path: root/meeting-logs/20081113.txt

<13.11.2008 20:01> <@Betelgeuse> Cardoe, dberkholz, Halcyon, jokey, lu_zero 
<13.11.2008 20:01> <@lu_zero> hi Betelgeuse
<13.11.2008 20:03> <@Betelgeuse> So the agenda is to look at open issues again?
<13.11.2008 20:04> <@dertobi123> with a turnout of 3 out 7 ...
<13.11.2008 20:04> <@Cardoe> hello
<13.11.2008 20:04> <@dertobi123> 4 out 7 then :P
<13.11.2008 20:04> <@Cardoe> had to use the restroom, sorry
<13.11.2008 20:04> <@lu_zero> ^^
<13.11.2008 20:04> <@Betelgeuse> dertobi123: well dberkholz set the topic a little while ago
<13.11.2008 20:04> <@lu_zero> who's missing?
<13.11.2008 20:05>  * dertobi123 tried to call jokey on his cellphone - no luck 
<13.11.2008 20:05> <@Cardoe> forgot the meeting started an hour earlier with the time change here in the states
<13.11.2008 20:05> <@Betelgeuse> Halcyon, jokey, dberkholz 
<13.11.2008 20:05> <@Cardoe> I'm willing to bet they did as well
<13.11.2008 20:05> <@dertobi123> Betelgeuse: yep, sure
<13.11.2008 20:09> <@dertobi123> so, how do we proceed?
<13.11.2008 20:09> <@Betelgeuse> well at least there's more than half of us here 
<13.11.2008 20:10> <@Cardoe> I have nothing to report on as-needed
<13.11.2008 20:10> <@lu_zero> I'd wait 20min
<13.11.2008 20:10> <@Cardoe> None of the users wanted to contribute
<13.11.2008 20:11> < darksiide> define 'contribute'
<13.11.2008 20:12> <@dertobi123> lu_zero: *shrugs* ... i think that won't help
<13.11.2008 20:12> <@Betelgeuse> I wasn't in charge of any of the  issues.
<13.11.2008 20:12> <@Betelgeuse> lu_zero, dertobi123 Did you have any?
<13.11.2008 20:12> < jmbsvicetto> Cardoe: flameeyes is/was building his system with forced --as-needed on the specs - so he might have some info
<13.11.2008 20:12> <@lu_zero> no
<13.11.2008 20:12> <@dertobi123> Betelgeuse: no ...
<13.11.2008 20:12> <@lu_zero> I'm prodding diego right now
<13.11.2008 20:12> <@Betelgeuse> Then not much we can do without dberkholz, Halcyon around
<13.11.2008 20:13> <@Cardoe> Well we can assign some new issues
<13.11.2008 20:13> <@lu_zero> I didn't further my alternate gleps
<13.11.2008 20:13> <@dertobi123> Cardoe: yep
<13.11.2008 20:13> <@Cardoe> lu_zero: You want to take over bug #234711?
<13.11.2008 20:13> <@lu_zero> since zmedico autoset for live ebuild sound to me a good solution for at least one problem
<13.11.2008 20:13> < Willikins> Cardoe: https://bugs.gentoo.org/234711 "GLEP 54: scm package version suffix"; Gentoo Linux, Unspecified; NEW; dberkholz@g.o:council@g.o
<13.11.2008 20:13> <@dertobi123> shall we gave a quick view at the open bugs and it's current state?
<13.11.2008 20:13> <@lu_zero> ok
<13.11.2008 20:14> <@lu_zero> Cardoe I could be considered overbiased on it
<13.11.2008 20:14> <@Cardoe> lu_zero: alright well let's work on getting that finalized and get the work for that ticket to be wrapped up
<13.11.2008 20:14> <@Cardoe> alright
<13.11.2008 20:14> <@Cardoe> Do you still have your alternative glep handy?
<13.11.2008 20:14> <@lu_zero> Cardoe it's in my devspace
<13.11.2008 20:14> <@Cardoe> Betelgeuse? dertobi123? You guys wanna take GLEP 54?
<13.11.2008 20:15> <@dertobi123> it fits best for lu_zero i think
<13.11.2008 20:15> <@lu_zero> http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero/glep/
<13.11.2008 20:15> <@Betelgeuse> Cardoe: I would rather not take any stuff if possible.
<13.11.2008 20:15> <@Betelgeuse> Cardoe: Can take stuff when we have another recruiters.
<13.11.2008 20:15> <@Cardoe> Betelgeuse: well it's more like being the council's point man
<13.11.2008 20:15> <@Cardoe> ok
<13.11.2008 20:15> <@Cardoe> dertobi123: ?
<13.11.2008 20:15> <@lu_zero> I'd open a bug about recruiters for council and assign it to Betelgeuse
<13.11.2008 20:15> <@lu_zero> so he could use it to track the situation
<13.11.2008 20:16> <@dertobi123> Cardoe: ?
<13.11.2008 20:16> <@lu_zero> and we'll have to look at it every 2 weeks ^^
<13.11.2008 20:16> <@Betelgeuse> lu_zero: Well can the council do anything concrete for the situation?
<13.11.2008 20:16> <@Betelgeuse> I have a couple people interested so let's just hope they deliver.
<13.11.2008 20:16> <@lu_zero> Betelgeuse sounds great
<13.11.2008 20:19> <@dertobi123> so we have #234711 for luca, right?
<13.11.2008 20:19> <@lu_zero> if you all agree about that
<13.11.2008 20:19> <@dertobi123> guess we do ;)
<13.11.2008 20:19> <@lu_zero> I'll try to update my alternate proposal and document the portage status
<13.11.2008 20:19> <@Cardoe> lu_zero: sounds good
<13.11.2008 20:19> <@Cardoe> lu_zero: re-assign it to yourself please
<13.11.2008 20:20> <@Cardoe> and CC the council
<13.11.2008 20:20> <@lu_zero> doing
<13.11.2008 20:20> <@dertobi123> ok
<13.11.2008 20:20> <@dertobi123> bug #234706 is the next one then
<13.11.2008 20:20> < Willikins> dertobi123: https://bugs.gentoo.org/234706 "Slacker arches"; Gentoo Linux, Unspecified; NEW; dberkholz@g.o:halcy0n@g.o
<13.11.2008 20:21> <@dertobi123> current state: proposal sent to -dev, discussion ongoing
<13.11.2008 20:21> <@Cardoe> Halcyon has posted his proposal to the ML and it's being discussed
<13.11.2008 20:21> <@dertobi123> yep ;)
<13.11.2008 20:21> <@Cardoe> !herd devrel
<13.11.2008 20:21> <@Cardoe> !expn devrel
<13.11.2008 20:21> < Willikins> Cardoe: devrel = (private)
<13.11.2008 20:22> <@lu_zero> Mid-air collision detected!
<13.11.2008 20:22> <@lu_zero> bad Cardoe =P
<13.11.2008 20:22> <@Cardoe> bug #185572 is waiting on devrel
<13.11.2008 20:22> < Willikins> Cardoe: https://bugs.gentoo.org/185572 "As the proctors no longer exist the code of conduct needs an upate"; Doc Other, Project-specific documentation; NEW; neddyseagoon@g.o:devrel@g.o
<13.11.2008 20:22> <@Cardoe> dberkholz isn't around to discuss bug #237381
<13.11.2008 20:22> < Willikins> Cardoe: https://bugs.gentoo.org/237381 "Document appeals process"; Gentoo Linux, Unspecified; NEW; dberkholz@g.o:dberkholz@g.o
<13.11.2008 20:23> < jmbsvicetto> Cardoe: I'll talk with other members of devrel about 185572
<13.11.2008 20:23> <@Cardoe> jmbsvicetto: thank you
<13.11.2008 20:25> <@dertobi123> so we have bug #234713 and bug #234716 left
<13.11.2008 20:25> < Willikins> dertobi123: https://bugs.gentoo.org/234713 "GLEP 55: Use EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (.ebuild-EAPI)"; Gentoo Linux, Unspecified; NEW; dberkholz@g.o:council@g.o
<13.11.2008 20:25> <@dertobi123> bug #234716
<13.11.2008 20:25> < Willikins> dertobi123: https://bugs.gentoo.org/234716 "Extent of Code of Conduct enforcement"; Gentoo Linux, Unspecified; NEW; dberkholz@g.o:council@g.o
<13.11.2008 20:25> <@Betelgeuse> dertobi123: for GLEP 55 I don't think there is any change 
<13.11.2008 20:26> <@Cardoe> for 234716, I'd like to see some members of userrel step up
<13.11.2008 20:26> <@Cardoe> !expn userrel
<13.11.2008 20:26> < Willikins> Cardoe: userrel = (private)
<13.11.2008 20:26> <@dertobi123> Betelgeuse: dito ... i see no need for glep 55 now
<13.11.2008 20:27> <@dertobi123> for 234716 discussions took place months ago, noone seems to be interested in that bug/problem these days
<13.11.2008 20:27> <@Cardoe> I've commented on every bug
<13.11.2008 20:28> <@dertobi123> thanks Cardoe
<13.11.2008 20:28> <@Cardoe> Does anyone have any other topics to bring up?
<13.11.2008 20:29> <@Betelgeuse> What to do with slacker marks?
<13.11.2008 20:29> < fmccor> dertobi123, I thought much of 234716 had been resolved one way or another.  I am a member of userrel, but I for one have zero interest in revisiting any of that.
<13.11.2008 20:29> <@Cardoe> fmccor: what has been resolved?
<13.11.2008 20:30> <@Cardoe> fmccor: do you guys have a firm policy or document in hand that can be linked to?
<13.11.2008 20:30> <@Cardoe> I honestly would like to vote 234716 be put in the hands of userrel
<13.11.2008 20:30> <@Cardoe> Because at some point or another, every Gentoo developer is a user as well
<13.11.2008 20:30> <@Cardoe> so the same policies apply to them
<13.11.2008 20:31> <@dertobi123> would that help to get that bug resolved?
<13.11.2008 20:31> < fmccor> Cardoe, I don't.  I think some of it was considered infeasible, and parts of it are addressed now at retirement, but I don't recall which Council meeting discussed the second.
<13.11.2008 20:31> <@dertobi123> instead of reassigning to userrel@ i'd say mark this one as cantfix, from a technical pov
<13.11.2008 20:32> < jmbsvicetto> Cardoe: A few of us have already exchanged "quite" some mails about that subject
<13.11.2008 20:32> < jmbsvicetto> Cardoe: 234716
<13.11.2008 20:32> <@Cardoe> jmbsvicetto: Where'd you guys get?
<13.11.2008 20:32> < jmbsvicetto> I mean all those mails between userrel, devrel, council and trustees
<13.11.2008 20:32> < fmccor> jmbsvicetto, I assure you I am not going to revisit that episode in Gentoo. :)
<13.11.2008 20:33> < jmbsvicetto> fmccor: I'm just saying we already "watched" that show ;)
<13.11.2008 20:33> < fmccor> jmbsvicetto, Indeed. :)
<13.11.2008 20:33> <@Cardoe> so from userrel and devrel's perspective it's a cantfix?
<13.11.2008 20:33> < jmbsvicetto> I don't think it's a cantfix
<13.11.2008 20:34> < jmbsvicetto> I think it's mostly a arenotwillingtofix
<13.11.2008 20:34> < NeddySeagoon> jmbsvicetto, don't loose the knowledge - summarise it on the bug and resolve CANTFIX.  Then its there for next time
<13.11.2008 20:34> <@Cardoe> That's the best solution
<13.11.2008 20:35> <@dertobi123> :)
<13.11.2008 20:35> < NeddySeagoon> jmbsvicetto, there will be a niext time ... :(
<13.11.2008 20:35> < jmbsvicetto> Cardoe: There are substantial "philosophical" divergences about this subject inside all those teams (and likely all of Gentoo)
<13.11.2008 20:35> <@Cardoe> jmbsvicetto: write that on the bug please
<13.11.2008 20:36> <@dberkholz> crap, time change.
<13.11.2008 20:36> <@lu_zero> ^^
<13.11.2008 20:36> <@dertobi123> heh
<13.11.2008 20:36> <@dberkholz> google calendar is wrong
<13.11.2008 20:36> <@lu_zero> you are still in time to discuss your bugs ^^
<13.11.2008 20:37> < jmbsvicetto> Cardoe: I'll add a few comments there later
<13.11.2008 20:37> <@dberkholz> i would blame flameeyes but he resigned
<13.11.2008 20:37> <@Cardoe> jmbsvicetto: thank you
<13.11.2008 20:37> <@Cardoe> dberkholz: time change got me too
<13.11.2008 20:38> <@Cardoe> I'm willing to bet the same situation for Mark as well
<13.11.2008 20:38> <@dertobi123> for markus too
<13.11.2008 20:38> <@Cardoe> dberkholz: if ya want, take a minute or two to go through the scrollback
<13.11.2008 20:39> <@dertobi123> i guess
<13.11.2008 20:39> <@Cardoe> dertobi123: is he in a place where the time changed?
<13.11.2008 20:39> <@dertobi123> Cardoe: same timezone i'm in
<13.11.2008 20:39> <@dertobi123> though the change was some ~14 days ago
<13.11.2008 20:39> <@dertobi123> *shrugs*
<13.11.2008 20:40> <@dberkholz> anyone keeping a running summary?
<13.11.2008 20:40> <@dertobi123> Cardoe: seeing your comment on 234713 - i think that's a perfect summary for marking this one later
<13.11.2008 20:40> <@dertobi123> dberkholz: i can send a short summary tomorrow
<13.11.2008 20:40> <@dberkholz> i'm wondering for the purposes of catching up
<13.11.2008 20:41> <@dberkholz> if nobody's started one at all, i'll just write it
<13.11.2008 20:41> <@dertobi123> well, there's not that much to note, sadly
<13.11.2008 20:41> <@Cardoe> dberkholz: I was going to write one at the end
<13.11.2008 20:41> <@Cardoe> dertobi123: O
<13.11.2008 20:42> <@Cardoe> dertobi123: I'd have to agree
<13.11.2008 20:42> <@Cardoe> I'd vote for marking #234713 as LATER
<13.11.2008 20:42> <@Cardoe> Anyone else?
<13.11.2008 20:42> <@dertobi123> <- too
<13.11.2008 20:43> <@lu_zero> fine from my side
<13.11.2008 20:44> <@dberkholz> that's fine with me
<13.11.2008 20:48> <@Betelgeuse> fine
<13.11.2008 20:48> <@Betelgeuse> but then again I don't really like LATER in general
<13.11.2008 20:48> <@Betelgeuse> I don't see anything wrong with open bugs
<13.11.2008 20:49> <@Betelgeuse> in this case LATER works as I doubt it gets forgotten
<13.11.2008 20:49> <@dberkholz> i would like open bugs assigned to council@ to be only things requiring action from us
<13.11.2008 20:49> <@dertobi123> open bugs would be regularly checked, LATER bugs would need to be reopened if action is required
<13.11.2008 20:50> <@dertobi123> dberkholz: exactly
<13.11.2008 20:50> <@dberkholz> on that note, anyone mind if i reassign bug 234716 to userrel for the meanwhile?
<13.11.2008 20:50> < Willikins> https://bugs.gentoo.org/234716 "Extent of Code of Conduct enforcement"; Gentoo Linux, Unspecified; NEW; dberkholz@g.o:council@g.o
<13.11.2008 20:51> <@dberkholz> and perhaps we should go LATER or WONTFIX on bug #234711 too
<13.11.2008 20:51> < Willikins> https://bugs.gentoo.org/234711 "GLEP 54: scm package version suffix"; Gentoo Linux, Unspecified; NEW; dberkholz@g.o:lu_zero@g.o
<13.11.2008 20:52> <@Cardoe> for 234716 gonna say
<13.11.2008 20:53> <@Cardoe> "The council charges the userrel team with establishing these policies and guidelines and enforcing them. Since, each developer is also a user, the userrel policies affect them as well."
<13.11.2008 20:53> <@Cardoe> good?
<13.11.2008 20:53> <@lu_zero> sounds fine
<13.11.2008 20:54> <@lu_zero> got Diego on jabber
<13.11.2008 20:54> <@Cardoe> lu_zero: same here
<13.11.2008 20:54> <@Betelgeuse> yes
<13.11.2008 20:55> <@dberkholz> i'm ok with that
<13.11.2008 21:00> <@Cardoe> alright. posted
<13.11.2008 21:00> <@dberkholz> since a few of us were running late from daylight savings, anyone want to keep going till 21:30?
<13.11.2008 21:01> <@Cardoe> sure
<13.11.2008 21:01> <@dberkholz> or sooner, if we get through the couple of other bugs
<13.11.2008 21:01> <@Cardoe> I figured some users and developers might have made the same mistake so let's keep the floor opened as well
<13.11.2008 21:01> <@lu_zero> ok
<13.11.2008 21:01> <@dertobi123> guess we were through the bugs already, but well ...
<13.11.2008 21:02> <@dertobi123> except 237381
<13.11.2008 21:02> <@dberkholz> i'm still working on documenting the appeals thing, most of my gentoo time has gone into planning for a distributed vcs
<13.11.2008 21:02> <@dberkholz> if anyone wants to help draft something up, you're welcome to work with me
<13.11.2008 21:04> <@dberkholz> speak up now. =)
<13.11.2008 21:06> <@dberkholz> ok, then, i'll keep it going.
<13.11.2008 21:06> <@lu_zero> ^^;
<13.11.2008 21:07> <@dberkholz> my main other question was should we just close the GLEP 54 bug somehow, because of the live sets?
<13.11.2008 21:07> <@lu_zero> dberkholz I tend to agree about this
<13.11.2008 21:07> <@dberkholz> or are we waiting for someone to definitely say it's obsolete?
<13.11.2008 21:07> <@lu_zero> I'd wait other 2 weeks and then close the but
<13.11.2008 21:07> <@Cardoe> I was kind of waiting for Zac to say it's obsolete
<13.11.2008 21:08> < dleverton> Why would it be obsolete because of sets?
<13.11.2008 21:09> <@dberkholz> the concrete reasoning presented for glep 54 is that you could use it to reinstall live ebuilds periodically. if a live set does this already, what additional purpose does it serve?
<13.11.2008 21:10> < dleverton> It helps to identify which packages should be in the set in the first place, for one thing.
<13.11.2008 21:10> < jmbsvicetto> dberkholz: Portage still needs a way to only reinstall packages if there was an update in the source tree
<13.11.2008 21:10> <@lu_zero> dleverton portage does that already
<13.11.2008 21:10> < dleverton> The other reason is to provide sane ordering relative to non-live ebuilds.
<13.11.2008 21:11> < dleverton> lu_zero: IIRC it does that by recognising particular eclasses, which is rather hackish.
<13.11.2008 21:11> <@lu_zero> works perfectly
<13.11.2008 21:11> < dleverton> There's talk of introducing PROPERTIES=live support, which is better, but still not as good as -scm IMHO.
<13.11.2008 21:11> < dleverton> It doesn't work when someone introduces a new scm eclass, unless either portage is updated or the user modifies the st definition himself.
<13.11.2008 21:12> < jmbsvicetto> dleverton: There's a proposal to add a live PROPERTIES
<13.11.2008 21:16> <@dberkholz> and it won't work for ebuilds using a new scm unless they're named as such ... either way involves a change somewhere or other..
<13.11.2008 21:16> <@Cardoe> dberkholz: -scm tag or PROPERTIES=live?
<13.11.2008 21:17> <@Cardoe> Cause I would think -scm would be more fraile
<13.11.2008 21:17> <@lu_zero> and having the eclasses for live ebuild reside on a directory apart would solve that
<13.11.2008 21:17> < dleverton> If we go with -scm, then that'll be the rule for live ebuilds, end of story.
<13.11.2008 21:17> <@lu_zero> dleverton mine is simpler, just a specific path.
<13.11.2008 21:17> < dleverton> If we keep with recognising particular eclasses, then things have to be updated whenever someone wants to add a new one.
<13.11.2008 21:18> <@lu_zero> no
<13.11.2008 21:18> < dleverton> No what?
<13.11.2008 21:18> <@lu_zero> if you move all the live eclasses in the same paths
<13.11.2008 21:18> <@lu_zero> you don't have to do anything else
<13.11.2008 21:20> < dleverton> Well, you also have to consider ebuilds that check out a particular revision or tag, and therefore shouldn't be considered live even though they use a scm eclass.
<13.11.2008 21:20> < dleverton> But I think at this point, the potential future solution is between -scm and PROPERTIES=live
<13.11.2008 21:21> <@lu_zero> not really
<13.11.2008 21:21> <@lu_zero> if they checkout something specific they should use a static snapshot and not hammering the upstream server.
<13.11.2008 21:22> <@dberkholz> regarding upstream code updates, i just stumbled across bug #182028
<13.11.2008 21:22> < Willikins> dberkholz: https://bugs.gentoo.org/182028 "[Future EAPI] About managing CVS/SUBVERSION version of software"; Gentoo Hosted Projects, PMS/EAPI; NEW; StormByte@gmail.com:pms-bugs@g.o
<13.11.2008 21:22> < dleverton> lu_zero: "should", perhaps, but there are ebuilds that use the eclasses for that.
<13.11.2008 21:22> < dleverton> lu_zero: and for things like local overlays, it's far more convenient than making a snapshot manually.
<13.11.2008 21:22> <@Cardoe> lu_zero: MythTV is a perfect example of a package that downloads straight from SVN
<13.11.2008 21:23> <@Cardoe> upstream prefers people use straight SVN
<13.11.2008 21:23> <@lu_zero> Cardoe that's hammering upstream resources.
<13.11.2008 21:23> <@lu_zero> and isn't really that kind
<13.11.2008 21:23> <@dberkholz> not if upstream specifically requests that ...
<13.11.2008 21:23> <@Cardoe> lu_zero: upstream has a fit when I made tarballs
<13.11.2008 21:23> <@Cardoe> they want users to use svn
<13.11.2008 21:23> <@lu_zero> live svn
<13.11.2008 21:23> <@Cardoe> yes
<13.11.2008 21:23> <@lu_zero> then it's unrelated to the discussion with dleverton
<13.11.2008 21:24> <@Cardoe> their own shipping tarballs contain the necessary .svn stuff to just svn up
<13.11.2008 21:24> <@Cardoe> lu_zero: well MythTV are specific revisions
<13.11.2008 21:26> <@lu_zero> then it's pointless having them checked out from svn
<13.11.2008 21:26> <@dberkholz> ok, we're off on a tangent here
<13.11.2008 21:26> <@lu_zero> apparently
<13.11.2008 21:27> <@dberkholz> obviously there is still some debate about the best way to move forward, so let's leave the bug open.
<13.11.2008 21:27> <@dberkholz> i'm putting a quick summary in there
<13.11.2008 21:29> <@dberkholz> that seems like enough for today
<13.11.2008 21:29> <@dberkholz> want to end this?
<13.11.2008 21:30> <@Cardoe> lu_zero: it's about 100mb of data
<13.11.2008 21:30> <@Cardoe> dberkholz: sounds good