Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2015-01-07)

[Stephen Gallagher]

On Thu, 2015-01-08 at 15:31 +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Dne 8.1.2015 v 15:03 Stephen Gallagher napsal(a):
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 2015-01-08 at 10:40 +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> >> Dne 7.1.2015 v 21:14 Stephen Gallagher napsal(a):
> >>>
> >>>   * Tentative date for side-tag merge is 2015-01-28  (sgallagh,
> >>>     19:09:55)
> >>>
> >>
> >> What does it mean actually? Does it mean that if I plan to do rebuild of
> >> Ruby packages in side-tag, I am supposed to be finished before 28th,
> >> i.e. in less then 3 weeks? Considering that Ruby was not approved yet by
> >> FESCO and that Ruby change more or less blocks Ruby on Rails change, how
> >> are we supposed to handle everything?
> >>
> >
> > Yes, it needs to be finished before the 28th. If that cannot be done,
> > then consider deferring this change to Fedora 23.
> 
> My feature was submitted to wrangler 17th of December and it will be
> hopefully approved 14th January (one month later) ... I could even
> submit it until 20th of January, which means FESCo would approve it 28th
> of January at the best, which is the same date like the side-tag merge.
> So where is the time in the schedule I can actually do my work?
> 
> And I won't start with any builds until the change is approved, because
> .... I don't know actually, but I believe that the FESCo approval should
> come first prior I start any rebuilds, because although the builds are
> done in side tag, the possible reverts in master are not for free.
> 
> >
> >
> > The reason for "tentative" was mostly so we could get feedback from
> > rel-eng on whether this is actually feasible.
> >
> >>
> >> On the other hand, there are two week between branch and freeze, what
> >> are these good for? Is it just for maintainers to enjoy work with
> branches?
> >
> > I'm sorry, I don't understand the question. There needs to be a gap
> > between branching and Freeze so that things can settle out. (For
> > example, there are often a few packages that need post-branch updates
> > for a variety of reasons. Also, the branch process itself sometimes
> > needs some time to shake out the bugs.
> 
> Obviously, you don't give me as a developer any time to actually develop
> something, but then you give two weeks to settle down something which
> does not need settling ... or it needs settling because I don't have
> time to develop something, depends on the way how you look at it.
> 
> Sorry for being grumpy about this but according to the original proposal
> [1], I should have enough time till branch in worst case, which was
> scheduled to 10th February, now suddenly you shorten the period just to
> half of the time. This is not nice.
> 

I'm not sure where you got that this was shortened. In the link you
offered, it said:

"no earlier than 2015-XX-XX (to be set)	Side Tag Builds Deadline"

We hadn't set it previously, but it has *always* been at least some time
before the branch date. (We don't want it to be *after* branch, because
then you would have to handle side-tags for both rawhide and branched,
and that's unreasonable).

That being said, I'll bring it up with FESCo (CCed) whether we could
shorten the branch->freeze period by a week and add another week before
the side-tag and mass-rebuild dates. It's a reasonable request. We'll
need to hear from rel-eng whether it's acceptable.


> Vít
> 
> 
> 
> [1]
> https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Releases/22/Schedule&oldid=397875
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20150108/9ae26278/attachment.sig>