diff options
author | 2012-10-09 20:03:54 +0000 | |
---|---|---|
committer | 2012-10-09 20:03:54 +0000 | |
commit | 1ccfc6eea0b9f09b3fe71f688176cb53c6d43554 (patch) | |
tree | 035c5ae1373a4f7d0a1d711cf5ed01bf0a211344 /meeting-logs/20121009.txt | |
parent | Add summary for September meeting. (diff) | |
download | council-1ccfc6eea0b9f09b3fe71f688176cb53c6d43554.tar.gz council-1ccfc6eea0b9f09b3fe71f688176cb53c6d43554.tar.bz2 council-1ccfc6eea0b9f09b3fe71f688176cb53c6d43554.zip |
add 20120911 meeting log
Diffstat (limited to 'meeting-logs/20121009.txt')
-rw-r--r-- | meeting-logs/20121009.txt | 290 |
1 files changed, 290 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/meeting-logs/20121009.txt b/meeting-logs/20121009.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..4ac5537 --- /dev/null +++ b/meeting-logs/20121009.txt @@ -0,0 +1,290 @@ +--- Log opened Tue Oct 09 21:09:46 2012 +21:09 -!- Irssi: #gentoo-council: Total of 45 nicks [4 ops, 0 halfops, 1 voices, 40 normal] +21:09 -!- Irssi: Join to #gentoo-council was synced in 0 secs +21:09 < grobian> sorry folks +21:09 <@ ulm> good :) +21:09 <@ Chainsaw> Good, that did it. +21:10 <@ Chainsaw> Good evening grobian. +21:10 < grobian> nickserv don't give me identify +21:10 <+dberkholz> this is beautifully ironic +21:10 <+dberkholz> anyone got his number? +21:10 < WilliamH> dberkholz: All of us should have it; he sent it to the alias. +21:10 <+dberkholz> ah, there it is. +21:10 <+dberkholz> i'll shoot him a text +21:10 < grobian> thanks all for texting me +21:10 -!- mode/#gentoo-council [+o grobian] by ChanServ +21:10 <@ Chainsaw> Excellent. Identified and everything. +21:10 <@ grobian> really crap, me sending a reminder and stuff +21:10 <@ Chainsaw> You are not an imposter. +21:10 <@ grobian> ah +21:11 <@ grobian> it's jsut incredibly slow +21:11 <@ grobian> and me too impatient +21:11 <@ ulm> Chainsaw: sounds unlikely, given his sms reply ;) +21:11 -!- floppym [~quassel@gentoo/developer/floppym] has joined #gentoo-council +21:11 < scarabeus> :D +21:11 < scarabeus> he sent it to the phone numbers +21:11 < scarabeus> but i cant find MY phone now :/ +21:11 <@ grobian> ok, do you guys prefer me to quickly put the agenda thing on www.g.o? +21:12 <@ Chainsaw> grobian: ulm linked me to http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.project/2163 +21:12 <@ Chainsaw> grobian: Which works for me. +21:12 <@ grobian> Chainsaw: yeah, that is it +21:12 <+dberkholz> there's the in_iuse thing too +21:12 <+dberkholz> do you want to talk about that? +21:12 <@ ulm> and we really need our own archives back in working condition +21:12 <@ grobian> dberkholz: I shot it ;) +21:13 <+dberkholz> yes sir chair sir +21:13 <@ grobian> dberkholz: you or anyone disagree with that? we can put it on +21:13 -!- radhermit [radhermit@gentoo/developer/radhermit] has joined #gentoo-council +21:14 <@ grobian> ok +21:14 <@ grobian> rollcall +21:14 <@ Chainsaw> I am present and accounted for. +21:14 <@ grobian> (sorry all for me being late) +21:14 -!- alexxy [~alexxy@gentoo/developer/alexxy] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds] +21:14 <@ ulm> \o/ +21:14 < WilliamH> here +21:14 <@ grobian> scarabeus: dberkholz seen you two +21:14 <@ grobian> Betelgeuse: you around too? +21:14 < scarabeus> here +21:15 <+dberkholz> yep. +21:15 <@Betelgeus> grobian: yes +21:15 <@ grobian> ok, do you want me to report myself as being late? +21:15 <@ grobian> vote +21:15 <@ ulm> no +21:15 *** Chainsaw votes no +21:15 < scarabeus> no +21:15 < WilliamH> no +21:15 <@Betelgeus> yes but no missing marker +21:15 <@ Chainsaw> grobian was responsive on SMS. +21:15 <@ Chainsaw> And promptly appeared. I have done this kind of thing in the past, and not been shot for it. +21:16 <@ grobian> lol +21:16 <@ grobian> ok +21:16 <@ grobian> good, just for the record +21:16 <@ grobian> thanks +21:16 <@ grobian> Ok, I'd like to go on to point 2, the EAPI5 usage in tree +21:16 <@ grobian> are we prepared to vote on that? +21:16 <@ Chainsaw> I would like for that to proceed with immediate effect please. +21:16 <@ Chainsaw> Yes. +21:16 *** Chainsaw votes yes +21:16 < scarabeus> ^_^ +21:16 <@Betelgeus> fyi there's no late concept in GLEP 39 +21:16 <@ grobian> good, votye for usage of EAPI5 in tree +21:16 *** ulm votes yes +21:16 *** scarabeus is for yes +21:17 *** WilliamH votes yes +21:17 -!- alexxy [~alexxy@gentoo/developer/alexxy] has joined #gentoo-council +21:17 <+dberkholz> sure +21:17 <@Betelgeus> I don't think a separate vote is required but yes +21:17 <@ ulm> maybe we should clarify that EAPI 5 isn't allowed for stable yet +21:17 <@ grobian> grobian: yes +21:17 <@Betelgeus> ulm: then we should clarify a lot of other QA things as well +21:17 < scarabeus> Betelgeuse: we actually wrote it to the roll call :D +21:17 <@ ulm> only when the Portage version supporting it goes stable +21:17 <@ grobian> ulm: good point +21:18 <@ Chainsaw> ulm: Does repoman not check for that situation already? +21:18 <@ ulm> but it was handled like that in the past, so maybe it's obvious +21:18 <@ Chainsaw> ulm: And if it does not, can that be implemented please? +21:18 <@ ulm> Chainsaw: I don't think it does +21:18 <+dberkholz> that should be a technical check, not a policy +21:18 <@ grobian> ulm: do you want a boundary condition? (e.g. when portage goes stable, or X months after that) +21:19 <@ ulm> grobian: as soon as portage goes stable +21:19 <@ grobian> ulm: got that now +21:19 <@ Chainsaw> The second after, if need be. +21:19 <@ grobian> http://dev.gentoo.org/~grobian/agenda-20121009.txt +21:19 <@ Chainsaw> If repoman prevents any accidents... that should do nicely. If devs want to use --force and break the tree, that is when policy can kick in. +21:19 <@ grobian> "common sense" +21:20 <@ grobian> ok, shall we move onto point 3? +21:20 <@ grobian> Package name specification +21:20 <@ grobian> basically, ulm outlined it pretty clearly, IMO +21:20 <@ Chainsaw> Option C please. The rules were voted in. +21:20 <@ ulm> grobian: you've messed up the indentation :p +21:20 <@ Chainsaw> Portage does not get a free pass here. +21:21 <@ grobian> ulm: yeah, tabs, I need to fix my .muttrc +21:21 <@ grobian> ok +21:21 <@ grobian> let's vote for a, b, c or d +21:21 *** Chainsaw votes C +21:21 <@ ulm> b or d +21:21 <+dberkholz> B +21:21 <+dberkholz> i prefer fixing docs to code. +21:21 <@ grobian> ulm: how do I have to interpret that? +21:21 <@Betelgeus> scarabeus: note for next time +21:21 < scarabeus> b +21:22 <@ ulm> grobian: b then ;) +21:22 <@ grobian> ulm: ok :) +21:22 <@ Chainsaw> Looks like a majority for B then? +21:22 *** Chainsaw can live with that :) +21:22 <@ grobian> WilliamH: your vote? +21:22 *** WilliamH votes b also +21:23 <@ ulm> well, both portage and the tree comply with b already +21:23 <@ grobian> B: ulm, dberkholz, scarabeus, grobian, williamh +21:23 <@ grobian> C: chainsaw +21:23 <@ grobian> so, B wins +21:23 <@Betelgeus> b+c +21:23 <@ Chainsaw> grobian: Not unanimous for a change. This is good. I have had complaints that meetings were getting boring. +21:23 <@ grobian> so, ulm, what did you want to do with d? +21:23 <@Betelgeus> If we only change a future EAPI Portage should comply with the existing ones +21:24 <@ grobian> Betelgeuse: what does that mean? +21:24 <@ ulm> grobian: d would have been my second choice +21:24 <@ grobian> Chainsaw: pardon my faulty spelling +21:24 <@Betelgeus> grobian: or was b meant to be retroactive? +21:25 <@ grobian> b means fit the spec to what portage does, IMO +21:25 <+dberkholz> boring is probably good, because it means most issues were hashed out in advance +21:25 < _AxS_> ..so to clarify that means change PMS everywhere applicable ? +21:26 <@ grobian> Betelgeuse: I'd prefer if you'd choose one option +21:26 *** ulm understands it in this way +21:26 <@ grobian> _AxS_: I also understand it that way +21:26 <@Betelgeus> grobian: b if Portage has always behaved like that +21:26 <@ ulm> Betelgeuse: it has since 2009 at least +21:26 <@Betelgeus> grobian: I don't think we should fit PMS if Portage has changed in the recent history +21:26 <@ ulm> I haven't checked earlier versions +21:27 <@Betelgeus> ulm: 2009 was when PMS was in effect so they should not go about changing things +21:27 <@ grobian> ok +21:28 <@ grobian> do you want to change your vote then, Betelgeuse? +21:28 <@ grobian> if not, I'd like to finish this topic, and move on to the next +21:29 <@Betelgeus> grobian: I would like to see how others understood the option +21:29 <@ grobian> ok, go ahead +21:29 <@Betelgeus> grobian: b is still fine if we note what I said +21:29 <@ ulm> apply b to all EAPIs +21:29 <+dberkholz> +1 +21:30 *** WilliamH is fine with that +21:30 <@ grobian> ok, shall we move on then? +21:30 <@Betelgeus> grobian: yes +21:30 <@ grobian> great +21:30 <@ grobian> the open bugs +21:31 <@ grobian> I think the only one is the one we have on the agenda for a while +21:31 <@ grobian> I'll try to sort it out with jmbsvicetto in prague +21:31 <@ grobian> no guarantees +21:31 < scarabeus> thats what i plan to do as he stays at my place +21:31 <@ grobian> cool] +21:31 < scarabeus> as i said last meeting :-) +21:31 <@ grobian> we will both doo it +21:32 *** grobian updated it +21:32 <@ grobian> ok, open floor then +21:32 *** grobian opens the floor +21:32 <@Betelgeus> Any other people going to Prague? +21:32 <@ ulm> +1 +21:32 <@Betelgeus> I booked flights yesterday +21:32 <@ grobian> cool! +21:32 <@Betelgeus> So good we can get drunk and do a meeting +21:32 <@ grobian> yeah, hahahaha +21:32 <@ grobian> ok +21:32 <@ grobian> Open Floor! +21:32 <@ grobian> anyone who wants to raise an issue to the council? +21:33 <@ grobian> I take that as a no +21:33 < WilliamH> Not really an issue, but a comment. It is going to definitely be interesting to see what happens with udev... Is everyone aware of the debate on lkml? +21:34 <@ grobian> no, would you like to share a summary with us? +21:34 <@ Chainsaw> Go ahead WilliamH. Those last two links I sent you should be rather informative. +21:34 < WilliamH> Basically the kernel guys are looking into taking over some or maybe all of the udev functions... +21:34 <@ Chainsaw> (The initial Linus posting and his response to Kay Sievers) +21:34 <@ Chainsaw> Perhaps Al Viro's take. +21:34 < WilliamH> Chainsaw: can you post the links here again? +21:35 <@ Chainsaw> WilliamH: That was on a different computer I'm afraid. +21:35 <@ grobian> interesting, so that means udev will be just kernel built-in? +21:35 < WilliamH> ok folks give me a second to find them... +21:35 < WilliamH> grobian: I'm not really sure yet. +21:35 < WilliamH> grobian: but changes there are definitely happening. +21:36 <@ grobian> while you're searching +21:36 <@ grobian> one issue people +21:36 < _AxS_> Since in_iuse was mentioned earlier -- i believe there was quasi-consensus on that one that the best way to deal with it will be in a future eapi; is that the take Council has on it too? +21:36 <@ grobian> next meeting, 20:00 UTC again? +21:36 <@ grobian> (iso 19:00) +21:36 <+dberkholz> again? +21:36 <@ grobian> _AxS_: I would vote yes +21:36 *** ulm doens't care if it's 19 or 20 UTC +21:36 <@ grobian> dberkholz: daylight savings thing here in europe +21:37 < _AxS_> grobian: ok so work will be done and it can get added to the agenda for eapi=6 whenever that rolls up. +21:37 <@ grobian> _AxS_: from my point of view, yes. That ferringb said/suggested +21:37 <@ grobian> ok, next meeting will then be 13 November 2012, 20:00 UTC +21:37 <@Betelgeus> the earlier the better for me +21:38 < WilliamH> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/2/303 +21:38 < WilliamH> That's Linus' original post, and the other things follow it in that thread +21:38 <@ grobian> Betelgeuse: I'd like it too +21:38 < _AxS_> Rumour has it that infra will be working on rolling out the git tree; does Council know anything about that? +21:38 < ferringb> _AxS_: wrong forum for asking +21:39 < ferringb> aka, ask infra, not council +21:39 *** ferringb sent emails detailing current status of it, and areas people nee dto step up (hooks in particular, a helping hand is needed for) +21:39 < _AxS_> ahok. wasn't sure if it'd be a Council thing to freeze the tree or whatnot while the conversion happens +21:39 <@ Chainsaw> _AxS_: The council doesn't call the shots on this. +21:39 < ferringb> we'll sort that when it comes; if a freeze is necessary, it'll be sub 8 hours +21:39 <@ grobian> not a council thing, imo +21:40 <@ Chainsaw> _AxS_: Nothing moves until ferringb says it does. +21:40 < WilliamH> What we are going to do is not stabilize udev-18x for a wwhile and monitor the upstream situation. +21:40 < ferringb> the plan involves no freeze however, beyond an hour outage or so +21:40 < ferringb> Chainsaw: robin moreso. I'm just his minion +21:40 < WilliamH> There is already a commit in the kernel to load firmware directly. +21:40 < _AxS_> wonderful! (Can this be left in the minutes?) +21:40 < WilliamH> It looks like that will hit in 3.7 +21:40 <@ grobian> Ok, let's end the meeting here, then you can continue here whatever +21:40 < ferringb> with that said +21:41 < ferringb> council commentary- subjective commentary- on the rough proposed unified dependencies would be useful. +21:41 < ferringb> no, I'm not asking for approval. I'm after a basic headcount of who says no, and or the potential of a dev vote if folks are particularly divided and no clear majority +21:42 < ferringb> (how's that for chucking a grenade into your quiet meeting? :) +21:42 <@ grobian> I for one would like to be a bit more informed about the issue because I saying anything about it +21:42 < ferringb> grobian: what do you need to be better informed? +21:42 *** WilliamH agrees with grobian +21:42 < ferringb> glep needs updating, which is on the todo +21:42 <@ grobian> ferringb: like what you're asking me +21:42 <@Betelgeus> ferringb: I like the exherbo approach +21:42 <@ grobian> ferringb: I don't think the git migration thing should EVER be a council topic +21:42 < ferringb> I'm just looking to see how to get the details/info to y'all *clearly*, w/ less of the trolling on the ml gumming the info up +21:42 <@ grobian> because it simply needs to be done +21:42 <@ grobian> not decided upon +21:43 <@ grobian> the plan is pretty much laid out clearly, IMO +21:43 < ferringb> grobian: err. I was asking about unified dependencies. +21:43 <@ grobian> here, see +21:43 <@ grobian> lol +21:43 < ferringb> git tranition isn't a council topic because y'all aren't doing the work, so nothing to talk about. :) +21:43 <@ grobian> I don't even know what you're talking about +21:43 < scarabeus> ferringb: I like the unified deps idea, but I didnt get my ass to reply there due to all that noise to real stuff ratio +21:43 <@ grobian> please just bring it up on -project, with pointers and all +21:43 <@ grobian> I get lost in the flamewars sometimes +21:44 <@Betelgeus> sounds like a -dev topic +21:44 <@ grobian> we can add it to the next agenda +21:44 <@ grobian> in fact, please do +21:44 < WilliamH> Yeah me too. I like the concept, but there was so much in that thread it was difficult to follow. +21:44 < ferringb> ehh +21:44 <@ Chainsaw> I don't think it needs to be on the agenda. +21:44 < ferringb> grobian: tbh, I think it's better I identify exactly how to make sure y'all know the details/bits involved here, then adding it to the agenda +21:45 <@ Chainsaw> If you'd like a private briefing by the stakeholders sent to council@ +21:45 < ferringb> I don't want discussion w/out understanding in full +21:45 <@ Chainsaw> I think that is more feasible. +21:45 < ferringb> bluntly, the -dev ml already had enough of that +21:45 <@ grobian> I can read, if I know where to find it, and what's the problem +21:45 <@ Chainsaw> Even if it's just ferringb sending you his earlier write-up. +21:45 < ferringb> grobian: http://dev.gentoo.org/~ferringb/unified-dependencies/ +21:45 <@ grobian> I don't like exercises like that lengthy discussion about the sub-slot bogus +21:46 < ferringb> grobian: http://dev.gentoo.org/~ferringb/unified-dependencies/extensible_dependencies.html <-- glep, http://dev.gentoo.org/~ferringb/unified-dependencies/examples/herds/ <-- herd level view of how it would impact deps +21:46 < _AxS_> there's some good stuff that came out of the ML arguments too -- like, ome of the primary differences between *DEPEND vars and DEPENDENCIES (that being "authoritative" specification for each phase, i think is the wording?) +21:46 < ferringb> re: exherbo labels, I addressed the similarity between the two in an email, and via analysis http://dev.gentoo.org/~ferringb/unified-dependencies/labels/ +21:47 < ferringb> authoratitive I need to incorporate fully into the glep, since that's implicit, but not explicitly stated +21:47 < ferringb> Betelgeuse: presume you're pretty well caught up on the topic, sans potentially my "this is why labels isn't worth it for us" arguments? +21:47 < _AxS_> ..and possibly important enough to be dealt with/decided upon separately +21:47 < ferringb> _AxS_: can't be, unfortunately, since going authoritative w/out this matching change to metadata makes devs lives worse +21:48 < _AxS_> true +21:48 < ferringb> when is the next meeting? date, not time +21:49 <@ Chainsaw> The second Tuesday in November, presumably? +21:49 < ferringb> ok +21:49 <@ grobian> ferringb: please chuck all those links in a mail on -project, preferably in reply to the next call for agenda items mail +21:49 < _AxS_> but it defines the decision of "yes we need a change" vs "no we dont" , separately from the change itself. +21:49 < ferringb> will sort the glep, and if necessary, will cc each of your asses (I'm not naming names, but... grobian) to make sure y'all see it :P +21:49 <@ grobian> ferringb: 13 November 2012, 20:00 UTC +21:49 < _AxS_> <grobian> ok, next meeting will then be 13 November 2012, 20:00 UTC <-- that? +21:49 < ferringb> _AxS_: yeah, I'm blind +21:49 <@ grobian> ferringb: and agenda call is sent 30th of october +21:50 < ferringb> yep +21:50 <@ grobian> agenda is sent out on 6th of november +21:50 <@ grobian> ok, @council: I'd like to close this meeting +21:50 < ferringb> may put it on y'alls agenda. not looking for necessarily approval (would be nice, but les be realistic), just discussion +21:50 < WilliamH> Before anyone takes off, did my link and comment about the kernel commit get lost in the chatter? +21:50 < _AxS_> WilliamH: <WilliamH> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/2/303 <-- that one? +21:50 <@ grobian> WilliamH: you want it in the summary? +21:51 < WilliamH> grobian: I'm not sure if it needs to be there or not, It isn't really an issue we decide anything on here, just something to track. +21:51 <@ grobian> WilliamH: w/e http://dev.gentoo.org/~grobian/agenda-20121009.txt +21:52 <@ grobian> ok. thank you all for being productive +21:52 <@ grobian> I'll send out the summary to @council soon +21:52 < _AxS_> thanks for chairing, grobian ! +21:52 < scarabeus> grobian: ack on the summary and chairing +21:52 < scarabeus> s/ack/thanks/ +21:52 <@ grobian> and sorry once again for my problematic arrival +21:53 < WilliamH> grobian: ok, that looks good. +21:54 < ferringb> WilliamH: fun thread btw +21:54 -!- grobian changed the topic of #gentoo-council to: Next meeting: 2012-11-13 20:00 UTC | http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/utctolocal.html?time=2000 | |