rich0 14/10/21 20:26:18
Added: 20141014-summary.txt 20141014.txt
20141021-summary.txt 20141021.txt
Log:
Add October council logs/summary.
Revision Changes Path
1.1
xml/htdocs/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20141014-summary.txt
file :
http://sources.gentoo.org/viewvc.cgi/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20141014-summary.txt?rev=1.1&view=markup
plain:
http://sources.gentoo.org/viewvc.cgi/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20141014-summary.txt?rev=1.1&content-type=text/plain
Index: 20141014-summary.txt
===================================================================
Roll call
=========
Present: blueness, creffett (proxy for ulm), dberkholz, dilfridge, radhermit,
rich0, williamh
Absent:
The future of einstall
======================
"Einstall will be removed from EAPI6."
aye: creffett (proxy for ulm), dberkholz, radhermit, rich0, williamh
GLEP 64
=======
"We approve GLEP64 as documented at
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/User:Blueness/GLEP64 with API versioning
added."
aye: blueness, dberkholz, dilfridge, radhermit, rich0
abstain: creffett (proxy for ulm), williamh
Git Migration Issues
====================
"The yyyy/ prefix can be dropped from gentoo-news, timing to be
determined by those implementing the change."
Aye: blueness, creffett (proxy for ulm), dberkholz, dilfridge, radhermit,
rich0, williamh
Can we drop CVS headers post-migration?
Aye: blueness, creffett (proxy for ulm), dberkholz, dilfridge, radhermit,
rich0, williamh
"The git migration should produce a separate historical and current
repository, which can be spliced using git replace, but which are
otherwise not connected."
Aye: blueness, creffett (proxy for ulm), dberkholz, dilfridge, radhermit,
rich0, williamh
"we don't see any big remaining obstacles and advise infra / the git
migration project to proceed at their pace"
Aye: blueness, creffett (proxy for ulm), dberkholz, dilfridge, radhermit,
rich0, williamh
(Meeting was called due to time, with remaining items to be covered following
week.)
1.1 xml/htdocs/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20141014.txt
file :
http://sources.gentoo.org/viewvc.cgi/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20141014.txt?rev=1.1&view=markup
plain:
http://sources.gentoo.org/viewvc.cgi/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20141014.txt?rev=1.1&content-type=text/plain
Index: 20141014.txt
===================================================================
[15:00:07] <rich0> Ok, roll call :)
[15:00:10] <radhermit> here
[15:00:15] <WilliamH> here
[15:00:16] <dberkholz|mob> Sup
[15:00:49] -*- creffett|irssi here for ulm, unless ulm is here already
[15:01:02] <rich0> blueness, dilfridge, ulm?
[15:01:57] <rich0> Ok, let's get started.
[15:02:04] <rich0> First item, future of einstall
[15:02:14] <rich0> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/92713
[15:02:14] <rich0>
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel.announce/2212/focus=4025
[15:02:27] <rich0> Should einstall be banned in EAPI6.
[15:02:32] <rich0> Any comments beyond the lists?
[15:02:37] -*- creffett|irssi reviews his notes
[15:02:49] <creffett|irssi> no comments here
[15:02:54] <WilliamH> none here
[15:03:27] <radhermit> I don't have anything more to say
[15:03:32] <rich0> Ok, let's vote then. "Einstall will be removed from EAPI6."
[15:04:07] -*- creffett|irssi yes
[15:04:12] <dberkholz|mob> Yep
[15:04:13] <radhermit> yes
[15:04:16] <WilliamH> yes
[15:04:31] -*- rich0 yes
[15:04:49] <rich0> Ok, that's all of us
[15:05:02] <rich0> Next item...
[15:05:11] <rich0> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/User:Blueness/GLEP64
[15:05:20] <rich0> Blueness is requesting approval on this.
[15:05:24] <radhermit> someone want to text blueness?
[15:05:30] <rich0> good idea
[15:06:24] <dilfridge> sorry, here
[15:06:26] <rich0> I just texted him
[15:06:55] <rich0> Do we want to move on to git?
[15:07:05] <radhermit> sure
[15:07:06] <rich0> I'd prefer to give him the option to present.
[15:07:11] <blueness> here!!!
[15:07:11] <rich0> Ok, let's move on to git.
[15:07:16] <blueness> sorry thanks rich
[15:07:18] <rich0> never mind. :)
[15:07:22] <blueness> rich0,
[15:07:24] <rich0> let's do glep64 - I think it will be faster
[15:07:41] <rich0> blueness: do you have any comments you want to make?
[15:07:51] <blueness> rich0, just a few points
[15:07:58] <blueness> its was discussed on gentoo-dev@
[15:08:14] <blueness> it got feedback for ciarian and incorportated it
[15:08:28] <blueness> do you need me to repeate the motivation?
[15:08:39] <rich0> Nah - at least not for me.
[15:08:42] <rich0> I can read. :)
[15:08:52] <rich0> My only real comment is that it is a bit vague -
deliberately so.
[15:09:07] <blueness> this is the latest version ->
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/User:Blueness/GLEP64
[15:09:11] <rich0> I don't mind approving it per se, but do we think that it
will go anywhere?
[15:09:37] <rich0> Ie are the various package managers behind it?
[15:09:37] <dberkholz|mob> Do we have agreement in theory from PM implementers?
[15:09:38] <blueness> rich0, i will try to work with ciarian and actually write
code
[15:09:55] <WilliamH> blueness: what about pkgcore?
[15:09:56] <blueness> i'd like to hear from radhermit and package core
[15:09:56] -*- dberkholz|mob high-fives rich0
[15:10:32] <blueness> radhermit, ping ^^^
[15:10:45] <blueness> also zmedico was in support
[15:10:46] -*- radhermit is trying to skim through the mailing list thread :)
[15:10:53] <blueness> radhermit, okay
[15:10:58] <rich0> It sounds like most of this is in portage, it just needs the
API to be written.
[15:11:08] <rich0> From what I know of portage, it won't be hard to do there.
[15:11:17] <rich0> Just needs commitment to the API.
[15:11:27] <radhermit> can we version the vdb or something if we start properly
specifying it?
[15:11:40] <radhermit> maybe that's already in the glep
[15:11:53] <blueness> radhermit, i didn't mention a version to vdb
[15:12:00] <rich0> This GLEP doesn't really specify the VDB, so much as require
an interface to it (without actually specifying it).
[15:12:17] <radhermit> so mainly it's about standardized file naming?
[15:12:17] <blueness> for the reason rich0 just mentioned ^^^
[15:12:24] <rich0> It might not hurt to incorporate some kind of VAPI
versioning.
[15:12:35] <blueness> radhermit and standardizing what's exported
[15:12:40] <dberkholz|mob> Seems to me that vdb version would be a portage
internal matter
[15:12:47] <rich0> It basically is a spec for the spec.
[15:12:48] <dberkholz|mob> What I care about is an API version on this
[15:13:23] <blueness> dberkholz|mob, i can add a sentence to that effect
[15:13:24] <rich0> dberkholz|mob: ++
[15:13:30] <dilfridge> good idea
[15:13:36] <rich0> That should be a part of the API when it is specified.
[15:13:58] <radhermit> basically what I meant
[15:14:20] <rich0> It feels a bit odd to approve this other than going along
with the general sentiment that it is a good idea, but I have no objections to
it.
[15:14:33] <rich0> It just feels a bit like approving a business case, vs a
spec.
[15:14:51] <blueness> yeah, it turns out now there are not only several
packages but also one eclass depending on vdb information from portage, none of
which work with other pm's but could
[15:15:18] <rich0> SELinux and such sounded like a really good use case here.
[15:15:27] <rich0> You'd want that to work with any PM.
[15:15:48] <rich0> Or PaX in your example.
[15:15:58] <blueness> rich0, the way selinux eclass works now is it looks for
reverse deps to do the markings
[15:15:59] <radhermit> mostly I'd like to quit having to read through portage
code to make stuff like eix work :)
[15:16:04] <radhermit> with pkgcore-merged pkgs
[15:16:35] <rich0> Yeah, I have an EAPI hunter that depends on portage APIs,
though to be fair this only pertains to installed packages I believel.
[15:16:45] <rich0> It might make sense to extend that API to installable
packages as well.
[15:16:46] <blueness> yeah, i didn't even know about pkgcore until recently and
it could benefit from this too
[15:17:06] <rich0> Ok, do we want to vote to approve this?
[15:17:13] <dilfridge> +
[15:17:48] <rich0> "We approve GLEP64 as documented at
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/User:Blueness/GLEP64 "
[15:17:56] <rich0> Does that work?
[15:18:00] <blueness> sure
[15:18:10] <rich0> You can promise not to change it too much. :)
[15:18:13] <rich0> Ok, let's vote.
[15:18:17] <blueness> o
[15:18:21] -*- rich0 yes
[15:18:26] <dilfridge> yes
[15:18:27] -*- blueness yes
[15:18:32] -*- creffett|irssi abstain
[15:18:36] <dberkholz|mob> Yes + API version
[15:18:45] -*- WilliamH abstain
[15:19:09] <radhermit> yes with API version stuff
[15:19:28] <blueness> ulm, ?
[15:19:37] <radhermit> creffett|irssi is ulm
[15:19:49] <rich0> Ok, that's everybody - 5-0
[15:20:03] <rich0> And that includes the API version - I'll note that in the
sumary.
[15:20:21] <blueness> rich0, and everyone, i think that just a one sentencer no?
[15:20:26] <rich0> I'll document it as: "We approve GLEP64 as documented at
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/User:Blueness/GLEP64 with API versioning added."
[15:20:33] <rich0> blueness: wfm
[15:20:52] <rich0> Ok, now the fun topic.
[15:20:54] <rich0> Git migration
[15:21:11] <dilfridge> wheee
[15:21:14] <blueness> shudder
[15:21:19] <rich0> My personal goal here would be to get opinions recorded
anywhere we think they matter.
[15:21:25] <rich0> We're not going to bikeshed every detail.
[15:21:39] -*- mgorny is around to help :P
[15:21:41] <rich0> But, if there are things that we feel must be in place to do
a migration, we should try to get them documented.
[15:21:44] <rich0> That is my sense of it.
[15:21:48] -*- WilliamH thinks we need to stop waiting for a perfect world and
get it done ;-)
[15:22:05] <rich0> Any other comments before we dive in?
[15:22:34] <creffett|irssi> bring it on!
[15:22:44] <rich0> The first question in the agenda, is do we need to continue
to create new ChangeLog entries once we're operating in git?
[15:22:54] -*- WilliamH no
[15:22:59] <dilfridge> no
[15:23:02] <rich0> no
[15:23:07] <creffett|irssi> nope.
[15:23:09] -*- blueness no
[15:23:18] <dberkholz|mob> hell no
[15:23:43] <radhermit> no
[15:23:51] <rich0> Ok, well, let's just call that a vote. :)
[15:23:52] <dilfridge> !
[15:24:26] <rich0> Ok, let's skip "are we done yet" and move that to the end
after we tackle all the specifics
[15:24:34] <rich0> Can yyyy/ prefix be dropped from gentoo-news?
[15:24:44] <rich0> We've been through that one once before.
[15:24:54] <rich0>
http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_00f0a83b760b78c1baf32f118d1cb008.xml
[15:25:01] <rich0> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=523828
[15:25:23] <rich0> mgorny: will dropping this still make your life easier with
metadata?
[15:25:38] <mgorny> rich0: a bit
[15:25:59] <mgorny> i just find it utterly stupid that 'reading' and 'writing'
formats are different
[15:26:06] <rich0> ++
[15:26:11] <dilfridge> drop it
[15:26:27] <rich0> Any opposing commentary?
[15:26:38] <blueness> nah, no contraversy here
[15:26:46] <dberkholz|mob> Nope
[15:26:49] <blueness> who needs to implement this infra?
[15:27:07] <mgorny> someone commit to repo + infra change the script used for
gen
[15:27:32] <rich0> Ok, let's vote "The yyyy/ prefix can be dropped from
gentoo-news, timing to be determined by those implementing the change."
[15:27:44] <rich0> Does that work?
[15:27:44] -*- blueness yes
[15:27:47] -*- rich0 yes
[15:27:50] -*- creffett|irssi yes
[15:27:50] -*- WilliamH yes
[15:27:51] <dilfridge> yes
[15:27:59] <radhermit> yes
[15:28:04] <dberkholz|mob> Sure
[15:28:49] <rich0> ok
[15:29:10] <rich0> Ok, going in order of controversy...
[15:29:15] <rich0> Can we drop CVS headers post-migration?
[15:29:24] -*- WilliamH yes
[15:29:29] -*- rich0 burn with nuclear fire
[15:29:31] <dilfridge> yes please
[15:29:33] <creffett|irssi> KILL IT
[15:29:38] <blueness> heh
[15:29:41] <WilliamH> I don't think ghere is an equivalent to that in git.
[15:29:43] <creffett|irssi> er, I mean, yes
[15:30:24] <rich0> dberkholz|mob, radhermit - care to make it a vote?
[15:30:37] <rich0> blueness: also?
[15:30:39] <dberkholz|mob> Yes pls
[15:30:48] <radhermit> kill it of course
[15:31:06] <rich0> blueness: heh==yes?
[15:31:18] <blueness> yes
[15:31:23] <dilfridge> heh we're fast :)
[15:31:33] <rich0> ok
[15:31:39] <rich0> Now a bit more controversy.
[15:31:49] <rich0> Should we have separate git trees for historical vs current
portage (with no parent commit reference from the one to the other)?
[15:32:02] <rich0> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.project/4030/
[15:32:37] <creffett|irssi> rich0: here's my question -- if someone did want to
join the two trees locally, how much work would it be?
[15:32:43] <dilfridge> if we can arrangeit that they can be combined seamlessly
into one, yes
[15:32:51] <dberkholz|mob> I would prefer a spliceable one
[15:32:55] <rich0> mgorny: you probably have more git replace experience than I
[15:33:19] <mgorny> git fetch history-remote; git replace ${first_commit_id}
${history_commit_id}
[15:33:23] <rich0> I'd think you could just fetch a second origin into another
branch and then git replace the one into the history of the other
[15:33:29] <mgorny> (or teh other way around :P, easy to put on wiki)
[15:33:47] <radhermit> I'd vote for spliceable too
[15:33:55] <rich0> Yeah, you'd make the last commit in the history repo = the
first commit in the active tree when doing a history
[15:33:55] <dilfridge> means?
[15:34:06] <radhermit> meaning you can graft the old tree onto the new one
[15:34:12] <rich0> radhermit: exactly
[15:34:14] <radhermit> if you want a giant, historical repo
[15:34:24] <WilliamH> Which ever one can get us up and running sooner. ;-)
[15:34:33] <rich0> Git will treat references to the first commit in the current
tree as if it pointed to the last commit in the history tree.
[15:34:33] <creffett|irssi> so it's fairly simple to do the join if someone
wants to?
[15:34:39] <radhermit> the old graft can technically be done later
[15:34:39] <rich0> So it would appear to have a continuous history.
[15:34:45] <mgorny> creffett|irssi: yes, only time consuming for fetch :)
[15:34:53] <creffett|irssi> mgorny: okay
[15:34:58] <creffett|irssi> then yes, separate is fine with me
[15:35:01] <dilfridge> radhermit: dberkholz|mob: I don't understand what your
"spliceable" version does different
[15:35:06] <WilliamH> I have a question...
[15:35:06] <blueness> rich0, what's the gain on the divisionb between
historical and current?
[15:35:14] <rich0> blueness: I outlined that in my post.
[15:35:22] <blueness> k
[15:35:25] <rich0> The current historical migrations have issues.
[15:35:43] <rich0> If we improve on them, then the original "official"
migration turns into baggage.
[15:35:55] <dilfridge> blueness: we can start immediately and care about the
exact history later
[15:35:56] <rich0> You could still splice a new migration over the old one.
[15:36:05] <WilliamH> So, if we have two trees: one would contain the history
before the migration, and we would update the other from that point forward not
worrying about the historical tree right?
[15:36:14] <mgorny> blueness: 1.5G
[15:36:24] <rich0> It also sidesteps arguments over whether the current
migration is good enough, and makes the migration MUCH faster.
[15:36:25] <dilfridge> WilliamH: basically, yes. we start from a current point.
[15:36:26] <mgorny> 70M is 'current' afresh and grows
[15:36:29] <mgorny> 1.5G is historical and grows
[15:36:30] <blueness> so speed size and simplicity
[15:36:57] <blueness> what happens in the far future when it gets 1.5GB again,
can it be sliced again?
[15:36:57] <dberkholz|mob> Ah I hadn't tracked the work on git replace. I'm
fine with that
[15:36:57] <dilfridge> the conversion of the cvs history becomes a non-blocker,
and non-critical project
[15:37:16] <rich0> exactly. I'd still run the best migration that I could.
[15:37:32] <rich0> But, issues with it don't hold things up, and it could be
improved on later.
[15:37:54] <rich0> Any other questions/concerns?
[15:38:10] <dilfridge> git question, if you end up pulling two separate
histories, is there a way to prune the old, unused objects?
[15:38:16] <dilfridge> mgorny: ^
[15:38:36] <WilliamH> I think "git gc" will do that.
[15:38:37] <dilfridge> (not important now, just curiosity)
[15:38:42] <mgorny> dilfridge: there will be no unused objects if you merge
them via replace
[15:38:55] <dilfridge> ok
[15:38:56] <mgorny> unless you mean after removing the history replace, then gc
should catch them
[15:39:02] <dilfridge> ok
[15:39:03] <dilfridge> good
[15:39:25] <rich0> Yeah, the beauty of having separate repos is that you can
easily get rid of the 750k bad commits if you have 750k better ones to replace
them with.
[15:39:42] <dilfridge> hehe
[15:39:56] <rich0> The converted repository is pretty impressive, for all its
faults. :)
[15:40:04] <rich0> Something like 3M objects I think.
[15:40:27] <rich0> Ok, anything else before we vote?
[15:40:33] <blueness> i'm good
[15:40:48] <mgorny> if you mean having history1 repo and replacing part of it
with history2, then objects from both repos will have to be kept
[15:40:53] <dberkholz|mob> I just want to make sure that the join gets tested,
but I'm assuming that will happen
[15:41:07] <mgorny> dberkholz|mob: i've already tested it initially
[15:41:09] <rich0> "The git migration should produce a separate migrated and
current repository, which can be spliced using git replace, but which are
otherwise not connected."
[15:41:11] <dberkholz|mob> Awesome.
[15:41:20] <rich0> Any issues with the wording?
[15:41:31] <dberkholz|mob> What does "current" mean
[15:41:32] <rich0> The "which can be spliced with git replace" should cover the
testing concerns.
[15:41:40] <dberkholz|mob> Last year, last X commits to each file, etch
[15:41:45] <rich0> Maybe historical and current ?
[15:41:47] <dberkholz|mob> etc*
[15:42:07] <rich0> Current means basically what you have in /usr/portage,
really.
[15:42:10] <mgorny> newest version snapshot
[15:42:14] <rich0> Minus metadata/etc.
[15:42:14] <dberkholz|mob> And i'd go with s/migrated/historical/ , "full
history" or something like that
[15:42:15] <mgorny> 'cvs up -dP'
[15:42:20] <rich0> Agree
[15:42:23] <mgorny> with some cleanup
[15:42:27] <dberkholz|mob> Oh a funtoo style thing with zero history
[15:42:35] <mgorny> that's the safe way of ensuring that we don't end up
starting with broken repo
[15:42:35] <rich0> "The git migration should produce a separate historical and
current repository, which can be spliced using git replace, but which are
otherwise not connected."
[15:42:39] <mgorny> like current history migration causes
[15:43:15] <rich0> Well, we can at least get the CURRENT tree right with the
migration. It is identical now.
[15:43:25] <rich0> Go one commit back and it is less so.
[15:43:35] <rich0> Ok, if no issues with the wording...
[15:43:51] <rich0> Let's vote: "The git migration should produce a separate
historical and current repository, which can be spliced using git replace, but
which are otherwise not connected."
[15:43:55] -*- rich0 yes
[15:44:10] -*- blueness yes
[15:44:18] <radhermit> yes
[15:44:21] <creffett|irssi> yes
[15:44:30] -*- dilfridge yes
[15:44:31] -*- WilliamH yes
[15:44:44] <dberkholz|mob> k
[15:44:56] <rich0> ok, 7-0
[15:45:13] <rich0> That brings us to, "are we done yet?"
[15:45:37] <rich0> Are there any other high-level blockers we should consider,
beyond just getting everything implemented and coordinated with infra, the
migration team, etc?
[15:45:59] <dberkholz|mob> Beyond implementation. Like that's a minor issue. heh
[15:46:05] <dilfridge> mgorny: how's the status of whatever server-side hooks
we need?
[15:46:07] <rich0> Also, what do we want the actual migration to look like? Do
we need to approve the final cutover, etc?
[15:46:23] <dberkholz|mob> It would be helpful if we could open up whatever
backend code possible to enable more people to easily work on it
[15:46:37] <rich0> dberkholz|mob: ++ that is a problem with our current infra I
think.
[15:46:42] <blueness> dberkholz|mob, yeah i'd like to see that
[15:46:46] <rich0> No reason the hooks/etc can't be FOSS.
[15:46:53] <mgorny> dilfridge: mostly done, i think infra will handle the
remaining updates
[15:46:55] <rich0> Obviously passwords/configs/etc can be private.
[15:47:22] <dilfridge> is anyone from infra around who cares to comment?
_robbat21irssi?
[15:47:45] <rich0> Making this FOSS would help a lot with anybody interested in
"rolling your own Gentoo"
[15:47:59] <mgorny> my code is on github, i think
[15:48:01] <mgorny> or bitbucket ;P
[15:48:11] <rich0> mgorny: I believe so.
[15:48:49] <dilfridge> ok, let's consider a wurst-case scenario
[15:49:03] <rich0> dilfridge: systemd eats the repo? :)
[15:49:04] <blueness> mgorny, email the community whree the hooks are so we can
take a look at them
[15:49:07] <dilfridge> mgorny: if things fail badly, can we go back to cvs?
[15:49:25] -*- radhermit is going afk for a bit
[15:49:25] <dilfridge> (not that I want to, this is merely contingency planning)
[15:49:25] <mgorny> they were linked in my mails :P
[15:49:36] <rich0> dilfridge: that would be painful, at least if you wanted to
preserve all the individual commits.
[15:49:44] <creffett|irssi> dilfridge: we would need a way to go git -> CVS to
dump the history back into CVS
[15:49:44] <mgorny> dilfridge: i guess so though 'over dead commit access' of
many people :)
[15:49:50] <rich0> If we want to do some kind of big test, better to do it
first.
[15:50:12] <creffett|irssi> dilfridge: you could compromise, get a git->CVS
bridge and keep the old CVS repo around for a little while until we're sure the
bugs have been ironed out
[15:50:14] <dilfridge> preserving individual commits is second order problem,
first priority would be to keep us functional.
[15:50:19] <dberkholz|mob> Can we stand up a beta, tell people to play with it
for a week or so, then do the real cutover
[15:50:34] <dberkholz|mob> Or is our infra setup not able to cope with that
kind of duplication
[15:50:44] <rich0> Well, having a read-only cvs for reference for a while makes
sense. We can keep a CVSROOT tarball forever, basically.
[15:50:48] <dilfridge> in this emergency case I'd be happy enough with seeing
one big cvs commit "forward one week"
[15:51:06] <rich0> dberkholz|mob: we're basically doing the beta on github
already.
[15:51:19] <rich0> I suppose it could be done on infra as well.
[15:51:22] <dberkholz|mob> Yeah but it's not full fledged
[15:51:27] <dberkholz|mob> That's a repo test, not a full distribution test
[15:51:43] <rich0> It certainly doesn't involve mirrors and all that.
[15:51:49] <mgorny> excelsior has all the git+rsync bits
[15:51:49] <rich0> Were you thinking full-scale end-to-end?
[15:51:53] <dilfridge> not sure how it could be full-fledged without switching
e.g. the rsync mirror generation etc
[15:52:05] <dilfridge> and that would also affect our users, so no beta
[15:52:07] <dberkholz|mob> Don't need full scale, but at least full stack
[15:52:11] <rich0> We do generate all the way up to rsync trees though.
[15:52:24] <rich0> We can try to aggressively promote them.
[15:52:27] <dilfridge> sounds good.
[15:52:34] <WilliamH> So are we keeping rsync after the migration (I'm confused
about that part)
[15:52:40] <mgorny> yes
[15:52:45] <mgorny> users can choose between git & rsync
[15:52:47] <rich0> Though all users can really do is sync them. Unless we
systematically sync all cvs commits it won't be the same as cvs.
[15:53:04] <rich0> mgorny: ++ - at least for now.
[15:53:14] <rich0> I think we should just generate the existing rsync, webrsync
stuff.
[15:53:18] <rich0> Allow git as another option.
[15:53:24] <mgorny> this also means end users will not notice much of a
difference
[15:53:24] <rich0> Then maybe consider more change down the road.
[15:53:38] <mgorny> except for disappearing changelogs and possibly resigned
manifests
[15:53:45] <blueness> hmm ... will there be a delay between developer commits
and staging to the mirrors like there currently is?
[15:54:23] <rich0> blueness: there would have to be some
[15:54:35] <rich0> mgorny: any idea what it would be?
[15:54:37] <mgorny> depends on exact implementation
[15:54:49] <rich0> It shouldn't be any worse than what we have now, at least.
[15:54:49] <blueness> we should try to keep one, just in case
[15:54:55] <mgorny> right now, there's ~3 minutes between dev git & master
rsync, i think
[15:54:57] <rich0> I'd think that git will sync faster if nothing else.
[15:55:06] <mgorny> mirrors could fetch more often than rsync
[15:55:12] <mgorny> than with rsync*
[15:55:13] <dberkholz|mob> With git we could take a more push-driven approach
[15:55:20] <rich0> cvs syncing requires a full tree traversal. git syncing is
a lot smarter.
[15:55:21] <dberkholz|mob> Instead of 30 minute cron jobs or whatever
[15:55:37] <rich0> (you basically have COW at each level of the tree)
[15:56:20] <rich0> Ok, I have a hard stop in 4 mins.
[15:56:26] <rich0> Anything else on this?
[15:56:37] <rich0> I guess my question is, what next from us?
[15:56:43] <rich0> Do we need to approve some final cutover plan?
[15:56:51] <mgorny> 'd love to have games team decision today thouhg :P
[15:56:55] <rich0> Or do we just leave it up to infra and the migration team to
just tell everybody what to do?
[15:57:21] <rich0> I don't necessarily mind if the rest continue on without me,
but somebody else would have to chair that.
[15:57:30] <rich0> But, if we can wrap up git...
[15:57:45] <rich0> Does anybody feel that we need a final council vote on "all
systems go?"
[15:57:48] -*- WilliamH thinks we really can't do anything more at this point.
[15:57:55] <rich0> Or can we just hand over the keys?
[15:58:10] <dilfridge> we need to take the step at some point.
[15:58:14] <dilfridge> so why not now.
[15:58:20] <rich0> Obviously we can step in off-schedule if we see cause to
panic. :)
[15:58:22] <blueness> i'd like to hear from infra about this
[15:58:27] <dilfridge> that said, *some* input from infra would be nice.
[15:58:30] <blueness> since they have to brunt the work
[15:58:40] <rich0> Well, nothing happens until they do something anyway.
[15:58:40] <blueness> dilfridge, collision!
[15:58:47] <dilfridge> :]
[15:58:58] <blueness> rich0, yeah but we really need to know if they're okay
with this plan
[15:59:06] <rich0> I was thinking more in terms of whether we can just let
infra and the git migration project run with the rest.
[15:59:24] -*- WilliamH doesn't see any reason not to
[15:59:40] -*- creffett|irssi needs to go shortly as well
[15:59:46] <rich0> Ok, I think we're basically all for moving forward, but we
just want to make sure that infra is coordinated.
[15:59:49] <dilfridge> why not... we could just do a vote along "we don't see
any big remaining obstacles and advise infra / the git migration project to
proceed at their pace"
[16:00:05] <rich0> dilfridge: I'm fine with that.
[16:00:08] <rich0> Any strong objections?
[16:00:15] <blueness> not really
[16:00:27] <rich0> Ok. Let's vote, I have to RUN! :)
[16:00:27] <creffett|irssi> no objections
[16:00:29] -*- rich0 yes
[16:00:31] -*- creffett|irssi yes
[16:00:34] -*- dilfridge yes
[16:00:34] -*- blueness yes
[16:00:38] -*- WilliamH yes
[16:00:44] <dberkholz|mob> ye
[16:00:45] <dberkholz|mob> s
[16:00:56] <dilfridge> rich0: shall I take over or do we postpone the rest?
[16:01:05] <dberkholz|mob> I've gotta run too, as did somebody else
[16:01:06] <rich0> radhermit ?
[16:01:13] <rich0> I suggest we adjourn.
[16:01:13] <dilfridge> ok then postpone I guess
[16:01:16] <rich0> Next week?
[16:01:20] <blueness> next week
[16:01:24] -*- WilliamH is fine with next week
[16:01:24] <dilfridge> next week
[16:01:49] <dberkholz|mob> wfm
[16:02:00] <rich0> Ok, we are adjourned until next week. Radhermit, ping me
with your vote on the last bit. :)
[16:02:17] <rich0> I'll post log/summary
[16:02:20] <rich0> Thanks, all!
[16:02:32] <rich0> sorry, mgorny
[16:02:40] <rich0> games + herds next time
[16:02:42] <rich0> adios
1.1
xml/htdocs/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20141021-summary.txt
file :
http://sources.gentoo.org/viewvc.cgi/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20141021-summary.txt?rev=1.1&view=markup
plain:
http://sources.gentoo.org/viewvc.cgi/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20141021-summary.txt?rev=1.1&content-type=text/plain
Index: 20141021-summary.txt
===================================================================
Roll call
=========
Present: blueness, dilfridge, radhermit, rich0, ulm, williamh
Absent: dberkholz
Deprecating and killing the concept of herds
============================================
"The council is in favor of retiring herds, allowing non-maintainer
aliases to exist, and having a way to distinguish between individuals,
projects, and non-maintainer aliases in metadata.xml. The details of
how to implement this will be worked out in the lists before the next
meeting."
Aye: blueness, dilfridge, radhermit, rich0, ulm, williamh
Status of Games Team
====================
"Council deferrs to radhermit to continue working with the games team on
the organization issues for another month. Council will reach out to
QA/Treecleaners and support their reviewing games packages as any other
as far as bugs/security/QA/etc goes."
Aye: blueness, dilfridge, radhermit, rich0, ulm, williamh
Status of Projects
==================
1) the multilib porting and subsequent disposal of emul-... packages
2) the migration of project web pages to our wiki
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel.announce/2212/
See meeting log for further details. No actions by council.
Bugs assigned to Council
========================
(5 minutes)
Bug #503382 - Missing summaries for 20131210, 20140114, and 20140225 council
meetings
dberkholz is reminded to follow-up...
Open floor
==========
(5 minutes)
1.1 xml/htdocs/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20141021.txt
file :
http://sources.gentoo.org/viewvc.cgi/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20141021.txt?rev=1.1&view=markup
plain:
http://sources.gentoo.org/viewvc.cgi/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20141021.txt?rev=1.1&content-type=text/plain
Index: 20141021.txt
===================================================================
[15:00:23] <rich0> Ok, I have 19:00 on my watch.
[15:00:27] <rich0> Roll call...
[15:00:32] -*- ulm here
[15:00:36] -*- WilliamH here
[15:01:20] <rich0> blueness, dilfridge, radhermit?
[15:01:20] <radhermit> here
[15:02:45] <rich0> I just sent a text to dberkholz
[15:02:59] <dilfridge> here
[15:03:07] <rich0> Ok, just blueness
[15:03:44] <blueness> here!
[15:03:55] <blueness> shit i got busy in another channel
[15:03:58] <blueness> but i'm ready :)
[15:04:06] <rich0> Ok, let's get started - no word from dberkholz but I did
text him.
[15:04:09] <blueness> and there's the text :)
[15:04:15] <blueness> at least this time i wasn't asleep
[15:04:43] <rich0> Ok, same agenda, but we're up to Deprecating and killing the
concept of herds
[15:04:55] <rich0> Looks like mgorny is at the center of every agenda item
today. :)
[15:04:57] <WilliamH> kill them with fire and nukes
[15:05:11] <blueness> WilliamH, no kill them with loooove
[15:05:17] <rich0> Nah, nukes are reserved for cvs keywords.
[15:05:26] <blueness> ah yes
[15:05:29] <dilfridge> not kill but correct the definition (people not packages)
[15:05:37] <ulm> I'm o.k. with killing herds, as long as we keep a distinction
in metadata if the maintaining entity is a person or a team
[15:05:38] <blueness> okay i'm all for killing herds, but two things
[15:06:00] <blueness> 1) we keep the mail aliases somehow so that we can track
packages
[15:06:04] <WilliamH> ulm: you can tell that in the <maintainer> tags
[15:06:14] <blueness> so maybe change <herd> to just <email>
[15:06:24] <dilfridge> <maintainer><email>k...@gentoo.org</email><name>Gentoo
KDE team</name></maintainer>
[15:06:31] <dilfridge> compare this ^ to
[15:06:36] <dilfridge> <herd>kde</herd>
[15:06:38] <blueness> i like that
[15:06:48] <rich0> Would we require all packages to have a maintainer or
project listed to be considered maintained?
[15:06:54] <WilliamH> dilfridge: nuke the <herd> tag
[15:06:57] <ulm> dilfridge: that's not what the DTD defines as name
[15:07:00] <rich0> That is, just an alias isn't good enough unless it is a real
project?
[15:07:01] <blueness> 2) we need to really figure out what the relationship
between herds and projects are
[15:07:02] <WilliamH> dilfridge: it is unnecessary
[15:07:05] <ulm> name is for a person
[15:07:27] <blueness> i don't even know what teams i'm on anymore because i've
just been working with herds aka mail aliases
[15:07:35] <WilliamH> blueness: herds are groups of packages, maintained by
devs who are members of projects.
[15:07:36] <dilfridge> if we can come up with a similarly concise metadata
fomulation then I am for nuking something. I'm not happy to blow up all
metadata files to infinity.
[15:07:46] <radhermit> so this doesn't kill herds, just changes metadata? I'm
fine with that, never liked the 2nd layer of redirection
[15:08:13] <blueness> radhermit, that's my understanding
[15:08:14] <ulm> dilfridge: +1
[15:08:15] <WilliamH> blueness: for example, the accessibility project
maintains the accessibility and gnome-accessibility herds.
[15:08:19] <blueness> so we're really not loosing any data
[15:08:21] <rich0> I think we're all for simplifying things here. I'm not
quite sure we are solid on what we want to change TO.
[15:08:40] <dilfridge> a) keep metadata.xml somehow short and concise.
[15:08:55] <radhermit> just use straight email addresses in metadata only
[15:09:01] <ulm> WilliamH: same for emacs team, it maintains emacs and xemacs
herds
[15:09:08] <dilfridge> b) kill the concept "herds=sets of packages" (because
noone uses it like that)
[15:09:19] <blueness> on point b correct
[15:09:42] <WilliamH> The <herd> tag should go
[15:10:11] <ulm> WilliamH: replace it by <project> or <team>?
[15:10:13] <dilfridge> which leads us to - what else is needed after a) and b)
is done? redefine former herds as teams?
[15:10:23] <rich0> Should metadata have a way to distinguish between personal
and alias emails? Can alias emails be "maintainers" unless they're projects?
Where do non-maintaining aliases go?
[15:11:00] <rich0> dilfridge: I think we should define where we want to be.
Getting there is a simpler problem.
[15:11:14] <dilfridge> we could introduce a <team> tag that goes to a
x...@gentoo.org alias
[15:11:23] <blueness> dilfridge, that would be better
[15:11:26] <dilfridge> same usage as herd today
[15:11:33] <mgorny> why extra tags? <maintainer type="xxx">
[15:11:41] <rich0> mgorny: ++
[15:11:44] <rich0> That was my thought.
[15:11:47] -*- WilliamH agrees with mgorny here, why keep tags?
[15:11:51] <blueness> i've got this gut feeling that we need to define the
existing and members so we know who is taking care of what packages
[15:11:54] <dilfridge> because it's an extra 20 characters that I have to type.
[15:11:54] <radhermit> <maintainer type="bot">
[15:12:02] <rich0> But what about aliases that aren't maintainers? Do we want
to ban them? Only true projects can have aliases?
[15:12:17] <blueness> we want aliases that are not maintaiers
[15:12:25] <dilfridge> sure
[15:12:27] <WilliamH> dilfridge: here specifically does *not* go to an
email@g.o I don't think, you have to look it up in herds.xml
[15:12:34] <WilliamH> s/here/herd/
[15:12:38] <rich0> Maybe the tag should be <email type="maintainer">
[15:12:42] <dilfridge> WilliamH: yes, but that's an abomination
[15:12:56] <blueness> rich0, interesting idea
[15:12:59] <dilfridge> one level of indirection beyond sanity
[15:14:16] <rich0> So, some principles. Get rid of herds. Have email in
metadata, and have a way to tell if the email is personal, proejct, or just
non-maintaining alias.
[15:14:21] <ulm> just rename <herd> to <team>
[15:14:26] <WilliamH> Ok, a maintainer tag contains a name and an email... that
email could be an alias, just like we do now...
[15:14:35] <ulm> no attributes or other such xml abominations
[15:14:36] <dilfridge> rich0, ulm: ++
[15:15:00] <mgorny> ulm: that's extra work for no benefit
[15:15:02] <blueness> rich0, yeah that sounds okay
[15:15:03] <rich0> ulm: what is a "team"? :) Just an email address, that may
or may not be a project, and which may or may not maintain a package?
[15:15:15] <dilfridge> with the distinction that <team>x</team> directly maps
to x...@gentoo.org without exceptions
[15:15:22] <ulm> mgorny: we'll have to update the dtd in any case
[15:15:31] <rich0> Ok, is our goal to fully spec this out today, or do we want
to punt on the details and resolve next meeting?
[15:15:43] -*- WilliamH is against a team tag
[15:15:46] <rich0> Maybe we just vote on the direction, and then let the DTD be
fixed on the lists or something.
[15:15:49] <ulm> rich0: a team is the group of devs maintaining what is
currently called a herd
[15:15:50] <blueness> rich0, this is too complex for me to think on the fly
[15:16:03] <WilliamH> just use a maintainer tag...
[15:16:08] <rich0> blueness: that is my concern - I don't just want to bikeshed
the solution in 10mins.
[15:16:12] <WilliamH> maintainers can be aliases...
[15:16:33] <rich0> We can vote on the general direction and requirements, but
then let the implementation be worked out on the lists with a final vote.
[15:16:38] <rich0> We can also propose a migration plan on the lists.
[15:16:51] <rich0> Until today we didn't really know where everybody stood on
it.
[15:17:05] <dilfridge> please migrate after git, it will make it so much more
sane
[15:17:08] <rich0> That would be my proposal.
[15:17:28] <WilliamH> That's reasonable because it could all be done in one
commit.
[15:17:42] <rich0> ++ - Git will be done next Tuesday anyway. :)
[15:17:49] -*- rich0 ducks
[15:17:50] <WilliamH> heh
[15:17:52] <radhermit> heh ok
[15:18:13] <ulm> while we're at it, we could also make the maintainer tag for
individual devs more concise
[15:18:24] <ulm> nick should be enough for gentoo devs
[15:18:39] <dilfridge> true
[15:18:40] <rich0> ulm: what about proxies?
[15:18:45] <rich0> Shoudl they get a different tag?
[15:18:50] <rich0> (or attribute)
[15:18:59] <radhermit> do we need to bikeshed this all now?
[15:18:59] <rich0> I'm thinking about software that has to parse this stuff.
[15:18:59] <ulm> rich0: they would keep full e-mail addresses of course
[15:19:05] <radhermit> seems like something for lists
[15:19:11] <WilliamH> rich0: I'm not sure that's necessary, because you can
list multiple maintainers
[15:19:14] <dilfridge> no @ -> dev
[15:19:16] <rich0> radhermit: ++
[15:19:20] <dilfridge> ++
[15:19:21] <ulm> yeah, let's discuss it on lists
[15:19:21] <blueness> http://dpaste.com/1J2YMFS
[15:19:29] <rich0> Ok, then how about this for a quick summary:
[15:19:32] <blueness> ^^ this seems to be what we are all saying
[15:19:42] <mgorny> also note that metadata.xml is not only for gx86 but also
for other repos
[15:19:45] <mgorny> including non-gentoo
[15:20:07] <WilliamH> mgorny: all we have to be concerned about is gentoo-x86
[15:20:24] <rich0> "The council is in favor of retiring herds, allowing
non-maintainer aliases to exist, and having a way to distinguish between
individuals, projects, and non-maintainer aliases in metadata.xml. The details
of how to implement this will be worked out in the lists before the next
meeting."
[15:20:43] <blueness> yes!
[15:20:47] <blueness> perfect
[15:20:47] <ulm> +1
[15:20:51] -*- WilliamH yes
[15:20:54] <radhermit> yes
[15:20:57] -*- rich0 yes
[15:20:57] -*- ulm yes
[15:20:57] <dilfridge> yes
[15:21:19] <rich0> Ok, I think that is all six of us
[15:21:44] <rich0> Ok, recorded.
[15:21:46] <rich0> Next topic.
[15:21:51] <rich0> Status of Games Team
[15:22:05] <rich0> Looking at the past summary, I believe radhermit was going
to try to coordinate an election.
[15:22:06] <radhermit> I sent one email, probably should have sent a followup
one at some point
[15:22:13] <radhermit> but that didn't happen
[15:22:35] <radhermit> and no election happened because no new members stepped
forward afaik
[15:23:03] <WilliamH> So should we disband the team and assign everything to
m-n then?
[15:23:12] <rich0> I guess my question is whether the urgency to do something
is the same?
[15:23:15] <blueness> there's no real way of asking "who's on such and such a
team" is there?
[15:23:17] <dilfridge> WilliamH: would that help?
[15:23:38] <rich0> We did give the go-ahead for people to avoid the team if
they felt the need.
[15:23:48] <rich0> So, it should be less of a barrier to progress.
[15:23:50] <radhermit> I'll probably be in the same room as the current team
leader sometime later today if that helps anything :P
[15:23:55] <WilliamH> blueness: the project page should list the members
[15:24:05] <radhermit> if you want me to force him to relinquish his crown ;)
[15:24:20] <blueness> radhermit, how is that?
[15:24:29] <blueness> i'm not even sure who's who on that team
[15:24:33] <radhermit> We're both located near Boston
[15:24:36] <dilfridge> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Games
[15:24:49] <blueness> oh mike
[15:25:05] <radhermit> afaik, vapier probably doesn't care about being lead in
games anymore
[15:25:05] <ulm> heh, they moved the project page to the wiki?
[15:25:10] <radhermit> I can ask him though
[15:25:21] <dilfridge> btw that page is incorrect as per council decision
[15:25:30] <dilfridge> "The Gentoo Games Project manages all games that are
added into the Portage tree."
[15:26:04] <rich0> radhermit: I definitely think you should talk to him if you
have the opportunity.
[15:26:10] <rich0> I'd be interested in how he feels about things.
[15:26:23] <dilfridge> it was migrated by creffett|irssi by the way, most
likely together with a bunch of others
[15:26:30] <rich0> I don't want to block somebody from contributing - really
most of this issue is about making sure games doesn't block others from
contributing.
[15:27:07] <blueness> mgorny, is my understanding correct that games is
blocking the removal of emul-* stuff which is blocking multilib stuff from
progressing?
[15:27:22] <mgorny> not anymore
[15:27:23] <radhermit> uh, I don't think so
[15:27:27] <mgorny> multilib team did all the work for them
[15:27:30] <radhermit> multilib should just fix stuff
[15:27:33] <radhermit> since they want it done
[15:27:39] <mgorny> though most of the dependencies are still insane
[15:27:42] <radhermit> like how most stuff works in the tree
[15:28:05] <blueness> okay so isn't that the original issue with that team? i
mean if the original problem is gone, can we just leave it alone?
[15:28:10] <blueness> or are there other issues?
[15:28:26] <mgorny> did they solve the 10-year security issue?
[15:28:27] <rich0> blueness: that is what I'm thinking. I don't want to just
outright disband the team if they're doing something and they aren't really a
problem.
[15:28:29] <radhermit> people mentioned wanting to rework how games were
installed/policies/etc
[15:28:32] <mgorny> about nethack?
[15:28:53] <rich0> mgorny: I guess I'd ask whether anybody else wants to solve
that issue. If games is standing in the way that is one thing.
[15:28:54] <blueness> hey! leave nethack alone ... its legendary!
[15:28:58] <blueness> j/k
[15:29:12] <WilliamH> <qa hat on> There are a number of games that are hard
masked in the tree because of security issues. these are closed-source binaries
so will probably not be fixed. </qa hat>
[15:29:18] <radhermit> imo, if people are serious about changing stuff just
join and start discussing more
[15:29:22] <mgorny> it's not nethack being broken, it's games.eclass install of
it
[15:29:32] <rich0> WilliamH: If they're hard-masked, then it isn't a problem,
right?
[15:29:48] <rich0> If something is truly broken and isn't maintained, then that
is a treecleaning issue.
[15:29:50] <blueness> mgorny, okay thanks for that clarification
[15:29:58] <WilliamH> rich0: what's the point of them being in the tree if they
are hard masked for security and have been for years?
[15:30:07] <rich0> WilliamH: do they still work?
[15:30:14] <rich0> Maybe people still want to use it?
[15:30:26] <blueness> mgorny, can we have a clear list of what's wrong with
games team and then we can decide whether or not to leave lying dogs alone
[15:30:55] <rich0> I'll buy that nethack is doing something wrong. The
question is, is somebody gong to fix it, or are we talking about treecleaning
nethack/
[15:30:56] <blueness> if the problems are big, we already get the picture that
there's no movement there, we'll just disband and treeclean
[15:31:00] <WilliamH> rich0: I'm not saying people shouldn't use it if they
want to, I'm just questioning why it is still in the main tree instead of an
overlay?
[15:31:18] <blueness> WilliamH, that's a good idea, move it to an overlay
[15:31:20] <ulm> blueness: it's all in mgorny's e-mail message, requiring an
agenda item for a previous meeting
[15:31:35] <ulm> mgorny: do you have a pointer to it?
[15:31:37] <rich0> WilliamH: I get that, but why not allow it in the main tree?
Does it hurt anything?
[15:31:42] <mgorny> ulm: a minute
[15:31:49] <blueness> ulm, mgorny i read it but i need a reminder
[15:31:49] <mgorny> i think it's still in qa agenda
[15:32:23] <WilliamH> rich0: we should unmask if it is going to stay in the
main tree; p.mask should not be permanent.
[15:32:28] <rich0> Making all of games m-n won't make the bugs disappear.
[15:32:35] <ulm> mgorny: this on, I think:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.project/3919
[15:32:35] <mgorny> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.project/3919
[15:32:36] <blueness> rich0, if there's a real problem(s) here, then let's act
by saying we're give QA the power to move that stuff to an overlay and disband
the game team
[15:32:38] <ulm> *one
[15:32:39] <rich0> WilliamH: I don't see why not, but we can take that offline.
[15:32:44] <ulm> heh :)
[15:33:07] <rich0> I'm not sure that there is a policy against having masked
security problems in the tree permanently.
[15:33:14] <rich0> As long as they build/etc.
[15:33:19] <mgorny> but QA's dead!
[15:33:24] <mgorny> we need to disband it too :P
[15:33:29] <WilliamH> mgorny: not completely.
[15:33:30] <radhermit> ...
[15:33:32] <dilfridge> how about we state "everyone is free to join games team"
instead?
[15:33:45] <radhermit> didn't I sort of state that already?
[15:33:50] <mgorny> but seriously, since last failed meeting i don't know if qa
can work
[15:34:04] <dilfridge> hmm? what did I miss this time?
[15:34:08] <dilfridge> never mind, later
[15:34:14] <mgorny> i also mailed the -qa@ list about games team, and never got
any response
[15:34:24] <blueness> mgorny, two problems i see: 1) political. demanding
exclusivity. 2) the games.eclass breaking things like LFH
[15:34:36] <dilfridge> 1) is solved
[15:34:52] <dilfridge> 2) is solved by solving 1), noone is forced to use
games.eclass
[15:35:00] <dilfridge> what's the problem?
[15:35:27] <blueness> dilfridge, well there's only one problem remaining and
that is a treecleaning of bad packages
[15:35:41] <rich0> blueness: I suggest we let QA/treecleaners do that
per-package.
[15:35:43] <blueness> if we remove that cruft from the tree than i'd be happy
with the state of things
[15:35:46] <ulm> dilfridge: lack of consistency throughout the tree is an issue
[15:35:48] <mgorny> well, the problem is that even if not everyone is forced to
use it, we end up being inconsistent
[15:35:50] <dilfridge> ok, but that applies to all packages, not just games
[15:35:55] <radhermit> it would be nice to do things in a uniform fashion
[15:35:57] <radhermit> right
[15:36:07] -*- WilliamH agrees with dilfridge
[15:36:09] <mgorny> recently gnome team rewrote their packages to use
games.eclass
[15:36:15] <radhermit> seriously?
[15:36:15] <dilfridge> huh?
[15:36:15] <mgorny> because someone told them to
[15:36:26] <dilfridge> that is kinda stupid.
[15:36:29] <WilliamH> mgorny: who told them to?
[15:36:34] <mgorny> hasufell, i think
[15:36:39] <rich0> Still, I don't buy that we can NEVER have a package with a
potential security issue in the tree if it is masked. But, I think we can let
QA/tree-cleaners do their job first.
[15:36:40] <dilfridge> LOL
[15:36:49] <WilliamH> gees
[15:36:49] <mgorny> now if i tell them to switch back, we end up in kinda
stupid way
[15:36:57] <WilliamH> mgorny: go for it.
[15:37:08] <WilliamH> mgorny: they don't need to use games.eclass
[15:37:35] <rich0> I don't have a problem with people using the eclass. It
just shouldn't be mandatory, and of course that makes it kind of useless.
[15:37:35] <dilfridge> this is getting slightly bizarr
[15:37:39] <blueness> rich0, this looks messier than i thought. how about as a
first line of action the council asks treecleaners to focus on games that are
abondoned or seroius disrepair
[15:38:03] <rich0> Well, first line of action is that radhermit chats with
vapier, but yes, agree blueness
[15:38:11] <blueness> rich0, yeah true
[15:38:15] <rich0> I think we should separate org vs package issues.
[15:38:18] <WilliamH> blueness: basically we just need to do the work in qa;
[15:38:21] <radhermit> don't treecleaners scan for all pkgs with tons of open
bugs anyway?
[15:38:26] <WilliamH> blueness: following up on p.mask.
[15:38:32] <WilliamH> blueness: not just games
[15:38:34] <radhermit> i.e. they should already be catching things
[15:38:46] <radhermit> open bugs that are ancient at least
[15:38:47] <WilliamH> blueness: so I don't think there is any need for the
council to do anything on that.
[15:39:14] -*- WilliamH really isn't part of treecleaners
[15:39:22] <WilliamH> I can't really speak for how they do things
[15:39:47] <rich0> So, how about something like this:
[15:39:47] <ulm> should we make any statement about policy? like games group,
or non-FHS directory layout in games.eclass?
[15:39:50] <ulm> or do we leave this to qa?
[15:40:07] -*- WilliamH votes leave p.mask to qa
[15:40:28] <dilfridge> leave it to qa for now, since the question of
exclusivity has been decided
[15:40:30] <radhermit> right, if people have serious issues with certain pkgs,
contact qa
[15:40:34] <radhermit> we don't micromanage
[15:40:49] <blueness> right
[15:41:03] <radhermit> if QA is unresponsive... well then
[15:41:11] <radhermit> find some new QA members? :)
[15:41:20] <mgorny> i'm the new QA member :P
[15:41:21] <rich0> "Council deferrs to radhermit to continue working with the
games team on the organization issues for another month. Council will reach
out to QA/Treecleaners and support their reviewing games packages as any other
as far as bugs/security/QA/etc goes."
[15:41:38] <mgorny> but i don't feel like stating 'i decide this because nobody
else responded and qa was unable to meet properly'
[15:41:49] <radhermit> heh that is always fun
[15:42:06] <radhermit> we've had QA dictators in the past... ;)
[15:42:08] <rich0> is creffett still the QA lead?
[15:42:17] <WilliamH> rich0: yes
[15:42:51] <rich0> Is there another election due soon?
[15:42:58] <rich0> I'd think that would be coming up soon.
[15:43:00] <dilfridge> december according to schedule, I think
[15:43:12] <dilfridge> let me look it up
[15:43:16] <rich0> Maybe we should just ping them and figure out where things
stand.
[15:43:25] <rich0> Thankless job I'm sure. :)
[15:43:45] <rich0> In any case, I suggest we defer on games to radhermit and
QA/treecleaners for another month.
[15:43:50] <rich0> Maybe continue to monitor.
[15:43:56] <ulm> dilfridge: 2013-12-16 was last election
[15:44:00] <rich0> I don't think anybody wants to take any kind of direct
action right now.
[15:44:02] <dilfridge> yes
[15:44:19] <rich0> Ok, was my proposal above worth voting on? We don't
necessarily need to vote.
[15:44:20] <dilfridge> bug 494454
[15:44:22] <willikins> https://bugs.gentoo.org/494454 "Vote of confirmation QA
lead creffett"; Community Relations, Developer Relations; RESO, FIXE;
dilfridge:council
[15:44:23] <rich0> We can just ping them.
[15:45:05] <dilfridge> rich0: you get a yes from me
[15:45:07] <rich0> Ok, any objections to moving on in the agenda.
[15:45:10] <ulm> rich0: voting is ok for me
[15:45:19] <ulm> moving on, too :)
[15:45:23] <rich0> ok, then let's vote: "Council deferrs to radhermit to
continue working with the games team on the organization issues for another
month. Council will reach out to QA/Treecleaners and support their reviewing
games packages as any other as far as bugs/security/QA/etc goes."
[15:45:27] -*- rich0 yes
[15:45:30] -*- ulm yes
[15:45:31] -*- dilfridge yes
[15:45:35] <radhermit> sure
[15:45:36] <blueness> yes
[15:45:36] -*- WilliamH yes
[15:45:43] <rich0> ok
[15:45:48] <rich0> next item.
[15:45:53] <rich0> Status of projects:\
[15:45:59] <rich0> the multilib porting and subsequent disposal of emul-...
packages
[15:46:12] <mgorny> i replide to the mail
[15:46:19] <rich0> Anybody want anything further?
[15:46:21] <mgorny> replied*
[15:46:26] <rich0> I don't need to see mgorny dance...
[15:46:37] <ulm> mgorny: any eta for stable unmasking?
[15:46:43] <mgorny> i'm currently working on finishing qt work for qt folks
[15:47:00] <mgorny> i think all issues are being worked out, so it's a matter
of review + moving to the tree
[15:47:02] <mgorny> then stabilizations
[15:47:05] <radhermit> do qt5 work too while you're at it ;)
[15:47:11] <dilfridge> ugh I see dev-lang/perl in the list :(
[15:47:12] <mgorny> with arch teams... i'd say 1-2 months :P
[15:47:33] <dilfridge> ok let's summarize, things are moving ahead.
[15:47:34] <dilfridge> ok?
[15:47:39] <radhermit> oh I see we finally have it in the tree masked,
nevermind...
[15:48:13] <dilfridge> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Multilib_porting_status <
the ultimate list
[15:48:20] <mgorny> qt4 is probably ~1 month too
[15:48:38] <radhermit> libperl?
[15:48:43] <dilfridge> yes
[15:48:45] <radhermit> isn't that dead?
[15:49:00] <dilfridge> the libperl package is dead, but that's just a library
in dev-lang/perl
[15:49:01] <radhermit> or merged with perl itself
[15:49:04] <radhermit> right
[15:49:10] <radhermit> but that list has the actual pkg
[15:49:14] <mgorny> the emul- list is not 100% necessary
[15:49:21] <radhermit> alright
[15:49:22] <mgorny> we only port the packages that are actually necessary
[15:49:28] <dilfridge> sys-devel/libperl is gone soon.
[15:49:43] <mgorny> perl won't need to be multilib most likely
[15:49:47] <dilfridge> phew
[15:49:47] <mgorny> python may be necessary for samba-5
[15:49:51] <mgorny> unless we find way around it
[15:50:07] <radhermit> next up... multilib PMS ;)
[15:50:27] -*- dilfridge feels like kicking someone :o)
[15:50:57] <dilfridge> ok about the migration of packages to the wiki
[15:51:07] <dilfridge> s/packages/project pages/
[15:51:19] <rich0> dilfridge: go ahead
[15:51:36] <dilfridge> the silly thing is, being in the metastructure project
I'm probably the right person to talk to myself
[15:52:02] <dilfridge>
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Wiki/Project_Page_Migration_Status
[15:52:08] <dilfridge> this is the definitive list here
[15:52:29] <dilfridge> just translating a page is in most cases (imho) trivial
[15:52:41] <dilfridge> maybe we should propose a deadline?
[15:53:07] <rich0> dilfridge: after that we disband x86 and amd64? :)
[15:53:18] <dilfridge> :P
[15:54:00] <rich0> I do think a deadline does make sense all the same.
[15:54:07] <dilfridge> but seriously, it is not too much work per page. of
course for one person doing all is a lot of work.
[15:54:23] <rich0> For obviously-critical projects we may just have to do
something, but some of those projects may be defunct.
[15:55:45] <rich0> Ok, anything else on that?
[15:55:55] <rich0> Do we want to actually take action? The agenda is just for
status.
[15:56:09] <dilfridge> status is "stalled in the middle" right now
[15:56:22] <ulm> maybe send a reminder to the mailing list?
[15:56:28] <dilfridge> yes, good idea.
[15:56:38] <rich0> yeah, talk is cheap at least :)
[15:56:59] <rich0> Ok, next agenda item is bug 503382
[15:57:01] <willikins> rich0: https://bugs.gentoo.org/503382 "Missing summaries
for 20131210, 20140114, and 20140225 council meetings"; Doc Other,
Project-specific documentation; CONF; ulm:council
[15:57:10] -*- rich0 looks around the room
[15:57:14] -*- blueness smacks head
[15:57:34] <mgorny> i say disband previous council
[15:58:10] <rich0> ok, moment of silence observed...
[15:58:20] <ulm> that was dberkholz
[15:58:22] <blueness> hd=eh
[15:58:24] <rich0> yup
[15:58:27] <blueness> erre heh
[15:58:30] <rich0> Ok, we'll prod him.
[15:58:40] <rich0> I don't see him on the list of chairs for this term
[15:58:48] <dilfridge> :)
[15:58:53] <rich0> Ok...
[15:59:00] <rich0> Open floor
[15:59:06] <rich0> Anybody want to take a shot?
[16:00:00] <WilliamH> Ok, I have a question about a procedure...
[16:00:02] <mgorny> i can say that bashcomp2 is progressing fast too :P
[16:00:10] <mgorny> i filed a lot new bugs today
[16:00:11] <rich0> WilliamH: go ahead
[16:00:21] <WilliamH> I know that generally a package needs a last rites and 30
days before removing it from the main tree.
[16:00:36] <WilliamH> Is that also true for a package that is in p.mask?
[16:00:42] <rich0> WilliamH: might as well
[16:00:44] <WilliamH> s/p.mask/p.mask already/
[16:00:48] <rich0> Unless there is some reason to rush.
[16:00:57] <rich0> Or unless of course it is already masked for removal.
[16:01:15] <rich0> My two cents at least.
[16:01:21] <ulm> WilliamH: I'd keep the 30 days between last rites and removal
there too
[16:01:29] <ulm> but it's a guideline only
[16:01:34] <dilfridge> I used to give a few days then too, as e.g. sending a
last-rites mail "has been masked since..., will be removed in 10 days"
[16:01:38] <blueness> rich0, et al. i have to run. i'll read the backlog
[16:01:38] <rich0> Obviously copyright issues or such warrant an exception
[16:01:45] <rich0> blueness: ok,
[16:01:51] <WilliamH> dilfridge: that's reasonable.
[16:02:22] <WilliamH> dilfridge: that's one reason I haven't pushed hard
personally to work on p.mask.
[16:02:33] <WilliamH> dilfridge: I wasn't sure how to go about that.
[16:02:39] <dilfridge> ok
[16:03:01] <rich0> Anything else on that?
[16:03:16] <rich0> mgorny: ++ on bashcomp2. Just in time for my switch to
zsh. :)
[16:03:55] <rich0> Anything else for open floor?
[16:04:36] <rich0> If not, we're done. Next meeting will be Nov 11
[16:05:10] <rich0> I'll post the summary shortly, and start the agenda for next
month.
[16:05:13] <rich0> Thanks all :)
