8 a.m.
Members Present
* Brian Pepple (bpepple)
* Jason Tibbitts (tibbs)
* Jesse Keating (f13)
* Toshio Kuratomi (abadger1999)
* Bill Nottingham (notting)
* Kevin Fenzi (nirik)
* Dennis Gilmore (dgilmore)
* Jeremy Katz (jeremy)
* Rex Dieter (rdieter)
* Christian Iseli (c4chris)
* Warren Togami (warren)
* Josh Boyer (jwb)
* Tom Callaway (spot)
== Summary ==
FPC CommitIDs Proposal
* FESCo had no objects to the Fedora Packaging Committee's
proposal for allowing freeform use of version control system
data in the release field of snapshot packages. For more
information please refer to:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/CommitIDs
Feature Policy Draft
* FESCo had a long discussion of John Poelstra's Feature Policy
Draft. John will work on incorporating some of the suggestions
into his proposal. For more details, please refer to the IRC
log.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JohnPoelstra/FeaturePolicyDraft
All new packages must be reviewed before cvs import
* FESCo approved spot's proposal that all new packages (including
compat packages) must be reviewed before cvs import.
Opening FESCo election vote to more people
* FESCo approved a proposal to expand the pool of people eligible
to vote for the upcoming FESCo election. This was done since
FESCo's new scope of responsibilities affects many different
parts of the project.
Misc
* jwb proposed that future proposal drafts be sent to public
mailing lists, so more community feedback can be gathered.
For full IRC log:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SteeringCommittee/Meeting-20070628
Thanks,
/B
--
Brian Pepple <bpepple(a)fedoraproject.org>
gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 810CC15E
BD5E 6F9E 8688 E668 8F5B CBDE 326A E936 810C C15E
9:03 a.m.
Brian Pepple wrote:
For full IRC log:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SteeringCommittee/Meeting-20070628
I would appreciate if FESCo or anyone interested look at and commented
about the suitability of this as I requested earlier.
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2007-June/msg00308.html
During Fedora 7 time frame the FESCo decision to not to rebuilds was
just for the release in part because it was late during the release
cycle and the decision whether we wanted to do rebuilds every cycle or
not going further was not supposed to be happening earlier this time.
Just a reminder again.
Also in fedora-maintainers I posted a mail about wiki naming long back
and as FESCo using the Extras name space for posting the meeting minutes
or agenda isn't suitable anymore, it has to decide and move it to a new
location.
Rahul
9:46 a.m.
On Sunday 01 July 2007 10:03:20 Rahul Sundaram wrote:
During Fedora 7 time frame the FESCo decision to not to rebuilds was
just for the release in part because it was late during the release
cycle and the decision whether we wanted to do rebuilds every cycle or
not going further was not supposed to be happening earlier this time.
Just a reminder again.
And I'm reminding you again that /if/ we do a rebuild, it will be coordinated
with the tools team if they have any features up coming that would take
advantage of a rebuild. As of yet I haven't seen any input from the tools
team regarding this so no decision on if/when should be made yet.
--
Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora
10:11 a.m.
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Sunday 01 July 2007 10:03:20 Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> During Fedora 7 time frame the FESCo decision to not to rebuilds was
> just for the release in part because it was late during the release
> cycle and the decision whether we wanted to do rebuilds every cycle or
> not going further was not supposed to be happening earlier this time.
> Just a reminder again.
And I'm reminding you again that /if/ we do a rebuild, it will be coordinated
with the tools team if they have any features up coming that would take
advantage of a rebuild.
You are stating your view point which is well known by now but the last
time I asked for a decision on this, it was decided against by FESCo
just for Fedora 7 release. FESCo has so far not made a decision about
mass rebuilds in general afaik.
Rahul
10:21 a.m.
On Sun, 2007-07-01 at 19:33 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
I would appreciate if FESCo or anyone interested look at and commented
about the suitability of this as I requested earlier.
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2007-June/msg00308.html
During Fedora 7 time frame the FESCo decision to not to rebuilds was
just for the release in part because it was late during the release
cycle and the decision whether we wanted to do rebuilds every cycle or
not going further was not supposed to be happening earlier this time.
Just a reminder again.
I was tentatively planning on having FESCo decide this around the end of
July / beginning of August, since we need still need input from the tool
team as to whether the tool-chain warrants a mass-rebuild for F8.
Also in fedora-maintainers I posted a mail about wiki naming long
back
and as FESCo using the Extras name space for posting the meeting minutes
or agenda isn't suitable anymore, it has to decide and move it to a new
location.
I agree with you that we need to move the lingering items on the wiki
away from the Extras name space, but that's been a fairly low-priority
item right now.
/B
--
Brian Pepple <bpepple(a)fedoraproject.org>
gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 810CC15E
BD5E 6F9E 8688 E668 8F5B CBDE 326A E936 810C C15E
10:47 a.m.
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 11:21:38AM -0400, Brian Pepple wrote:
On Sun, 2007-07-01 at 19:33 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
> I would appreciate if FESCo or anyone interested look at and commented
> about the suitability of this as I requested earlier.
>
> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2007-June/msg00308.html
>
> During Fedora 7 time frame the FESCo decision to not to rebuilds was
> just for the release in part because it was late during the release
> cycle and the decision whether we wanted to do rebuilds every cycle or
> not going further was not supposed to be happening earlier this time.
> Just a reminder again.
I was tentatively planning on having FESCo decide this around the end of
July / beginning of August, since we need still need input from the tool
team as to whether the tool-chain warrants a mass-rebuild for F8.
But one of the questions is whether mass rebuilds need to be done
irrespective of that input. Not that the team is not compentent, but
we had the same input for F7 and found it not proper at several
instances already and bridge-utils is still compiled against 2.6.18
headers (just an example).
So the top question is: Always have mass rebuilds, no matter what, or
delegate this decision to a releng/tools team?
The more you wait for the decision the more it will become a
moot point as there will be no time to do rebuilds.
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
11:04 a.m.
On Sun, 2007-07-01 at 17:47 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 11:21:38AM -0400, Brian Pepple wrote:
>
> I was tentatively planning on having FESCo decide this around the end of
> July / beginning of August, since we need still need input from the tool
> team as to whether the tool-chain warrants a mass-rebuild for F8.
But one of the questions is whether mass rebuilds need to be done
irrespective of that input. Not that the team is not compentent, but
we had the same input for F7 and found it not proper at several
instances already and bridge-utils is still compiled against 2.6.18
headers (just an example).
So the top question is: Always have mass rebuilds, no matter what, or
delegate this decision to a releng/tools team?
That question is actually the item I have on the schedule to discuss
(which like said I was planning on doing around the end of July).
It's the first item in the priority 2 section:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Development/Schedule
Later,
/B
--
Brian Pepple <bpepple(a)fedoraproject.org>
gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 810CC15E
BD5E 6F9E 8688 E668 8F5B CBDE 326A E936 810C C15E
11:19 a.m.
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 12:04:34PM -0400, Brian Pepple wrote:
On Sun, 2007-07-01 at 17:47 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 11:21:38AM -0400, Brian Pepple wrote:
> >
> > I was tentatively planning on having FESCo decide this around the end of
> > July / beginning of August, since we need still need input from the tool
> > team as to whether the tool-chain warrants a mass-rebuild for F8.
>
> But one of the questions is whether mass rebuilds need to be done
> irrespective of that input. Not that the team is not compentent, but
> we had the same input for F7 and found it not proper at several
> instances already and bridge-utils is still compiled against 2.6.18
> headers (just an example).
>
> So the top question is: Always have mass rebuilds, no matter what, or
> delegate this decision to a releng/tools team?
That question is actually the item I have on the schedule to discuss
(which like said I was planning on doing around the end of July).
OK, if there really is enough time to discuss it in August, that would
be fine with me. I just think that Jesse for example would not want
the rebuilds to happen shortly before freeze time and freeze is
scheduled to happen at Aug 27th.
Past experience shows that it would have to be started to be discussed
in fesco now, otherwise it will just not make it in time.
But I also wonder: While I'd prefer to have a clear decision on
rebuilding no matter what the toolchain changes: given that gcc 4.2 is
already getting "old" and Fedora is about tracking recent technologies
it would really be a shame not to have it in the November release
(where gcc 4.2 will be half a year old).
So from the perspective of Fedora's goals, gcc 4.2 has to make it into
F8. And that alone is probably reason enough to do the rebuilds.
Still fesco should decide on a general policy independent of
toolschain matters. This time perhaps gcc 4.2 could save the
discussion, but in F9 time people will be arguing that F8 was only
rebuilt because of gcc 4.2.
It's the first item in the priority 2 section:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Development/Schedule
Later,
/B
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
12:35 p.m.
On Sun, 2007-07-01 at 18:19 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 12:04:34PM -0400, Brian Pepple wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-07-01 at 17:47 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > So the top question is: Always have mass rebuilds, no matter what, or
> > delegate this decision to a releng/tools team?
>
> That question is actually the item I have on the schedule to discuss
> (which like said I was planning on doing around the end of July).
OK, if there really is enough time to discuss it in August, that would
be fine with me. I just think that Jesse for example would not want
the rebuilds to happen shortly before freeze time and freeze is
scheduled to happen at Aug 27th.
Past experience shows that it would have to be started to be discussed
in fesco now, otherwise it will just not make it in time.
[snip]
Still fesco should decide on a general policy independent of
toolschain matters. This time perhaps gcc 4.2 could save the
discussion, but in F9 time people will be arguing that F8 was only
rebuilt because of gcc 4.2.
I have to agree with Axel here. The decision whether or not to rebuild
is one that is contentious because it is pitting engineering *necessity*
against end-user *expectation* (with a tiny bit of trying to mitigate
Murphy thrown in to further stir the pot.) So discussing this early to
get all the issues on the table and to gather any appropriate data to
make a decision is important.
However, there are two factors that call for delaying: 1) the FESCo
elections. If this is truly going to run to lengthy discussion, then
it's probably best for the new FESCo to pick this topic up and run with
it. 2) We should be trying to hash this out on the list and record it on
a wiki page so FESCo can look at the wiki, ask specific questions, and
then come to a decision otherwise the topic will be discussed in the
meeting to even more length than it already has the potential for.
So... here's a wiki page:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Development/Schedule/RebuildingPackages
I think we should discuss on the list pros and cons and *record them* on
this page so we have a clear picture of where the argument stands, and
what questions might need to be answered. If all the arguments have
been expressed and organized on that page then it really does boil down
to FESCo weighing the pros and cons and simply making a decision.
-Toshio
6143
days inactive
6143
days old
8 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Axel Thimm -
Brian Pepple -
Jesse Keating -
Rahul Sundaram -
Toshio Kuratomi