ReleaseEngineering/Meetings/2008-feb-11

Fedora Release Engineering Meeting :: Monday 2008-02-11

gcc4.3

• http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JesseKeating/gcc43MassRebuildProposal
• people can opt out of mass rebuild
• take non-responsive maintainers for failed builds to FESCo

Spins

• Release Engineering is expected to produce custom spins for F8

1. it's a lot of bit moving 1. are we supposed to be producing them from F8 GOLD or F8 + Updates, and if from Updates, does installing from them still work?

• as of yet, all 'spins' have been live based, which don't allow for upgrades
• releng does not have have a checklist of what we look for when approving a spin from a technical aspect
• http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/RahulSundaram/SpinsProcess
• See IRC log for detailed discussion

ACTION: Jeremy to write first draft of how Spins should work--in detail--using Rahul's proposal as a starting point

Mirror Master Move

• Targeting Wednesday
• Rough plan:

1. turn off rawhide Tuesday night 1. turn off everything else on Wednesday

• Continue discussion on #fedora-admin

IRC Transcript

-!- f13 changed the topic of #fedora-meeting to: Fedora Release Engineering Meeting - Roll Call		13:18
f13	ping: notting jeremy spot jwb rdieter wwoods poelcat lmacken	13:18
* notting is here		13:18
* jeremy waves		13:18
jwb	here-ish	13:18
* lmacken		13:18
rdieter	here .5	13:19
f13	aight	13:21
-!- f13 changed the topic of #fedora-meeting to: Fedora Release Engineering Meeting - gcc4.3		13:21
f13	I'm skipping over perl5.10.0 since spot isn't here.	13:21
f13	FESCo approved my proposal for doing mass rebuilds, but there are still a couple things to get answered.	13:21
f13	1) I'd like a way for folks to opt-out of the rebuild machine, and I'm looking for good ideas on how to implement this.	13:21
jwb	cvs it	13:22
jwb	add a 'norebuild' file	13:22
f13	Oh FYI: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JesseKeating/gcc43MassRebuildProposal	13:22
lmacken	pkgdb ?	13:22
jwb	lmacken, that seems complicated	13:22
f13	one thing I thought of, is that they could just mail us, and we'll add it to a 'blacklist' that if the checker hits upon said package will just skip and not add it to the need build list	13:22
lmacken	a checkbox is complicated ?	13:22
f13	maybe a wiki page where they can drop the package in	13:22
jwb	lmacken, for a script, yes	13:23
lmacken	not when you have a JSON api	13:23
jwb	lmacken, particularly when that script will be going through CVS anyway...	13:23
f13	It already takes 40~ minutes to discover what needs to be built, I'd like to not add to it by adding more DB calls	13:23
rdieter	ouchie	13:23
f13	jwb: I'd prefer to not have to checkout from CVS to skip the package.	13:23
jwb	f13, ok	13:24
f13	http://git.fedorahosted.org/git/?p=releng;a=blob;f=scripts/need-rebuild-gcc43.py;h=a1d9b9d4da373baeee0b30bb4728e4b6186f4a1b;hb=HEAD	13:24
f13	that's the script I'm using	13:24
f13	I could probably easily slurp down some data from a wiki page or something to populate a blacklist	13:25
f13	it'd just be a matter of driving users to populate said wiki page or something.	13:25
jwb	dunno...  just keeping the blacklist inline might be easier and have them email rel-eng	13:25
warren	inline meaning?	13:26
jwb	as an array in the script	13:26
jwb	or a list	13:26
jwb	or whatever it's called in python	13:26
f13	the problem I have with that, is mailing rel-eng can be lossy	13:26
f13	whereas if they fail to update the wiki page, they only one to blame is them (:	13:26
jwb	well, i don't think it's any more lossy	13:27
jwb	wiki pages can be screwed up.  particularly when lots of people edit the same page	13:27
warren	so either rebuild it yourself or update the wiki page to tell you not to do it?	13:27
f13	jwb: note the missed tag requests we seem to have every freeze (and part of why I want to turn rel-eng@ into a Trac ticket input)	13:27
f13	jwb: good points though	13:28
jwb	f13, there are some misses, yes.  but if we are all diligent about it, we should be able to track this	13:28
f13	warren: also find the things which aren't really gcc built.	13:28
jwb	do we really expect a massive list?	13:28
f13	warren: 'cause discovering which mono packages don't actually use gcc is somewhat troublesome	13:28
f13	jwb: I honestly don't know.	13:28
f13	jwb: I'd say I usually only get 20~ 'don't build this for me' requests when I did it for Core before	13:29
f13	so in the interest of getting the bikeshed in place, lets go with mail rel-eng and we'll add it to a static list in the script.  Any opposed?	13:30
f13	PROPOSAL ^^	13:30
notting	worksforme	13:30
jwb	fine with me	13:31
lmacken	sounds good	13:31
f13	aight.	13:31
f13	I'll announce that we're accepting opt-outs.	13:31
f13	and we'll start processing those.  Once I automate the list generation I'll make sure to add a git pull before the script run so that it's always updated	13:32
f13	next question	13:32
f13	2) # What to do about non-responsive maintainers for failed builds	13:32
f13	this is probably just a simple 'go in and rebuild it anyway'.	13:32
f13	but I feel it would be due dilligence to process these nonresponsive maintainers.	13:32
f13	but that's a lot of... paperwork.	13:33
jwb	f13, we could take that to FESCo	13:33
f13	does anybody want to volunteer to chase up that side, or should we put out a call to arms via.. FESCo?	13:34
jwb	i can take it to FESCo	13:34
jeremy	call to arms I think	13:34
f13	worksforme	13:35
f13	alright, I think that does it for outstanding questions on this issue	13:36
f13	I have a bit of work ahead of me, particularly in the autospecbump land	13:36
f13	but I think it can by ready by the auto build start	13:36
f13	I plan on doing a small number of scripted just to make sure things are going well before turning on the firehose.	13:37
jwb	feel free to use my packages :)	13:37
warren	When is te scheduled mass again?	13:37
f13	warren: Feb 18th	13:38
f13	provided perl lands safely before then	13:38
f13	ok,	13:39
-!- f13 changed the topic of #fedora-meeting to: Fedora Release Engineering - Spins... WTF?		13:39
jwb	yeah	13:39
jwb	as of right now, i'm waiting on mmcgrath	13:40
jwb	but long term.. wtf	13:40
f13	so we now have some spin requests coming in, and releng is expected to produce them... for F8	13:40
f13	I've got some pretty serious issues with this	13:40
wwoods	wtf	13:40
jeremy	that was the plan all along	13:40
f13	1) it's a lot of bit moving	13:40
notting	f13: the premise being that rel-eng created all previous ones, so....?	13:40
jeremy	that's why there was an attempt to limit to one a month	13:40
f13	2) Are we supposed to be producing them from F8 GOLD or F8 + Updates, and if from Updates, does installing from them still work?	13:41
jwb	f13, updates	13:41
jwb	mether explicitly asked about that	13:41
jwb	and the .ks files he has have the updates repo in them i believe	13:41
f13	so the next question is, does installing from them still work, given that we don't as of yet do anaconda updates?	13:42
jwb	these are all livecds, so i think install works?	13:42
jeremy	+ updates I presumed.  and yes, installs could run against problems.  although given history, less problems	13:42
f13	jeremy: do we (the greater Fedora we) care?	13:42
jeremy	f13: care about which?	13:42
jwb	frankly, i think that burden falls onto the spin owner	13:42
f13	when/if the install breaks?	13:42
f13	do we have a checklist of criteria that the spin owner has to run their product through?	13:43
f13	or hell	13:43
f13	does releng have a checklist of what we look for when approving a spin from a technical aspect?	13:43
f13	(rhetorical, of course we don't)	13:43
jwb	i asked mether about that a while ago	13:43
jwb	fedora unity has a fairly large test matrix they run though	13:43
jwb	er, through	13:43
jwb	i have no idea if he looked at it or not	13:44
jeremy	f13: the "what we look for" mostly comes down to a) is the package list "reasonable" looking b) smoke test off of building them	13:44
jeremy	at least, that's what I've done	13:44
f13	jeremy: yeah, but what does "smoke test" entail?	13:45
* nirik wonders if there shouldn't be a spin review process very much like a package review process.		13:45
f13	if we're going to be on the hook for approving these things, I'd like a guideline of what to look for	13:45
jeremy	f13: build it, boot it, install it.  do some clicking around for sanity	13:45
warren	nirik, does spin include respin, or things like KDE?	13:45
jwb	jeremy, build it, boot it is fine.  install it is harder	13:45
f13	jwb: kvm!	13:45
jeremy	longer term, it would be great to have something that was more concrete, but we only managed to get packaging guidelines after the better part of ten years of building packages :P	13:46
nirik	if you are talking about the Xfce spin, I did do some installs here...	13:46
jwb	meh, true	13:46
jwb	nirik, no, we know your spin is going to be broken and don't care :P	13:46
nirik	warren: well, respins are not really controlled directly by fedora, so no idea...	13:46
f13	so what would be great, is at least an SOP on spin review	13:46
nirik	jwb: excellent. ;)	13:46
warren	do spins have to worry about upgrades?	13:46
f13	after that, an SOP on spin production	13:47
jwb	warren, huh?	13:47
f13	warren: as of yet, all 'spins' have been live based, which don't allow for upgrades	13:47
warren	OK, was just being sure.	13:47
jwb	f13, i can try the SOP on spin production since i'm going to to e spinning the ones that have already been approved	13:47
f13	jwb: that would be awesome	13:47
jwb	it will start as a list of things i did, and then i'll put some words around it	13:48
f13	mmcgrath hooked us up with a xen guest to do i386/ x86_64 live image production, but we're kind of SOL for ppc production right now	13:48
jwb	um.. no	13:48
jeremy	jwb: sounds good.  if you do it on the wiki, I'll wiki watch it and provide quick feedback	13:48
jwb	he's trying to.  still having issues with xen and f8	13:48
jwb	jeremy, yep	13:48
f13	jwb: ah, fun. :/	13:48
warren	jwb, did he try fullvirt instead?	13:49
notting	are there specific comments on rahul's proposal we would like to provide as feedback?	13:49
jwb	warren, i think he is doing fullvirt, but with xen as the host	13:49
jeremy	oh yeah, I need to look at rahul's actual proposal	13:49
warren	jwb, oh	13:49
jwb	i could be wrong.  it just seems f8 and xen don't like each other when it comes to dhcp or static ip or something	13:50
f13	notting: not sure what you mean	13:50
* nirik thinks no one likes xen. ;)		13:50
* warren wonders how functional xenner is		13:50
notting	f13: spoleeba is trying to work towards hashing it out to where it can be a real process/policy. does rel-eng have issues with things that are listed there that they'd like to raise?	13:51
jeremy	warren: not functional enough	13:51
spoleeba	notting, is this the spins draft?	13:51
jeremy	warren: I played with it a week and a half ago	13:51
jwb	spoleeba, yes	13:51
spoleeba	notting, talking to rahul... the big problem he has is the interaction with releaseeng... we need to figure out exactly what we expect spin developers to bring to releaseeng..and give them enough community infrastructure to actually get that crap done	13:52
f13	notting: nothing specific comes to my mind, but that's because it's still rather wild and undefined.  I'd love to review spoleeba's proposal as part of a releng meeting	13:52
spoleeba	notting, in terms of pre-testing on arches and what not	13:52
notting	that' simple. no resources :P	13:53
* nirik also wonders if the board should be the one approving spins, shouldn't that be a fesco thing? or is it due to them using the fedora name ?		13:53
spoleeba	f13, i have rahul's perspective on what he needs from a spin creator pov.. i need some assessment from releaseeng about what they need from spin creators	13:53
notting	yes, it's due to the trademark	13:53
jwb	spoleeba, "community infrastructure" meaning what?	13:53
jeremy	nirik: due to trademark	13:53
spoleeba	f13, than i can make an oreo cookie out of it	13:53
spoleeba	jwb, there's an amorphous issue concerning the amount of pre-testing that spin creators need to do before coming to releaseeng..to keep the releaseeng burden down to something sane	13:54
jwb	sure...	13:54
spoleeba	jwb, but at the same time.. spin creators dont have ppc hardware	13:54
jwb	we haven't made a ppc spin yet, and i don't plan to	13:54
notting	spins don't have to be for every arch	13:54
jwb	spoleeba, i think, for all intents and purposes, ppc can be considered a secondary arch here	13:54
spoleeba	jwb, its was just an abstract comment.. .the point is... we need to be able to have a pre-test matrix	13:54
jeremy	spoleeba: ppc spins would need to have the ppc team involved as they do the coordination for that arch	13:55
jwb	spoleeba, sure.  that's why i suggested mether look at the fedora unity test matrix	13:55
spoleeba	jwb, that covers as much of what releaseeng needs people to do	13:55
warren	there is no demand for 64bit spins of edu, for exanple	13:55
spoleeba	jwb, so did i	13:55
spoleeba	warren, i demand it!	13:55
jwb	personally, i'd be very happy if a spin owner came to me with a wiki page that had that test matrix filled out	13:55
f13	part of the problem here is that we haven't had a good matrix for the spins we produce as part of final releases too	13:56
spoleeba	warren, im pretty sure i ncssm had 64bit hardware :->	13:56
f13	live ones that is	13:56
f13	we're looking to wwoods' team for providing some of that	13:56
f13	perhaps we should look to them to provide this as well	13:56
jwb	f13, don't we derive much of that from wwoods' testing of the actual non-live spins?	13:56
jeremy	I can try to make something up to start from	13:56
f13	jwb: sortof	13:57
jeremy	(might be a day or three before I can get to it)	13:57
spoleeba	f13, so like i said.. i need releaseeng's pov on bottleneck's so far with custom spins that have come up for review	13:57
wwoods	yeah we don't have a solid test plan for live media yet	13:57
jeremy	jwb: quite a bit, yes	13:57
notting	at a minimum, they need to test before sending to rel-eng that it composes, builds, boots, and installs something that matches what it boots	13:57
EvilBob	jwb: the Matrix we have in Fedora Unity was based on a list of tests that wwoods had at one point, we have expanded on it for roblems we have found and want to confirm closed	13:57
f13	spoleeba: quite honestly the bottleneck was 0 idea as to what was expected of us.	13:57
f13	spoleeba: it felt like the board said "Go forth and do custom spins" without any indication of /how/ that would be done and who would be responsible for doing what.	13:58
jeremy	f13: also, to be fair, some of the bottleneck was that I was going to look at them and wasn't around for a month	13:58
jwb	i'm still concerned about the hosting aspect, but *shrug*	13:58
f13	jeremy: there is that.	13:58
spoleeba	f13, well we could cut releaseeng out completely..but im pretyt sure that's not desired	13:58
wwoods	for installation we've got the old test matrix (which I believe the Unity matrix is based on): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/TreeTestingTemplate	13:58
spoleeba	f13, releaseeng does want an up/down veto opportunity in the process right?	13:59
f13	spoleeba: I'd like to know how you'll get the spin produced/hosted without releng (:	13:59
wwoods	And the new TestPlan (with many descendent detailed TestCases): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/TestPlans/Fedora9Install	13:59
wwoods	So! Assuming we write a TestPlan for Live images, that'd be a fine base for any planned testing of new live spins	13:59
spoleeba	f13, there was also an issue concerning cvs access..since the ks files that are'blessed' live in the live-cd-tools tree	13:59
warren	jeremy, when do things get busy for you again?	13:59
f13	spoleeba: releng/fesco/somebody should give a technical ACK on the proposed spin.	13:59
notting	spoleeba: that seems like a long-term lose	13:59
spoleeba	f13, we might need to create a beta spin tree for crap still under review and being worked on	14:00
jeremy	warren: things are always busy for me now! :)   but not january-busy	14:00
wwoods	I'd think it was reasonable to require spin owners to at least get through Tier1 (whatever we define for that) before handing it off	14:00
spoleeba	notting, what's a long term lose?	14:00
f13	spoleeba: wiki?	14:00
notting	spoleeba: having all the spin ks files go into livecd-tools	14:00
jwb	notting, agreed	14:00
spoleeba	f13, i think we want to treat them as code, not content	14:00
jeremy	notting: indeed	14:00
spoleeba	f13, so people can patch it...equitable	14:00
jeremy	/cvs/configs!	14:01
spoleeba	notting, so how do we magically fix that?	14:01
nirik	make livecd-tools have a spins.d/ and make new spins submit a ks file package for their spin? :)	14:01
f13	spoleeba: eh, code can be attached to a wiki page.	14:01
f13	spoleeba: for work in progress, thats not a terrible thing.	14:01
jwb	nirik, no.  that's what we want to avoid	14:01
f13	also, how do we drive bug reports regarding the .. spin.. to the spin owners?	14:01
jwb	nirik, because that would still be keeping the .ks files in the livecd-tools package	14:01
nirik	jwb: no...	14:02
spoleeba	f13, perhaps... there's a place in hosted for customspin developers to work together	14:02
lmacken	why not give them their own hosted so they can manage their own wiki and bug queue ?	14:02
nirik	I mean 'Review request: Xfce-spin' and make a package with the ks file.	14:02
nirik	it gets a bugzilla component, cvs, etc	14:02
jwb	lmacken, it's not that clear cut	14:02
notting	nirik: that's a lot of packages to keep around	14:02
spoleeba	nirik, there are sort of two issues here... blessed spins..and in progress spins	14:02
jeremy	lmacken: because pointing people to trac bug reporting is a disaster.  because the bugs will get filed in bugzilla first and you can't transfer between	14:03
nirik	notting: potentially, but we have lots of packages already, whats a few dozen more. ;)	14:03
nirik	spoleeba: sure, the in progress ones are not yet approved.	14:03
spoleeba	nirik, i dont think we can give fedora bugzilla components to in progress ones... but perhaps a hosted space for those	14:03
jwb	that's all too complicated	14:04
lmacken	jeremy: indeed	14:04
nirik	they get a bugzilla component when the package is approved and added to cvs.	14:04
f13	things were much easier when we didn't sign up for these custom things (:	14:04
nirik	it's just an idea.	14:04
jwb	just create a hosted.fp.o/spins project, give rel-eng access to it, and we can commit the spin .ks files there when we produce them	14:04
spoleeba	jwb, its too complicated to try to organize all the people doing this as a group with a common code control system to help each other out?	14:04
jwb	spoleeba, no, i just said to do that	14:05
* jeremy doesn't really think we're getting anywhere here (other than going in circles)		14:05
spoleeba	jwb, oky..violent agreement	14:05
jwb	spoleeba, but one per spin, or bugzilla review requests, etc are just overkill IMHO	14:05
spoleeba	jwb, that i would agree with	14:05
f13	ok, I think there are still some serious issues to work out	14:05
spoleeba	f13, like... wtf is releaseeng actually suppose to do	14:06
f13	and working them out in releng space is perhaps not the best, as this is more of a FESCo/Board issue	14:06
jwb	if we wanted, we could create a fedora-spin-config package from that spin project	14:06
wwoods	also if I start getting spins dropped in my lap with post-its	14:06
spoleeba	f13, i could still use input on what releaseeng would like to do and would absolutely not like to do with regard to spins	14:06
wwoods	all "so how's testing of this going?"	14:06
jwb	spoleeba, we actually do the final compose	14:06
jeremy	jwb: one package with all the configs is not scalable really	14:06
wwoods	I'll cut someone	14:06
jwb	jeremy, why is that?	14:06
f13	jwb: disjoint of when configs get updated	14:07
* nirik doesn't think going thru a new package process for a spin would be that much overkill, but hey, it was just an idea...		14:07
jeremy	jwb: it's painful enough just with desktop + kde + fel + developer.  it'd be like one package for every spec file	14:07
spoleeba	jwb, right... the issue is how much say does releaseeng want/need in approval process	14:07
jeremy	I have an idea or two, let me have a few days to write them up (so that they're coherent rather than stream of consciousness on irc)	14:07
jwb	wait... what?	14:07
notting	jeremy: but having them all separate and managing dependencies isn't much better	14:08
f13	Ok,	14:08
jwb	it's not that hard... changes in hosted, new tarball, update package	14:08
f13	Proposal:	14:08
f13	Let jeremy spend a few days working on a writeup of how Custom Spins should be handled within the Fedora project	14:08
f13	releng will review, give input, etc...	14:08
f13	as part of a larger definition of how these things should work.	14:08
f13	+1	14:09
jeremy	notting: if there's a lot of inter-depending, that means something is being done wrong	14:09
notting	f13: as an adjunct/revision of rahul's spin process?	14:09
notting	not sure i want competing proposals flying around	14:09
spoleeba	notting, no i dont want competing proposals.. but i need releaseeng's pov	14:09
spoleeba	notting, as to releaseeng's burden	14:09
jeremy	notting: rahul's page is decidedly stark in the way of actual details	14:10
spoleeba	notting, i plan to scrap rahuls and jeremys ideas and write my own anyways	14:10
f13	alright, now I'm really confused.  Is there a proposal from rahul actually written anywhere?	14:10
jwb	yes	14:10
lmacken	link ?	14:10
f13	ah, but ... stark... according to jeremy	14:10
spoleeba	f13, the draft..which is admittedly very undetailed	14:10
notting	http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/RahulSundaram/SpinsProcess	14:10
jwb	it basically says "write a .ks, get it approved by the board, give it to rel-eng"	14:11
spoleeba	jwb, i had a sidebar with rahul...concerning bottlenecks..which is why im looking for releaseeng's pov concerning their burden in the approval process	14:11
jwb	i think burden is the wrong word to use	14:11
f13	ok, let me revise my proposal	14:11
warren	What happened to the previous idea of "If it is comprised entirely of Fedora packages then it may be called Fedora?"	14:12
f13	Let jeremy spend a few days adding actual details to rahuls proposal intos omething we can actually discuss.	14:12
f13	+1	14:12
warren	+1	14:12
jwb	+1	14:12
f13	warren: Board still has to give it the go ahead, as protection of the brand.  That guideline is just somethign to keep in mind when preparing your proposal.	14:12
spoleeba	warren, the devil is in the details...in terms of making sure it doesnt take 3 months to get a spin approved and built	14:12
jwb	spoleeba, it's not that we have a massive burden.  i think we can enumerate what that would be fairly easily (most of it falling into time).  it's what we just don't know what we're supposed to do	14:13
spoleeba	jwb, hey if its easy to enumerate thats great...	14:13
f13	spoleeba: we can't tell you what we're supposed to do if we don't know... what we're supposed to do.	14:14
f13	spoleeba: welcome to 'makeing it up as we go'	14:14
spoleeba	jwb, its not enumerated yet.. and i think its best if i give releaseeng a chance to self assess before I decree as to what I expect.  Just like I wanted rahul to assess things from a creator pov	14:14
jwb	spoleeba, yeah.  and i think that's where we need jeremy's details	14:14
notting	right. but <board hat on> the board does not want to be in the business of writing the whole policy </board hat>. ergo, this discussion	14:14
f13	spoleeba: NB: can you call it 'releng' if you want to shorten it?  I have a hard time reading 'releaseeng'	14:14
spoleeba	f13, don't worry to hard.. whatever i decree will be difficult for everyone to live with	14:15
f13	notting: I agree, but there is a difference between the board saying "We'd like releng to approve, produce, and host these custom spins" and saying "you must check x x x, discuss y, login to bar, press button x, and upload to zing"	14:16
spoleeba	notting, i have no problem writing whole policies..if everyone first swears the fealty to me on pain of death	14:16
f13	notting: what I'm looking for here is a high level 'What does the Board expect releng to do as part of fulfilling Custom Spins" so that releng can decide /how/ to do the /what/.	14:16
jwb	spoleeba, be sure those come with a mission statement	14:16
spoleeba	f13, okay... ill work on that	14:17
spoleeba	f13, we'll meet somewhere in the middle on round two	14:17
f13	k, we're over meeting time now.	14:17
notting	f13: mirror master move is still wednesday?	14:18
f13	can we at least agree to "table" this discussion until next week?	14:18
f13	notting: I don't see a reason why not.  You I and lmacken really need to create a punch list of what we're going to do.	14:18
jwb	f13, i should still do the spins if mmcgrath gets me spinners?	14:18
notting	f13: when on wednesday is the switch?	14:19
f13	jwb: what spins are pending?	14:19
f13	notting: that's a mmcgrath question, I think it's in the ticket	14:19
jwb	f13, XFCE would be the one i would start with.  then there's the list of localized ones	14:19
f13	notting: I don't think an exact time was picked.  We should pick one	14:20
notting	mmcgrath: got a time from the ticket?	14:20
f13	jwb: I'd say go ahead, just to "clear the decks", with the understanding that what we do this time isn't a precident for what we'll do in the future.	14:20
notting	f13: well, given the length of syncs, i'm thinking a) turn off rawhide tuesday night. b) turn off everything else on wednesday	14:20
notting	f13: that is: 1) updates 2) epel 3) extras	14:21
jwb	f13, yeah.  it'll help me write the SOP too	14:21
mmcgrath	notting: ?	14:21
f13	notting: ok, that works for me.  We could continue this on #fedora-admin	14:21
mmcgrath	oh oh	14:21
mmcgrath	I never did, I'll follow up now.	14:21
-!- f13 changed the topic of #fedora-meeting to: Fedora Release Engineering - Open Discussion		14:21
jwb	clumens wants boot isos	14:22
f13	is there any other pressing items to discuss today (before we adjurn to #fedora-admin to discuss reversing the netapp stream)	14:22
jwb	do we know why we don't have boot isos?	14:22
f13	jwb: we didn't get boot.isos today due to system-config-firewall dep issues.	14:22
jwb	ah, right	14:22
f13	which have already been fixed	14:22
jwb	cool	14:22
f13	I could theoretically create them by hand for him later today, but he seemed ok to wait for the rawhide attempt tomorrow	14:22
jwb	is the theory that beta freeze will help that a bit?	14:23
jwb	cause i think for the anaconda team that's sort of important, no?	14:23
f13	help what?	14:23
jeremy	jwb: something that's going to help even more is I'm trying to get us a script to do "here's a tree of packages, build an netinstall.iso"  (which is what I've started calling rescuecd.iso)	14:24
jwb	f13, help them test...	14:24
notting	jeremy: are you attacking mk-images/upd-instroot with a rusty chainsaw?	14:24
jeremy	notting: that's the general idea, yes	14:24
f13	jwb: freezes help cut down the churn yes, and the unexpected changes.	14:24
jeremy	I started a little on friday.  tomorrow will probably be when I get back to it	14:25
jwb	ok	14:25
jeremy	(or late tonight)	14:25
* jwb has to go to a real meeting		14:25
f13	perl + gcc in the next couple weeks isn't going to help much with that whole 'stability' thing	14:25
jwb	maybe we need a --force-fscking-boot-iso switch	14:26
jeremy	jwb: please remove boot.iso from your vocabulary... it's a bad word ;-)	14:26
jeremy	jwb: and that's harder to do since we switched to using yum instead of putting together images on our own	14:26
notting	jeremy: nice. as part of it, please rename instimg, img-template, etc. to actually correspond to what they are (stage1, stage2, etc.)	14:26
jwb	what would you like me to call it?	14:27
jeremy	jwb: netinstall.iso is the running best candidate.  because it needs the kernel bits (boot.iso) *and* the stage2.img to really be useful	14:27
f13	and we just ignore that you can install from media with netinstall.iso (:	14:28
jwb	ok	14:28
warren	rescue-or-install.iso?	14:28
jwb	but you all know what i mean	14:28
warren	that's what it does?	14:28
notting	all-that-and-a-tub-of-popcorn.iso	14:29
f13	ok, ending the meeting in 30 seconds unless somebody barks.	14:29
jwb	i think we should name it anaconda.iso	14:29
notting	jwb: and we can drop the scripts entirely and create it with anaconda.ks using livecd-creator	14:30
jwb	i'm too ignorant to get that joke, but ok	14:30
notting	who said it was a joke?	14:30
jwb	see.  ignorant.	14:31
f13	ok, meeting over.	14:31

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!