jds2001FESCo meeting ping -- bpepple, dgilmore, dwmw2, jwb, notting, nirik, sharkcz, jds2001, j-rodJan 16 11:59
*notting is hereJan 16 12:00
*nirik is here. Jan 16 12:00
*j-rod hereJan 16 12:00
*jwb is hereJan 16 12:00
*bpepple is here.Jan 16 12:00
jds2001shall we get started or wait for a few more folks?Jan 16 12:01
chacha_chaudhrychacha_chaudhry is here for Review O' Matic feature questionsJan 16 12:01
rishichacha_chaudhry and I am here to represent Review-O-Matic, although I might have to run and grab dinner for a few minutes.Jan 16 12:01
jds2001sharkcz is unable to be here this week.Jan 16 12:01
jds2001we can do that first if you'd likeJan 16 12:02
rishijds2001: Okay.Jan 16 12:02
*jds2001 has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting - agenda at https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/report/9 - ticketsJan 16 12:03
jds2001.fesco 24Jan 16 12:03
zodbotjds2001: #24 (Review O' Matic) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/24Jan 16 12:03
jds2001so I'm sorta wondering if this is really a feature - being something that we want to get out on the soapbox and trumpet.Jan 16 12:04
bpepplewas the features up for review sent to the list?  I didn't recall seeing any yesterday.Jan 16 12:04
jds2001It really *is* cool though.Jan 16 12:04
jds2001bpepple: I sent them about 1AM :(Jan 16 12:04
bpeppleoh, that's why I didn't see it. ;)Jan 16 12:04
nirikI'm a bit worried about the name and some of the text. This doesn't really review packages, it just helps reviewers by doing lots of the tests right?Jan 16 12:04
*bpepple goes to read the feature page.Jan 16 12:05
jds2001right.Jan 16 12:05
nottingmy issue with it as a feature is that it's not actually a feature *of the release*Jan 16 12:05
jwbyeahJan 16 12:05
jds2001mine too, it's more of an infrastructure thing.Jan 16 12:05
nirikalso, there could be a possiblity of false positives if run against existing packages... which should be avoided. :) Those are not anything that couldn't be overcome tho.Jan 16 12:06
rishiYes, it is more of an infrastructure and developer oriented thing, but ...Jan 16 12:06
notting... was transifex 'featured'?Jan 16 12:06
rishi... since Transifex went through the feature process, we thought we also needed to do the same.Jan 16 12:06
rishinotting: Yes, we found a Transifex feature page on the Wiki.Jan 16 12:06
chacha_chaudhrywell we are open for new name. And the history of name is bad. We never decided it. Project was proposed by some one else.Jan 16 12:07
chacha_chaudhrys/Project/name/Jan 16 12:07
bpeppleI sorta fall into the camp that I'm not sure this should be a feature, since it's a back-end thing (similar to koji or bodhi).Jan 16 12:08
*jds2001 sees transifex in the F8 feature list.Jan 16 12:08
jds2001but i dont really think it should have been, imo, knowing what we do now.Jan 16 12:09
jds2001not to say that both items aren't really cool.Jan 16 12:09
nirikit's main advantage to end users might be higher quality packages... but thats really hard to measure.Jan 16 12:10
f13transifex was really a service for beyond Fedora contributorsJan 16 12:10
*rishi nodsJan 16 12:10
bpeppleI don't think this meets our definition of being a feature. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Policy/Definitions#Definition_of_a_FeatureJan 16 12:11
nirikyeah... not that it's not important and useful. ;)Jan 16 12:12
bpepplenirik: correct.Jan 16 12:12
jds2001so I'm going to say -1, but that this is really cool and important at the same time :)Jan 16 12:13
jwb-1Jan 16 12:13
jwbwith the same commentsJan 16 12:13
bpepple-1 to as a feature.Jan 16 12:14
*nirik nods... same here. Jan 16 12:14
notting+1 to the idea (go forth and do it!), -1 to noting it as a featureJan 16 12:14
jds2001i see five -1's, so FESCo has declined the Review O' Matic feature, however sees great value in it and urges rishi and chacha_chaudhry to go forth and do it!Jan 16 12:15
*stickster is now known as stickster_afkJan 16 12:15
jds2001.fesco 12Jan 16 12:16
chacha_chaudhryThanks ... We just thought telling telling the world "We care more for our packages ..." is a feature. :) We will do it :)Jan 16 12:16
zodbotjds2001: #12 (New Sponsor Request: Lubomir Rintel (lkundrak)) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/12Jan 16 12:16
bpepple+1 to lkundrak being made a sponsor.Jan 16 12:16
jds2001+1 here, no objections on the list.Jan 16 12:16
nirik+1 here. He maintains a lot of packages and knows the guidelines.Jan 16 12:16
j-rod+1Jan 16 12:17
jwb+1Jan 16 12:17
notting+1Jan 16 12:17
jds2001i see 6 +1's, so lkundrak's request has been approved.  I'll take care of that after the meeting.Jan 16 12:17
jds2001.fesco 14Jan 16 12:17
zodbotjds2001: #14 (New Sponsor Request: Itamar Reis Peixoto) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/14Jan 16 12:17
jds2001there were objections to this on this list, as he has done *no* reviews.Jan 16 12:18
notting-1 on that aloneJan 16 12:18
jds2001-1 here as well.Jan 16 12:18
bpepple-1.  He really needs to do some reviews.  It's very hard to know how well he knows the guidelines.Jan 16 12:18
jwb-1Jan 16 12:18
nirikyeah, do some reviews, then come back. -1.Jan 16 12:18
j-rodnot yetJan 16 12:18
jds2001i see 6 -1's, so Itamar's request has been declined.  He is however, free to re-apply after doing a number of reviews.Jan 16 12:19
itamarjp:'(Jan 16 12:20
jds2001itamarjp: dont give up, we just dont have any basis to form an opinion right now.Jan 16 12:20
jds2001on to features...Jan 16 12:21
jds2001.fesco 19Jan 16 12:21
zodbotjds2001: #19 (CUPS PolicyKit Integration) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/19Jan 16 12:21
j-rodjds2001: wasn't there a sponsor request for kevin koffler too? is that happening next week instead?Jan 16 12:21
bpepplej-rod: next week.Jan 16 12:22
jds2001j-rod: yeah, next week.Jan 16 12:22
j-rodok, coolJan 16 12:22
*mclasen is here, can try to answer questionsJan 16 12:23
jds2001so any questions on the CUPS-PK feature?Jan 16 12:23
jds2001mclasen: cool :)Jan 16 12:23
nottinglooks good to me. +1Jan 16 12:24
*nirik notes docs has "FIXME: None, currently"Jan 16 12:24
jwb+1Jan 16 12:24
mclasennirik: well, there are no docs, currentlyJan 16 12:24
jds2001+1 here, fix the docs :)Jan 16 12:24
j-rod+1, and what they saidJan 16 12:24
bpepple+1Jan 16 12:25
niriksounds like a great idea. +1. Might be worth running the defaults past dwalsh, as he had some issues with some of the other policykit defaults a while back.Jan 16 12:25
mclasenif he does, he's encouraged to tell us...Jan 16 12:26
jds2001I see six +1's, so FESCo has approved the CUPS PolicyKit integration featureJan 16 12:26
jds2001.fesco 20Jan 16 12:26
zodbotjds2001: #20 (Debuginfo Revamp) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/20Jan 16 12:26
*nirik nods. Just thought I would mention it. Jan 16 12:26
nottingmclasen: well, given what happened with dbus, and the PK flamewar, it might be nice to have a short 'writing DBUS and PK policies for dummies' docJan 16 12:27
mclasenyes, that would be niceJan 16 12:27
mclasenI've mentioned that to the relevant parties repeatedly :-)Jan 16 12:27
jds2001roland not around for the debuginfo feature?Jan 16 12:28
nirik+1 on this feature, but I see its only 1%, so I hope it's able to make it...Jan 16 12:28
jds2001+1, same here.Jan 16 12:28
nirikalso, mass rebuild would be better sooner than later.Jan 16 12:29
jds2001looks like some pretty big changes.Jan 16 12:29
nottinggiven the 1%, and what's involved, and when it would need to land for the mass rebuild (i'd prefer to only do one)... i'm skepticalJan 16 12:29
nirikwell, knowing if there would be a mass rebuild I mean.Jan 16 12:29
jwbis it backwards compatible?Jan 16 12:29
jds2001would the new gdb (if we go that route) be able to take old debuginfo packages?Jan 16 12:29
jds2001or what jwb said :)Jan 16 12:29
nirikroland is not around right? (I don't think I have seen him on irc ever)Jan 16 12:29
jwbhe's on ircJan 16 12:30
j-rodhe hangs out in #fedora-kernelJan 16 12:30
bpeppleI a little worried about this: 'Either gdb team has to adapt it to new conventions, or DWARF tool + rpm deployment plan could include exploding in %post to current layout.'Jan 16 12:30
jwbwhether he's available, i have no ideaJan 16 12:30
*j-rod pings rolandJan 16 12:30
jwbok, so to be honest, this is one of those features that is going to go into rawhide regardless of what we sayJan 16 12:30
nirikjwb: probibly.Jan 16 12:31
j-rodstill early-ish on the west coastJan 16 12:31
notting"DWARF tool + rpm deployment plan could include exploding in %post to current layout. "Jan 16 12:31
nottingthat's just wrong.Jan 16 12:31
bpepplenotting: that's what I was thinking also.Jan 16 12:31
bpeppleI'd like to hear from Roland on that, before approving this.Jan 16 12:32
jds2001yeah, how do you remove it then? Are they planning to %ghost the stuff or what?Jan 16 12:33
nottingi'm -1 right now just because the scope, while described, includes a bit too much if/or/maybe/possiblyJan 16 12:33
bpepple-1 for now here also.Jan 16 12:34
j-rodyeah, I'd say defer this one for now, needs more questions answeredJan 16 12:34
*jds2001 changes his early voteJan 16 12:34
*nirik is fine deferring too. Jan 16 12:34
bpepplejds2001: to late, your already committed. ;)Jan 16 12:34
nirikis someone going to update the talk page there?Jan 16 12:34
jds2001i see three -1's, two +1's (me and nirik - though we are both fine deferring).Jan 16 12:35
*jds2001 calls this declined, pending further informationJan 16 12:36
jds2001.fesco 21Jan 16 12:36
zodbotjds2001: #21 (ext4 default filesystem) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/21Jan 16 12:36
jds2001no sandeen :(Jan 16 12:36
jwbhe's comingJan 16 12:37
j-rodthere ya goJan 16 12:37
sandeenhey gangJan 16 12:37
jds2001sandeen: :)Jan 16 12:37
j-rodso. just how scary is making ext4 the default for f11? :)Jan 16 12:37
sandeenyou all have been helping test it, right?  :)Jan 16 12:37
wwoodsooh are we going to play point/counterpoint?Jan 16 12:37
sandeenthere is some scarinessJan 16 12:38
j-rodyup. my laptop is running ext4 nowJan 16 12:38
sandeenbut by and large it mostly seems to be working well for most peopleJan 16 12:38
*nirik is running it here on a server box... working fine. Jan 16 12:38
sandeenthere are some known bugs; filesystem shrinking needs fixingJan 16 12:38
jwbdoes anyone have an overwhelming reason not to swithc?Jan 16 12:38
wwoods"by and large it mostly seems to be working well for most people" is not a compelling argument for "so let's switch everyone to it"Jan 16 12:38
wwoodsI have quite a few!Jan 16 12:38
sandeenwwoods, let's wait 'til ubuntu shakes it out for us, maybe? :)Jan 16 12:38
sandeenI have no doubt that it will uncover bugs if we switch new installs over to itJan 16 12:39
wwoodsI will summarize as: increased complexity and reduced stability on an unproven filesystem is not a good tradeoff for near-negligible gains in performanceJan 16 12:39
sandeenbut we've had it available in fedora since F9, and there are 1500 or so (last I checked) ext4 filesystems registered in smolt statsJan 16 12:39
*jds2001 cnat claim to have really tested beyond triviallyJan 16 12:39
wwoodsext4 is not particularly useful for most usersJan 16 12:39
wwoodsas a personal anecdote I've had terrible luck with itJan 16 12:40
j-rodbut, but, but, moronix says its super-fast on ubuntu...Jan 16 12:40
wwoodsI fully support it being available as an option in anaconda with no special boot args neededJan 16 12:40
nirikhttp://www.smolts.org/static/stats/stats.htmlJan 16 12:40
j-rodit was a bit fail in the f10 kernel and the first update kernel, but solid in -159 for meJan 16 12:40
sandeenwwoods, it performs better (streaming IO in particular, as well as fsck times, delete times, and better sync behavior), scales better (larger files, larger filesystems (someday))  and has a few nice features (persisitent preallocation, eventual defrag ....)Jan 16 12:40
drago01can't we just test it? reverting to ext3 as default before GA should be easy if neededJan 16 12:41
wwoodslet's take these one-by-oneJan 16 12:41
sandeendrago01, there is some risk there of ext3 not getting good testing as a resultJan 16 12:41
j-rodI'd definitely say make it chooseable in anaconda w/o a flagJan 16 12:41
jwbsandeen, ext3?Jan 16 12:41
wwoods"performs better" - fsck is negligible for normal user cases, and the most obvious fsync bug - the firefox/sqlite doom - is worked-around alreadyJan 16 12:41
j-roddoes ext3 really need more testing?Jan 16 12:41
nottingj-rod: it already isJan 16 12:41
sandeenjwb, yeah, if we focus on ext4, bail at the last minute, ext3 has been short-changedJan 16 12:42
j-rodnotting: ah, in rawhide?Jan 16 12:42
wwoods"scales better" - useless for anyone with filesystems / files in the sub-terabyte rangeJan 16 12:42
drago01sandeen: wtf? it got more than enough testing already and still get some upstreamJan 16 12:42
j-rodhaven't actually tried a rawhide installer recentlyJan 16 12:42
wwoods(i.e. almost everyone)Jan 16 12:42
nottingwwoods: you've obviously  never run liferea (it's like firefox was. but worse.)Jan 16 12:42
jwbsandeen, seriously?Jan 16 12:42
sandeenjwb, drago01 I'm just being pedantic about qaJan 16 12:42
wwoodsnotting: okay, fairJan 16 12:42
sandeenodds are it's fine, but alpha fedora releases have uncovered ext3 bugs in the pastJan 16 12:42
wwoodsbasically, here's the thingJan 16 12:43
drago01wwoods: and rpm calling fdatasync sucks too on ext3Jan 16 12:43
wwoodsit's *dead simple* to convert an ext3 filesystem to ext4, right?Jan 16 12:43
sandeenFSVO convert, yesJan 16 12:43
wwoodsFSVO?Jan 16 12:43
j-rodyeah, you don't get the full benefit if it was ext3 to startJan 16 12:43
nirikdoesn't get all the features converting IIRCJan 16 12:43
j-rodfor some value ofJan 16 12:43
sandeenyou can very easily tune2fs and mount with extents, new files are in ext4 formatJan 16 12:43
niriks/ext3/ext4/ you meanJan 16 12:43
wwoodsso: a) most people don't *need* ext4,Jan 16 12:44
wwoodsb) those that *want* it at install time can get itJan 16 12:44
wwoodsc) those that want it later can easily upgrade in placeJan 16 12:44
jds2001wwoods: somewhat upgrade.Jan 16 12:44
wwoodsokay: "upgrade in place, with the caveat that they won't get some of the nice features thereof"Jan 16 12:45
dwmw2_gonethey can upgrade in place to btrfs and get the features :)Jan 16 12:45
*dwmw2_gone is now known as dwmw2_LHRJan 16 12:45
jwbplease noJan 16 12:45
sandeenTo be honest, yes, some of the motivation is to advance ext4's robustness by foisting it on the masses :)Jan 16 12:45
wwoodsd) once converted, ext4 filesystems can't be mounted as ext3 anymoreJan 16 12:45
dwmw2_LHR(sorry I'm late)Jan 16 12:46
sandeenwwoods, that's mostly true.  with a lot of hoop jumping you can go back.  it's not greatJan 16 12:46
wwoodse) we lose some features of ext3 (fs shrink, for example)Jan 16 12:46
sandeenwwoods, that will be fixedJan 16 12:46
sandeenit's just a bugJan 16 12:46
jwbby F11?Jan 16 12:46
sandeensureJan 16 12:46
zlessi've used ext4 in f9 and f10 for my root fs only. the only realworld change i noticed was vastly faster fsck times. (and a rpm db related bug)Jan 16 12:46
j-rodhow many users actually shrink their fs?Jan 16 12:46
wwoodsokay, fair, strike e)Jan 16 12:46
jwbj-rod, i would say more than a fewJan 16 12:46
dwmw2_LHRwhen will we have shrink working?Jan 16 12:47
sandeenum, when is alpha released? :)Jan 16 12:47
wwoodsI've used ext4 in F9 and F10; every system has either suffered massive rpmdb corruption or the disk has died completely. but these are anecdotes. let's leave them out of the discussion for now.Jan 16 12:47
dwmw2_LHRhow many users shrink their fs _immediately_ after installing it? :)Jan 16 12:47
drago01wwoods: "d)" the feature is about new installs no convertingJan 16 12:47
j-rodhuh. I think I've done it... never.Jan 16 12:47
sandeenTBH I haven't looked into the bug yet, just got obvious when I used ext4 to make a livecdJan 16 12:47
wwoodsdrago01: either way. ext4 filesystems - created or converted - can no longer be mounted by ext3 tools/modulesJan 16 12:47
sandeenthe fsck phase of the process found errorsJan 16 12:47
jeremyj-rod: fs shrinking is required for the livecd to work.  and if we're switching by default, the rootfs for the livecd needs to be ext4 alsoJan 16 12:48
sandeen"ext3 tools" are ext4 toolsJan 16 12:48
drago01wwoods: okJan 16 12:48
j-rodahaJan 16 12:48
nottingback in 2 min, sorryJan 16 12:48
sandeenjeremy, FWIW the fsck phase *seemed* to fix the errors :)Jan 16 12:48
sandeenI haven't been able to make it boot yet (on ext3 either)Jan 16 12:48
wwoodssandeen: I mean other tools; older rescue images, other distros, drivers in other OSes (think dual-boot machines), etcJan 16 12:48
sandeen"F9 rescue cd's won't rescue F11" doesn't seem compelling to meJan 16 12:48
j-rodpeople w/other OSes could still pick ext3 if they mustJan 16 12:49
sandeenwwoods, and the windows ext3 driver corrupts ext3 anyway.  I'll be glad to break that driver.Jan 16 12:49
wwoods"slightly faster for certain uncommon cases at the expense of compatibility and stability"Jan 16 12:49
sandeenthe rpmdb corruption wwoods mentioned is the sort of thing that troubles me more; I've never reproduced it and we've not gotten a handle on it yetJan 16 12:49
wwoodsis really not a compelling argument to meJan 16 12:49
dwmw2_LHRwwoods: we have/had similar compatibility concerns with selinux labelling anyway, surely?Jan 16 12:49
dwmw2_LHRshared /home isn't _that_ feasibleJan 16 12:50
jds2001at some point, we're going to have to bite the bullet and do it.Jan 16 12:50
j-rodyeahJan 16 12:50
jwbjds2001, no we aren'tJan 16 12:50
wwoodsI'm sorry, but that's baloneyJan 16 12:50
wwoodsunless "at some point" is "when btrfs is ready in a couple years"Jan 16 12:50
dwmw2_LHRI don't think btrfs is that far outJan 16 12:50
j-rodso even when its rock-solid, performs better all over, we'd still not default to it?...Jan 16 12:50
wwoodsI agree that sometime in the next couple of years we're going to need to mass-migrate our users to a new filesystemJan 16 12:51
jwbbtrfs as default is like an f13/f14 itemJan 16 12:51
dwmw2_LHRalthough it _does_ need a lot more stabilisation. It's a lot newer than ext4Jan 16 12:51
wwoodsI don't think now is the timeJan 16 12:51
sandeendwmw2_LHR, more than just stabilisationJan 16 12:51
jwbwhich means, can we live with ext3 for f11, f12, f13?Jan 16 12:51
sandeenENOSPC handling would be nice, for one :)Jan 16 12:51
f13damnit, I need to make it sot hat we don't ship F13Jan 16 12:51
sandeenI'm impressed w/ the pace of development but don't underestimate the time it'll takeJan 16 12:51
f13well, my opinion would be to allow ext4 to be selected without magic cli args, but keep ext3 as the default.  We eventually want to go to btrfs so make a default switch when that is readyJan 16 12:51
wwoodsf13: right, that's what I'm sayingJan 16 12:52
f13just to avoid default switching frequentlyJan 16 12:52
jeremyremoving the magic cli arg is fine (and really, probably nto a fesco decision; if kernel people are happy with it, then it's two seconds in anaconda)Jan 16 12:52
f13but then again, it is Fedora, so meh.Jan 16 12:52
dwmw2_LHRsandeen: true, but stabilisation is the major thing. ENOSPC is part of thatJan 16 12:52
dwmw2_LHRas is ENOMEM handling :)Jan 16 12:52
dwmw2_LHRf13: that makes sense to meJan 16 12:52
rwheelerext4's fsck time improvements alone will make a vast improvement for users - why the fear?Jan 16 12:52
jds2001that sounds reasonable.Jan 16 12:52
wwoodsrwheeler: vast improvement for *what* usersJan 16 12:52
rwheelerany user with a disk larger than 200 GB (which is most of us)Jan 16 12:52
j-rodusers that reboot their machines?Jan 16 12:52
dwmw2_LHRfor users who _really_ ought to know what they're doing, and select ext4 for themselvesJan 16 12:52
*mclasen doesn't see big value in keeping the default fs type stable over multiple fedora releasesJan 16 12:53
drago01non broken fsyncJan 16 12:53
wwoodsI've never, *ever* seen *any* of my machines fsck at *all*Jan 16 12:53
sandeenwwoods, you are a lucky manJan 16 12:53
wwoodsI'm really not seeing a lot of complaints about fsck being slowJan 16 12:53
wwoodsexcept from people who manage a lot of storageJan 16 12:53
j-rodsure its not just hiding behind the boot splash?Jan 16 12:53
wwoodsand those people can easily choose ext4Jan 16 12:53
f13j-rod: noJan 16 12:53
j-rodwe still do an automatic fsck every x mountsJan 16 12:53
j-rodfsvo xJan 16 12:53
sandeenno, we tune that off in anacondaJan 16 12:53
f13j-rod: there are journal replays, but not full fscyncsJan 16 12:53
jwbj-rod, rwheeler: fsck does not run hardly everJan 16 12:53
sandeenfscks.Jan 16 12:53
rwheeleryou also will see a significant streaming write improvementJan 16 12:53
j-rodahJan 16 12:53
wwoodsj-rod: if that was the case my boot times would be unstable - they'd be long on the days I fsck and short othersJan 16 12:54
f13j-rod: we stopped that insanity a while ago.Jan 16 12:54
sandeenfscks happen when you get an error on your fs, or yo uhit the "fsck every BLAH mounts" misfeatureJan 16 12:54
wwoodsrightJan 16 12:54
j-rodmaybe its only when I keep crashing my boxes...Jan 16 12:54
j-rod:)Jan 16 12:54
wwoodsthat doesn't happen very often to anyoneJan 16 12:54
jeremyj-rod: we turned off the auto fsck stuff when we first added ext3Jan 16 12:54
sandeenf13, but mke2fs still defaults to having it on, so filesystems made outside anaconda get that treatmentJan 16 12:54
rwheelerI really don't agree about fsck not running - you always need to run it when you really, really need to recover a drive with a failing diskJan 16 12:54
wwoods"faster fsck times" is an uncommon use caseJan 16 12:54
f13I don't think anybody is going to argue that ext4 is "better".  I think the question is, if btrfs is our eventual goal, is it worth the work to change defaults twice in such short succession?Jan 16 12:54
*jeremy committed the bits to anaconda for itJan 16 12:54
j-rodI think I've made more than an fs or two just using mkfs outside of anaconda, so mah badJan 16 12:55
bpepple+1 to allowing ext4 to be selected without magic cli args, but keep ext3 as the default.Jan 16 12:55
rwheelerwwoods: not true at all, it is a routine thing in the real worldJan 16 12:55
dwmw2_LHRit's a special tuning -- we now do it only when you're on battery, or when you're about to try to give a presentation.Jan 16 12:55
jwbrwheeler, then people that care can select ext4 as the fsJan 16 12:55
j-rodhehJan 16 12:55
mclasenf13: you can't really know how short the succession will beJan 16 12:55
sandeendwmw2_LHR, :)Jan 16 12:55
f13rwheeler: does this real world contain people that just blindly accept defaults?Jan 16 12:55
f13mclasen: it'll likely be shorter than ext2<->ext3 (:Jan 16 12:55
jwbwhat bpepple +1Jan 16 12:55
wwoodsseriously we can revisit this at F12Jan 16 12:55
sandeenf13, fsck isn't about option choosingJan 16 12:55
rwheelerext4 is the evolved version of ext3 with a misnamed subdirectoryJan 16 12:55
wwoodsand FthirteenJan 16 12:55
jwbrwheeler, if that were true, then ext3 could mount ext4 filesystemsJan 16 12:56
wwoodsI really don't see the value in doing it nowJan 16 12:56
rwheelerI think that we should treat it just like the major upgrades we did to x11, etcJan 16 12:56
*notting is +1 for ext4 as defaultJan 16 12:56
f13well, lets think of this another wayJan 16 12:56
f13one that is likely not popoular hereJan 16 12:56
f13does anybody rightly think that btrfs will be viable for RHEL6?Jan 16 12:56
dwmw2_LHRrwheeler: do you know if we can do in-place migration from ext4 to btrfs, or only from ext3/ext2 ?Jan 16 12:56
dwmw2_LHRnoJan 16 12:56
f13if no, is the desire for RHEL6 to have ext4?Jan 16 12:56
jwbpoor argumentJan 16 12:56
f13if yes, that's one hell of an argument for ext4 by default in F11Jan 16 12:56
rwheelerthere are plans to allow the in place migration from bothJan 16 12:56
dwmw2_LHRRHEL6 is... 12 months out? We'd want it to be default in F11 for that :)Jan 16 12:57
jwbf13, that's an argument for RHJan 16 12:57
f13yes, yes it isJan 16 12:57
f13I told you it wasn't going to be popular.Jan 16 12:57
wwoodsThe Fedora side of my brain sez: that's RHT's problem, not Fedora'sJan 16 12:57
rwheelerext4 will definitely be in both rhel6 and 5.4 (and is tech preview in 5.3)Jan 16 12:57
*jwb points to his obligatory we are not RH signJan 16 12:57
dwmw2_LHRit's a relevant question, even if it isn't popularJan 16 12:57
f13of course we're not red hat, but that doesn't mean we should immediately deny any thing that would /help/ Red HatJan 16 12:57
*dwmw2_LHR has one of those, but it's still a relevant question. It affects how much paid support we get if we choose it, for exampleJan 16 12:57
jwbdwmw2_LHR, by that token, we should ask what CentOS and yellowdog wantJan 16 12:57
wwoodsI'll offer this as a compromise: do ext4-by-default for Alpha and BetaJan 16 12:58
jwbthey are both eventual consumers of fedora...Jan 16 12:58
wwoodsrevist at Feature Freeze or thereafterJan 16 12:58
jwbj-rod, hey, what does mythdora want?Jan 16 12:58
j-rodI'm +1 for making it the default. and beat the hell out of it.Jan 16 12:58
dwmw2_LHRnot really, because we don't expect them to bust a gut if we _try_ it and shit hits the fan.Jan 16 12:58
wwoodsif we get a lot of nasty problems we revertJan 16 12:58
j-rodwith a contingency plan... what wwoods saidJan 16 12:58
sandeenjwb, ext4 will delete big HDTV files faster ;)Jan 16 12:58
drago01wwoods: thats what I proposed just test it and go back if it is too brokenJan 16 12:58
j-rodjwb: *cough* xfsJan 16 12:58
sandeenheheJan 16 12:58
dwmw2_LHRjffs2!Jan 16 12:58
rwheelersandeen the faster deletion is an issue for people as well....Jan 16 12:58
wwoodsbut I'm really, really not happy about foisting this on our theoretical millions of usersJan 16 12:58
sandeenyeah, if alpha explodes all over reverting to ext3 is easy.  it'd be embarassing, but easy.Jan 16 12:59
jeremydwmw2_LHR: I thought ubifs was what the cool kids used these days... ;)Jan 16 12:59
wwoodswhen most of them don't need it and it's not really provenJan 16 12:59
dwmw2_LHRjeremy: true :)Jan 16 12:59
sandeenwwoods, we foist new stuff on our users ALL THE TIMEJan 16 12:59
dwmw2_LHRI'm happier doing it in Alpha than in the real release :)Jan 16 12:59
j-rodthis *is* rawhide we're talking about... :DJan 16 12:59
dwmw2_LHRcan we try it just for the Alpha, then turn it off. Then make another decision before beta?Jan 16 12:59
sandeendwmw2_LHR, hehe, so the plan is "add it to alpha and revert in beta?" :)Jan 16 12:59
jeremysandeen: think we can get the shrinking bug fixed in time for the alpha?Jan 16 12:59
wwoods(dude I know this - I'm playing the role of Curmudgeonly QA Guy here)Jan 16 12:59
sandeenjeremy, I'll look into it.  probably.Jan 16 12:59
dwmw2_LHRsandeen: well, add it for Alpha and reconsider for beta, once we have more informationJan 16 13:00
rwheelerwe have enough fs developers working in rhel & fedora to support this very well (not to mention the IBM/SUN and others)Jan 16 13:00
f13I don't mind foisting ext4 on new users, I just would mind foisting something else as a default on them in the not distant futureJan 16 13:00
jeremyalthough I guess we probably need to ensure that anaconda copes for live installs with either case regardless of the defaultJan 16 13:00
jds2001ok, I've completely lost count. Who is +1 to this? Current proposal is "enable it, revert at feature freeze if it eats babies"?Jan 16 13:00
f13but really, I don't care, that's a minor argument from my part.Jan 16 13:00
wwoodsokay, here's what I want: flesh out the "Scope" section of https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Ext4DefaultFsJan 16 13:00
f13(and I have no real FESCo vote)Jan 16 13:00
wwoodsto include some *testable* metrics for speed and reliabilityJan 16 13:00
*sandeen wishes we had a filesystem people *were* begging forJan 16 13:00
dwmw2_LHRwwoods: to test it, we put it in Alpha :)Jan 16 13:00
wwoodsrevisit at alpha, beta, etc.Jan 16 13:01
dgilmoredid we start an hour early?Jan 16 13:01
nottingmy argument is: fedora is about shipping the best of what's available today. that's ext4 right now, imoJan 16 13:01
jds2001dgilmore: we start at noon now :)Jan 16 13:01
dwmw2_LHRI'd be up for putting it in Alpha and keeping an open mind -- revisit the question before beta (which is slightly different to the 'pull it if everything breaks' proposal)Jan 16 13:01
jds2001noon eastern, that is :)Jan 16 13:01
wwoodsif it fails to meet the stated specifications, we revert to ext3-by-defaultJan 16 13:01
f13notting: that's a good argument.Jan 16 13:01
dwmw2_LHRs'trueJan 16 13:01
dgilmorejds2001: its noon nowJan 16 13:01
sandeennotting, have you been using it?  good experience, problems, ?Jan 16 13:01
nottingsandeen: no :)Jan 16 13:01
j-rodyeah, what notting said. and then we just keep a *very* close eye on itJan 16 13:01
sandeenheheJan 16 13:01
jwbso we're going round and roundJan 16 13:01
jwbneed to voteJan 16 13:02
j-rodI've been using it quite a bit, very few issues, and those I have had, have been quickly fixedJan 16 13:02
j-rod+1Jan 16 13:02
dgilmoreim +1 for ext4 as default unless we plan to switch to btrfs in F-12Jan 16 13:02
wwoodsremoving my Curmudgeon hat: I want ext4-by-default, but I want it to not break my system, and when I wear that hat I'm not allowed to make tradeoffs so easilyJan 16 13:02
dwmw2_LHRI'd vote +1 to 'in Alpha, reconsider for beta', and vote 0 for 'in Alpha, reconsider if it _really_ goes tits-up'Jan 16 13:02
jwbdgilmore, that is a silly way to voteJan 16 13:02
rwheelerbtw, we have pounded a lot of data through it with the rh performance guys and the HP big system guysJan 16 13:02
wwoodsdwmw2_LHR: we won't.Jan 16 13:03
dwmw2_LHRrwheeler: yeah, that's no substitute for real users :)Jan 16 13:03
phrofwiw, I've been using it on my development system for 6+ months, and it's not had any problems.Jan 16 13:03
dgilmorejwb: perhaps.  i just dont think we should go switching the default file system 2 releases in a rowJan 16 13:03
dwmw2_LHRwe're not switching to btrfs in F-12. Not as defaultJan 16 13:03
dgilmorejwb: so if we think we might want to switch to btrfs in F-12 id rather just wait till thenJan 16 13:03
wwoodsbtrfs won't even be considered for defaulthood until F13 at the earliestJan 16 13:03
dwmw2_LHRI'd _like_ to be able to, but it ain't going to happenJan 16 13:03
nottingwwoods: i'll put a beer up that we'll be doing more OMG AAARGH kernel respins for modesetting than ext4 :)Jan 16 13:03
jwbi vote 0Jan 16 13:03
jds2001in F-thirteen we'll visit that.Jan 16 13:03
dgilmorethen +1 for ext4Jan 16 13:03
jds2001+1Jan 16 13:03
dwmw2_LHRJan 16 13:04
rwheelerhard to get real users until we have more than one non-boot partition by default for new fs'es :-)Jan 16 13:04
wwoodsfor F11 you'll need to put 'icantbelieveitsnotbtrfs' or something to enable it in anacondaJan 16 13:04
dwmw2_LHR:)Jan 16 13:04
wwoodsnotting: I wouldn't bet against you on that oneJan 16 13:04
*nirik got a phone call. Reading back up. Jan 16 13:05
jds2001dwmw2_LHR: you have to vote in whole numbers :)Jan 16 13:05
jds2001oh, you did.Jan 16 13:05
nirik+1 from me, if it blows up, we fire contingency plan.Jan 16 13:05
wwoodssandeen: can you help craft a spec with testable metrics - things like "no data corruptor bugs open", "throughput on test 'foo' at least x.xx", etc.Jan 16 13:05
dwmw2_LHRI'm not too worried about the bugs aspectJan 16 13:06
jds2001i see around 5 +1's, so ext4 has been approved as the default filesystem in F11, with the understanding that we will revisit at Beta.Jan 16 13:06
wwoodsesp. tests for things like rpmdb corruption that have been seen in the pastJan 16 13:06
sandeenwwoods, we can try something like that.  it'll be weasily; I can pick a test I can pass :DJan 16 13:06
dwmw2_LHRI assume that if it breaks, sandeen won't sleep till it's fixed, with rwheeler standing over him with the whipJan 16 13:07
jds2001geez a lot left.Jan 16 13:07
wwoodssandeen: that's fine, I just want some things to point at to say "here are the specified goals of ext4, and everything passes, so we're good to go"Jan 16 13:07
jds2001.fesco 22Jan 16 13:07
zodbotjds2001: #22 (Gnome 2.26) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/22Jan 16 13:07
*mclasen still here, can try to answer questionsJan 16 13:07
jwbwaitJan 16 13:07
jwbso did ext4 pass?Jan 16 13:07
jwbah, yesJan 16 13:07
jwbsorryJan 16 13:07
wwoodssandeen: I'm really trying to avoid something like the Empathy feature from F10, where we had an incomplete idea of what it was supposed to do, and then it turned out not to do what everyone wantedJan 16 13:07
jwbproceedJan 16 13:07
*stickster_afk is now known as sticksterJan 16 13:08
rwheelerdwmw2_LHR we certainly have a focus on getting ext4 stable so we can get our fs people onto btrfsJan 16 13:08
wwoodsso even if you're writing a spec that ext4 currently meets, that's fine, I just want to be able to say: "no, everything is fine, we can prove it does everything it's supposed to"Jan 16 13:08
sandeen(FWIW I think we should keep ext3->ext4 migration as an option, but with a boot flag; I Think that carries more risk (since it's existing data))Jan 16 13:09
bpepple+1 to gnome-2.26.Jan 16 13:09
jwbi'm +1 for Gnome 2.26Jan 16 13:09
sandeen(sorry, carry on)Jan 16 13:09
jds2001+1Jan 16 13:10
nirik+1, no brainer, should trumpet.Jan 16 13:10
notting+1Jan 16 13:10
j-rod+1Jan 16 13:10
mclasenbusiness as usual, reallyJan 16 13:10
jds2001i see six +1Jan 16 13:10
jwbmove on!Jan 16 13:10
nirikwhen is 2.26 scheduled to release?Jan 16 13:10
jds2001so we've approved the gnome 2.26 featureJan 16 13:10
bpepplemclasen: yeah.Jan 16 13:10
j-rodyeah, not much question here. next!Jan 16 13:10
jwboh crapJan 16 13:10
jwbi'm supposed to do minutesJan 16 13:10
nottingspeaking of, did we already approve the kde-4.2 feature?Jan 16 13:10
dwmw2_LHR+1Jan 16 13:10
dwmw2_LHRhahJan 16 13:10
bpepplejwb: should be fun. ;)Jan 16 13:11
mclasennotting: its on the approved listJan 16 13:11
jds2001jwb: i can send you the log if needed.Jan 16 13:11
jwbbpepple, summaries are wonderful :)Jan 16 13:11
jwbjds2001, nah, i think i have it.  if i don't, i'll ask youJan 16 13:11
jds2001.fesco 23Jan 16 13:11
zodbotjds2001: #23 (Live System for the DVD Image) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/23Jan 16 13:11
jds2001so this looks like more of a wishlist item to me.Jan 16 13:11
jwbi added some comments on the discussion page hereJan 16 13:11
jds2001and not a very likely one, either.Jan 16 13:11
jwbit's not even technically possible for anything other than i386Jan 16 13:11
jwb-1Jan 16 13:11
nottingis the submitter actually doing the patches for pungi?Jan 16 13:12
jwbi dunno.  i asked about thatJan 16 13:12
jds2001didnt see anything to that effect.Jan 16 13:12
jwbthere's no patches, and no space on the x86_64 or ppc DVDsJan 16 13:12
jds2001only pungi patches ive seen recently are from nottingJan 16 13:12
nottingjwb: well, we can cull stuff from the Fedora spin (puts on bastard hat). but if no one's working on the underlying compose/boot infrastructure for it...Jan 16 13:13
f13yeah, I don't see this happening without somebody doing a lot of workJan 16 13:13
f13and I've already got too much workJan 16 13:13
nottingalso, it gives you a rather bizarre installation choice in that you'll be installing two different things depending on which boot option you chooseJan 16 13:13
jwbyeahJan 16 13:13
dgilmore-1 as its really only feasable for i386Jan 16 13:13
j-roddual-layer DVD image ftw!Jan 16 13:14
jds2001-1 here too.Jan 16 13:14
j-rod-1Jan 16 13:14
bpepple-1Jan 16 13:14
drago01jwb: "it's not even technically possible for anything other than i386" lets move to DL DVDs ;)Jan 16 13:14
f13I do have a bluray burner here that I"ve been playing withJan 16 13:14
dwmw2_LHR-1Jan 16 13:14
j-rod(apologies to all the users w/only single-layer)Jan 16 13:14
dgilmorej-rod: dual layer dvd's are still not really an optionJan 16 13:14
jwbdrago01, buy me a burner and media and we can talkJan 16 13:14
jds2001i see six -1Jan 16 13:14
f13we could do live bluray with the full rpm set on it for choose your own adventure installsJan 16 13:14
dgilmoref13: sick puppyJan 16 13:14
j-roddgilmore: yeah, just being a jack-ass. :)Jan 16 13:14
jds2001so we've declined the LiveCD on the install DVDJan 16 13:14
f13it'll take a week to mirror it, but...Jan 16 13:15
*dwmw2_LHR wonders if we could manage tri-boot i386/x86_64/ppc install discsJan 16 13:15
dwmw2_LHRshouldn't be hard...Jan 16 13:15
f13dwmw2_LHR: you get right on that (:Jan 16 13:15
jwbhave funJan 16 13:15
j-rodeven better: fat binaries w/all four arches in them.Jan 16 13:15
jds2001ok, last feature :)Jan 16 13:15
j-rodsingle disc image for everythingJan 16 13:15
dgilmoredwmw2_LHR: it could be done.  but would have to be dual-layer dvd or blue-rayJan 16 13:15
jds2001.fesco 25Jan 16 13:15
zodbotjds2001: #25 (Xfce 4.6) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/25Jan 16 13:15
drago01jwb: the burner ins't the problem you I can't find a non DL capable burner but the media is indead more expensiveJan 16 13:15
*stickster is now known as stickster_mtgJan 16 13:16
*nirik999 has his daily intel xorg crash. That bug is getting very very very anoying. Jan 16 13:16
jds2001:(Jan 16 13:16
dgilmoredrago01: you have to have puchased a dvd burner in the last couple of years for dual layer supportJan 16 13:16
jwbnirik999, so i asked a question about xfce since release is now set at feb 6Jan 16 13:16
jds2001nirik999: we're on to xfce 4.6Jan 16 13:16
nirik999great.Jan 16 13:16
nirik999please re-ask, as my dircproxy hasn't reconnected yet.Jan 16 13:16
drago01dgilmore: yeahJan 16 13:16
j-rodisn't this more or less the same sort of thing as new gnome and kde? or is there more to xfce 4.6Jan 16 13:17
wwoodsnirik999: are you using the 'noirqdebug' boot arg?Jan 16 13:17
*j-rod should read the feature page...Jan 16 13:17
dgilmore+1 for XFCEJan 16 13:17
bpepple+1 here also.Jan 16 13:17
notting+1. do they do the same odd/even release scheme, which is why we don't have 4.5?Jan 16 13:17
nirik999j-rod: it's pretty much that... new release, new stuff. The big thing they redid is the configuration backend...Jan 16 13:17
jds2001+1 hereJan 16 13:18
j-rod+1, that's what I figuredJan 16 13:18
nirik999notting: yep. 4.5 was a devel cycle.Jan 16 13:18
dwmw2_LHR+1Jan 16 13:18
jds2001i see six +1's, so FESCo has passed the Xfce 4.6 featureJan 16 13:18
jwbi'll assume the answer to my question was "yes"Jan 16 13:18
jwb+1Jan 16 13:18
nirik999upstream is somewhat interesting when it comes to releases... I sure hope it's out in time, but the betas/rc's are looking pretty stable.Jan 16 13:18
jds2001alrighty, on to other business.....Jan 16 13:19
jds2001.fesco 10Jan 16 13:19
nirik999for 4.4 they slipped a bunch, someone posted to the list "hey, when are we going to release" and they did the release the next day. ;)Jan 16 13:19
zodbotjds2001: #10 (Review list of non-provenpackager committable packages) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/10Jan 16 13:19
jds2001nirik999: hehe :)Jan 16 13:19
nirik999wwoods: no, should I be?Jan 16 13:19
wwoodsonce again - XFCE46's Scope section should include more detail about what's changing, so we can write a test plan to test the changesJan 16 13:20
nirik999wwoods: agreed, I can try and improve it...Jan 16 13:20
jds2001so I was thinking that we'd discuss what constitutes acceptable criteria for a package *not* to be provenpackager committable.Jan 16 13:21
jds2001helps to have that prior to reviewing the list.Jan 16 13:22
abadger1999jds2001: On this one, note that I haven't locked down who can change that yet.  it's very easy but I'm trying to get a few other changes into the same release.Jan 16 13:22
abadger1999If locking it down is needed pronto, I can hotfix it this weekend.Jan 16 13:22
jwbpronto would be an exaggeration i thinkJan 16 13:22
jds2001abadger1999: i dont think pronto.Jan 16 13:23
nirik999I'm wondering what the criteria should be too... do we really need any packages closed to this? I guess one issue is the cvs commit mail control-c thing. Was that fixed?Jan 16 13:23
dgilmorejds2001: i think packages that if patched incorrectly will break the worldJan 16 13:23
f13nirik999: that isn't fixed, and might not be fixable with cvs itself.Jan 16 13:23
dgilmorei.e. binutils gcc kernel glibcJan 16 13:24
f13those would be acceptable, but still the maintainer could choose to open them upJan 16 13:24
f13honestly, I think it's prudent to get feedback from the current closed packagers, to see why they feel they shoudl be closedJan 16 13:25
dgilmoref13: sure they can always choose to open them upJan 16 13:25
jds2001what about security system packages, ala openssl, openssh, nss stuff?Jan 16 13:25
f13we can then roll that into either acceptable criteria, or unacceptable.Jan 16 13:25
bpepplef13: agreed.Jan 16 13:25
jds2001s/system/sensitiveJan 16 13:25
nirik999so, if thats not fixed, I do see a need to have closed packages. ;( Thats a reason to switch vcs's or setup IMHO.Jan 16 13:25
f13this is one of those things where you can't envision every possible critera, and you have to roll with the requests as they come.Jan 16 13:25
dgilmorejds2001: true,  we dont want a debian esque incidentJan 16 13:26
dwmw2_LHRf13: true, although having guidelines doesn't hurtJan 16 13:26
nirik999I agree... lets email the maintainers who have closed and ask them?Jan 16 13:26
f13nirik999: I have to look again at how much we can move fully serverside with the message bus, we /might/ be able to fix itJan 16 13:26
dwmw2_LHRI think the plan stated before was that we'd let maintainers come to us and make their caseJan 16 13:26
nirik999if it was fixed, I would see no real reason to close provenpackagers personally.Jan 16 13:26
dwmw2_LHRand after a month or two, we'd open the packages we hadn't approvedJan 16 13:26
dwmw2_LHRwe should call on the maintainers to do thatJan 16 13:27
jds2001can do.Jan 16 13:27
jds2001dwmw2_LHR: you saw the summary from our face-to-face meeting i guess?Jan 16 13:27
jds2001about reseeding provenpackager w/sponsors?Jan 16 13:28
bpepplejds2001: any reason why that turned from a proposal session into a decision?Jan 16 13:28
jwbbpepple, majority vote was presentJan 16 13:28
jds2001bpepple: i thought it was a decision :)Jan 16 13:29
bpeppleIt would have been niced to have been given an option to way in on that.Jan 16 13:29
jds2001and majority was at 6Jan 16 13:29
jds2001bpepple: sorry :(Jan 16 13:29
bpepples/way/weigh/Jan 16 13:29
dwmw2_LHRjds2001: yes, I did. thanks.Jan 16 13:29
bpeppleseemed like it was rammed through without any of the folks that might have dissented from being allowed to vote.Jan 16 13:29
dwmw2_LHRwell, if they were quorate...Jan 16 13:30
dwmw2_LHRI have no particular objection to it, although I probably wouldn't have voted for itJan 16 13:30
bpepplebut in the grand scheme of things, I don't care that much, but I don't think it should become a habit in future fudcons.Jan 16 13:30
f13I wouldn't feel bad about putting that to another meeting voteJan 16 13:30
jwbi fail to see how this is different from someone not making a meetingJan 16 13:30
f13we're a ways away from being able to /act/ upon that decision anywayJan 16 13:30
*nirik has no problem revisiting. I can +1 here as well as I did in person. ;) Jan 16 13:31
f13jwb: mail advertisement, non-fesco participation, etc...Jan 16 13:31
*jds2001 too :)Jan 16 13:31
bpepplef13: I can live with the decision for the seeders I had more of a problem with having a vote without giving all of fesco an option to weigh-in.Jan 16 13:31
f13and well, the rahul effectJan 16 13:31
f13anything to avoid the rahul effect.Jan 16 13:31
jwbsorry, but it was known from the last IRC meeting we were going to talk about thisJan 16 13:32
jds2001bpepple: it was pitched as a barcamp session at paul's recommendationJan 16 13:32
jds2001and we did have non-fesco members present.Jan 16 13:32
bpepplef13: working on a proposal is fine, I'm just not thrilled with having a final decision being made without all the parties being able to weigh-in.  but anyway we can get back to the topic.Jan 16 13:32
f13bpepple: yeah, I agree with you.Jan 16 13:33
jds2001do we want to re-vote now?Jan 16 13:33
jds2001just for the record?Jan 16 13:33
nirikbpepple: yeah, sorry.Jan 16 13:33
bpepplejds2001: no, I'm fine with the decision, just not the process that was used.Jan 16 13:34
bpepplelet's just try to avoid from doing that again in the future.Jan 16 13:35
jds2001noted :)Jan 16 13:35
jds2001anyhow, anymore on this?Jan 16 13:36
*jds2001 takes that as a no, will follow up with individual maintainers.Jan 16 13:37
jds2001.fesco 11Jan 16 13:37
zodbotjds2001: #11 (Review FPC report) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/11Jan 16 13:37
jds2001this is the FPC report that we missed last week.Jan 16 13:37
jds2001and FPC has one other item as well.Jan 16 13:38
jds2001.fesco 18Jan 16 13:38
zodbotjds2001: #18 (FPC item for approval) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/18Jan 16 13:38
*bpepple doesn't have any objections.Jan 16 13:39
*jds2001 either, +1Jan 16 13:39
j-rodno objections to anything hereJan 16 13:40
nirikwell, I'm not sure the font stuff is ideal... seems a lot of churn and macros. ;) However, I will trust that fpc knows what they are doing...Jan 16 13:40
f13The naming of fonts causes some pretty ... fun ... things to go in specs/macrosJan 16 13:40
dgilmore+1Jan 16 13:40
nirik+1Jan 16 13:40
f13and some unexpected subpackage namesJan 16 13:40
f13heavy use of -n going on, which is always a treat to debugJan 16 13:41
j-rodhm. good point. wasn't thrilled at having to change a dependency *again*Jan 16 13:41
j-rodbut if they'll finally settle on something and quit changing the names around on dejavu-*...Jan 16 13:42
*jds2001 wonders what the end goal of all this is.Jan 16 13:42
nim-nimjds2001: world domination!Jan 16 13:42
nirikfont package names that make some sense, and are split out so you don't have to install a big package to get the one font you need.Jan 16 13:42
nirikand font packages that are all using the same setup I guess.Jan 16 13:42
jds2001seems worthyJan 16 13:43
nim-nimand cleaning up the huge pile of mispackaged fonts in the distroJan 16 13:43
f13the end goal should be listed in teh proposal, is it not?Jan 16 13:43
*dwmw2_LHR wishes the damn page would loadJan 16 13:43
*nirik still needs to fix his font packages. Perhaps this weekend. Jan 16 13:43
dwmw2_LHRsounds good to me as nirik describes itJan 16 13:43
abadger1999There was no actual font naming guideline before.  nim-nim and FPC had several proposals and counter proposals before arriving at this naming convention.Jan 16 13:43
nim-nimwe settled with the minimal changes FPC would acceptJan 16 13:44
nim-nimtheir first proposals were even more heavy on -n and renamingsJan 16 13:44
*jds2001 only sees four +1's to this unless i'm missing somethingJan 16 13:45
jds2001jwb, notting?Jan 16 13:46
jwb+1Jan 16 13:46
nim-nimjwb: thanksJan 16 13:46
jds2001ok, the FPC proposals have been approved.Jan 16 13:46
notting+1-ish. i don't like the churn, but as long as it's the last time :)Jan 16 13:46
dwmw2_LHR+1Jan 16 13:47
j-rod+1, same caveat as nottingJan 16 13:47
jds2001.fesco 13Jan 16 13:47
zodbotjds2001: #13 (FESCo needs to determine whether ovm is acceptable content) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/13Jan 16 13:47
*nirik nods. Hopefully this will be it and we can grow our font package collection from here. Jan 16 13:47
nim-nimthank youJan 16 13:47
bpepple+1 to ovm, for pretty much the reasons that spot pointed out in the bug report.Jan 16 13:48
nirikso it's a simulator where this is no free content.Jan 16 13:48
nirik(yet)Jan 16 13:48
j-rod+1, it'll help enable development of a free simJan 16 13:48
dwmw2_LHRwhat are the chances of free content?Jan 16 13:48
dgilmorenirik: reverseJan 16 13:48
nirikah, ok.Jan 16 13:48
dgilmoreits content with no free way to use itJan 16 13:48
*nirik reads the bug. Jan 16 13:49
nirikbug 474980 for those following at home.Jan 16 13:49
buggbotBug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=474980 medium, medium, ---, thibault.north@gmail.com, ASSIGNED, Review Request: ovm - Open Verification Methodology : IEEE 1800 SystemVerilog standardJan 16 13:49
notting'content with no free way to use it'? so, along the lines of a CC-BY-SA mp3 file?Jan 16 13:49
jds2001notting: there's hope for a free way to use it.Jan 16 13:50
nottingah, okJan 16 13:50
nirikwhy not just wait for those, package them and approve this after one of those is in?Jan 16 13:50
nirikwhy does adding it now help?Jan 16 13:50
jds2001chitlesh is not around :/Jan 16 13:51
*jds2001 wishes he could answer that, supposedly it will spur development or somethingJan 16 13:51
nirikthat seems strange to me... perhaps I am missing somethingJan 16 13:52
*stickster_mtg is now known as sticksterJan 16 13:52
*jds2001 tooJan 16 13:52
jds2001spot: do you have any insight on ovm other than what's in the bug?Jan 16 13:52
dgilmorenirik: i dont get it eitherJan 16 13:53
nirikit would be a bad experence for our users, IMHO. yum install ovm. Hey, I can't use this, I need to go buy this commercial app to use it.Jan 16 13:53
dgilmorewould we allow something that can build without oracle,  but would only run with oracle as a db?Jan 16 13:53
nottingspacewalk?Jan 16 13:54
nirikdgilmore: we do already I think... there are some perl modules.Jan 16 13:54
dgilmorenotting: it needs oracle to buildJan 16 13:54
nirikbut they are mostly converters, not sure if they need oracle, or just data dumped from it.Jan 16 13:55
dgilmorejust using that as an example.Jan 16 13:55
dgilmorewe allowed the games engine that would download closed game data.  but there was free data that could be usedJan 16 13:56
dgilmoreit wasnt the only functionJan 16 13:56
abadger1999amazon s3 and flikr libraries.Jan 16 13:56
dgilmoreabadger1999: they dont require non-free bits on your machine to be useful.Jan 16 13:57
abadger1999Unless you count the js loaded by your browser :-)Jan 16 13:57
nirikI guess it comes down to does this "enhance the users experence"Jan 16 13:57
dgilmorei guess to me that it requires non-free bits on your local machine to be useful makes it a no goJan 16 13:58
nirikin the case where someone already have whatever commercial thing needs to run this, being able to yum install it would be nice.Jan 16 13:58
dgilmorenirik: sureJan 16 13:58
nirikbut for anyone else it's a loose.Jan 16 13:58
j-rodsomeone could want to install it to work on a free replacement, no?Jan 16 13:58
jds2001j-rod: i think that's the goal.Jan 16 13:58
dgilmorej-rod: they couldJan 16 13:58
j-rodsure, there are probably very few people who actually want it...Jan 16 13:58
nirikpopularity is not part of the criteria. ;)Jan 16 13:59
j-rodbut I think there's a legitimate end-game and no blocker reason to keep it outJan 16 13:59
j-rodthis isn't being pimped as a feature, right? just want clearance to add the packageJan 16 13:59
nirikhumm...so there are some free tools in alpha...Jan 16 14:00
bpepplej-rod: correct.Jan 16 14:00
j-rodso I'm still +1 for thisJan 16 14:00
bpepplestill +1 to this also.Jan 16 14:00
nirikI think I am ok with it as long as their are some free tools to use it...Jan 16 14:01
jds2001+1 here as wellJan 16 14:01
dgilmoreid like to see the alpha tools in, even if there not completely uesableJan 16 14:01
dgilmoreit would make me feel better about itJan 16 14:01
nirikyeah, I am still not sure on the timing... it would make sense to me to add the tools at the same time or before.Jan 16 14:01
notting+1 to add the tools at the same time, pleaseJan 16 14:02
nirikso, where are we? ok, but add a note asking to package/review/approve the tools first?Jan 16 14:03
jds2001i believe so.Jan 16 14:04
dgilmoreid like the tools at the same timeJan 16 14:04
dgilmoreso +1 from me  with the proviso that the tools get added alsoJan 16 14:04
jds2001i see five +1's, so we'll allow this content provided that iverilog gets packaged at the same time.Jan 16 14:05
jds2001that's the end of the agenda, anything else folks wanna bring up?Jan 16 14:06
*jds2001 has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting - open floorJan 16 14:06
bpeppledo we still want to have our irc logs here: http://bpepple.fedorapeople.org/fesco/, or somewhere else now that we are rotating meeting summaries?Jan 16 14:06
nottingdo we just want to do the other open sponsor requests while we're here?Jan 16 14:06
jds2001sure, we could do that.Jan 16 14:07
bpeppleyeah, I'm fine with doing the other sponsor requests.Jan 16 14:07
jds2001.fesco 15Jan 16 14:07
zodbotjds2001: #15 (New Sponsor Request: Ian Weller) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/15Jan 16 14:07
dgilmorebpepple: probably should look at putting them on fedorahostedJan 16 14:07
nirikbpepple: wiki?Jan 16 14:07
jds2001so there were some objections here.Jan 16 14:08
bpepplenirik: doesn't that screw up wiki searching still?Jan 16 14:08
dgilmorejds2001: -1 for Ian,  id like to see more reviews and participation in the review/packaging processJan 16 14:08
jds2001bpepple: put them in teh Meeting: namespaceJan 16 14:08
nirikbpepple: don't think so, as long as it's in Meeting:Jan 16 14:08
bpepplejds2001: -1 to ian.  In my opinion he needs more package reviews.Jan 16 14:08
nirikyeah, ianweller needs to do more reviewsJan 16 14:08
j-rod-1, same concernsJan 16 14:09
jds2001-1 here, too - didnt realize the lack of package reviews.Jan 16 14:09
nirikI'm happy to note however, that there are lots of reviews on the queue. ;)Jan 16 14:09
*jds2001 encouraged him to apply, I feel sorta bad about that :/, but again, I didn't know the review situationJan 16 14:09
*jds2001 will advise him accordingly, nirik :)Jan 16 14:10
dgilmorei count 4 -1Jan 16 14:10
notting0 for nowJan 16 14:10
nirik-1 for now... come back with reviews done. ;)Jan 16 14:11
jds2001i see five -1's, so we have declined ianweller's request, and request him to re-apply after doing further package reviews.Jan 16 14:12
jds2001.fesco 16Jan 16 14:12
zodbotjds2001: #16 (New Sponsor Request: Kevin Kofler) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/16Jan 16 14:12
nirik+1Jan 16 14:12
jds2001+1, a no-brainer.Jan 16 14:12
nottingi was confused, i thought he was one already. +1Jan 16 14:13
bpepple+1 here also.Jan 16 14:13
dgilmore+1 for kevinJan 16 14:13
dgilmorehe is doing amazing workJan 16 14:13
jds2001i see five +1's, so we have approved Kevin's request.Jan 16 14:13
jds2001anything else?Jan 16 14:14
mitrhttps://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/StrongerHashes is not yet FeatureReadyForFESCO, but does anyone care to offer any comment now?Jan 16 14:14
j-rod+1 for kevinJan 16 14:15
j-rodsorry, was distractedJan 16 14:15
dwmw2_LHR+1Jan 16 14:15
dwmw2_LHR(for kevin)Jan 16 14:15
nirikmitr: seems like a good thing to have. Lots of packages/interface with lots of groups.Jan 16 14:16
mitrIs there a mass rebuild planned?Jan 16 14:16
*j-rod has other work to tend to, needs to disappear or at least pay less attentionJan 16 14:16
jds2001mitr: none at present, no.Jan 16 14:16
bpepplemitr: As far as I'm aware I don't think one is planned at the moment.Jan 16 14:16
nirikmitr: not that I know of yet.Jan 16 14:16
nirikgcc 4.4.0 just landed thoJan 16 14:17
f13it landed in a side collectionJan 16 14:18
f13well not fully built eitherJan 16 14:18
nirikyeah, branch in cvs at least it looks like.Jan 16 14:19
dgilmoref13: is there features in gcc-4.4.0  that would benefit from a mass rebuild?Jan 16 14:19
dwmw2_LHRre StrongerHashes... looks like a sane planJan 16 14:19
f13I think jakub has mumbled something about itJan 16 14:19
dgilmoref13: we should plan on doing oneJan 16 14:19
f13there could also be rpm features to enable, like sha256 checksumsJan 16 14:19
dgilmoreid like to see noarch packages includedJan 16 14:19
nottingideally, schedule just one that handles sha256, gcc, debuginfo, etc.Jan 16 14:19
f13dgilmore: that's what feature pages are forJan 16 14:20
nirikis the rpm lzma stuff ready this cycle?Jan 16 14:20
f13notting: that's the ideaJan 16 14:20
dgilmorei guess sha256 will require all package get rebuiltJan 16 14:22
nottingnirik: i thought lzma changed ABI, or format, or somethingJan 16 14:22
nirikwell, it was in alpha last time... but no idea if there has been progress... need to ask Panu.Jan 16 14:22
tibbsHey, they finally named the gcc specfile properly!Jan 16 14:23
niriktibbs: yepJan 16 14:23
*jds2001 has $DAYJOB stuff to tend to.....Jan 16 14:23
*nirik is good with closing meeting now. Jan 16 14:24
*dgilmore alsoJan 16 14:24
rscf13: with lzma? Stable or that one with API?Jan 16 14:26
*rdieter_away is now known as rdieterJan 16 14:28
f13rsc: no idea about lzmaJan 16 14:30
nirikjds2001: we done I assume?Jan 16 14:32
dgilmorei thinks soJan 16 14:33
dgilmore--MEETING END--Jan 16 14:33

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!