Summary of EPEL Steering Committee meeting 20070412
Thorsten Leemhuis
fedora at leemhuis.info
Thu Apr 12 15:35:14 UTC 2007
= Meeting 20070412 =
[[TableOfContents]]
== Attending ==
>From the Steering Committee:
* dgilmore
* mmcgrath
* nirik
* quaid
* stahnma
* thl
Active on the rabble seats:
* entr0py
* wolfy
== Summary ==
* wiki votings -- some people on the list complained about hardcoding
releasever in the repofile. stahnma will look into the issue closer and
ask the infrasturcute guys if a symlink could be set in place
* votings via the wiki -- might need a bit more coordination in the
future; reminders ("vote now") probably also; "we need more info on some
of the issues"; all things of course can get revisited if we want, but
we should probably take a issue as solved for the near future when it
got voted upon; stahnma asked 'should I be voting "on behalf of epel
consumers" or as a fedora developer? '; thl answered that it's probably
a mix;
* the idea to have a chairmen that coordinates was liked by some people
(quiad: "I thought it was a requirement of a steering committee (or I
think it should be) ") ; dgilmore brought this to the list for public
discussion.
* RHEL5 on the builders - legal problems got solved and should happen
real soon now; dgilmore will look after the mass-rebuild as voted and
then thl will announce the "Go" signal afterwards to those Fedora
packages that are still waiting for it
* pushing scripts/repo layout: thl will bring this to the list for
further discussion
* stahnma will help quiad with his "Communication plan for enterprise
customers/ISVs/IHVs"
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/CommunicationPlan ; will get send to
the list for further discussion, too.
== MISC ==
There were three votings by the EPEL steering committee done via the
wiki; see
https://www.redhat.com/archives/epel-devel-list/2007-April/msg00055.html
for details. In short: no repotags, fedora-usermgmt does not get
forbidden and the mass-rebuild will happen in a "delete repo and just
rebuild everything again with RHEL5 final on the builders now"-style.
== Full Log ==
{{{
00:01 --- | thl has changed the topic to: EPEL Meeting
00:01 < thl> | hi everyone
00:01 * | entr0py grabs first set of rocks to volley into
the group :)
00:01 < thl> | ping dgilmore mmcgrath_ stahnma quaid nirik
00:02 < stahnma> | ack
00:03 < nirik> | I'm mostly here.
00:03 < thl> | that makes 2,5 people afaics
00:03 < quaid> | howdy
00:04 < thl> | 3,5
00:04 < stahnma> | almost a quarum
00:04 < quaid> | depends on your def. of a quorum; "enough to be
the majority of the vote if the consensus is 100%" is good enough for me :)
00:04 < quaid> | also, thimm said he'd be ... late? half way
through, right?
00:05 < thl> | quaid, yes, that's what he said
00:05 < stahnma> | do we have topics?
00:05 * | thl really would like to know what the status of
RHEL5 final on the builders is; but we need mmcgrath_ and dgilmore for that
00:05 < thl> | stahnma, well, we have a schedule
00:05 < stahnma> | I know dgilmore was working on it the other night
when i was chatting with him
00:06 < stahnma> | good enough :)
00:06 < thl> | afaics we should talk about these topics:
00:06 < nirik> | is centos5 out yet? I think I saw something about
it starting to mirror..
00:06 < stahnma> | oooh
00:06 < stahnma> | haven't seen it
00:06 < thl> | RHEL5 final on the builders
00:06 < thl> | did we like the wiki votings
00:06 < thl> | anything to further discuss about the wiki votings
00:06 < entr0py> | c5 still mirroring
00:07 < thl> | revisit the hardcoding of releasever in the repo
file
00:07 < nirik> | it's not hit my mirror yet, oh well.
00:07 < stahnma> | I guess since our votings are quite public, I
think we should be able to say why we vote the way we do
00:07 < stahnma> | currently the release is harded in epel-release
00:07 < stahnma> | it can change if the repo changes
00:07 < thl> | stahnma, yeah, I know; but some people complained
on the list
00:07 < stahnma> | and that's an infrastructure call
00:08 < stahnma> | yeah, I can go either way
00:08 < stahnma> | I normally wouldn't recommend an upgrade from EL
n to EL n+1
00:08 < stahnma> | via yum
00:08 < thl> | yeah, but we need dgilmore and mmcgrath_ for
that, as those two could create the proper links on the server
00:08 < stahnma> | or up2date
00:08 < stahnma> | but whatever
00:08 < nirik> | I've had 3->4 work with centos yum updates anyhow...
00:09 < nirik> | but yeah, not something supported, but nice to
have the option for people if they want to try.
00:09 < stahnma> | well, they can edit the repo files also...
00:09 < stahnma> | isn't that how you have to start an upgrade?
00:09 < stahnma> | change what repo you point at?
00:10 < thl> | stahnma, installing a new fedora-release in
enough in fedora
00:10 < stahnma> | in which case, the repo files being hard-coded or
not doesn't matter correct?
00:10 < nirik> | upgrade the release file... no changing of the
files.
00:10 < stahnma> | oh ok
00:10 < thl> | I suspect it will be similar in RHEL/Centos
00:10 < stahnma> | been a long time since I have done an upgrade
like that
00:10 < stahnma> | as I said, i will happily change it
00:10 < stahnma> | if it will work
00:10 < stahnma> | I changed to hard-coding after it didn't work on
RHEL
00:10 < thl> | stahnma, could you work on getting the whole
issue solved?
00:10 < stahnma> | thl: sure
00:10 < thl> | stahnma, e.g. ask dgilmore and mmcgrath_ for
their opinion
00:11 < stahnma> | no problem
00:11 < stahnma> | I speak with dgilmore daily
00:11 < thl> | and get is discussed on the mailig list if needed
00:11 < thl> | stahnma, k, sounds good
00:11 < stahnma> | yup, next item
00:11 --- | thl has changed the topic to: EPEL meeting --
votings via the wiki
00:11 * | rdieter is lurking in the shadows...
00:11 < thl> | so, did we like it?
00:11 < thl> | I'd say we need more coordination
00:11 <-- | llaumgui has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection
timed out))
00:11 * | quaid is pretty sure that updating redhat-release
is similar
00:11 < nirik> | well, it was ok, but we need more info on some of
the issues I think.
00:12 < thl> | otherwise each and everyone might issue votings
00:12 < stahnma> | reminders sent va email would be cool
00:12 < thl> | and that could lead to chaos
00:12 * | entr0py agrees with nirik
00:12 < quaid> | I explained my problems in my comment field of my
vote
00:12 < thl> | it was a hard discussion this time already
00:12 --> | llaumgui (LLaumgui) has joined #fedora-meeting
00:12 < thl> | quaid, that's okay; but I think it's nevertheless
good to have you here
00:12 < quaid> | I had to abstain because of ignorance, and I
couldn't tell if I was ignorant because the issues were too complex, or
because this was a molehill being made into a mountain.
00:12 --> | kital (Joerg Simon) has joined #fedora-meeting
00:13 < thl> | nirik, agreed to "more info"
00:13 < GeroldKa> | hello kital
00:13 < thl> | nirik, that what I mean with more "coordination",
too
00:13 < nirik> | it's also unclear... does this mean those issues
are decided forever? (I hope not) or just for "a while"
00:13 < stahnma> | I question my voting: should I be voting "on
behalf of epel consumers" or as a fedora developer?
00:13 < quaid> | thl: so, I had to have faith that a vote was
useful in this case
00:13 < kital> | hi GeroldKa
00:13 < quaid> | stahnma: good question
00:13 < thl> | nirik, I'd say wiki votings are similar to
votings here
00:13 < thl> | e.g. we can always revisit stuff if we like to
00:14 --> | wolfy (Manuel Wolfshant) has joined #fedora-meeting
00:14 < nirik> | good, althought not every week I hope. ;)
00:14 < thl> | nirik, agreed :)
00:14 < stahnma> | maybe we say a vote cast drops an item for 60
days or something?
00:14 < stahnma> | or maybe need a policy that formal
00:14 < thl> | stahnma, no rules, for details like that IMHO
00:14 < nirik> | hopefully folks will push a replacement for
fedora-usermgmt in fedora and we can just do the same thing when they do.
00:14 < thl> | stahnma, that makes it just hard
00:14 < stahnma> | s/need/don't\ need
00:15 < thl> | s/hard/complicated/
00:15 < stahnma> | ok
00:15 * | dgilmore is here
00:15 < thl> | stahnma, and I'd say you should vote as someone
that wants the best for epel (which in parts is "on behalf of epel
consumers" and as "fedora developer" IMHO)
00:16 * | thl welcomes dgilmore
00:16 < thl> | dgilmore, will you stick around for the rest of
the meeting?
00:16 < dgilmore> | nirik: fedora-usermgmt from FC-3 will work fine
on RHEL4
00:16 < dgilmore> | thl: ill be here
00:16 < nirik> | right. and it's already in, so thats the way it
will be for now.
00:17 < dgilmore> | yep
00:17 * | nirik needs to look at branching munin at some
point now.
00:17 < stahnma> | thl: sometimes those are conflicting though
00:17 < thl> | stahnma, that's life ;-)
00:17 < stahnma> | thl: from a consumer prospective, I want a
repo-tag, from a developer prospective, I understand not wanting it
00:17 < stahnma> | thl: true
00:17 < dgilmore> | nirik: im going to branch mysql-gui-tools it has
some other things it needs
00:18 < thl> | so, how do we get more coordination into the wiki
votes in the future?
00:18 < thl> | do we need a chair that coordinates this and
other stuff?
00:18 < nirik> | I don't think so...
00:18 < thl> | or do we want rules like "at least two Steering
committee members are needed to start a voting"?
00:19 < nirik> | I would like to see 2 people setup a vote... one
"for" and one "against" the item, so they could each write the pros and
cons.
00:19 < stahnma> | I didn't think it was too bad. I think reminder
emails to vote are good. And, I agree that starting the vote needs to
be looked at
00:19 < dgilmore> | nirik: if everyone agrees then we will never vote
00:19 < stahnma> | nirik: +1
00:19 < nirik> | having input from people on both sides would help.
00:19 < quaid> | seems like the question of "to chair or not to
chair" is maybe not ours to make; I thought it was a requirement of a
steering committee (or I think it should be)
00:19 < nirik> | dgilmore: don't want them to agree on the issue,
just agree to summarize it for a vote...
00:20 < entr0py> | nirik, i agree, which is what i was pointing out
to thimm. without opposing views, what is the vote really worth
00:20 < quaid> | once a project reaches the size or scope to need
a *SCo ...
00:20 < thl> | quaid, well, we never discussed it; but yes, I
also tend to say a steering committee normally should have a chairmen
00:20 < dgilmore> | i think that we need a chair person and that
they put up the votes
00:20 < quaid> | it needs an identified single person that all the
rst of the world recognizes as "in charge" and "person to go to"
00:20 < quaid> | it can be nominal, etc., but it helps
00:21 < thl> | quaid, +1
00:21 < stahnma> | quaid +1
00:22 < dgilmore> | anyone want to nominate themselves as the chair
person
00:22 < stahnma> | so do we need to figure out a chairperson for
vote postings?
00:22 < stahnma> | I'd do it
00:22 < mmcgrath_> | crizap
00:22 * | mmcgrath_ here
00:22 < quaid> | we could discuss on list, too, since all aren't
here right now. :)
00:22 * | thl could do the chair as well
00:23 < thl> | quaid, well, we should at least wait one week
before lecting a chairmen
00:23 < quaid> | +1
00:23 * | stahnma votes for thl since he has experince and
withdraws earlier statement
00:23 < dgilmore> | stahnma: too late
00:23 < stahnma> | haha
00:23 < quaid> | stahnma: well, how do you think he got the
experience?
00:23 < stahnma> | good point
00:23 < quaid> | stahnma: have to start somewhere :D
00:23 < stahnma> | yeah, I have the time to put into it for the most
part, so that's a plus
00:24 * | dgilmore feels he would not be able to be a good
chair person.
00:24 < nirik> | I think it should get discussed on the list...
00:24 < stahnma> | +
00:24 < dgilmore> | ok so we have two nominees lets take it to the list
00:24 * | nirik would be happy with thl or stahnma
00:25 < stahnma> | ok, back to RHEL 5 on the builders? (now that
infrastructure folk are here)
00:25 < thl> | so, shall we mention it in the summary or shall
someone open a seperate discusion?
00:25 < thl> | seperate discussion +1
00:25 < stahnma> | either way is fine with me
00:25 < dgilmore> | thl: ill start a seperate discussion
00:25 < thl> | dgilmore, k, thx
00:25 < thl> | and I'll write the summary
00:25 --- | thl has changed the topic to: RHEL5 on the builders
00:26 < thl> | mmcgrath_, dgilmore, any news?
00:26 < mmcgrath_> | Yeah, we finally have approval.
00:26 --- | thl has changed the topic to: EPEL meeting --
RHEL5 on the builders
00:26 < thl> | hurray!
00:26 < mmcgrath_> | so we can put it up whenever we're ready.
00:26 < thl> | mmcgrath_, when are we ready?
00:26 < mmcgrath_> | we can do it now
00:26 < thl> | now sounds really good to me :-)
00:27 < thl> | I'd really like to start, and we need RHEL5 final
for that
00:27 < dgilmore> | mmcgrath_: want me to do it tonight?
00:27 < mmcgrath_> | dgilmore: sounds good to me.
00:27 < thl> | dgilmore, thx
00:28 < thl> | who can kick off the rebuild after RHEL5 is
installed?
00:28 < thl> | and when?
00:28 < mmcgrath_> | when, any time.
00:29 < thl> | can we get that done until Sunday maybe?
00:29 < thl> | then I could send out a "now start for realy
guys" mail out on sunday evening/Monday
00:29 < mmcgrath_> | I think anyone can request a rebuild, I've been
late on catching up on EPEL traffic. Did we decide exactly how we're
going to do it?
00:29 < dgilmore> | mmcgrath_: rm -rf
00:30 < thl> | mmcgrath_, the wiki-voting was "delete and just
rebuild"
00:30 < thl> | s/was/agreed on/
00:30 < mmcgrath_> | excellent.
00:30 < thl> | but that requires that either you or dgilmore do
it afaics
00:31 < thl> | I can help if you tell me what to do
00:31 < thl> | but I think there are scripts that automate
everything?
00:32 < mmcgrath_> | not that I know of.
00:32 < dgilmore> | thl: ill work out an easy way to get it done
00:32 < thl> | dgilmore, thx
00:32 < dgilmore> | the scripts we have do a bump and build
00:32 < thl> | k
00:33 --- | thl has changed the topic to: EPEL meeting --
what else?
00:33 < thl> | anything else to discuss?
00:33 < stahnma> | thl: will this "for real now guys" message ask
people to get their packages into EPEL?
00:33 * | dgilmore has nothing right now
00:33 < dgilmore> | stahnma: yes
00:33 < entr0py> | is there any target date for announcement of the
repos?
00:34 < thl> | stahnma, well, it more a "if you waited for the
signal to start then this is it" mail
00:34 < dgilmore> | along with if you dont want to and someone else
does we will let them
00:34 < nirik> | so do we have all the pushing scripts set? what
about with the testing repo?
00:34 < stahnma> | thl: that's fine.
00:34 < thl> | entr0py, not yet
00:34 < stahnma> | what about mirrors?
00:34 < thl> | entr0py, I#d say we need to test a bit more
00:34 < dgilmore> | nirik: that will be in the next week
00:34 < thl> | and we need the final repo layout
00:34 < dgilmore> | we need boshi for that
00:34 < dgilmore> | bodhi
00:35 < dgilmore> | lmacken: where you at?
00:35 < nirik> | how do developers push from testing to release?
ah... bodhi will be available?
00:35 * | thl for a moment thought he got confused with all
those codenames
00:35 * | dgilmore needs to help lmacken
00:35 < lmacken> | dgilmore: i'm here
00:35 < entr0py> | will the rebuild push everything to testing?
00:35 * | nirik is eager to break^H^H^H^H^Htry out bodhi.
00:35 < dgilmore> | lmacken:everything other than the bit i said i
would do in place
00:36 < thl> | entr0py, everything should be in testing IMHO,
but isn't :-/
00:36 < lmacken> | dgilmore: yeah. I have yet to make sure my
updates stage matches the EPEL layout that you guys voted on
00:37 < dgilmore> | ok
00:37 < stahnma> | do we have a process to move from testing to proper?
00:37 < lmacken> | there is a "Mark as stable" button in bodhi
00:37 < thl> | lmacken, the layout can be adjusted if we need
to, but I think the current proposal should make most people happy
00:37 < lmacken> | which will request that it be mvoed from
testing=>final
00:37 < dgilmore> | stahnma: i thought we were going to do votes or 2
weeks
00:37 < lmacken> | thl: ok
00:37 < stahnma> | dgilmore: that's fine, I was just curious if we
had a method. (I didn't remember)
00:38 < thl> | stahnma, most stuff normally should go to testing
anyway
00:38 < thl> | and stay there until the next quarterly update
00:38 < dgilmore> | security updates can bypass testing thats it
00:38 < thl> | only security or other bad bugs should go to
stable directly
00:38 < stahnma> | thl: I agree , just want to make sure I
understand how things work
00:39 < entr0py> | thl: agree, weren't we working on formalizing an
approach for epel?
00:39 < thl> | stahnma, I'd say we should take a closer look at
it when we know how bodhi works
00:39 < stahnma> | maybe make that a future topic
00:39 <-- | kital has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed
out))
00:39 < stahnma> | for discussion
00:39 < wwoods> | The method is evolving but should involve some
testing by a QA-type person
00:39 < stahnma> | seems fair
00:39 < nirik> | yeah, testing ++
00:39 < thl> | wwoods, for epel there was actually a three stage
mechanism under discussion
00:40 < wwoods> | we want to start writing how-to-test docs for
each package, but basically the short version will be that some QA
person needs to actually install the package and make sure it actually
works
00:40 --> | kital (Joerg Simon) has joined #fedora-meeting
00:40 < wwoods> | what are the three stages?
00:40 < nirik> |
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies
00:40 < thl> | wwoods, kind of "testing-testing" (new builds),
"testing" (becomes stable with the next quearterly update and "stable"
(only serios bugfixes)
00:41 <-- | kital has quit (Remote closed the connection)
00:41 < nirik> | oh wait, that wasn't the right link...
00:41 < wwoods> | In my mind there's quite a few possible stages -
automated package sanity testing, manual functional verification by a QA
dude, automated regression tests
00:42 < lmacken> | wwoods: as well as updates-testing community testing
00:42 < wwoods> | the updates-testing repo is basically a work
queue for QA
00:42 < thl> | we probably should discuss this on the list
00:42 < nirik> | wwoods: the diffrence between fedora and epel
here is that epel would be considered to be in "freeze" all the time...
only bugfixes to the release... new functionality/versions only happen
at new minor RHEL releases.
00:42 < thl> | that might make things a bit easier
00:42 < mmcgrath_> | thl: +1
00:42 < wwoods> | well, when I say "QA dude", that's kind of a
vague handwave for "Either an official QA guy or, until we have a big
enough QA team, community folks"
00:43 < wwoods> | but yeah
00:43 <-- | bpepple has left #fedora-meeting ( "Ex-Chat")
00:43 < wwoods> | we can take this to the list, but I'd like to sit
down and define a QA process for stuff in updates-testing
00:43 < thl> | mmcgrath_, I'll write everything up and send it
to the list over the next week
00:43 < lmacken> | wwoods:
https://hosted.fedoraproject.org/projects/bodhi/wiki/DesignTesting
00:43 < lmacken> | poelstra helped get that ball rolling
00:44 < wwoods> | awesome
00:44 < lmacken> | wwoods: the actual files are in the bodhi code..
feel free to modify
00:44 < thl> | k, so anything else regarding EPEL?
00:45 < stahnma> | I still would like to see us work on something
encouraging involvment from companies
00:45 < stahnma> | I don't know exactly how/what
00:45 < stahnma> | but I think first step is to have EPEL in existance
00:45 < stahnma> | so maybe not today
00:45 < dgilmore> | stahnma: as would i quaid is best to do that
00:45 < thl> | stahnma, didn't quaid work on something in that
area?
00:45 * | dgilmore needs to go get food soon
00:45 < thl> | stahnma, "Communication plan for enterprise
customers/ISVs/IHVs" is on the schedule
00:45 < nirik> | having a functioning setup will help with
community and company involvement.
00:46 < thl> | and it's assigned to quaid
00:46 < thl> | stahnma, there is a wiki page
00:46 < thl> | stahnma, maybe you can help him with that a bit?
00:46 * | stahnma apparently can't read and forgets what he
reads after the fact :)
00:46 < stahnma> | yeah, i will help with that
00:46 < nirik> | lmacken: that chart is great. Just what I was
thinking the process would be. ;)
00:46 < quaid> | there is a page
00:46 * | quaid looks for URL
00:46 < lmacken> | nirik: nice
00:47 < thl> | quaid,
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/CommunicationPlan
00:47 < quaid> | ah, that one yes
00:47 < quaid> | right
00:47 < stahnma> | quaid: ah , I remember that
00:47 < quaid> | the help I need is the part i don't have in my
head, the rebuild developers/packagers
00:47 < stahnma> | quaid: great start :)
00:47 < quaid> | and the rebuild users
00:47 < quaid> | stahnma: thanks :)
00:48 < quaid> | I'll either write or coordinate the RHEL
Customers section, since I do somewhat understand that audience :)
00:48 < quaid> | same with the isv/ihv part
00:48 < stahnma> | great
00:48 * | stahnma is out of random topics
00:48 < thl> | quaid, maybe sending what you have to the list
and asking for opinions and feedback might help to evolve it further
00:48 < quaid> | we could take this to the list for discussion,
whenever we are ready
00:48 < quaid> | heh, jinx!
00:48 < quaid> | thl: right-O, will do
00:49 < thl> | k, anything else?
00:49 < dgilmore> | thl: nope
00:49 * | thl will close the meeting in 60
00:49 < stahnma> | later all, lunch time here...
00:50 * | thl will close the meeting in 30
00:50 * | thl will close the meeting in 15
00:50 < thl> | -- MARK -- Meeting end
00:50 < thl> | thx everyone
00:50 < wolfy> | thank you, guys
00:51 < nirik> | thanks all
00:51 * | wolfy waiting eagerly for the countdown till real
launch of EPEL :)
00:51 --- | thl has changed the topic to:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/FedoraMeetingChannel --
Meetings often get logged -- see schedule in the wiki for next meeting
00:51 < quaid> | do we have a timeline set for that then?
00:52 < thl> | quaid, no, we haven't yet
00:52 < quaid> | ok, just checking :)
00:52 < thl> | and I don#t really feel compfortable setting one yet
00:52 * | quaid misses things, at times
00:52 < quaid> | thl: yes, seems a little premature
00:52 < thl> | let's see how it works out after we open the
flood gates
00:52 < thl> | now that we have RHEL5 on the builders soon
00:53 < thl> | then we need the proper layout
00:53 < thl> | and well, if the repo is in a good shape then we
can announce quickly
00:53 < thl> | good shape and big enough
00:53 < wolfy> | ... and QA policy
00:53 < entr0py> | will integration of bodhi be soon?
00:53 < entr0py> | or is it even finished?
00:53 < thl> | but it seem there are a lot of packages in EPEL
already
00:54 < thl> | entr0py, "soon" afaik
00:54 < entr0py> | nice
00:54 < thl> | wolfy, are you volunteering for writing a QA policy?
00:54 < thl> | wolfy, we didn#t talk about such a policy yet
00:54 < thl> | s/yet/much &/
00:55 < wolfy> | thl: I would if I knew how. Unfortunately I am
much closer to sysadm then to policy design
00:55 < thl> | wolfy, well, keep it in mind and bring it up
again when we get closer to the final annoucement
00:55 < wolfy> | roger that
00:56 <-- | giallu has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection
timed out))
00:57 < entr0py> | thanks thl
}}}
More information about the epel-devel
mailing list