21:00 -!- grobian changed the topic of #gentoo-council to: meeting now: December 13, 20:00 UTC - agenda: http://dev.gentoo.org/~grobian/agenda-13-12-2011.txt | http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/utctolocal.html?time=2000 | http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/ 21:00 <@ grobian> my clock is off by 3 minutes? 21:00 <@dberkholz> Current UTC (or GMT/Zulu)-time used: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 at 20:00:54 21:01 <@dberkholz> http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/ 21:01 <@ grobian> hehe 21:01 <@ grobian> shall we wait a little to see if ssuominen shows up? 21:01 *** grobian prefers so 21:01 <@ Chainsaw> Yes, our agenda is not all that full. 21:01 <@ Chainsaw> Let's give it a moment. 21:01 <@Betelgeus> jmbsvicetto: yes 21:01 <@ grobian> so, the agenda for today, I'll update it online: http://dev.gentoo.org/~grobian/agenda-13-12-2011.txt 21:02 <@ grobian> who's here already? 21:02 *** Chainsaw is present 21:02 <@ ulm> here 21:02 <@jmbsvicet> Here 21:02 <@ grobian> good 21:02 <@dberkholz> sounds fine, that way i won't have to do as much of this while my call's still running. 21:02 <@jmbsvicet> so we're only missing Samuli, right? 21:02 <@ grobian> so, seems like we're waiting for samuli 21:02 <@ grobian> yeah 21:03 <@jmbsvicet> He hasn't replied to my poke on #-dev yet 21:03 <@ Chainsaw> jmbsvicetto: Would you happen to have a phone number for him? 21:03 <@ grobian> yeah :/ 21:03 <@jmbsvicet> Anyone has any other way to reach him? 21:03 <@dberkholz> apparently we should require email confirmation from proxies 21:03 <@jmbsvicet> Chainsaw: sorry, no. 21:03 <@ grobian> dberkholz: well, it's a slacker mark for hwoarang, I'd suppose 21:04 <@dberkholz> yeah, if he doesn't show up in the next min or two 21:04 <@ grobian> give it a few more minutes 21:04 <@ grobian> agenda is small, like you said 21:04 <@jmbsvicet> we could 5 while we wait for Samuli 21:04 <@jmbsvicet> +do 21:05 <@ grobian> the open actions thing? 21:05 <@jmbsvicet> yes 21:05 <@ grobian> fine with me, everyone agrees? 21:05 <@ ulm> fine 21:05 <@dberkholz> k 21:05 <@dberkholz> got links to the stuff? 21:05 <@ grobian> ok, all: so I've added point 5 to the agenda, if everyone agrees with it 21:06 <@ Chainsaw> Agreed with point 5, please proceed. 21:06 <@ grobian> it's basically progress reports 21:06 <@jmbsvicet> dberkholz: http://dev.gentoo.org/~grobian/agenda-13-12-2011.txt 21:06 <@ grobian> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20111108-summary.txt 21:06 <@ grobian> last meeting we had this API thing with eclasses 21:06 <@dberkholz> jmbsvicetto: i meant in that agenda, nothing in pt 5 is linked. so i'll go refer back to it 21:06 <@jmbsvicet> dberkholz: I see 21:06 <@ ulm> grobian: there's two points called 5 ;) 21:06 <@jmbsvicet> ulm: first 5 ;) 21:06 <@ grobian> ulm: reload 21:06 <@ grobian> :D 21:07 <@ grobian> dberkholz: that previous council meeting summary link 21:07 <@dberkholz> checking now 21:07 <@ grobian> Betelgeuse: did you finish/commit that devmanual patch you would do? 21:07 <@Betelgeus> grobian: let me check 21:08 <@Betelgeus> grobian: apparently not :( 21:08 <@ grobian> ok, well, me and jmbsvicetto didn't do anythijng either :) 21:08 <@Betelgeus> I will work on it on the side while waiting 21:09 <@dberkholz> well, i guess that's an easy item 21:09 <@dberkholz> just slap these guys upside the head and move on 21:09 <@ grobian> ok, done 21:09 <@jmbsvicet> I'll either ask through the mls for some help regarding some of the old elections dates or I'll pick some dates myself 21:09 <@ grobian> ok, wait timeout? 21:10 <@jmbsvicet> grobian: let's move forward. If Samuli shows up he can join the discussion 21:10 <@ grobian> yeah, ok 21:10 <@ grobian> let's go to point 2 then 21:10 <@ grobian> does anybody feel like we should be voting on that wiki feature? 21:11 <@jmbsvicet> I think that should be discussed by the wiki team 21:11 <@ grobian> ok 21:11 <@ ulm> grobian: It's a good thing IMO, but I think the decision is with the wiki team 21:11 <@ grobian> that's 2 21:12 <@jmbsvicet> if there's no agreement, people can then appeal to the council 21:12 <@Betelgeus> http://paste.pocoo.org/show/520427/ 21:12 <@Betelgeus> ok? 21:12 <@ grobian> Betelgeuse: ok with me, how about point 2? 21:13 <@ grobian> Chainsaw: dberkholz: do you think the wiki change is a council issue? 21:13 <@ Chainsaw> It's not even apparent to me what the required feature is. 21:13 <@ ulm> Betelgeuse: That's exactly the wording we've decided upon in the previous meeting, so obviously it's o.k. 21:14 <@jmbsvicet> grobian: you haven't stated your opinion yet either 21:14 <@ grobian> Chainsaw: allow me to take that as a no? 21:14 <@ Chainsaw> grobian: Certainly. 21:14 <@ grobian> jmbsvicetto: I agree with hwoarang in ML, not a council issue at the moment 21:14 <@dberkholz> grobian: nope 21:15 <@dberkholz> i think the wiki team can decide on that just fine 21:15 <@ ulm> Chainsaw: Normal wiki users would only see "sighted pages", i.e. pages tagged as o.k. by somebody who has sighting status 21:15 <@ grobian> dberkholz: agreed 21:15 <@ ulm> It's sort of a protection against vadalism 21:15 <@ grobian> Betelgeuse: your vote? 21:15 <@ ulm> *vandalism 21:15 <@dberkholz> basically "approved pages" since the term "sighted" doesn't make any sense to me 21:15 <@ grobian> might be a translation from german 21:16 <@ Chainsaw> Approved or reviewed, please. 21:16 <@ Chainsaw> Because sighted made no sense to me either. Hence my failure to form an opinion on the subject. 21:16 <@jmbsvicet> Given our "vote", you should suggest that to the wiki team ;) 21:16 <@dberkholz> reviewed is actually a lot better 21:16 <@Betelgeus> grobian: agree with jmbsvicetto 21:17 <@ grobian> ok, thanks 21:17 <@ grobian> I'll add the suggestions 21:17 <@ ulm> well, english wikipedia calls it "sighted versions" too 21:17 <@dberkholz> probably written by a native german =P 21:17 <@ grobian> (I update agenda as we go) 21:17 <@ Chainsaw> ulm: Still made no sense to me. 21:18 <@ grobian> ok, does anyone wants to make another statement about this topic? 21:18 <@ grobian> if not, I'd like to continue to the more pressing point 3 21:18 <@ Chainsaw> grobian: Point 3 please, let's get to the proper discussion. 21:19 <@ grobian> OK, quiet build default of Portage 21:19 <@ grobian> before going into pros cons, I think it's good to just get opinions: 21:19 <@ Chainsaw> This behaviour change has been forced on users on an opt-out basis. That should have been opt-in. 21:19 <@ grobian> who would like portage to remain printing build information by default 21:19 <@ Chainsaw> Yes. Restore previous defaults immediately. 21:19 <@ grobian> (differently: who wants portage to have --quiet-build=n) 21:20 <@dberkholz> again, i'm fine letting the portage team make this decision. i don't think we need to determine the UI 21:20 <@jmbsvicet> http://dpaste.com/673022/ <- that's my "starting point" for this discussion 21:20 <@ ulm> I'm indifferent about it. It's a default and it can be changed. 21:20 <@ grobian> jmbsvicetto: so, you do, or you don't want to have a say on the default 21:21 <@ grobian> if we're all indifferent about it, we don't have to discuss either 21:21 <@ grobian> in a way 21:21 <@jmbsvicet> grobian: pending the discussion here, I'm inclined to go with: Revert the change, announce the new setting and enable it on stages 21:21 <@ grobian> ok 21:21 <@ ulm> jmbsvicetto: can you line-wrap that pastebin? 21:21 <@jmbsvicet> ulm: let me do it 21:22 <@ grobian> me: make it opt-in (so with chainsaw here) 21:22 <@ grobian> Betelgeuse: should portage quiet output change? 21:23 <@jmbsvicet> ulm: http://dpaste.com/673023/ 21:23 <@Betelgeus> Was there a poll on forums? 21:23 <@ ulm> jmbsvicetto: much better :) 21:23 <@ grobian> Betelgeuse: I recall yes, and it was all over with people disliking 21:23 <@ grobian> but then you get in that discussion on the vocal minority 21:24 <@jmbsvicet> grobian: The most important issue to me here isn't whether I want opt-in or opt-out, but whether I want to move away from the delegate position and call this to the council because of the way it was done and of the results 21:24 <@jmbsvicet> ulm: sorry, I'm spoiled by my 1920x1080 screen ;) 21:24 <@ grobian> jmbsvicetto: I'm not there yet ;) 21:25 <@ grobian> Chainsaw: would you be ok with jmbsvicetto's suggestion, to disable build info by a default setting in the stages? 21:26 <@jmbsvicet> grobian: that's just a possible vote about this. 21:26 <@ Chainsaw> grobian: I'm not sure I follow. 21:26 <@ Chainsaw> grobian: I want the change to be backed out, because it has been forced on users. They should have a choice in this matter. 21:26 <@dberkholz> Betelgeuse: yeah, the poll was still pretty split. a little in favor of revert but not a ton 21:26 <@ grobian> Chainsaw: I mean echo "EMERGE_OPTS='--quiet-build=y'" >> etc/make.conf 21:26 <@jmbsvicet> The idea on that would be: opt-in for current installs, widely publicize that new option and change the default for new installs (people should have some sort of control on new installs - even on large installs) 21:27 <@dberkholz> Betelgeuse: take that back, more like 116 in favor of the current situation vs 211 for reverting 21:27 <@ grobian> Chainsaw: I try to figure out if you're lenient towards changing the default for new users, ^^^ see jmbsvicetto 21:27 <@ Chainsaw> jmbsvicetto: That sounds acceptable. 21:27 <@ grobian> ok 21:28 <@ grobian> who would accept this behaviour to be changed for new installs? 21:28 <@dberkholz> i would be fine with defaults as a setting in make.conf, so even existing users see it as an etc-update change 21:28 <@dberkholz> not just new installs 21:28 <@jmbsvicet> bonsaikitten: Does that also sound good to you? 21:28 <@Betelgeus> CONFIG_PROTECT change or stage shouldn't be a problem 21:29 <@ grobian> dberkholz: so, you're ok with changing the defautl for a new install 21:29 <@dberkholz> oh, wait, make.conf doesn't come in like that. 21:29 <@dberkholz> forgot. 21:29 <@jmbsvicet> Chainsaw / bonsaikitten: given your issues with large installs, would that also work for you? ^^ 21:29 <@ Chainsaw> dberkholz: It won't, no. But that style of change would have been better. As it would have given me a choice. 21:29 <@dberkholz> grobian: well, i find it frustrating that new installs would be different from existing ones, in terms of changing the default 21:29 <@ grobian> Betelgeuse: that means you're ok with changing the default for new installs? 21:29 <@dberkholz> the path-dependent behavior bothers me 21:29 <@jmbsvicet> dberkholz: the idea is that on a new install (using a stage), you're already touching a system 21:29 <@Betelgeus> grobian: yes 21:30 <@ grobian> dberkholz: so you're indifferent about the setting, but you don't like the default changing? 21:30 <@jmbsvicet> dberkholz: my idea is to add the setting through catalyst 21:30 <@ grobian> Chainsaw: just to verify, you could live with a default change set like this, right? 21:30 <@dberkholz> i'm fine with the default changing, i don't really care. but if people want a mechanism for "accepting" a change in the default, i want it to behave the same way on new and existing systems 21:30 <@jmbsvicet> another option that has been mentioned is adding the default commented to /etc/make.conf so users can read it and enable it if desired 21:31 <@dberkholz> otherwise you end up with existing users who would've loved the change but have nfc how to enable it, then it's suddenly magically different when they reinstall 21:31 <@ grobian> ulm: jmbsvicetto: what do you think about changing the default for new installs? 21:32 <@ grobian> dberkholz: can solve with news item or elog, no? 21:32 <@ ulm> As I said, I'm indifferent on it. Let the Portage team decide. 21:32 <@jmbsvicet> I don't know if I was clear about what I meant. My idea is for the default to be verbose output and to add to the new stages in /etc/make.conf a FEATURES="quiet-build" (whatever is the correct option) so that by default new install would have quiet output 21:32 <@ ulm> Adding it commented to the example make.conf is a good idea though. 21:33 <@jmbsvicet> another option is for that line to be commented out so users would have to opt-in on new installs as well 21:33 <@ Chainsaw> jmbsvicetto: Yes, that sounds very good. Opting in. 21:33 <@dberkholz> i've been using parallel builds for years, so it's not a change for me, it's making things behave consistently across the board 21:33 <@jmbsvicet> Chainsaw: It might be a "harder" sale for those that prefer / favour the silent output, though 21:34 <@ Chainsaw> jmbsvicetto: They should opt into their behaviour change, not force it upon everyone else. 21:34 <@dberkholz> grobian: are you tracking who's voted which way to see where everyone stands? 21:34 <@jmbsvicet> zmedico: Do you want to say anything about this? 21:34 <@ grobian> yes 21:34 <@ grobian> jmbsvicetto: reload 21:34 <@ grobian> Chainsaw: I don't think the portage team is unwilling to do anything on this matter 21:35 <@ grobian> they did this with best intentions 21:35 <@ Chainsaw> jmbsvicetto: As said, I am delighted that they have developed features that people like. And I hope that lots of people opt in and sing their praises. 21:35 <@ Chainsaw> jmbsvicetto: But I do not want it, and I do not want my Gentoo system to shift the goal posts arbitrarily when I update it. 21:35 <@jmbsvicet> grobian: you forgot me on change default for new installs 21:35 <@ grobian> you like, or not, or no idea? 21:35 <@jmbsvicet> I like 21:36 <@ grobian> reload 21:36 <@jmbsvicet> that's part of my "tentative" proposal ;) 21:36 <@dberkholz> Chainsaw: but it's different for when you reinstall it? then moving the goal posts is fine? 21:36 <@ grobian> I like that approach as well 21:36 <@jmbsvicet> grobian: you might want to add a note about doing it from catalyst 21:36 <@ Chainsaw> dberkholz: I have to customise a new install anyway. It is not a hassle there. 21:36 <@ grobian> defaults change, but this way, we don't change for exising users 21:36 <@ Chainsaw> dberkholz: But a system that has behaved a specific way for years, should continue to behave that way unless I tell it to change. You're welcome to suggest changes to me with news articles. 21:36 <@ grobian> we've had other changes in the past, like openrc and so on 21:37 <@dberkholz> honestly, the thing that confused me the most was when -v didn't "fix" it, and i had to go digging through the man page. 21:37 <@dberkholz> other than that, i didn't care at all 21:37 <@ grobian> it should be documented better how to change it 21:37 <@ Chainsaw> dberkholz: i.e. my cars steering wheel should not suddenly invert "because all computer games are like that" when I take it for the next service. 21:37 <@ Chainsaw> dberkholz: It violates the principle of least astonishment. Even if it makes sense for a lot of people, and some want it. 21:37 <@dberkholz> umm, you also don't update your car on a regular basis, do you? 21:38 <@ Chainsaw> dberkholz: It goes for MOT annually. 21:39 <@ grobian> let's try to get back on the solutions track here 21:39 <@ grobian> it seems like jmbsvicetto's solution of changing the default via make.conf for new installs is serving both camps 21:39 <@ Chainsaw> Yes, I am happy to sign on for that. 21:40 <@ grobian> people building their own stages (with catalyst/metro) control their make.conf anyway, so not affected 21:40 <@ Chainsaw> Portage should behave as it always has, and I expect the next update to fix the regression. 21:40 -!- Polynomial-C [~Poly-C@gentoo/developer/Polynomial-C] has quit [Quit: GNU/Linux, because I'd rather own a free OS than steal one that's not worth paying for.] 21:40 <@ grobian> Chainsaw: ok 21:41 <@dberkholz> ok, so you're saying portage should not ever change its default behavior. got it. 21:41 <@ grobian> Chainsaw: I think that's actually by vote of 3-to-2 is what the council decided now 21:41 <@ Chainsaw> dberkholz: Indeed. Changes in behaviour should be initiated by the user through the configuration file. 21:42 <@jmbsvicet> grobian: to be clear, I'm going to use catalyst to add a commented line to make.conf warning about the setting and showing how to activate it - so it will be opt-in for current and new installs 21:42 <@ Chainsaw> dberkholz: And if you believe you have a killer new feature that many want, you write a news article suggesting that they add FEATURES="snowplow" to their config. 21:42 <@ grobian> jmbsvicetto: hmm, how does that solve anythinjg? 21:43 <@ grobian> jmbsvicetto: that changes no out-of-the-box behaviour at all, does it? 21:43 <@jmbsvicet> grobian: right, but it shows users in make.conf how to do it. It also addresses the inconsistency point raised by dberkholz 21:44 <@ grobian> what you suggest is a note 21:44 <@ grobian> in my agenda 21:44 <@jmbsvicet> grobian: I'm open to add it commented or not, if there's an agreement about changing the defaults for new installs 21:44 <@ grobian> jmbsvicetto: by vote there sort of is 21:45 <@ grobian> at least that's my understanding of it 21:45 <@ grobian> 3 people in favour 21:45 <@jmbsvicet> ok 21:45 <@jmbsvicet> grobian: catalyst can be updated either way if needed 21:46 <@ grobian> so, dberkholz, ulm and Betelgeuse don't want to make a statement about the default 21:46 <@ grobian> the remaining three people are in favour of keeping the current default (for all existing users) 21:47 <@ grobian> as compromise, we have that new installs get this new quiet output by default (via make.conf), 5 people in favour 21:48 <@jmbsvicet> ok 21:48 <@ grobian> if anyone disagrees with that, now's the time 21:48 <@Betelgeus> For future reference hopefully people learn to discuss changes like this beforehand 21:48 <@ grobian> Betelgeuse: I'll add that as note 21:48 <@ Chainsaw> Betelgeuse: That would certainly by less disruptive. 21:48 <@ Chainsaw> be, even. 21:48 <@jmbsvicet> I do agree we should ask people to discuss this stuff well before implementing it 21:49 <@ grobian> it was already implemented a long time ago 21:49 <@ grobian> the default just changed 21:49 <@ grobian> anyway 21:49 <@ grobian> I made that note 21:49 <@jmbsvicet> implement the change 21:49 <@dberkholz> that's the implementation he's talking about. 21:49 <@ grobian> heh 21:49 <@ grobian> is there anyone who wants to say more about this point? 21:49 <@ grobian> if not, let's move on 21:50 <@dberkholz> for future reference to zmedico, i'm betting that if you had done things differently by talking/announcing in advance, it would've stayed the way you made it. 21:50 <@jmbsvicet> move on 21:50 <@ grobian> ok, well, point 4 is kind of simple 21:50 <@ grobian> done 21:50 <@ grobian> point 5 we already did 21:51 <@ grobian> updated with Betelgeuse's input now ;) 21:51 <@ grobian> so, open floor 21:51 <@ grobian> anyone who would like to bring up a topic? 21:52 <@ grobian> sounds like not 21:52 -!- Polynomial-C [~Poly-C@gentoo/developer/Polynomial-C] has joined #gentoo-council 21:52 <@jmbsvicet> just as a heads-up, I've switched the chairing of next meeting with Fabian. So he's doing January and I'll do May. 21:52 <@ grobian> everybody ok with closing the meeting here? 21:52 <@jmbsvicet> I'm fine with it 21:52 <@ grobian> next meeting 10 of january 2012 21:53 <@Betelgeus> jmbsvicetto: Could we get teh chari list to the toipc 21:53 <@Betelgeus> typo++ 21:53 <@ grobian> ok, thanks all! 21:53 <@ Chainsaw> Yes, I think we're done. 21:53 <@ Chainsaw> Thank you. 21:53 <@ grobian> I'll send the agenda around after polising up a bit 21:54 <@jmbsvicet> grobian: Thanks for chairing 21:54 <@ grobian> yw 21:55 -!- jmbsvicetto changed the topic of #gentoo-council to: Next meeting: January 10th, 20:00 UTC | Meeting chairs: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/#doc_chap5 | http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/utctolocal.html?time=2000 | http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/ 21:55 <@jmbsvicet> Betelgeuse: ^^ 21:55 <@ ulm> grobian: thanks for chairing 21:56 -!- Zorry [~zorry@gentoo/developer/zorry] has left #gentoo-council ["http://quassel-irc.org - Chat comfortably. Anywhere."] 21:56 <@ grobian> how about this slacker point, by the way? 21:57 <@Betelgeus> msising meeting != slacker point 21:57 <@ grobian> who updates that? 21:57 <@Betelgeus> hwoarang: is just marked as unattending 21:57 <@Betelgeus> you only get a slacker mark for two consecutive 21:59 <@ grobian> oh 21:59 <@ grobian> ok 22:01 <@Betelgeus> jmbsvicetto: thanks 22:03 -!- jbartosik [~jbartosik@gentoo/developer/jbartosik] has joined #gentoo-council 22:09 -!- Chainsaw [~chainsaw@gentoo/developer/atheme.member.chainsaw] has left #gentoo-council ["Leaving"] 22:10 -!- pchrist [~spirit@gentoo/developer/pchrist] has quit [Quit: leaving] 22:10 -!- pchrist [~spirit@gentoo/developer/pchrist] has joined #gentoo-council 22:11 -!- NeddySeagoon [~NeddySeag@gentoo/developer/NeddySeagoon] has joined #gentoo-council --- Log closed Tue Dec 13 22:18:47 2011