is now canonical and google won't use
mokesha?
16:51 < spot> that link can go to a page that says "here is the base git"
and "here is a directory that contains any hotfixes we have applied"
16:52 < J5> mmcgrath: launchpad was just AGPL'ed
16:52 < ricky> J5: In staging, it probably should, but we use staging for debugging
as well. One thing I did recently was write some debugging middleware for FAS in staging
and leave that running for a few days
16:52 * mmcgrath writes down another reason not to use launchpad.
16:52 < nixdude> lol
16:52 < mmcgrath> I really don't like the AGPL and here's why. It protects
the developer at the cost of the user.
16:52 < spot> honestly, i'm starting to get a little pissed off at the AGPL hate
here.
16:53 < spot> you should be tracking your damn hotfixes anyway
16:53 < abadger1999> spot: People don't understand the AGPL.
16:53 < spot> and if you're doing that, its trivial to put up a link to them
16:53 < mmcgrath> spot: but having to do so in public is a higher burden then you
think it to be.
16:53 < mmcgrath> from your point of view we don't get it
16:53 < spot> mmcgrath: if you're doing it right, you have nothing to fear.
16:53 < mmcgrath> from our point of view you don't get it.
16:53 < J5> mmcgrath: actually it protects users at the cost of the developers - you
said it yourself, you are afraid of what it will cost us to do hotfixes but it allows
users to not be locked in
16:53 < spot> if you're doing it wrong, you have more to fear than AGPL clauses
16:53 < abadger1999> Without understanding, people don't know what they can
implement to comply and how much time that will take; what changes will be needed.
16:54 < abadger1999>
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-infrastructure-list/2009-July/msg0...
16:54 < spot> abadger1999: you can implement it pretty much any way you want as long
as the user can get the source that is running
16:54 < ricky>
https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/query?status=new&statu...
16:54 < smooge> well ok lets try a different tack. what we need to do to properly
track changes:
16:54 < mmcgrath> spot: you mean as long as the developer can get the source that is
running right?
16:54 < spot> mmcgrath: no, the user of the webapp
16:54 < spot> any user of the webapp
16:55 < abadger1999> That's the summary of questions people asked at the last
infra meeting about AGPL.
16:55 < mmcgrath> spot: and if the webapp doesn't have some way to do that we
have to constantly patch the app to do it?
16:55 < spot> thats why FC has a link at the bottom of the page
16:55 * abadger1999 notes we are down to 7 minutes.
16:55 < mmcgrath> spot: but none of that links to where we track bugs
16:55 < spot> mmcgrath: then fix the webapp so it doesn't.
16:56 * mmcgrath doesn't think s/AGPL/GPL/ is legal though :)
16:56 < lmacken> Hey guys, sorry I'm late :)
16:56 < spot> mmcgrath: if you say "we put hotfixes for FC and moksha
<here>", we'll link to it.
16:56 * lmacken wsa thinking it was at 13:00
16:56 < spot> and we're compliant
16:56 < mmcgrath> spot: and from your poitn of view, as someone that doesn't
actually have to do that work, it seems trivial doesn't it?
16:56 < abadger1999> spot: I was wondering if that covers us or not -- it
doesn't link to the version of code that we're running.... even with hotfixes.
16:56 -!- mishti [n=runab(a)209.132.188.254] has quit No route to host
16:56 < abadger1999> But once again, that was once of the questions in the email.
16:56 < ricky> lmacken: Hey, I have a bodhi question for you after this meeting if
you'll be around
16:56 < spot> abadger1999: legal says it does cover us because the code we're
running is there.
16:56 < mmcgrath> so what, we just copy the file into puppet, alter it, and hope
upstream doesn't change it?
16:56 < abadger1999> spot: But it's not.
16:57 -!- sm|test-1ox [n=morpheus(a)209.132.186.254] has quit Read error: 110 (Connection
timed out)
16:57 -!- paragn_ [n=paragn(a)209.132.186.254] has quit Connection timed out
16:57 < lmacken> ricky: ok
16:57 < spot> abadger1999: how is it not there? we're linking to git
16:57 -!- mcepl [n=mcepl(a)49-117-207-85.strcechy.adsl-llu.static.bluetone.cz] has joined
#fedora-meeting
16:57 < abadger1999> spot: There's code i nthe moksha/fedoracommunity repo --
but it's not necessarily what we're running.
16:57 < spot> abadger1999: the code that we're running is in git.
16:58 < spot> unless one of you applied hotfixes without telling lmacken or J5
16:58 < J5> abadger1999: you can get to the revision
16:58 < ricky> what if mmcgrath finds a security bug in fcomm and doesn't have
commit access?
16:58 < spot> or without checking it into git
16:58 < abadger1999> spot: Where? What revision?
16:58 -!- cassmodiah [n=cass@fedora/cassmodiah] has quit Read error: 110 (Connection timed
out)
16:58 < abadger1999> What tag/branch/etc
16:58 < spot> abadger1999: i'm pretty sure "HEAD" is the answer
16:58 < ricky> I can see this being painful when it happens that we aren't
upstream, or that we're not directly involved in development
16:58 -!- nim-nim [n=nim-nim@fedora/nim-nim] has quit Read error: 104 (Connection reset by
peer)
16:59 < spot> abadger1999: and even if it wasn't, legal said it was sufficient
to point to git
16:59 < abadger1999> spot: So even though we aren't running HEAD, it's
sufficient to point to HEAD?
16:59 * mmcgrath notes 1 minut left
16:59 < spot> abadger1999: as long as the code we're running is actually in git
16:59 < jwb> they are telling you it's not
16:59 < spot> now, if you guys have a directory or a git repo or something
16:59 < spot> where you store hotfixes
16:59 < abadger1999> spot: k. So we don't need to point to our hotfixes either
as long as they've been checked into some branch in git at some point?
16:59 < spot> we can link to that too
17:00 < abadger1999> Even if they've later been reverted, etc?
17:00 < spot> and we're compliant
17:00 < spot> yeah, sure.
17:00 < abadger1999> Excellent.
17:00 < mmcgrath> ugh
17:00 < mmcgrath> what a pita
17:00 < ricky> So what do we do for cases where we don't have commit access like
the one I mentioned above?
17:00 < spot> you're making a mountain out of a molehill here.
17:00 < mmcgrath> Ok, we're at the stop point guys, sorry. We said hard stop so
we're going to hard stop.
17:00 < mmcgrath> spot: you don't have to live with the consequences of this
decision.
17:00 * mmcgrath does
17:00 < abadger1999> spot: System admins have to understand the worse case
scenarios.
17:01 < mmcgrath> #stopmeeting
17:01 < mmcgrath> #meetingstop
17:01 < mmcgrath> it's one of those
17:01 < ricky> #endmeeting
17:01 < nirik> (endmeeting)
17:01 < ricky> (But you have to do it)
17:01 < mmcgrath> #endmeeting
17:01 < zodbot> Meeting ended Tue Jul 21 17:01:25 2009 UTC. Information about
MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot .
17:01 < zodbot> Minutes:
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2009-07-21/fedora-meeting...
17:01 < zodbot> Minutes (text):
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2009-07-21/fedora-meeting...
17:01 < mmcgrath> there we go
17:01 < zodbot> Log:
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2009-07-21/fedora-meeting...