EPEL meeting minutes 2015-01-09

[Stephen John Smoogen]

http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/epel/2015-01-09/epel.2015-01-09-17.00.log.html

17:00:44 <smooge> #startmeeting epel17:00:44 <zodbot> Meeting started
Fri Jan  9 17:00:44 2015 UTC.  The chair is smooge. Information about
MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.17:00:44 <zodbot> Useful
Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.17:00:52
<smooge> #meetingname epel17:00:52 <zodbot> The meeting name has been
set to 'epel'17:01:13 <smooge> #chairs smooge nirik dgilmore
bstinson17:01:28 <smooge> Nirik I believe is going to be
absent17:01:32 <smooge> Evolution is absent17:01:51 <smooge> and
dgilmore might be on snowed in absense17:01:59 * nirik is actually
here right now...17:02:04 <nirik> but I might have to leave
early17:02:05 <smooge> #topic Roll Call17:02:12 <smooge> nirik, I
expect this will be a short meeting17:02:17 <nirik> cool.17:02:32
<bstinson> hi all17:02:39 <smooge> hi bstinson17:03:04 <smooge> #topic
Old Business17:03:30 <smooge> OK we don't have much old business from
the last meeting because it was a couple of weeks ago17:03:45 <smooge>
We had the orphaning and tyll found some bugs in his script that
didn't show all the orphans17:03:52 <smooge> so we have another
batch.17:04:23 * bstinson hasn't had a chance to look through the
email yet, how bad is it looking?17:04:36 <smooge> nirik, bstinson do
we want to have another orphan day or just have tyll do them when he
has a chance?17:04:48 <smooge> bstinson, it isn't any better than it
was before the last one :)17:04:54 * Jeff_S here a bit late17:05:16
<nirik> did we say 6 weeks or something? or has the timeout already
expired.17:05:33 <smooge> nirik, most of these packages are over 6
weeks (some are 22)17:05:48 <nirik> perhaps one last warn email and do
them next week?17:05:57 <bstinson> +117:06:06 <smooge> ok will send
out an email and ask tyll to do them next week around
Thursday?17:06:35 <smooge> alright anyone else have any other old
business?17:07:06 <bstinson> none here17:07:17 <nirik> nada17:07:30
<smooge> ok next up17:07:35 <smooge> #topic New Business17:07:55
<smooge> we have a non-responsive maintainer issue with
kanarip17:08:21 <Evolution> ack. sorry I'm late17:09:02 <nirik> well,
last time I talked to him he was busy, but wanted to keep being
co-maintainer.17:09:05 <smooge> ಠ_ಠ17:10:40 <smooge> nirik, did
someone make Marriane the maintainer of the package?17:11:06 <nirik>
hum? I'm not sure even what package we are talking about...17:11:09
<smooge> .whoowns perl-XML-TreePP17:11:10 <zodbot> smooge:
kanarip17:11:39 * nirik looks17:11:46 <nirik> .branches
perl-XML-TreePP17:11:48 <zodbot> nirik: el5 el6 epel7 f20 f21
master17:12:02 <smooge> the email was about the above which he is sole
maintainer of. I don't mind keeping him but since he is busy making
someone a comaintainer makes sense17:12:23 <nirik> they seem to own
the epel7 branch17:12:32 <nirik> so, I think they went ahead as they
should have.17:12:51 <nirik> You are supposed to ask the fedora
maintainer, wait a week, if no answer:: drive on17:13:09 <smooge>
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2014-December/205902.html17:13:39
<nirik> so, I think it all got sorted17:13:50 <smooge> nirik, ah ok..
I did a whoowns which used to say something like epel7 (mmm)17:14:03
<smooge> and it just said kanarip so I thought it was still
waiting17:14:05 <nirik> that might be cached.17:14:06 <smooge> my
apologies17:14:13 <Jeff_S> So what was the problem?  Did the bug just
not have the right flag set to get attention?17:15:00 <nirik> I think
they just were waiting forever, when the policy says wait a week and
then just request it.17:15:10 <Jeff_S> ok17:15:21 <nirik> not sure how
to make that any better. ;(17:15:31 <smooge> will put that in a blog
list of how to do things in EPEL17:16:00 <smooge> ok any other new
business?17:16:09 <Jeff_S> Yeah, I don't think that's a big deal
unless it's happening to a lot of requests17:16:59 <nirik> more
docs/blog posts on it should possibly help17:18:48 <smooge> I am
working on a couple.. I hope to get some time this weekend to get them
out17:19:05 <smooge> ok any other business we need to deal
with?17:19:19 <smooge> #topic Next Meeting Agenda Items17:19:46
<smooge> Ok please put in anything we want to have in the next meeting
or thought about in coming meetings17:19:47 <nirik> there was another
person asking about the epel-release permlink again17:19:58 <smooge>
yeah.. another roundtuit I need to get on17:20:13 <Jeff_S> ++
:)17:20:34 <smooge> I hope to look at it next week17:20:47 <Jeff_S>
Thanks17:21:05 <bstinson> should we brainstorm some topic ideas for
the CentOS-EPEL meetup at fosdem?17:21:15 <Jeff_S> bstinson: sure, rub
it in...17:22:31 * nirik notes he will not be there, but will be
around on irc if needed.17:22:38 <Jeff_S> I've gotta run, thanks
all17:22:47 <bstinson> was hoping we could live stream it :) but i'm
not sure if that's possible17:23:23 <Evolution> yeah, sadly some of
the key players won't be there17:23:28 <Evolution> nirik, smooge,
etc.17:24:25 <smooge> yeah.. I think we are going to do better just
having a public google hangout or something than try to do something
at an event most can't get to17:24:51 <smooge> not that I have been
any better with some of the EPEL meetings at Flock/FUDcon when CentOS
people couldn't attend17:26:14 <smooge> so lets just say we need to
come up with things for those who can make it to talk about and move
on17:27:22 <smooge> bstinson, most of the topics I would want to talk
about sort of need the rest of EPEL do'ers on to better converse.
Otherwise it could end up like my EPIC proposal.. lots of good ideas
but no buy-in17:29:08 <bstinson> that makes sense, it would be nice to
do a hangout sometime17:29:35 <smooge> ok lets see if we can get that
arranged.17:29:57 <smooge> anything else? I think we will lose nirik
soon17:31:26 <smooge> #topic Open Flood17:31:36 <smooge> Ok last call
on topics and things to talk about.17:31:38 <smooge> Last call17:31:51
<bstinson> nothing here17:31:57 * smooge wonders if Evolution will
wake up to those words17:32:09 <Evolution> I'm here17:32:15
<Evolution> I have nothing to contribute, but I'm here.17:32:19
<dgilmore> sorry guys I slept in17:32:46 <smooge> oh man.. I had a
whole bar closing thing typed in too17:32:51 <dgilmore> I should be at
fosdem17:33:14 <smooge> dgilmore, can you make the EPEL-CentOS
meetup?17:33:23 <dgilmore> smooge: should be able to yes17:34:38
<smooge> cool. that should help answer some of the questions about
build systems that will come up17:34:59 <smooge> Evolution, do you
know whats on kbsingh's mind for the meeting?17:35:17 <Evolution> I
believe interoperability.17:35:47 <Evolution> packages that should be
in epel coming from sigs, etc.17:36:09 <dgilmore> for me its
interoperability and working on finding ways to enable people to
contribute to epel via either CentOS or Fedora17:37:10 <smooge> ok I
think then that if everything gets recorded we can get some stuff done
then17:38:32 <smooge> dgilmore, anything you want in the next
meeting?17:39:56 <dgilmore> smooge: we should look at the policy for
branching packages from Fedora17:40:37 <smooge> dgilmore, yes I agree.
It comes up a lot17:40:49 <dgilmore> It seems many people are not
aware of it and quite a lot of people just go and request branches for
packages. I had it happen to one of mine recently17:41:32 * nirik
wonders if we can somehow automate it.17:41:56 <dgilmore> when
emailing the person that branched my package they thought anyone was
free to branch any package17:42:12 <dgilmore> nirik: we should find a
way to do it17:42:40 <dgilmore> nirik: moving branching into pkgdb
should give us a way to do so17:42:43 <nirik> yeah...17:44:02 <smooge>
ok so something for me to put on next weeks agenda? Can pkdb fix all
our problems?17:44:22 <dgilmore> smooge: its work that is
underway17:45:08 <dgilmore> we probably should make sure we get all
the policy right then palk to pingu and make sure we automate the
checks17:45:33 <smooge> ok so I am not clear on how policy should be
worded.. any examples and I can make a pass at something for
EPEL?17:46:01 <dgilmore> i think the existing polic is fine17:46:26
<dgilmore> we need to reaffirm it and make sure its visable and people
are aware of it17:47:04 <dgilmore> automated enforcement would help
with making people aware17:47:31 <smooge> And the exisitng policy is
the one you listed in the email yesterday?17:47:51 <dgilmore>
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Getting_a_Fedora_package_in_EPEL17:47:53
<dgilmore> correct17:48:13 <dgilmore> packagers can opt out of
epel17:48:37 <dgilmore> in which case people can freely request a
branch17:49:18 <smooge> and from what nirik said earlier.. if the
packager doesn't respond in a week they can branch anyway?17:49:49
<dgilmore> yep17:50:25 <dgilmore> the one thing i think we could add
is that sometimes a package really doesnt make sense in epel17:50:35
<dgilmore> and there should be a way to say so17:50:48 <smooge>
yeah17:51:20 <smooge> ok I will ponder how to do that and come back
next meeting on it17:51:29 <dgilmore> cool17:51:34 <dgilmore> i have
nothing else17:51:41 <smooge> ok me either..17:51:47 <smooge> my dog
says I need to walk her17:51:51 <smooge> so ..17:51:54 <smooge>
#endmeeting

-- 
Stephen J Smoogen.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/meetingminutes/attachments/20150109/2fcf9211/attachment-0001.html>