chewi 15/02/27 22:38:50 Added: java-project-meeting-log-20150227.txt Log: First Java project meeting in years!
Revision Changes Path 1.1 xml/htdocs/proj/en/java/meeting-logs/java-project-meeting-log-20150227.txt file : http://sources.gentoo.org/viewvc.cgi/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/java/meeting-logs/java-project-meeting-log-20150227.txt?rev=1.1&view=markup plain: http://sources.gentoo.org/viewvc.cgi/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/java/meeting-logs/java-project-meeting-log-20150227.txt?rev=1.1&content-type=text/plain Index: java-project-meeting-log-20150227.txt =================================================================== --- Log opened Fri Feb 27 20:54:52 2015 21:00 <@fordfrog> ok, so it seems the meeting has started 21:00 <@ercpe> what do you think about putting a summary into the gentoo wiki? 21:00 <@fordfrog> it was discussed above 21:00 <@ercpe> whoops 21:00 <@fordfrog> :-) 21:00 <@ercpe> what was the result? 21:00 <+_flow_> who chairs (if any)? 21:01 <@fordfrog> ercpe, Chewi will log the session 21:01 <@ercpe> the... erm... project lead 21:01 <@ercpe> :P 21:01 * Chewi hides 21:01 <@fordfrog> well, i doubt we have here anyone capable of leading the project atm so i suggest we are all equal for now ;-) any objections? :-) 21:02 <@ercpe> i would say we just get through the points. Any time-limit (per topic and in general)? 21:02 <+monsieurp> half an hour per topic 21:03 <+monsieurp> no ok joking 21:03 <+monsieurp> 5 min max 21:03 <@fordfrog> lets keep it under 60 minutes, that is till 22:00 utc (23:00 monsieurp time :-P ) 21:03 <@ercpe> ok 21:03 <@Chewi> it's just a collection of the stuff we've been moaning about for the past few months so we should be familiar with much of it anyway 21:03 <@ercpe> first topic: 21:03 <@ercpe> Bugzilla is littered with old bugs (2006 onwards), 1/4 of packages out of date, how do we deal with them? (monsieurp) 21:03 <@fordfrog> any suggestions? 21:03 <@Chewi> monsieurp seems to want to kill them with fire ;) 21:04 <@ercpe> imho we should drop as much as possible to reduce the overall count in dev-java/* to a more maintainable set 21:04 <@Chewi> I think we should hold back a little. there's no prizes for blindly closing bugs. 21:04 <+_flow_> Is there any need for action? 21:04 <@fordfrog> imo we should close only those that are really outdated 21:04 <@Chewi> bugs requesting new packages for clearly dead projects can obviously go 21:05 <@fordfrog> that is the package or version is not in the tree anymore 21:05 <+monsieurp> guys take a look at euscan as well: http://euscan.gentooexperimental.org/herds/java/ 21:05 <+monsieurp> many many packages are out of date 21:05 <+monsieurp> how do we deal with these? 21:05 <@ercpe> i think that are two distinct points: load of bugs and outdated packages 21:05 <@Chewi> bugs about packages that are in the tree but otherwise dead should be considered to go but rdeps need to be dealt with of course 21:05 <+monsieurp> you think very well ercpe I must say 21:06 <@ercpe> bugs: close which are obsolete or cant reproduce 21:06 <+monsieurp> +1 21:06 <+monsieurp> or HOMEPAGE is dead 21:06 <@fordfrog> that makes sense 21:06 <+monsieurp> if homepage dead -> close, OBSOLETE -> next 21:06 <@ercpe> we have a lot of packages with broken HOMEPAGE on dev.java.net but still used everywhere 21:07 <@Chewi> I don't want a mass cull of packages yet because I'm hoping that the work I will do eclasses/infrastructure will enable us to bump/add new package versions more quickly 21:08 <@ercpe> what about removing outdated packages, which aren't part of a dep tree? 21:08 <@Chewi> a lot of packages will be effectively rewritten but removing packages is more involved than just bumping them 21:08 <@Chewi> I mean... if you're going to readd them later 21:09 <@fordfrog> only dead upstream packages should be removed, if nothing depends on them 21:09 <@Chewi> agreed 21:09 <+monsieurp> sure 21:09 <+monsieurp> what about those laying around in the overlays? 21:09 <@ercpe> thats another topic 21:09 <+monsieurp> we will discuss the overlay topic a bit later on but there's many cruft in there as well 21:10 <@Chewi> it may not be that many but as I said, this isn't what's holding us back. it just looks a little messy. 21:10 <@ercpe> ok, so we trying to bump as much as possible and dropping obsolete, outdated and/or abandoned packages 21:10 <@ercpe> ? 21:10 <+monsieurp> sounds good to me 21:10 <+zxiiro> +1 21:10 <@Chewi> yes. but give me time. ;) 21:10 <@fordfrog> agreed, in sane manner ofc :-) 21:11 <@Chewi> I'm not going to write the next Maven eclass overnight :P 21:11 <@ercpe> :D 21:11 <@fordfrog> Chewi, why not? :-( 21:11 <@ercpe> anything else on this topic? 21:11 <+monsieurp> nop let's move on 21:11 <+zxiiro> I'll try to help go through the open bugs too. (just need to find some free time ;) 21:11 <+monsieurp> new recruits in sight 21:11 <@ercpe> next: new java devs/recruits: WE NEED MORE PEOPLE TO GET ON BOARD! (monsieurp) 21:11 <+zxiiro> regarding version bumping 21:11 <@fordfrog> zxiiro, cool! :-) 21:12 <@fordfrog> any ideas wrt that recruting topic? 21:12 <+monsieurp> first of all: zxiiro, gnu_andrew, do you guys want to become dev at some point? 21:12 <@Chewi> well you may have noticed the late edit to the list of potential recruits ;) 21:12 <@ercpe> [email protected] received a few mails over the last few month regarding helping with java on gentoo 21:12 <@fordfrog> Chewi, yes, we all welcome you hare! :-) 21:13 <+zxiiro> monsieurp: i sure do 21:13 <@ercpe> getting new people on board depends on the documentation > wiki migration 21:13 <@ercpe> the docs on g.org are really, really outdated 21:13 <@Chewi> I've mentioned this before but I worry that if we rush to get people on board who aren't familiar with the wider picture, they may get frustrated because they can't package most things now due to Maven. 21:14 <@Chewi> but I don't want to hold things back in that regard either 21:14 <+monsieurp> ercpe: we'll get to this ;) 21:14 <@Chewi> ercpe: yeah and that too 21:14 <@fordfrog> well, generally, these are my suggestions: first we should express our need for new fresh blood at wiki, second, we should ecnourage ppl to step up, and third, we should ask recruiters what they could do for us 21:14 <+monsieurp> I've also talked to gienah a bit this afternoon and since he's taken care of writing most of the dev-lang/scala ebuilds, he knows his around around the java eclasses 21:14 <+monsieurp> he said he's willing to give us a hand 21:15 <+monsieurp> he's in this channel (hi gienah ! :)) 21:15 <+zxiiro> I think making it easier for people to actually contribute would be helpful 21:15 <+monsieurp> *his way around 21:15 -!- mode/#gentoo-java [+v gienah] by ChanServ 21:15 <@Chewi> does anyone echo my sentiment? has anyone other than me actually tried to package anything new lately? :P 21:15 <+monsieurp> he's already a Gentoo dev btw 21:15 <+zxiiro> for example submitting patches to bugzilla is very outdated in my opinion 21:16 <+monsieurp> Chewi: I've packaged dev-java/scala-bin and it was a bit frustrating 21:16 <@Chewi> zxiiro: we'll come to that later on the github topic 21:16 <@ercpe> but patches in bugzilla are more than nothing 21:16 <+zxiiro> with things like GitHub and Gerrit, contributing to an OS project is so easy but Gentoo's infra's holding us back 21:16 <+zxiiro> ok 21:16 <@Chewi> monsieurp: and that was only a -bin! 21:16 <+monsieurp> Chewi: yeah 21:16 <+monsieurp> Chewi: take a look at dev-lang/scala .. 21:16 <+gnu_andrew> Chewi: well for my part, the only packages I'm interested in are JDKs ;) 21:17 <+zxiiro> sorry missed that topic item :) 21:17 <+monsieurp> gnu_andrew: you haven't answered my question about whether you wanna become a dev 21:17 <+monsieurp> zxiiro: ^ :p 21:17 <@Chewi> gnu_andrew: fair enough. and you do a very good job! 21:17 <+monsieurp> +1 definitely thanks for your help andrew 21:18 <@ercpe> anything else we can do on this topic? 21:18 <@fordfrog> well, could someone make a summary of the resolution of this topic? 21:18 <@Chewi> probably not, we all agree we need new blood but maybe not the highest priority 21:18 <+gnu_andrew> monsieurp: it would make things easier. The main showstopper last time was that some Java quiz was wanted. I'm not really interested in packaging Java stuff. 21:19 <@ercpe> The summary is basically: "well, generally, these are my suggestions: first we should express our need for new fresh blood at wiki, second, we should ecnourage ppl to step up, and third, we should ask recruiters what they could do for us" 21:19 <+gnu_andrew> it has become a little silly having to point people at an overlay for over a month... 21:19 <@ercpe> :) 21:19 <@fordfrog> ah, ok, someone already made it :-P 21:19 <@fordfrog> so lets move on 21:19 <@ercpe> possible new recruits in sight: gnu_andrew, zxiiro (monsieurp) 21:19 <@ercpe> can we skip this? 21:19 <@Chewi> yeah 21:19 <+monsieurp> yes 21:19 <@ercpe> ok 21:19 <@ercpe> 1.8 is out. many stuff to update/version bump/get rid of (eclasses, packages, etc). (monsieurp) 21:20 <@ercpe> we dont even have a stable 1.7 :/ 21:20 <@fordfrog> monsieurp, can you be more specific? 21:20 <@Chewi> stable 1.7 is further down the list 21:20 <+monsieurp> well basically, how do we deal with stuff 1.8 related? 21:20 <@Chewi> I get the impression that nothing much depends on 8 yet 21:21 <@ercpe> tc8 iirc 21:21 <@Chewi> so even if we bump all our other stuff, it's not essential 21:21 <@Chewi> but no doubt users will ask for it 21:21 <+monsieurp> do we say "no" or do we say "not for now, wait a bit" ? 21:21 <@ercpe> wait a bit 21:21 <+monsieurp> ok cool 21:22 <@Chewi> someone needs to investigate what issues may arise. 7 didn't present many new ones but it's not something we should blindly walk into. 21:22 <@ercpe> if all goes well, we will have a stable 1.7 at some point 21:22 <+monsieurp> sounds reasonable 21:22 <@fordfrog> well, 1.7 is blocked just by few bugs now 21:22 <@fordfrog> so we should focus on those bugs that block it 21:22 <@fordfrog> as java is the core of we do, we should keep up to date with that imo 21:22 <@ercpe> i would like to put the 1.8 topic way after "bumping outdated packages" and stable 1.7 21:22 <@Chewi> gnu_andrew: is there anything you can add about 8? 21:23 <@fordfrog> ercpe, bumping outdated packages is never ending story :-) 21:23 <+zxiiro> +1 focus on getting 1.7 stable and then do 1.8 after. For what it's worth though my company does do some of our builds with 1.8 as we are adding support to some of our code for it 21:23 <@Chewi> zxiiro: that sounds more like making it work with 8 rather than using 8's new features? 21:24 <+zxiiro> Chewi: yes, step one is to get stuff to compile with 8 21:24 <@fordfrog> exactly, it can be 1.4 source and target, but it should compile with 8 21:24 <@Chewi> gnu_andrew: any icedtea 8 ebuilds on the horizon, for example? 21:25 <+gnu_andrew> Chewi: there's one in overlay. I'm actually working on updating it at the moment. 21:25 <+gnu_andrew> Hope to finally have a 3.0.0 next month 21:25 <+monsieurp> nice 21:25 <@ercpe> great 21:25 <@fordfrog> that sounds good :-) 21:25 <+monsieurp> looking forward to it 21:25 <+gnu_andrew> it'll be u40 based so following that upstream release 21:25 <@Chewi> gnu_andrew: must have missed that 21:26 <+gnu_andrew> Chewi: it's not happened yet, it's due next month 21:26 <@Chewi> ok 21:26 <@fordfrog> ok, can we close that 1.6, 1.7 and 1.8 topic? 21:26 <+gnu_andrew> bump I'm about to do will give us 3.0.0pre03 using u40b21. 21:26 <+monsieurp> sure let's move on 21:26 <@ercpe> fordfrog: i think so 21:26 <+monsieurp> OVERLAYS! 21:26 <@ercpe> too many overlays: java-experimental, java-overlay? we must define a workflow if we want to keep (all of) them or nuke them (monsieurp) and document the rest on the wiki (fordfrog) 21:26 <+gnu_andrew> on 1.6 21:26 <@Chewi> we should talk about 1.6 I think 21:26 <+gnu_andrew> what was the deal with getting rid of it? 21:26 <@Chewi> yeah 21:27 <@fordfrog> 1.6 should go when done with it 21:27 <@ercpe> we need a stable 1.7 to get rid of 1.6 21:27 <@Chewi> especially in the light of security vulns 21:27 <@fordfrog> yes, the bug takes care of all the deps 21:27 <@Chewi> I guess that's the only blocker really 21:27 <@ercpe> and we have to ensure that EVERY pacakge builds with 1.7 21:27 <+gnu_andrew> it's only Oracle's that's obsolete. OpenJDK/IcedTea is still supported. 21:27 <@Chewi> good to know 21:27 <@fordfrog> ercpe, those are the blockers for 1.7 stabilization 21:27 <+gnu_andrew> you could drop Oracle's insecure binaries now if they are still present and point people at IcedTea 1.13.6 21:28 <@ercpe> fordfrog: plus the ones that havent discovered yet :) 21:28 <@ercpe> gnu_andrew: we don't have oracle-jdk in 1.6 21:28 <@fordfrog> ercpe, true :-) but those should be reported when occur and we should deal with them :-) 21:28 <@ercpe> yep 21:28 <@Chewi> I would take a look at those blockers but I probably have enough to do. can I delegate to fordfrog? ;) 21:28 <+gnu_andrew> ercpe: oh ok so what 1.6 are you referring to? The bug linked to was about oracle-jdk 1.6 21:29 <@fordfrog> Chewi, i can't promise anything, i already cleaned some but do not have much time atm, to much real life stuff here 21:29 <@Chewi> fordfrog: understood 21:29 <@ercpe> gnu_andrew: i havent started the discussion about removal of 1.6 :) 21:30 <+gnu_andrew> ercpe: oh ok I was confused by what fordfrog said 21:30 <@ercpe> bug #483018 is about oracle-jdk 1.6 21:30 < willikins> ercpe: https://bugs.gentoo.org/483018 "[Tracker] removal of 1.6 JDK's"; Gentoo Linux, Java; CONF; tomwij:java 21:30 <+gnu_andrew> <fordfrog> ok, can we close that 1.6, 1.7 and 1.8 topic? 21:30 <@fordfrog> gnu_andrew, the bug mentioned above 21:30 <@ercpe> are there any problems with keeping icedtea 1.6 around for some time? 21:30 <+gnu_andrew> ercpe: Oracle 1.6 JDK should go immediately. It has hundreds of security vulnerabilities. 21:30 <@fordfrog> ercpe, we do not have to remove it if it's supported by upstream 21:31 <@ercpe> [I] dev-java/oracle-jdk-bin 21:31 <@ercpe> Available versions: 21:31 <@ercpe> (1.7) ~*1.7.0.60^fs 1.7.0.76^fs 21:31 <@ercpe> (1.8) ~1.8.0.31^fs 21:31 <+gnu_andrew> ercpe: not while it's still supported 21:31 <@ercpe> we dont have oracle-jdk in 1.6 21:31 <@Chewi> removing it just means we don't need to care about 1.6 at all any more which would be nice 21:31 <@fordfrog> we have sun-jdk 21:31 <@fordfrog> which is already masked 21:31 <+gnu_andrew> yeah that's what it was called 21:31 <@ercpe> holy sh*t 21:31 <@Chewi> yeah there never was oracle-jdk-1.6 lol 21:32 <@ercpe> didn't know that beast is still alive 21:32 <+gnu_andrew> yeah RH had the same thing I think, java-1.6.0-sun 21:32 <@ercpe> well, more half-dead 21:32 <@Chewi> okay, that's really got to go 21:32 <+gnu_andrew> ercpe: it shouldn't be. They stopped public sec. updates years ago 21:32 <@Chewi> who wants the pleasure? ;) 21:32 <+gnu_andrew> I do think weening packages away from 1.6 is a good idea 21:32 <+monsieurp> how difficult is it? 21:33 <@Chewi> well it just needs the usual last-rites process I guess 21:34 <@Chewi> check for anything that insists on sun-jdk, there should be few if any 21:34 <+monsieurp> ok I'll take care of it 21:34 <@ercpe> great 21:34 <@ercpe> can we move to the overlays topic? 21:34 <+monsieurp> yes 21:34 <@ercpe> too many overlays: java-experimental, java-overlay? we must define a workflow if we want to keep (all of) them or nuke them (monsieurp) and document the rest on the wiki (fordfrog) 21:34 <@fordfrog> so we keep icedtea and virtual 1.6 for now, right? 21:34 <@ercpe> fordfrog: yes 21:34 <@Chewi> monsieurp: I don't think I want that responsibility so soon in my tenure so thanks :) 21:34 <@fordfrog> so the related bug should be handled 21:34 <@Chewi> fordfrog: yes 21:35 <@fordfrog> as it's obsolete now :-) 21:35 <+gnu_andrew> Chewi, monsieurp: well no-one should be using sun-jdk-1.6 and there's a very strong reason to get rid of it. 21:35 <@Chewi> I'm happy to keep overlays as they are 21:35 <@Chewi> I think they have a well defined purpose 21:35 <+gnu_andrew> I do need java overlay for now as I've nowhere else to commit... 21:35 <@Chewi> I still intend to use java-overlay as a staging ground 21:35 <+monsieurp> gnu_andrew and fordfrog: let's discuss this topic offline 21:35 * ercpe has never used the overlays 21:36 <@Chewi> there seems to be some confusion about java-experimental but it's always been clear to me 21:36 <@ercpe> i have no use for them 21:36 <@Chewi> half-baked work that's not good enough for overlay but someone else may be able to fix later 21:36 <+monsieurp> well, my pet peeve as far as overlay are concerned is 21:36 <@Chewi> I have used it in the past 21:36 <@ercpe> every now and than a bugs pops up at b.g.o 21:36 <+monsieurp> it's extremely difficult for newcomers to contribute to Gentoo 21:37 <@ercpe> since we dont have the manpower to cover so many places: i would vote for removal 21:37 <+monsieurp> I'd move some stuff to Github so that we get some exposure and maybe get people to contribute 21:37 <+_flow_> I would say it's extremely difficult. But yes it took me nearly half a year till someone allowed me to commit my ebuilds 21:37 <@ercpe> monsieurp: thats the next topic 21:37 <@Chewi> monsieurp: they can be mirrored on github, but not actually moved 21:37 <+_flow_> *wouldn't 21:37 <+monsieurp> Chewi: ok sure whatever 21:37 <@Chewi> _flow_: I'm sorry it took so long 21:38 <+_flow_> but it was not a technical problem, I guess it was more a manpower problem 21:38 <@Chewi> I think now there's renewed interest, we will be more receptive to newcomes 21:38 <@ercpe> so, do we actually NEED those overlays? 21:38 <+gnu_andrew> ercpe: yes 21:38 <@ercpe> meh 21:38 <+monsieurp> the Gentoo KDE team has some of their overlays on github and it's very much active 21:38 <+_flow_> well the java overlay is clearly needed 21:38 <+monsieurp> just see for yourself: https://github.com/gentoo/kde 21:38 <+zxiiro> I'd be +1 on making our development happen on GitHub, let people submit PR's instead of attaching them to bugs. easier to review and easier to merge 21:38 <@Chewi> the overlays allow people like _flow_ (and gnu_andrew, and me!) to contribute *more8 easily 21:38 <+_flow_> not sure about java-experimental, it just adds more complexity it appears 21:38 <+gnu_andrew> Chewi: to contribute at all... 21:38 <+zxiiro> easier for drive-by contributors too 21:39 <+zxiiro> sometimes someone just wants to contribute a quick patch 21:39 <+monsieurp> look at the number of commits.. 21:39 <+gnu_andrew> Chewi, ercpe: really it's dependent on first solving the whole recruitment issue 21:39 <@ercpe> wait, guys. The topic is about the number of overays. Where they live is the nexxt topic 21:39 <@Chewi> if you don't like experimental, just ignore it ;) 21:39 <@Chewi> it's not intended for end users 21:39 <@Chewi> it's not in layman 21:39 <+monsieurp> if we want to revamp Java and get fresh blod and etc., github *is* definitely the place for showing our work to the world 21:39 <+gnu_andrew> if you don't have sufficient 'official' overlays, people are just going to create their own ad-hoc ones 21:39 <+monsieurp> *blood 21:40 <+gnu_andrew> that's what I did before I had java overlay access 21:40 <@ercpe> The topic is: "too many overlays: java-experimental, java-overlay? we must define a workflow if we want to keep (all of) them or nuke them (monsieurp) and document the rest on the wiki (fordfrog)" 21:40 <@ercpe> NOT the github topic 21:40 <@ercpe> so: do we keep them? 21:40 <+zxiiro> I'd vote to remove them, if we can keep as close to 1 overlay as possible, it makes it less confusing 21:41 <+monsieurp> java-experimental is useless IMHO 21:41 <@Chewi> rename java-experimental to chewi's-craphole if you like ;) 21:41 <+monsieurp> lol 21:41 <+zxiiro> too many repos means people have to figure out where to put their contribution 21:41 <+monsieurp> +1 21:41 <@ercpe> i agree with zxiiro 21:41 <@Chewi> until recently, java-experimental wasn't even publicly visible so I'm not sure why you hate it so much :P 21:41 <@fordfrog> well, instead of java-experimental we could create new overlay at github for those that are not yet granted access to java-overlay 21:41 <+monsieurp> and +1 for renaming java-experimental to chewi's craphole ahah :> (it did crack me up) 21:42 <@Chewi> fordfrog: I don't think that's the way to go 21:42 <@Chewi> github should have a mirror of java-overlay 21:42 <@ercpe> Ok, java-experimental will be removed, java-overlay stays 21:42 <+_flow_> fordfrog: why not mirror? That is, if you really want github 21:42 <@Chewi> that's more effective 21:42 <+monsieurp> +1 21:43 <@ercpe> next topic? 21:43 <@Chewi> wait a sec 21:43 <@Chewi> let's see exactly what's in there 21:43 <@Chewi> to see if it's really worth keeping 21:43 <@Chewi> 351 ebuilds 21:43 <+gnu_andrew> I haven't used experimental for years. 21:44 <@Chewi> 332 packages 21:44 <@Chewi> that's a lot of stuff to just throw away 21:44 <+monsieurp> the thing that bothered me a lot the first time I cloned java-experimental was the README content 21:44 <@Chewi> seems clear to me! 21:44 <+monsieurp> basically it says "well.. it might work but don't expect it to" 21:45 <@ercpe> for the lazy: that is in java-overlay: https://paste.ercpe.de/java-overlay.txt 21:45 <+zxiiro> ercpe: thanks 21:45 <@Chewi> monsieurp: right! that's the point lol 21:45 <+zxiiro> can't we just hardmask "experimental" stuff? 21:46 <@ercpe> some of the libs should be moved to gentoo-x86 because they are dependencies 21:46 <+zxiiro> why need a separate overlay 21:46 <@ercpe> e.g. wagon, plexus, etc. 21:46 <@Chewi> I think that would be worse 21:46 <@Chewi> look I don't want to be a stick in the mud so 21:46 <@Chewi> I'm happy to keep a local copy 21:47 <@Chewi> most of it is popular way out of date and needs Mavenising anyway 21:47 <@Chewi> *probably 21:47 <+monsieurp> ok sure 21:47 <+monsieurp> we can keep it for a while if you want 21:47 <+monsieurp> *BUT* 21:47 <@Chewi> who needs to throw that switch? infra? 21:47 <+monsieurp> yes 21:48 <@Chewi> who's going to tell them? ercpe seems to hate it the most. :P 21:48 <+monsieurp> *BUT* ! we should definitely have a java-experimental mirror on github 21:48 <@Chewi> huh? 21:48 <@ercpe> what? 21:48 <+monsieurp> sorry 21:48 <+monsieurp> java-overlay I meant 21:48 <@Chewi> yes 21:48 <+monsieurp> typo :\ 21:48 <@Chewi> I think we're all in agreement there 21:48 <+monsieurp> okay 21:48 <@fordfrog> yes 21:49 <+zxiiro> I feel like it shoud,n't be a mirror, it should be primary 21:49 <@Chewi> zxiiro: I'm not sure that would fly with Gentoo 21:49 <@ercpe> OK, to sum this up: dropping experimental, keeping overlay? 21:49 <@Chewi> ercpe: yes 21:49 <+monsieurp> I talked to infra about it already 21:49 <@fordfrog> and mirroring java-overlay at github 21:49 <+monsieurp> zxiiro: and their answer was "do not rely too much on github" 21:49 <+_flow_> zxiiro: you definetly not want to depend your infra on some company 21:49 <@Chewi> sorry to keep delegating but we need to make decisions about who's doing stuff or it won't get done :P 21:50 <+zxiiro> right, but from what i've seen so far, can we depend on Gentoo infra? 21:50 <@ercpe> move overlay repositories to github under https://github.com/gentoo/java. benefits: more exposure, get more people to contribute, github infrastructure. (monsieurp) 21:50 <+zxiiro> i mean a few servers have been offline for months 21:50 <@Chewi> zxiiro: they seem to be improving again. they just brought archives.gentoo.org back from the dead. 21:50 <+zxiiro> ok that's good 21:50 <+zxiiro> glad to hear that 21:50 <@ercpe> while i really like github and totally see the advantages, i would definetly go with gentoo's infra 21:51 <@Chewi> anyway, the concept of a "primary" isn't so solid with git 21:51 <@fordfrog> ercpe, the mirror would be fine i guess 21:51 <+zxiiro> My favourite option would be Gerrit 21:51 <+zxiiro> which we can host ourselves 21:51 <@ercpe> we use git, right? Anyone can clone a git repo from gentoos infra and send a pull request 21:51 <+zxiiro> but you'd need infra on board with that 21:51 <@ercpe> zxiiro: they will if the primary source is on gentoos infra 21:51 <@fordfrog> ercpe, github is more user friendly and devs are often used to it 21:52 <+zxiiro> ercpe: yes, but merging is a pain if the place you receive PR's from is not the primary 21:52 <+monsieurp> here's what infra said the other day when I asked in the channel about moving the overlay to github 21:52 <+monsieurp> 15:21 [ monsieurp ] a simple question, out of curiosity: we (Java team) might move the overlays to Github. 1) Can we do it? 2) if yes, how can we go about doing it? 21:52 <+monsieurp> 15:26 [ Pinkbyte ] monsieurp, if you are member of github organization, you can just create repo, add new origin and push into it 21:52 <+monsieurp> 15:26 [ Pinkbyte ] however, as per our last discussion in gentoo-dev, please, do not rely on github too much 21:52 <+monsieurp> 15:27 [ Pinkbyte ] i mean - nobody can stop you to get pull requests from it, and it's ok. But making it primary point of contrib 21:52 <+monsieurp> ution, without mirror on our infrastructure is a bit overkill 21:52 <@ercpe> the last one is exactly my point 21:52 <+zxiiro> plus if Devs don't check the mirror then they won't know there's PRs to merge 21:53 <@ercpe> plus i dont want to heat up the discussion on g-dev :P 21:53 <@Chewi> zxiiro: I know you can't just click the Merge button but I don't think it's that big a deal. I'm very comfortable with git on the command lin.e 21:53 <@Chewi> zxiiro: I'm quite active on github so don't worry 21:53 <+zxiiro> Chewi: yes, but I like to think of future. In this case what if you leave and no one else checks GitHub? 21:54 <+monsieurp> zxiiro: then it'll be you 21:54 <@Chewi> if I leave, we're screwed anyway :P 21:54 <+zxiiro> that's why I feel primary being the place you accept contributions is important 21:54 <@fordfrog> zxiiro, then we will delete the mirror :-P 21:54 <+zxiiro> lol 21:54 <@ercpe> We are talking about an overlay, right? i don't think that we should work that mouch in the overlay. We have enough work down the road in gentoo-x86 21:54 <@Chewi> true 21:54 <@fordfrog> ercpe, that should be starting place for newcomers 21:54 <+zxiiro> anyway, regardless mirror or not, i think it's good progress in the right direction 21:54 <@fordfrog> we should help them, support them and give them toys to play with :-) 21:55 <@Chewi> monsieurp: do you know who can give access to the organisation? 21:55 <@ercpe> open a bug 21:55 <@Chewi> ok 21:55 <+monsieurp> a3li 21:55 <+monsieurp> no ask him directly 21:55 <@ercpe> thats the way i got my permissions 21:55 <+monsieurp> yeah well 21:55 <+monsieurp> opening a bug works too 21:56 <@Chewi> moving on now, I think 21:56 <@ercpe> so what is the result of this topic? 21:56 <+monsieurp> yes 21:56 <@ercpe> gh as a primary source? 21:56 <@Chewi> mirror 21:56 <+monsieurp> mirror 21:56 <+monsieurp> [22:49:23] [ @ercpe ] OK, to sum this up: dropping experimental, keeping overlay? 21:56 <+monsieurp> + mirror on gh 21:56 <@ercpe> that was the previous topic :) 21:56 <+monsieurp> ah shit 21:56 <@ercpe> ok 21:57 <+monsieurp> but yeah :> mirror 21:57 <@Chewi> not sure exactly how the mirroring works, maybe the repo is effective read-only? we'll see I guess. 21:57 <@ercpe> we have almost hit the 60 minute limit 21:57 <+monsieurp> it's ok 21:57 <@ercpe> i have to work tomorrow so i would like to stop here 21:57 <+monsieurp> :( 21:58 <@Chewi> just before all my stuff, great :P 21:58 <@fordfrog> ok, so we're done for now, the rest text time 21:58 <@fordfrog> s/text/next 21:58 <@Chewi> well I could ramble on for a while so I'd rather have your fresh attention some other time 21:58 <@fordfrog> just one last question, how often do we/are we able to meet here? 21:58 <@ercpe> 50% of all topics isn't that bad :) 21:58 <+monsieurp> twice a week 21:58 <@Chewi> normally I'd say we should do this once a month 21:59 <+monsieurp> Chewi: everyday 21:59 <@Chewi> but obviously we have a lot to talk about right now 21:59 <@ercpe> yeah, every two or four weeks 21:59 <@fordfrog> ok 21:59 <+monsieurp> every two weeks 21:59 <@fordfrog> so at least each month and at most bi-weekly 21:59 <@Chewi> how about we pencil in next Friday to deal with the rest of these topics 21:59 <@ercpe> fordfrog: thats a good idea 21:59 <@Chewi> and then take it a bit more steady from there 22:00 <@ercpe> deal! 22:00 <+monsieurp> deal 22:00 <+monsieurp> Friday is good 22:00 <@Chewi> cool 22:00 <+monsieurp> zxiiro: ? 22:00 <+monsieurp> gnu_andrew: ^ 22:00 -!- fordfrog changed the topic of #gentoo-java to: Java on Gentoo http://java.gentoo.org/ | Other Java stuff please take to ##java | Ask question(s) and please be patient http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/java/java-devel.xml | Open Bugs: http://tinyurl.com/gentoojava | Ideas/Topics for next meeting at https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Java#Topics (even non-members can and are encouraged) | Next meeting Mar 06 @ 21:00 UTC 22:00 <@ercpe> Next meeting: Friday, Mar 6, 21:00 UTC 22:00 <+monsieurp> UTC, gotcha 22:00 <@ercpe> the important part: UTC 22:00 <@ercpe> :P 22:00 <@Chewi> fordfrog: you read my mind :D 22:00 <+monsieurp> AHAH :P 22:00 <@fordfrog> :-) 22:00 <+gnu_andrew> most Fridays work for me, but not next I'm afraid 22:01 <+monsieurp> :( so it doesn't actually work then? 22:01 <@Chewi> gnu_andrew: it'll mostly be able Maven anyway 22:01 <@Chewi> *about 22:01 <+zxiiro> monsieurp: Friday's good for me too 22:01 <+gnu_andrew> Chewi: oh that's ok, the less I hear about that thing the better ;) 22:01 <+zxiiro> all my meetings areo n Thursdays 22:01 <@Chewi> haha 22:01 <+zxiiro> so i'm free fridays :) 22:01 <+monsieurp> gnu_andrew: RH policies, eh..? a Gentoo meeting a month 22:02 <+gnu_andrew> monsieurp: huh? 22:02 <+monsieurp> :P 22:02 <+monsieurp> joking :> 22:02 <+gnu_andrew> monsieurp: I don't even like Ant, never mind Maven. Hence why I want to stay away from Java packaging ;) 22:03 <@Chewi> right, I'll call a close to this meeting for the log. thanks guys. :) 22:03 <+gnu_andrew> they should just use good old autoconf and make like everyone else 22:03 <+gnu_andrew> Chewi: thanks 22:03 <+monsieurp> thanks! very productive :)
