Summary/Minutes from 2010-02-23 FESCo Meeting

Kevin Fenzi kevin at
Tue Feb 23 21:44:05 UTC 2010

#fedora-meeting: FESCO (2010-02-23)

Meeting started by nirik at 20:00:01 UTC. The full logs are available at

Meeting summary
* init process  (nirik, 20:00:01)

* #339 Stale Feature Pages  (nirik, 20:01:47)
  * AGREED: Feature is kept, but needs updating to reflect things that
    have landed and been implemented.  (nirik, 20:09:24)
  * AGREED: Feature is kept, but needs updating to reflect things that
    have landed and been implemented.  (nirik, 20:16:18)

* #340 Determine and approve F11 end of life date  (nirik, 20:17:40)
  * AGREED: F11 end of life date will be 2010-06-11  (nirik, 20:25:53)

* #342 Look into dnssec-conf continual failure  (nirik, 20:27:16)
  * LINK:
    shows an update being pushed without any positive karma  (mjg59,
  * LINK:
    is the issue  (mjg59, 20:34:07)
  * LINK:
    to be more relevant  (mjg59, 20:34:19)
  * LINK:
    (nirik, 20:51:59)
  * AGREED: dgilmore will work with dnssec-conf maintainers. mjg59 is
    going to write up a updates proposal for further consideration.
    (nirik, 21:08:28)

* #341 provenpackager request - chkr  (nirik, 21:08:43)
  * AGREED: chkr is approved as provenpackager. Congrats.  (nirik,

* Fedora Engineering Services Tickets/Discussion  (nirik, 21:10:55)

* #314 Wordpress bundles libraries  (nirik, 21:27:23)
  * LINK:   (nirik,

* Open Floor  (nirik, 21:38:38)

Meeting ended at 21:41:44 UTC.
20:00:01 <nirik> #startmeeting FESCO (2010-02-23)
20:00:01 <nirik> #meetingname fesco
20:00:01 <zodbot> Meeting started Tue Feb 23 20:00:01 2010 UTC.  The chair is nirik. Information about MeetBot at
20:00:01 <nirik> #chair dgilmore notting nirik skvidal Kevin_Kofler ajax pjones cwickert mjg59
20:00:01 <nirik> #topic init process
20:00:02 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
20:00:06 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fesco'
20:00:08 <zodbot> Current chairs: Kevin_Kofler ajax cwickert dgilmore mjg59 nirik notting pjones skvidal
20:00:11 * pjones yawns
20:00:14 * skvidal is here
20:00:34 <ajax> i've been h(ighl)it!
20:00:37 <Kevin_Kofler> Present.
20:00:37 <mjg59> Here
20:01:03 * notting is hee
20:01:05 * notting is here
20:01:12 * dgilmore is here
20:01:35 <nirik> I guess we are only missing cwickert. :)
20:01:47 <nirik> #topic #339 Stale Feature Pages
20:01:51 <nirik> .fesco 339
20:01:52 <zodbot> nirik: #339 (Stale Feature Pages) - FESCo - Trac -
20:02:03 <nirik> There are 2 of these... shall we do them one at a time?
20:02:13 <pjones> yeah
20:02:16 <nirik> first:
20:02:46 <nirik> This is at 80%.
20:03:11 <notting> i thought bskeggs said that what was there is functional
20:03:18 <ajax> i can mark it 100% if it makes you feel better.
20:03:24 <dgilmore> whats laking and can it land soon
20:03:34 <dgilmore> ajax: whats left to do?
20:03:37 <ajax> it works about as well as intel displayport, last i tried it.
20:03:39 <nirik> comment from the fesco ticket:
20:03:42 <ajax> dgilmore: just bugs really.
20:03:44 <nirik> "For NouveauDisplayPort?, the current status is pretty much as listed on the feature page. Where it's been tested it works with the limitation that the VBIOS has to have initialised it first. I'm not sure if you wish to advertise it as a feature or not with that limitation still in the current codebase."
20:03:55 <pjones> I think it's a case of "this explains what is really a suite of features, and each of them which has been implemented is basically done, but not all are implemented"
20:04:03 <dgilmore> ajax: ok, so as is its in good shape
20:04:16 <ajax> yeah, it's usable.
20:04:38 <Kevin_Kofler> So let's keep it.
20:04:40 <mjg59> The release note doesn't really seem to explain it
20:04:41 <nirik> pjones: yeah, so perhaps we could have those that are not implemented move to a f14 feature and put the ones that are done for f13 at 100%?
20:05:01 <dgilmore> maybe we sould ask for more documentation to put into the release notes
20:05:01 <ajax> mjg59: true.  i can smack ben around to get it updated.
20:05:12 <mjg59> I think it could do with a certain amount of cleanup to explain what the limitations are, but otherwise it looks fine
20:05:13 <pjones> nirik: yeah, if my understanding is right, at least.  ajax: am I getting this right?
20:05:27 <dgilmore> specifically making sure the VBIOS is initialised
20:05:50 <ajax> pjones: well.  i wrote a DP support page ages ago for F11 that was for all the drivers
20:05:51 <notting> ajax: mjg59: if it requires vbios, what happens on S/R?
20:05:55 <ajax> this page is clearly derived from that.
20:06:02 <pjones> nirik: then again, the vbios bit is orthogonal to that
20:06:08 <Kevin_Kofler> What exactly does the VBIOS thing mean for a user?
20:06:18 <mjg59> If your machine doesn't do magic, this won't work
20:06:25 <ajax> VBIOS here means "you have to have booted with the DP monitor plugged in"
20:06:25 <mjg59> Most machines do magic
20:06:33 <pjones> Kevin_Kofler: it means we're entirely at the whim of the bios vendor
20:07:04 <Kevin_Kofler> So basically we need to 1. tell the user to boot with the monitor plugged in and 2. hope their BIOS works, which will usually but not always be the case, right?
20:07:13 <Kevin_Kofler> I guess that's release note material.
20:07:33 <pjones> yeah.  basically: no hotplug, and the occasional vendor may be crappy.
20:07:41 <ajax> Kevin_Kofler: right.  which is better than before, where it was "even if you boot with the monitor plugged, X won't work
20:07:51 <ajax> s/X/KMS/
20:08:03 * nirik is +1 to keeping it, but would like it updated and move to 100% for the things that are landed.
20:08:03 <ajax> (since nouveau is a KMS-only driver now)
20:08:11 <pjones> which is to say: this is exactly like my TiVo and HDMI.
20:08:25 <Kevin_Kofler> keep +1 from me too
20:08:30 <mjg59> +1
20:08:38 <skvidal> +1
20:08:41 <ajax> +1
20:08:55 <skvidal> (but get it updated)
20:08:59 <dgilmore> +1 to keep
20:09:07 <dgilmore> but it needs updtaing
20:09:11 <pjones> +1 to that
20:09:24 <nirik> #agreed Feature is kept, but needs updating to reflect things that have landed and been implemented.
20:09:37 <notting> +1 to keep
20:09:42 <nirik> second:
20:09:57 <nirik> This is at 90%
20:09:59 <drago01> well Hans updated the webcam drivers 3 days ago ...
20:10:20 * skvidal is inclined to say the same thing as the last one
20:10:25 <skvidal> keep it but get it updated
20:10:30 <ajax> not sure what's missing on this.  but then, also not sure what's _improved_ since F12 on this.
20:10:47 <Kevin_Kofler> ajax: More hardware support.
20:11:02 <drago01> "Rebase gspca usb webcam driver + sub drivers to latest upstream, this adds support for the following webcam bridge chipsets: benq, cpia1, sn9c2028; and support for new devices and many bugfixes in other gspca-subdrivers "
20:11:02 <nirik> yeah, if 100% means all cameras work, I don't think thats going to happen. ;)
20:11:10 <ajax> Kevin_Kofler: the page doesn't indicate which ones are newly supported from F12, that i can see.
20:11:16 <drago01> sounds like an improvement to me ;)
20:11:25 <drago01> (unless the new drivers are completly broken)
20:12:01 <skvidal> is hans around?
20:12:04 <Kevin_Kofler> keep +1
20:12:11 <dgilmore> skvidal: i agree
20:12:19 <notting> skvidal: not afaict
20:12:21 <pjones> hansg is on PTO this week, so I couldn't find him to talk to him earlier.
20:12:27 <dgilmore> it would be nice to know what exactlyt was added improved on
20:12:43 <notting> +1 to "keep, please update the page"
20:13:11 <nirik> yeah, +1 to that. Updating to show whats changed/added/etc would be very nice.
20:14:15 <mjg59> +1
20:15:09 * nirik waits for more votes.
20:15:17 <dgilmore> +1
20:15:22 <skvidal> +1
20:15:26 <pjones> +1
20:15:27 <dgilmore> i guess i did not actually do that
20:16:01 <ajax> also +1
20:16:18 <nirik> #agreed Feature is kept, but needs updating to reflect things that have landed and been implemented.
20:16:21 <Kevin_Kofler> Updating is a good idea inseed.
20:16:26 <Kevin_Kofler> *indeed
20:16:43 <nirik> ajax / pjones: would you guys be willing to ping feature owners to update?
20:17:19 <pjones> I think it'll be next monday before I see him on irc, but sure.
20:17:33 <nirik> ok. I can update the ticket too, but just in case. ;)
20:17:37 <nirik> ok, moving on...
20:17:40 <nirik> #topic #340 Determine and approve F11 end of life date
20:17:42 <ajax> nirik: i was planning to update the dp one myself and get ben to review it, since he's on my team and i wrote over half that text in the first place
20:17:46 <nirik> .fesco 340
20:17:47 <zodbot> nirik: #340 (Determine and approve F11 end of life date) - FESCo - Trac -
20:17:53 <nirik> ajax: that would be lovely.
20:18:14 * dgilmore is +1 to the proposed date
20:18:39 * Kevin_Kofler votes +1 too, any date is really fine with me.
20:18:49 <ajax> +1, sounds fine.
20:18:57 <notting> +1, seems ok. would be +2 if it was tomorrow.
20:19:14 <jwb> last update push would be about 2 weeks before that
20:19:14 <skvidal> +1 to the june 11th
20:19:17 <nirik> indeed. +1 here as well as long as there is no shout from rel-eng about it...
20:19:30 <mjg59> Sure, +1
20:19:37 <skvidal> nirik: +2 if releng screams, I like watching the suffering
20:19:38 <skvidal> :)
20:19:39 * cwickert is sorry to be late
20:19:57 <nirik> jwb: so why do we say the eol is after the last push by so long?
20:20:22 <Kevin_Kofler> Yeah, that doesn't make sense.
20:20:35 <jwb> mostly i say that because people don't listen and bug me about submitting updates closer to EOL anyway
20:20:41 <Kevin_Kofler> The last push should be within a day of the EOL or the EOL date makes no sense.
20:20:47 <pjones> +1
20:20:53 <notting> well, i think the idea is that we don't dump a bunch of stuff directly to stable on the EOL date with no recourse if it's broken
20:21:00 <jwb> notting, exactly.
20:21:18 <Kevin_Kofler> Still, a strong -1 to having 2 weeks between last push and nominal EOL.
20:21:18 <jwb> also, updates like "new upstream release" are useless in a release destined for EOL
20:21:26 <dgilmore> the last month there should only be security updates
20:21:52 <nirik> or serious bugfixes, IMHO
20:21:53 <Kevin_Kofler> -1 to dgilmore's proposal as well, at least bugfixes need to be allowed.
20:22:14 <jwb> dgilmore, we shut off CVS branching how far before the EOL date?
20:22:16 <mjg59> There's no point in pushing bugfixes to a release that's going to stop getting security support shortly afterwards
20:22:23 <Kevin_Kofler> jwb: 1 month
20:22:25 <dgilmore> when F-13 is released we no longer allow new packages for F-11  we should also limit updates to F-11 to security and critical(packages doesnt work) fixe
20:22:35 <mjg59> Anything that encourages people to continue running unsupported releases is irresponsible
20:22:44 <Kevin_Kofler> dgilmore: I'd say "bugfixes" more in general.
20:22:44 <jwb> mjg59, agreed
20:22:54 <dgilmore> Kevin_Kofler: no critical bugfixes
20:22:55 <Kevin_Kofler> And that includes things like the latest point release of KDE. :-)
20:23:03 <dgilmore> Kevin_Kofler: if you need a bug fixed update already
20:23:06 <nirik> well, if we say we are supporting a release, we should support it...
20:23:08 <jwb> about the only case i can see for bugfixes is if the upgrade path is broken
20:23:17 <Kevin_Kofler> nirik: Right.
20:23:22 <Kevin_Kofler> And supporting means fixing bugs.
20:23:27 <Kevin_Kofler> Even if they're not critical.
20:23:35 <dgilmore> Kevin_Kofler: this is an area where you are really wrong and unhelpful to the users experience of fedora
20:23:39 <mjg59> nirik: What do we mean by supporting a release? If there's data loss, hardware damage or security issues, we'd push the update
20:23:43 <Kevin_Kofler> It also means the last update push should be on EOL day, not 2 weeks before.
20:24:01 <jwb> look, i'm not going to do a push on the day of EOL
20:24:07 <pjones> Well, they're tautologically not critical.
20:24:07 <jwb> if you want it a week before, fine
20:24:18 <jwb> but the day of EOL is just a waste of god damned time
20:24:34 <Kevin_Kofler> EOL on day X means EOL on day X, not X-7 or X-14.
20:24:44 <mjg59> What does an update on EOL day *mean*?
20:24:47 <Kevin_Kofler> That means no more updates starting from X+1.
20:24:54 <jwb> vote please so i can get on with my day
20:24:54 <mjg59> Anyone running that OS after that day no lnoger has security updates
20:24:59 <nirik> mjg59: well, sure... but if it's something that is a serious bugfix I could see pushing it... if only so someone could still upgrade, etc.
20:25:04 <dgilmore> mjg59: it means the last day that we will push security fixes
20:25:07 <pjones> well, at very earliest we should have the last push the day /after/ EOL, since we don't give specific times on anything.
20:25:12 <nirik> anyhow, we are drifting into a new topic here...
20:25:17 <Kevin_Kofler> mjg59: What dgilmore said. :-)
20:25:29 <nirik> I think the proposed date was approved.
20:25:33 <dgilmore> so if there is a critical security fix we should push it  but really we need to encourage updating
20:25:33 * nirik goes to count votes.
20:25:34 <pjones> nirik: yes, it was.
20:25:35 <mjg59> It was
20:25:42 <Kevin_Kofler> If we don't push security updates already a week before EOL, we're lieing to our users about the EOL date.
20:25:53 <nirik> #agreed F11 end of life date will be 2010-06-11
20:25:57 <drago01> well if you care about security you should move to FX ... X > 11 anyway
20:26:13 <drago01> so last day security updates don't really matter
20:26:14 <drago01> but well
20:26:27 <jwb> thanks nirik
20:27:12 <nirik> ok, shall we move on?
20:27:16 <nirik> #topic #342 Look into dnssec-conf continual failure
20:27:20 <nirik> .fesco 342
20:27:21 <zodbot> nirik: #342 (Look into dnssec-conf continual failure) - FESCo - Trac -
20:28:02 <nirik> They don't seem to be around.
20:28:06 <pjones> yet another case of "feature introduced in updates is screwed up".
20:28:08 <ajax> man, if only we didn't push major updates to stable releases.
20:28:25 <nirik> basically dnssec-conf has had issues, we want to try and help maintainers fix things...
20:28:31 <pjones> the right thing to do here is to back dnssec out of all the default configs.
20:28:44 <pjones> (and fix the config updating crap...)
20:28:47 <Kevin_Kofler> DNSSec was an approved F12 feature.
20:29:03 <notting> yeah, it seems more 'bugfix gone horribly wrong'
20:29:04 <Kevin_Kofler> The problem is that apparently hosts we communicate with requested some implementation changes and those broke things.
20:29:09 <pjones> Kevin_Kofler: yes, but the stuff that's hitting people updating wasn't.
20:29:39 <Kevin_Kofler> Or folks who use Fedora on their DNS servers, not sure which it was.
20:29:47 <dgilmore> pjones: it seems like dnssec is a half assed thing that doesnt really work as advertised and is super fragile
20:29:56 <nirik> so, how do we help here? is there any fesco people who would be willing to help the mainainers with the packaging issues?
20:29:58 <Kevin_Kofler> But in any case, somebody nagged Fedora's DNS maintainers to change stuff which caused the breakage.
20:30:02 <pjones> dgilmore: I think that may be more true of the bind implementation than dnssec itself.
20:30:07 * dgilmore responded to the devs with my configs  for rawhide breakage
20:30:22 <dgilmore> pjones: possibly its all binds fault
20:30:24 <mjg59> I think blaming dnssec-conf is besides the point here
20:30:26 <pjones> (bind is not great.  shocking.)
20:31:50 <dgilmore> since things are broken for me im happy to work with the devs to try make it right
20:31:53 <mjg59> shows an update being pushed without any positive karma
20:31:57 <nirik> the biggest issue here is touching config files in scripts like that... and secondly not enough time in testing.
20:32:05 <pjones> so right now the case is that people doing "yum update bind" on f12 get a bind.conf that won't start bind because it's got a dnssec config block that points at a non-existing cert file
20:32:23 <nirik> pjones: that was fixed I think. New issues are different.
20:32:24 <pjones> er, key file, not cert file.
20:32:33 <mjg59> So, yeah, what nirik said
20:32:38 <nirik> mjg59: yes, it was pushed to stable directly.
20:32:48 <pjones> nirik: huh.  zaitcev blogged about it happening to him yesterday afternoon.
20:32:49 <mjg59> The update wasn't thought through well enough, and there wasn't an opportunity for testing
20:33:08 <nirik> mjg59: the maintainer even wanted a special quicker push to stable directly.
20:33:20 <pjones> of course he did.
20:33:21 <Kevin_Kofler> Looks like an abuse of direct stable pushing.
20:33:22 <nirik> pjones: odd.
20:34:06 <nirik> right, so lets move on from pointing fingers and go to: how do we keep this from happening further, and how can we help the maintainers fix things? (sounds like dgilmore is willinng to work with them on this?)
20:34:06 <pjones> Kevin_Kofler: but aren't they all?
20:34:07 <mjg59> is the issue
20:34:19 <mjg59> to be more relevant
20:34:29 <Kevin_Kofler> pjones: Uh no, "one-character typo fix to fix a broken dependency" is safe to push directly to stable.
20:34:32 <Kevin_Kofler> This is not.
20:34:51 <Kevin_Kofler> Where to draw the line is hard.
20:35:00 <mjg59> So, we had a problem with the fact that limited-lifespan keys were included in a package without any means of automatically updating them
20:35:21 <pjones> Kevin_Kofler: I don't agree.
20:35:35 <Kevin_Kofler> mjg59: Yeah, so they tried to rush a fix for that and that broke things.
20:36:22 <nirik> but things are still broken in some ways... see dgilmore's and zaitcev's setup?
20:36:31 <mjg59> So, was the update the least-impact way of fixing the immediate problem?
20:36:33 <Kevin_Kofler> pjones: Say a package accidentally "Requires: gilbc" and this breaks updates for everyone who has an older version of that package, how is it not a good idea to push something directly to stable which just fixes "gilbc" to "glibc"? :-)
20:36:34 <nirik> there are even tracker bugs for all the bugs. ;)
20:37:14 <Kevin_Kofler> (of course packages are unlikely to Require glibc, this was just an example. ;-) )
20:37:41 <pjones> Kevin_Kofler: why do you think the maintainer isn't just as likely to typo something in the fix as he was in the original?
20:37:47 <pjones> (I ask this because I've done it...)
20:38:28 <Kevin_Kofler> Because he diffs what he's about to commit and he only changed that Requires. At worst it's still broken and doesn't make things worse.
20:38:35 <skvidal> so - I think having a rule which is 'no direct to stable' updates makes sense
20:38:42 <Kevin_Kofler> skvidal: I don't.
20:38:47 <Kevin_Kofler> See discussion above.
20:38:51 <skvidal> I think realizing that we may need to circumvent that rule
20:38:52 <skvidal> on occasion
20:38:54 <skvidal> is just reality
20:38:59 <pjones> Kevin_Kofler: people are really bad at following processes like the one you just assumed everybody follows perfectly.
20:39:01 <pjones> *really bad*
20:39:03 <skvidal> if the circumstances are so desperate
20:39:10 <skvidal> in other words
20:39:13 <skvidal> the rule makes sense
20:39:17 <skvidal> unless we're in a dire emergency
20:39:22 <mjg59> bodhi says that this update spent 4 days between submission and being pushed
20:39:22 <skvidal> and in that case all bets are off anyway
20:39:25 <Kevin_Kofler> pjones: I always diff what I commit.
20:39:28 <dgilmore> skvidal: im in complete agreement
20:39:30 <mjg59> Why did nobody ntice the breakage in that time?
20:39:43 <nirik> mjg59: it was submitted on a friday I think... no pushes sat/sun/pushed out monday.
20:39:46 <pjones> Kevin_Kofler: I'm glad you're great at it, but I don't think your perfection generalizes very well.
20:39:48 <Kevin_Kofler> So I don't want Bodhi to stop me from pushing stuff to stable just because some people can't be bothered to diff their changes. :-/
20:39:49 <notting> mjg59: b/c it wasn't pushed anywhere in the interim, so no one could notice
20:39:51 <nirik> mjg59: it was never in updates-testing.
20:39:57 <mjg59> Ok.
20:40:16 <Kevin_Kofler> (That said, I'm by no means perfect.)
20:40:16 <dgilmore> mjg59: because no one tested it
20:40:21 <mjg59> Ah, yes, looking at the days makes more sense
20:40:41 <Kevin_Kofler> (I just try hard to make sure I don't screw up what I commit, because I surely would otherwise. ;-) )
20:40:50 * nirik notes the maintainer also requested a push to stable in epel, but the epel policy of 2 weeks in testing was observed instead.
20:40:59 <mjg59> Ok. So things had been broken since December
20:41:10 <mjg59> I think it's pretty clear that waiting a few more days wasn't going to result in the world ending
20:41:24 <skvidal> mjg59: indeed
20:41:25 <nirik> right.
20:41:30 <notting> Kevin_Kofler: i'm not sure why the entire system should be tailored to suit an individual developer's needs. (see also the request today that all users of QT check that the buildroot is stable before ever trying to push anything)
20:41:39 <mjg59> So, what was the rationale for the immediate push?
20:41:41 <nirik> so, how can we communicate to maintainers better or enforce a policy that avoids issues like this?
20:42:04 <cwickert> just forbid direct pushed to stable?
20:42:27 <notting> are we trying to solve that now, or solve 'get working dnssec out'?
20:42:32 <cwickert> disable them in bodhi and require manual pushes by rel-end in a *real* emergancy
20:42:42 <nirik> notting: good question. both? but one might be easier than the other... ;)
20:42:44 <wwoods> (except for security)
20:42:47 <Kevin_Kofler> cwickert: -1
20:42:50 <mjg59> notting: Are any of us sufficiently well-versed in dnssec to fix this ourselves?
20:42:55 <notting> mjg59: i certainly am not
20:42:56 <Kevin_Kofler> We should fix this problem.
20:43:00 <cwickert> Kevin_Kofler, i was just thinking loud
20:43:15 <mjg59> Kevin_Kofler: The problem is that an update went to stable without any testing.
20:43:19 <mjg59> How do we solve that problem?
20:43:26 <Kevin_Kofler> notting: BTW, for Qt updates, KDE SIG will try to use a safer process next time (but that's a bit OT here).
20:43:35 <nirik> Kevin_Kofler: in what cases does not being able to push to stable cause you issues?
20:44:11 <skvidal> proposal: we should not allow push direct to stable, in the event of severe emergency, we can call emergency sessions of fesco to override. or simply churn testing REALLY fast
20:44:22 <Kevin_Kofler> nirik: Important one-line bugfixes take twice as long to go out.
20:44:34 <Kevin_Kofler> Often the issue can be very annoying and the fix trivial.
20:44:36 <skvidal> 2nd proposal: dnssec needs to be fixed or reverted at this point it's impacting others
20:44:40 <Kevin_Kofler> That's when I hit "push to stable".
20:44:42 <mjg59> If they're important one-line bugfixes, how did the buggy version get into stable in the first place?
20:44:43 <nirik> Kevin_Kofler: but would not that bug have been found in testing if the update in which it happens had to go to testing?
20:44:47 <dgilmore> skvidal: +1
20:44:50 <Kevin_Kofler> nirik: No.
20:45:08 <Kevin_Kofler> Usually the update spent time in testing, then a day after it goes stable people notice issues.
20:45:15 <Kevin_Kofler> A lot more people run stable than testing.
20:45:34 <mjg59> Kevin_Kofler: The fix for "things aren't tested" isn't "test them by pushing them to stable"!
20:45:49 * notting backspaces, just types "what mjg59 said"
20:46:03 <nirik> skvidal: I don't think there is a clear revert path here...
20:46:31 <skvidal> nirik: okay s/or reverted//
20:46:50 <dgilmore> the probelm is it needs to learn how to play nice with lots of different bind configs
20:46:55 <nirik> I would probibly be a weak +1 to no stable pushes directly... but I would say we should have a clear override setup for it in place...
20:47:28 <pjones> skvidal: +1
20:47:31 <mjg59> The problem we have at this point would appear to be that there are diverse configurations and that the updates have potentially altered them further
20:47:32 <dgilmore> nirik: security only  and only with it having been tested an oked by someone other than the developer
20:47:37 <pjones> on proposal 1 that is
20:47:38 <nirik> so we could address Kevin_Kofler's concern for fixes.
20:47:54 <Kevin_Kofler> What would be the override procedure?
20:48:06 <Kevin_Kofler> OK by 1 rel-eng member would be fine with me (I could just bug rdieter ;-) ).
20:48:16 <nirik> how much direct to stable do we have now thats not security?
20:48:28 <skvidal> nirik: if we have ANY then that's probably not good
20:48:30 <dgilmore> nirik: lots
20:48:41 <nirik> skvidal: well, there's at least dnssec-conf I suppose. ;)
20:48:41 <dgilmore> nirik: alot of people push straight to stable always
20:48:52 <mjg59> At this point, it might be best to just forget about dnssec-conf in 11 and 12
20:49:02 <mjg59> Everyone that's ging to be broken by it probably already has been
20:49:13 <mjg59> There's no magic way to speed up fixes for that
20:49:16 <dgilmore> mjg59: we at least need to issue an update that cleanly disables it
20:49:21 <mjg59> And no clear way to revert to the original state
20:49:23 <notting> mjg59: on the premise that anything that requires a 50 line %post to fix is going to cause more issues?
20:49:39 <mjg59> notting: Right. We (as in Fedora) fucked up, admins are going to have to cope.
20:49:40 <Kevin_Kofler> Bodhi initially didn't allow direct stable pushes.
20:49:43 <skvidal> notting: :)
20:49:43 <Kevin_Kofler> It didn't work out at all.
20:49:49 <Kevin_Kofler> Many people complained.
20:49:52 <nirik> also, how hard is it to change bodhi to not allow stable ?
20:49:53 <mjg59> The focus should be on ensuring that this doesn't happen again
20:49:54 <Kevin_Kofler> Then lmacken implemented them.
20:50:07 <Kevin_Kofler> Please don't go backwards.
20:50:12 <notting> Kevin_Kofler: that doesn't disprove anything about 'many people' being wrong
20:50:14 <Kevin_Kofler> Forced bureaucracy is really unhelpgul.
20:50:19 <Kevin_Kofler> *unhelpful
20:50:37 <Kevin_Kofler> notting: Except those many people brought out several practical issues which resulted from this.
20:50:37 <mjg59> Blocking direct pushes to stable would help, but doesn't solve the fundamental problem that things are getting pushed without being adequately tested
20:50:40 <pjones> Kevin_Kofler: how is requiring testing backwards?
20:50:50 <pjones> or at least requiring the opportunity for testing?
20:50:55 <Kevin_Kofler> pjones: It's going back to something which was tried and didn't work.
20:51:01 <bochecha> nirik, I just checked, shouldn't be too hard to only allow releng or something like that
20:51:06 <dgilmore> Kevin_Kofler: we need to make it work
20:51:07 <nirik> right, so perhaps we should get folks working on/counterproposing a new updates setup...
20:51:09 <pjones> your anecdote doesn't in any way imply that it didn't work.
20:51:21 <mjg59> Kevin's said that even the current procedure of updates-testing doesn't result in enoguh testing
20:51:25 <pjones> (plenty of people complain about taxes, but look where we'd be without them...)
20:51:51 <dgilmore> without socialised health care ;)
20:51:54 <gholms> Maybe there just aren't enough people using updates-testing.
20:51:55 <Kevin_Kofler> Bugs were taking ages to get fixed because they'd have to wait for at least 2 pushes.
20:51:57 <mjg59> Which is a pretty stunning indication that we shouldn't be pushing *anything* except security fixes, because we have no confidence that they're tested
20:51:59 <nirik>
20:52:24 <Kevin_Kofler> mjg59: It just means updates-testing is of limited use and most stuff should just go directly to stable. :-)
20:52:34 <mjg59> Kevin_Kofler: In the rest of the world, it takes longer than a week for fixes to appear on users' systems
20:52:43 <mjg59> It turns out that there's a reason fr that
20:52:48 <dgilmore> Kevin_Kofler: lets stop doing releases and just make everyone use rawhide
20:52:51 <Kevin_Kofler> But we want to be better than the rest of the world. ;-)
20:53:04 <skvidal> can we have a vote on the proposals?
20:53:07 <pjones> gholms: there certainly aren't, but that can't possible effect packages that never show up there at all.
20:53:09 <Kevin_Kofler> dgilmore: The idea is that maintainers don't push risky changes to a release and especially not directly to stable.
20:53:13 <notting> skvidal: i've lost track of them in the insanity
20:53:14 <Kevin_Kofler> But not all changes are risky.
20:53:18 <skvidal> since it seems like everyone is arguing only with kevin
20:53:22 <skvidal> proposal: we should not allow push direct to stable, in the event of severe emergency, we can call emergency sessions of fesco to override. or simply churn testing REALLY fast
20:53:24 * nirik personally thinks the epel process has been working nicely...
20:53:30 <dgilmore> Kevin_Kofler: but people have proven to not observe that
20:53:31 <pjones> skvidal: +1 on both.
20:53:32 <Kevin_Kofler> We have one single change here which is bad.
20:53:38 <Kevin_Kofler> We should get that change fixed.
20:53:41 <skvidal> nirik: I think time-based is probably a hang up - but....
20:53:43 <Kevin_Kofler> Instead of "fixing" a policy which is not broken.
20:53:47 <pjones> Kevin_Kofler: that's why he had a second proposal.
20:53:48 <Kevin_Kofler> One incident can always happen.
20:53:52 <dgilmore> skvidal: +1
20:53:53 <Kevin_Kofler> It's just that single incident.
20:53:56 <pjones> And the policy is /obviously/ broken.  Everybody seems to know it.
20:54:12 <Kevin_Kofler> pjones: This is complete nonsense.
20:54:27 <skvidal> 2nd proposal: dnssec needs to be fixed and documented how to unscrew it manually at this point it's impacting others
20:54:27 <mjg59> Existing policy is broken, but I feel a little awkward about voting without a solid idea what our replacement policy is
20:54:27 <pjones> I'll assume by "this", you're referring to your own comments.
20:54:30 <Kevin_Kofler> Hardly anybody outside of FESCo sees stable pushes as "obviously broken".
20:54:38 <Kevin_Kofler> skvidal: -1
20:54:38 <notting> Kevin_Kofler: one update that hoses all users of a package outweighs 200 bugfixes pushed 5 days earlier
20:54:45 <mjg59> Kevin_Kofler: Then they can get themselves elected next time
20:55:00 <nirik> there have been other cases as well... recall dbus ?
20:55:04 <Kevin_Kofler> I'd (grudgingly) approve if there was an override procedure which can actually work, like approval by 1 rel-eng member.
20:55:15 <notting> skvidal: +1 to your second proposal. although that seems more common sense than anything else :/
20:55:22 <dgilmore> mjg59: force every update to go through testing. pushed to stable only via enough karma.  security updates cen be rushed though by ensuring quick testing
20:55:23 <pjones> So you're using as evidence against a change that those who don't have to deal with the repercussions don't notice that something is a problem?
20:55:25 <Kevin_Kofler> It'd prevent total stupidity and we can always find one rel-eng member to approve our urgent pushes.
20:55:25 <pjones> really?
20:55:25 <skvidal> notting: :)
20:55:32 <Kevin_Kofler> But emergency FESCo sessions?! Come on…
20:55:38 <Kevin_Kofler> FESCo really has other things to do!
20:55:53 <dgilmore> Kevin_Kofler: like argue with you all day?
20:55:57 <nirik> How about a fesco ticket, folks vote in ticket?
20:56:02 <skvidal> nirik: works for me
20:56:07 <notting> Kevin_Kofler: implying rel-eng as a gatekeeper of what is stable or tested enough to go out seems to be putting it at the wrong level
20:56:23 <pjones> seriously, if you don't think 10 minutes to discuss whether or not an update is really so critical that it doesn't need a testing push isn't within fesco's perview, you could always resign.
20:56:25 <mjg59> dgilmore: Would we have any other means? Push direct to stable after two weeks?
20:56:33 <Kevin_Kofler> +1 to dnssec needing fixing, but -1 to the "ban stable pushes" nonsense.
20:56:39 <dgilmore> mjg59: i would honestly say no
20:56:50 <Kevin_Kofler> notting: Then put QA or whoever in charge.
20:56:54 <nirik> +1 here to both with that change. (and if dgilmore would be willing to work with the maintainers that would be great)
20:57:03 <Kevin_Kofler> Or heck, even 1 FESCo member. :-)
20:57:29 <Kevin_Kofler> But so that you can actually ping 1 person on IRC for an urgent push without having to summon a whole committee!
20:57:58 * nirik suspects often you could find 5 fesco folks on irc on pretty short notice.
20:58:01 <Kevin_Kofler> Calling a meeting takes at least 2 days.
20:58:10 <nirik> Kevin_Kofler: lets use a ticket.
20:58:17 <mjg59> So, I'm fine with the idea of using a ticket for this
20:58:17 <notting> Kevin_Kofler: of course you'd say 1 FESCo member, becuase from your statements, it sounds like you would intentionally sabotage the process and approve everything
20:58:21 <Kevin_Kofler> That also takes at least 1-2 days to get 5 votes.
20:58:31 <pjones> a ticket is fine by me.
20:58:36 <Kevin_Kofler> notting: I'd not approve everything!
20:58:39 <Kevin_Kofler> Just what makes sense.
20:58:48 <mjg59> But I think it's going to take a few cycles before people settle down on what "urgent update" actually means
20:58:48 <pjones> Kevin_Kofler: look, if we have to, we can use a phone tree just like the PTA does.
20:58:52 <nirik> we will also need to change some docs for this I bet... new packages could then no longer go direct to stable.
20:58:56 <Kevin_Kofler> If somebody queues "update from fooapp-1.0 to fooapp-2.0" directly to stable I'll veto it!
20:59:05 <mjg59> Because "one line bugfix" doesn't fit my definition unless it's deleting people's files
20:59:37 <pjones> nirik: no comment.
20:59:38 <nirik> anyhow, votes?
20:59:44 <Kevin_Kofler> mjg59: If there's no risk, then I don't see what's the problem with letting it go directly to stable.
20:59:59 <mjg59> Kevin_Kofler: "no risk" is *not* the same as "urgent push"
21:00:10 <pjones> Kevin_Kofler: how on earth can you still believe that there's ever no risk?
21:00:17 * notting is +1 to disabling pushes directly to stable. 'fesco ticket' is fine for now, but would like to have something better.
21:00:20 <Kevin_Kofler> Right, but both are criteria in favor of going directly to stable.
21:00:21 <notting> actually, one sec
21:00:35 <notting> jwb: the implication here is that people would like testing pushes more frequently. is that even feasible?
21:00:40 <Kevin_Kofler> pjones: Because there's no evidence to the contrary?
21:00:44 <nirik> I think we are at +3 / -1 for the first proposal.
21:00:53 <mjg59> Broadly speaking, I'm +1
21:00:57 <Kevin_Kofler> We have one single update which was screwed up.
21:01:05 <jwb> notting, i do them daily.  for f13-testing more than once.  beyond that, no not much
21:01:07 <Kevin_Kofler> This doesn't mean that ALL updates are risky!
21:01:12 <dgilmore> notting: not really more than once a day
21:01:13 <mjg59> But, ideally, I'd like to ensure that we have a policy that we agree on before changing things
21:01:25 <notting> jwb: daily i can handle. i just didn't want us to be stuck where we could only push them weekly
21:01:37 <Kevin_Kofler> All we need to do is telling people to judge risks more carefully.
21:01:44 <Kevin_Kofler> A blanket ban is always the wrong answer.
21:01:58 <nirik> then should we write this proposal up, get a firestorm^H^H^H^H^Hfeedback on mailing lists and vote on it next week?
21:01:59 <Kevin_Kofler> This is a social problem, a technical/bureaucratic solution is bound to suck.
21:02:09 <Kevin_Kofler> It's also not going to solve the problem.
21:02:19 <Kevin_Kofler> The update can go through 1 testing push and still be broken.
21:02:21 <nirik> Kevin_Kofler: but it's clear that social answer isn't going to work... as we continue to see this happening...
21:02:25 <Kevin_Kofler> (and be pushed to stable anyway)
21:02:29 <pjones> you're claiming that the problem is poor judgment about the risk.  this is incorrect.  the problem is poor judgment about the need.
21:02:35 <Kevin_Kofler> nirik: This is about ONE SINGLE UPDATE.
21:02:42 <nirik> Kevin_Kofler: would you like some more examples?
21:02:44 <Kevin_Kofler> It's not a problem which deserves a solution affecting everyone.
21:02:55 <jwb> dbus, dnssec, thunderbird
21:03:01 <mjg59> Kevin_Kofler: We hear you. We disagree.
21:03:02 <jwb> those are 3 off the top of my head
21:03:11 <nirik> jwb: I can find more from #fedora logs...
21:03:12 <Kevin_Kofler> jwb: The other 2 were security updates.
21:03:36 <Kevin_Kofler> They'd still be allowed under this policy (and banning direct stable pushes of security updates is completely asinine, it leaves machines open for exploitation).
21:03:57 <notting> actually
21:03:57 <nirik> There have been other non security updates that have caused breakage/serious issues.
21:04:11 <notting> i'm all for having direct stable security pushes require QA signoff. we'd need to scare up some resources
21:04:15 <pjones> defining further qa mechanisms for security updates might be appropriate, but it's separate from this particular discussion.
21:04:19 <notting> but there's no reason those shouldn't be tested
21:04:40 <Kevin_Kofler> Then why can't we allow all direct stable pushes as long as QA signs off?
21:04:43 <nirik> critical path now requires karma on f11/f12 ? or is that only f13?
21:05:05 <mjg59> Proposal: We write a draft policy on stable updates and vote on it next week
21:05:18 <pjones> Kevin_Kofler: because security updates have necessity prima facae.
21:05:19 <jwb> nirik, f13 only
21:05:26 <nirik> jwb: ok, thanks for the info.
21:05:33 <mjg59> That gives us an opportunity to discuss various consequences with affected teams
21:05:34 <nirik> mjg59: +1... who is writing it though? :)
21:05:39 <mjg59> I'm happy to start
21:05:43 <Kevin_Kofler> pjones: So do updates for "this package is completely broken", which some direct stable pushes were about.
21:05:49 <notting> mjg59: actually, then -1 to skvidal's first proposal, and +1 to mjg59. best to have a full policy to vote on
21:06:01 <mjg59> skvidal: How do you feel about that?
21:06:05 <skvidal> I'm fine with withdrawing
21:06:18 <pjones> Kevin_Kofler: those packages can't do harm by not being updated - which means them going to testing is perfectly appropriate.
21:06:20 <nirik> mjg59: excellent. Did you see the Whiteboard proposal for updates link? might look at that as well for more ideas/context.
21:06:27 <mjg59> nirik: Yup
21:06:39 <skvidal> mjg59: I'll be glad to read what you start with and help
21:06:47 * nirik too would be happy to help
21:06:55 <Kevin_Kofler> Collecting feedback is definitely a good idea, I hope we'll get some strong negative feedback for this proposal. ;-)
21:07:05 <Kevin_Kofler> I have a feeling that we're getting inundated with stupid bureaucracy.
21:07:15 * pjones is +1 on mjg59's plan as well.
21:07:16 <skvidal> Kevin_Kofler: I have a feeling I'm getting to the limit of my patience with you
21:07:23 <skvidal> Kevin_Kofler: tread carefully.
21:07:41 <Kevin_Kofler> First the critical path crap, now this.
21:07:46 <nirik> ok, so on this topic we are going to try and write up a draft. and dgilmore is going to work with the dnssec-conf maintainers?
21:07:55 <pjones> da
21:07:55 <dgilmore> nirik: yes
21:07:56 <mjg59> Sounds good
21:07:59 <skvidal> nirik: that sounds like a plan
21:08:03 <Kevin_Kofler> Maintainers need to be more careful about what they do, just banning things will NOT solve the problem.
21:08:20 <Kevin_Kofler> It'll just make life harder for those of us who DO care about providing a stable and bug-free experience to our users.
21:08:28 <nirik> #agreed dgilmore will work with dnssec-conf maintainers. mjg59 is going to write up a updates proposal for further consideration.
21:08:43 <nirik> #topic #341 provenpackager request - chkr
21:08:45 <pjones> Kevin_Kofler: we all care about that.  stop throwing insults around about the rest of our conviction, okay?
21:08:46 <nirik> .fesco 341
21:08:48 <zodbot> nirik: #341 (provenpackager request - chkr) - FESCo - Trac -
21:09:05 <nirik> there was feedback on the sponsors list. All positive I think.
21:09:18 <notting> yes, all feedback was positive. +1 from me.
21:09:19 <pjones> +1 on this; he does a lot of work.
21:09:32 <nirik> +1 here. mono needs more folks to care for it.
21:09:52 <Kevin_Kofler> +1, I don't have a personal opinion, but all the feedback was positive, so why not?
21:10:05 <mjg59> +1
21:10:20 <skvidal> I dunno - if he can't even get ralf mad at him, what kind of guy would we be approving? :)
21:10:22 * skvidal kids
21:10:23 <skvidal> +1
21:10:26 <ajax> +1
21:10:34 <nirik> #agreed chkr is approved as provenpackager. Congrats.
21:10:43 <dgilmore> +1
21:10:55 <nirik> #topic Fedora Engineering Services Tickets/Discussion
21:11:05 <nirik> So, I talked about this some at the end of last meeting.
21:11:09 <Kevin_Kofler> skvidal: I hope I can get Ralf to shout at YOU, I know he hates bureaucracy. ;-)
21:11:11 <nirik> mmcgrath: you around?
21:11:23 <mmcgrath> nirik: yo
21:11:25 <nirik> I filed some random tickets:
21:11:45 * mmcgrath has seen some and done some.
21:11:50 <mmcgrath> err done one
21:12:11 * jds2001 is involved in pinging the sigs
21:12:17 <jds2001> gotten some response, actually :)
21:12:18 <nirik> So, should we have fesco members file things? should we consider and approve things in this meeting to be tickets? Should we advertise this to get more people doing tickets?
21:12:37 <notting> what level of tickets are we looking at?
21:12:43 * nirik waits for fesco folks to look at the tickets he filed and see if they think they are usefull or the like.
21:13:06 <notting> do we want to file ones for 'fix broken deps'?
21:13:11 <mmcgrath> notting: so far, 3 tickets, 1 closed 2 in progress.
21:13:14 <nirik> notting: the idea is that these are things fesco would like to know/get done, but fesco members are busy. So a pool of people willing to put in a few hours a week would work on them.
21:13:16 <mmcgrath> notting: that's certainly reasonable
21:13:19 <notting> and similar lower-level fixes?
21:13:39 <nirik> notting: I would think so, for stable releases...
21:14:14 <nirik> but I would suggest it be: find out why deps are broken, make sure tickets are filed and maintainer knows about it, if no response or fixes from maintainer, step in and fix yourself.
21:14:32 <jds2001> i think we do need to advertise this more - we currently have two contributors, mmcgrath and myself :D
21:14:43 <notting> nirik: ok. we'd probably have to advertise that 'may require provenpackager'
21:14:45 <nirik> I think this is a great way for us to get things done that we just never get around to/have time for.
21:14:52 <nirik> notting: agreed.
21:14:53 <ajax> i meant to add some bugs to that list.  bad me.
21:15:09 <nirik> so, for the meeting record...
21:15:22 <jds2001> notting: certain people wont be suited for certain tasks, for sure.
21:15:55 <notting> nirik: ok. existing tickets look fine, let's file more and see what sort of pickup we get
21:15:57 <nirik> fes ticket 1 Investigate Fedora versions in VPS providers - mmcgrath did this. The major providers do offer Fedora 12.
21:16:06 <notting> any ideas for how to promote this more?
21:16:07 <gholms> Amazon doesn't.
21:16:11 <dgilmore> people should only take tasks they are capable of
21:16:22 <nirik> gholms: yeah, noted. being worked on.
21:16:40 <nirik> fes ticket 2: SIGs roundup and pinging - jds2001 is working on this.
21:17:07 <nirik> fes ticket 3: Fedora as Android Development platform - mmcgrath was going to look at this.
21:17:18 <Kevin_Kofler> Linode has only F11. :-(
21:17:43 <nirik> Kevin_Kofler: yeah, at least it's a supported release currently.
21:17:44 <Kevin_Kofler> You can upload any arbitrary VM image yourself, but they don't have F12 as a premade offering.
21:18:07 <nirik> we could send them a nicely worded email asking them to provide a f12 instance.
21:18:36 <nirik> and/or pass this info off to the cloud-sig to do so.
21:18:45 <gholms> Should I bring that up at the cloud-sig meeting?
21:19:09 <dgilmore> i thought we were working on creating ec2 images as part of the f13 release process
21:19:25 <dgilmore> so while it sucks that there is not f12 images
21:19:29 <gholms> We are; it's still a work in progress.
21:19:32 <nirik> gholms: please do. Perhaps a "contact VPS provider" SOP could come out of it?
21:19:38 <dgilmore> going forward we will upload official images
21:20:07 <gholms> I'm a bit concerned about the sheer number of VPSs out there.
21:20:18 <gholms> Who do we contact, whose image formats do we supply, etc.
21:20:27 * nirik notes these are the kind of proactive things I would like to see happen more rather than just us reacting to exising things.
21:20:57 <nirik> gholms: sure, it's a open question... but I think we could open a dialog with them... and/or see what the cloud sig can do.
21:21:28 <gholms> How do we initiate such a dialog?
21:21:36 <nirik> so, do we add more tickets and advertise? who adds tickets? anyone in fesco? anyone?
21:22:01 <gholms> (Sorry for straying off-topic; I'll wait for open floor)
21:23:03 <nirik> gholms: a nicely worded email to start with I would say? "Dear VPS provider, we noticed you provide Fedora 10 and 9, those releases are end of life. Would you consider offering F12? Would you like assistance in making an image for your needs? we have a f12 image in format X,Y,Z available. Please contact cloud-sig@ if you have questions"
21:23:24 <ajax> (i'm adding some ideas to the fes trac.  typing is slow.)
21:23:26 * nirik wonders if the rest of fesco wandered off to lunch.
21:23:34 <notting> nirik: i think for now, anyone in fesco should add tickets. advertisement, hm. mail to devel-announce? mail to fedora-announce? <other>?
21:23:42 * gholms understands the question better now
21:24:37 <nirik> mmcgrath: thoughts on advertising?
21:24:48 <jds2001> nirik: a tad late for lunch, maybe dinner? :D
21:25:07 <mmcgrath> nirik: once we've got enough stuff to do, I'll send an official announcement out and start handing out tasks.
21:25:59 <nirik> I think we may not want to advertise to fedora-announce at least at first, as we don't want some new contributor to try a ticket that they can't handle...
21:26:06 <mmcgrath> yeah
21:26:31 <nirik> ok, so, please add sensible tickets at your leasure.
21:26:37 <nirik> anything else on this for now?
21:27:14 <nirik> ok, moving on...
21:27:23 <nirik> #topic #314 Wordpress bundles libraries
21:27:41 <nirik> This was not on the agenda because I didn't think there was any new info... but there was today.
21:27:47 <nirik> .fesco 314
21:27:50 <zodbot> nirik: #314 (Wordpress bundles libraries) - FESCo - Trac -
21:28:08 <nirik> upstream closed their ticket WONTFIX
21:28:10 <nirik>
21:28:39 <mjg59> Upstream's viewpoint here is understandable
21:28:50 <nirik> yeah, it's easier for them...
21:28:55 <mjg59> And for most users
21:29:19 <pjones> well, it's kindof understandable, and kindof not.
21:29:22 <Kevin_Kofler> Upstream sucks.
21:29:29 <pjones> they should really be making it so you can do it /either/ way.
21:29:38 <Kevin_Kofler> They should at least use unmodified libraries so it's easy to plug in system versions.
21:29:38 <nirik> so, would anyone like to try and convince upstream ? or should we give up on that?
21:29:43 <Kevin_Kofler> But they just don't care.
21:29:49 <mjg59> I don't think "convincing" is going to do anything
21:30:05 <mjg59> A minimally invasive patch that allowed either approach would be the best way to convince them
21:30:07 <pjones> I'm wondering if this needs discussion on a mailing list instead of just submitting a ticket and hoping whoever answers agrees with us.
21:30:17 <nirik> well, the fedora maintainer didn't really try and convince them... they said "hey, would you not bundle these"
21:30:40 <mjg59> It's a case where we're asking them to do work that currently doesn't improve their lives
21:30:47 <Kevin_Kofler> mjg59: The problem is that fixing their mess is very invasive as they modified all the stuff they imported.
21:30:51 <pjones> mjg59: yes, doing the work would probably be a good step.
21:31:04 <mjg59> Kevin_Kofler: I'm drawing a line between the modified versions and the basically unmodified ones
21:31:05 <Kevin_Kofler> Which is why we have this exception request in the first place, otherwise just plugging in the system versions would be easy.
21:31:51 <nirik> so, where do we go from here?
21:32:19 <mjg59> FPC recommended not granting an exemption for the basically unmodified libraries
21:32:22 * nirik notes we lost cwickert to net split
21:32:33 <mjg59> So I guess we ask the maintainer to do the necessary work in unbundling them
21:32:43 * dgilmore is -1 to granting an exception
21:33:18 <pjones> I think we can grant an exception for the modified ones (though we'd obviously prefer not to)
21:33:28 <cwickert> nirik, sorry, i was also busy, customer called with an emergancy
21:33:34 <nirik> cwickert: no problem.
21:33:39 <dgilmore> pjones: indeed
21:34:06 <nirik> yeah, I am -1 to the simply bundled ones getting an exception. I think we were waiting to hear from FPC again about the modified ones.
21:34:31 <cwickert> has anybody come up with a technical solution so far?
21:35:03 <pjones> the technical solution would seem to be "don't bundle the unmodified ones, and make sure the code loading them checks the system path when it doesn't find something"
21:35:25 <cwickert> pjones, right, but that's a pretty massive change
21:35:28 <Kevin_Kofler> -1 to allow bundling the unmodified ones.
21:35:31 <pjones> which is unlikely to be a particularly difficult job, though it is a lot of typing.
21:35:46 <Kevin_Kofler> For the modified ones, somebody needs to look into how modified they are.
21:36:01 <Kevin_Kofler> If it's not feasible to fix them, I guess we have no other choice than allowing them.
21:36:16 <pjones> I think we need to split this discussion in two and discuss the character of the modifications separately.
21:36:25 <nirik> ok, should we just defer again until hearing from FPC on the modified ones? or ?
21:36:31 <nirik> pjones: agreed.
21:37:38 <nirik> ok, lets defer again and talk about it all after the next FPC meeting (whenever that is)
21:38:10 <nirik> any objections?
21:38:22 <cwickert> nope
21:38:23 <ajax> nope
21:38:28 <notting> no
21:38:38 <nirik> #topic Open Floor
21:38:47 <nirik> Anyone have anything for open floor?
21:39:10 <gholms> Not unless you have any more cloud-related stuff to add.
21:40:02 <nirik> not off hand.
21:40:52 * nirik will close the meeting in a minute if nothing else comes up
21:41:39 <nirik> Thanks for coming everyone!
21:41:44 <nirik> #endmeeting
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : 

More information about the devel mailing list