Fedora Extras Steering Committee Meeting
26 January 2006
Attending from FESCo
- ThorstenLeemhuis (thl)
- JeremyKatz (jeremy)
- EnricoScholz (ensc)
- ThomasVanderStichele (thomasvs)
- JosePedroOliviera (jpo)
- MichaelSchwendt (mschwendt)
- Elliot Lee (Sopwith)
- JesseKeating (ender/f13)
- Adrian Reber (adrianr)
- Cleanup the Schedule from non-extras tasks
Discussed some items and removed them. FC5 naming is still there:
Sopwith> | And the naming thing just needs someone to adopt it. thl> | Sopwith, who is someone? f13> | thl: could be someone interested, however somebody at red hat will still have to get it pushed through legal. Sopwith> | thl: I'm writing an e-mail to jkeating right now - he's the one that'll have to make it happen... f13> | Sopwith: thanks. f13> | Sopwith: I'll make it happen
- Mass Rebuild of FE5
We still can't start yet, need to wait for another rebuild in core
- EOL Policy for FE
The current plan found at http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Schedule/EolPolicy is this:
This is a rough draft of what to do about Extras when a Fedora release goes EOL. When a Fedora Core release reaches End of Life (such as Fedora Core 3 will once Fedora Core 5 Test 2 is released), the corresponding release of Fedora Extras well enter a Maintenance state. In this state maintainers will be allowed to issue updates to existing packages, but no new packages can be introduced. Maintainers are strongly urged to only issue severe bugfix or security fixes. New software versions should be avoided except when necessary for resolving issues with the the current version. At this point there is no plan to close a release of Fedora Extras, preventing any further package releases. While the Fedora Core release will be transferred to the Fedora Legacy project, Fedora Legacy will not be responsible for maintaining Fedora Extras. We feel it is better for the current package maintainer to continue handling package releases for the Fedora Extras release that is in maintenance state.
Speak up now or this will be policy soon.
- Encourage Extras reviews
Current state: 134 Bugs in the new state, 54 under review -- some for a very long time already!
Action: Create SIGs (Special Interest Groups). Which ones? Good question. Ignacio already started a bit of work at http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs Current groups: GNOME, KDE, Multimedia, Perl, Python, Ruby, Scientific and Technical, Server Tools, ppc, x86-64. Do we need more? Input needed!
Action: Review days (general or specific to the SIGs) may help getting stuff reviewed -- somebody needs to work out the details.
Help-Needed -- interested to work in one of the SIGs? Add yourself to the wiki-pages!
Undecided: Maybe separate mailing-lists for the SIGs
Undecided: How to track the bugs for the SIGs? Tracker-BUGs? Wiki?
- Broken deps report
mschwendt has a handy script that does most things automatic. Should run in the future with every extras push. mschwendt will send the current proposal to fedora-extras-list for futher discussion and put the script in a public place.
- JesseKeating wants to remove himself from FESCo
"I was on FESCO mostly because of Legacy, which is its own project now. I rarely have anything to do w/ FESCO and it doesn't make sense for me to be trying ot make decisions for hte project."
We didn't let him go for now :-)
Okay, now seriously: We need to work out the details who is in FESCo, why, how to get in, how to get out, when people are thrown out to make space for more active people, how many people should be in FESCo in general, how the chair gets elected and similar stuff. Opinions?
- We should discuss more topics on mailing-lists
Some discussion from FESCo were done on the private FESCo-Mailinglist. We should avoid this in the future as much as possible and discuss everything on fedora-extras-list directly.
We also should discuss less in the FESCo meetings on IRC and more on the lists where everyone can participate.
18:56 < jeremy> | thl: I'm going to have to miss today. so quick summary: we can't start with a real rebuild yet. 18:57 < thl> | jeremy, thx 18:57 < thl> | I suspected something like that already... 18:57 < thl> | jeremy, have fun ;-) 18:58 < jeremy> | hmm... I'm not sure I'm going to be having _fun_ :-) 18:59 --> | Sopwith (Undisclosed) has joined #fedora-extras 18:59 < thl> | :-) 18:59 --> | jpo (Unknown) has joined #fedora-extras 19:00 * | thl looks around 19:00 < thl> | any FESCo members around? 19:01 < Sopwith> | yessir 19:01 < jpo> | yes 19:02 < thl> | wow, we are three out of 17 :-| 19:02 --> | mschwendt (Michael Schwendt) has joined #fedora-extras 19:02 < thl> | well, let's start 19:02 < thl> | hi mschwendt 19:02 < jeremy> | thl: skvidal is still in nz 19:02 < thl> | jeremy, warren still in <somewhere i can't remember> 19:02 < f13> | thl: make that 4 19:03 < f13> | thl: he's in Japan 19:03 < thl> | k 19:03 < thl> | one general thing first: 19:03 < thl> | look at http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Schedule 19:03 < thl> | I created a trash section there 19:03 < thl> | Sopwith, "FC5 naming" and "New home for fedora.redhat.com" 19:03 < thl> | can tehy be removed? 19:04 < thl> | Do you have written dows those somewhere else? 19:04 < Sopwith> | thl: Yea, the 'new home' one is mainly a websites team thing 19:04 < thl> | f13, "CVS commit access for Fedora Legacy" ? 19:04 < Sopwith> | And the naming thing just needs someone to adopt it. 19:05 < f13> | thl: thats been approved, so it's in progress. I just have to get it going, but at this time it looks like after test3 time period. 19:05 < thl> | f13, okay 19:05 < thl> | Sopwith, how is someone? 19:05 < thomasvs> | thl: here too 19:05 < thl> | someone from redhat? Or someone interested? 19:06 < thl> | s/how/who/ 19:06 < f13> | thl: could be someone interested, however somebody at red hat will still have to get it pushed through legal. 19:06 < thl> | well, we probably should start with that soon 19:07 < f13> | yep 19:07 < thl> | Sopwith, f13, why don't you write a mail to fedora-devel? 19:07 * | thl hides 19:07 < Sopwith> | thl: I'm writing an e-mail to jkeating right now - he's the one that'll have to make it happen... 19:07 < thl> | :-)) 19:07 < f13> | Sopwith: thanks. 19:07 < f13> | Sopwith: I'll make it happen. 19:08 < thl> | "Design help for website" from gregdek -- I suspect the websites team work on that now 19:08 < Sopwith> | f13: oh you're jkeating, haha 19:08 < Sopwith> | thl: Yup 19:08 < quaid> | thl: gregdek is a default owner for some infrastructure and website bugs 19:08 < quaid> | out with the ender, in with the f13 19:08 < thl> | "Press link, fedora.redhat.com" from gregdek 19:09 < thl> | also not really FESCo... 19:09 --> | c4chris__ (Christian Iseli) has joined #fedora-extras 19:09 < thl> | well, it will happen or not 19:09 <-- | c4chris_ has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) 19:09 < thl> | so, back to the real agenda 19:09 < thl> | "Mass rebuild of Extras for FC5" 19:09 < f13> | Sopwith: yeah, I changed my nick a while ago on this nwetwork, sorry I forgot to inform yah (; 19:10 < f13> | thl: as jeremy stated, can't happen yet. 19:10 <-- | ensc has quit (Nick collision from services.) 19:10 < thl> | < jeremy> | thl: I'm going to have to miss today. so quick summary: we can't start with a real rebuild yet. 19:10 < thl> | for those that were not here before 19:10 --> | ensc (Enrico Scholz) has joined #fedora-extras 19:10 <-- | bpepple has left #fedora-extras ( "Ex-Chat") 19:10 < thl> | next one 19:10 < thl> | "EOL Policy for FE" 19:10 < roozbeh> | btw, what about making thl default bug owner for extras bug requests? 19:10 < thl> | I suspect we're still waiting for warren? 19:10 * | roozbeh hides 19:11 < thl> | roozbeh, he is since two hours 19:11 < roozbeh> | thl: are you? congratulations for all the spam! 19:11 --> | Bleeter (Bleeter Yaluser) has joined #fedora-extras 19:11 --> | ptiggerdine has joined #fedora-extras 19:11 --> | ptiggerdine is Peter Tiggerdine 19:11 < f13> | thl: honestly, do we really want to keep delaying? 19:11 < thl> | roozbeh, least for the new review requests 19:11 < roozbeh> | i have something to say for EOL policy. may i? 19:11 < f13> | thl: does anybody else have any input on the proposal I put on the wiki? 19:11 < mschwendt> | thl: why don't we just announce end-of-life for FE3 unless somebody comes up with a better plan? 19:11 < f13> | roozbeh: please! 19:12 < thl> | mschwendt, I mostly agree 19:12 < thl> | what was the plan for security updates? 19:12 < roozbeh> | i wish to ask for a few obvious things: 1) no FC-3 branch creating from now. 19:12 < f13> | roozbeh: have you read the wiki page I created about this? 19:13 < roozbeh> | f13: let me read that then. linked from schedule? 19:13 < f13> | roozbeh: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Schedule/EolPolicy 19:13 < roozbeh> | f13: found it 19:13 --> | bpepple (Brian Pepple) has joined #fedora-extras 19:13 < thl> | mschwendt, I would prefer the term "Maintenance state" 19:14 < thl> | the packagers still should fix security problems 19:14 < roozbeh> | f13: ah, i've read that 19:14 < mschwendt> | it doesn't work. either security updates are released for all packages or a Fedora Extras tree becomes unsupported 19:14 < roozbeh> | i am mostly talking about implementation details. 19:14 < mschwendt> | we cannot offer a repository and say "some packages are secure to use, others probably not" 19:14 < f13> | mschwendt: we can't force maintainers to keep up their older packages can we? 19:14 < mschwendt> | f13: we can't 19:14 < f13> | mschwendt: it's Extras. It's unsupported by nature. 19:14 * | nirik agrees with mschwendt. Unless we have a security team in place. 19:15 < mschwendt> | f13: ugh 19:15 < f13> | mschwendt: I should say it's Fedora. i'ts unsupported by nature. 19:15 < nirik> | so if you use it, you won't know if it's vulnerable, old, unmaintained, new, maintained, or have any idea... ? 19:15 < mschwendt> | f13: we talk about different kind of "support" here 19:15 < f13> | We can say that the security status is not safe, but should we prevent maintainers from spinning security stuff? 19:16 < f13> | nirik: how is that different from FE4 or FE5 today? 19:16 --> | adrianr (Adrian Reber) has joined #fedora-extras 19:16 < mschwendt> | f13: good question. doesn't it give a false impression if some updates are released and most of the stuff is out-of-date? 19:16 < f13> | mschwendt: how is that any different than open FE trees? 19:16 < roozbeh> | f13: i am worried about implementation mostly. the policy itself looks sane. 19:16 < nirik> | f13: yeah, not much I guess. Since we have no security team or anything... 19:16 < f13> | mschwendt: there is no current expectation. 19:17 < f13> | roozbeh: ok, sounds good. If we can approve the policy we can then move to discussing implimenting said policy. 19:17 < mschwendt> | f13: we can assume that packagers "support" the current release 19:17 < roozbeh> | f13: ok 19:17 < mschwendt> | f13: the release they use themselves 19:17 < f13> | mschwendt: we could assume that, but we don't know for sure. How many fire and forget packages are sitting in Extras? 19:18 < mschwendt> | f13: well, if you believe that current FE4 is not in better shape than FE3, we should stop 19:18 < f13> | mschwendt: especially with Security stuff. FE has to be reactive to security vulns right now due to no security team and no vendorsec. 19:18 < roozbeh> | so we're deciding a policy until we have a security team? 19:19 < f13> | mschwendt: I didn't say it wasn't in better shape. I just don't see the point of turning it off completely for stated reasons that apply to current FE trees. 19:19 < f13> | roozbeh: are we going to GET a security team? thats an even bigger question. 19:19 < thl> | f13, look like some people are interested in building one 19:19 < roozbeh> | f13: we have a proposal, don't we? 19:19 < mschwendt> | the point is that quite many packagers admit that they no longer run old FC versions and hence don't care about them anymore 19:19 < roozbeh> | http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Schedule/SecurityPolicy 19:20 < f13> | mschwendt: yep. And interested parties should be allowed to spin the older FC versions if they wish, with the guidance or approval of the current maintainer. 19:20 < thomasvs> | for those maintainers that do care about those other distros, it would be a shame to turn them away and tell them to use their own stuff if there is all this infrastructure for it 19:21 < thl> | thomasvs, agreed -- but new packages shouldn't be allowed anymore IMHO 19:21 < f13> | roozbeh: that needs some discussion. THere are some infrastructure things to worry about, embargo issues. 19:21 < roozbeh> | thomasvs: but look at what is getting released as FE3 these days. it's just random builds, and even includes new packages. 19:22 < mschwendt> | roozbeh: untested mass-builds with broken dependencies even 19:22 < f13> | thl: I agree w/ that. No new trees, but spinning of old trees is OK. Hopefully for security related purposes, but I don't think we can completely force that. 19:22 < thl> | I think we should discuss this stuff on fedora-extras-list and/or fedora-maintainers list once 19:22 < thl> | f13, agreed 19:22 < roozbeh> | f13: we can ask for a second approval 19:23 < thl> | f13, could you update the proposal regarding to this discussion and post it to the list? 19:23 < roozbeh> | f13: so random builds don't get pushed 19:23 < thomasvs> | thl: does "new packages" include "new versions of older pacakges" ? 19:23 < thl> | thomasvs, no 19:23 < f13> | thomasvs: no, new versions of older packages can happen. 19:23 < thomasvs> | ok 19:23 < mschwendt> | thomasvs: those would be called "updates" 19:23 < nirik> | they would almost have to... most people can't backport security fixes. ;) 19:23 < f13> | thl: What have we discussed that would need changing in the content? 19:24 < thl> | note sure -- update if it should be needed 19:24 < f13> | ok. 19:24 < f13> | thl: I'm on maintainers list, I don't think I'mon fedora-extras-list. 19:24 < f13> | *sigh* more email. 19:24 < roozbeh> | f13: is there a definition of when should one push updates for legacy? 19:25 < f13> | roozbeh: can you rephrase the question? 19:25 < thl> | I think we should move on, time is ticking 19:25 < roozbeh> | f13: fedora legacy only provides updates in certain cases, doesn't it? what is the criteria? 19:26 < f13> | roozbeh: Security and severe bugfix. 19:26 < thl> | "Encourage Extras reviews" 19:26 < roozbeh> | f13: we may be able to adopt something among the same lines. 19:26 < roozbeh> | f13: that's the whole definition? does it have details? 19:26 < f13> | roozbeh: sure. Thats what I encourage. 19:26 < thl> | mschwendt, I more and more like the idea of special interest groups 19:26 < thl> | what do others think about it? 19:26 < nirik> | thl: how about a bug review day/evening? gather on irc and everyone review a bunch of packages? like a bug day... 19:27 < f13> | roozbeh: no, we're fairly flexible, but mostly it is security related fixes. CVEs. Most severe bugfixes are in place by the time the distro gets to Legacy. 19:27 < roozbeh> | well, i know a way to encourage reviews. bribing (i have yet to deliver those babysitting promises...) 19:27 * | ignacio likes the idea of Fedora SIGs 19:27 < f13> | SIGs sounds good. maybe a combo of SIG and review days. 19:27 < thl> | f13, yeah, sounds good 19:28 < roozbeh> | f13: review days would be lovely 19:28 < nirik> | SIGs are good... perl, python, gnome/kde? 19:28 < roozbeh> | perhaps also server things 19:28 < thl> | "Multimedia" 19:28 < thl> | "Educational Programming Languages" 19:28 < f13> | nirik: gnome/kde, maybe if defined as gnome/kde enhnacements ? not just "apps that run on gnome" or "apps that run on kde". 19:28 < thl> | "System Tools" 19:28 < roozbeh> | thl: looks like comps.xml to me 19:29 < thl> | we need somebody to work out the details -- anyone interested? 19:29 < nirik> | f13: yeah, agreed. 19:29 < ignacio> | I'd love to, but I'm too busy. 19:29 < mschwendt> | maybe go through bugzilla FE-NEW and look what package classes are waiting in the queue? 19:30 < thl> | mschwendt, sounds like a plan 19:30 < nirik> | thl: I can see about setting up a "review day" ? 19:30 * | thl wonders if we should build the SIGs first 19:31 < mschwendt> | we already have some, e.g. for Perl 19:31 < mschwendt> | even a separate mailing-list 19:31 < mschwendt> | ;) 19:31 < thl> | we should not forget x86-64 and ppc SIGs 19:32 < mschwendt> | yes 19:32 < ignacio> | And even other archs if anyone's interested. 19:33 <-- | kbsingh has quit ("HomeTime") 19:33 < thl> | well, nobody interested in working out the details? 19:33 < roozbeh> | i guess we should start with creating a list of interested people on a wiki page. 19:33 < ignacio> | Indeed. 19:33 < f13> | perhaps we should mail the list to see if anybody is interested in running this. 19:33 < thl> | f13, agreed 19:34 < thl> | I'll ask with the meeting report that I'll send out 19:34 < thl> | guys, what about nirik and the "review day" 19:34 < thl> | start now or wait for the SIGs 19:34 < thl> | ? 19:34 < bpepple> | Start now. 19:34 < roozbeh> | review days need preparation 19:34 < nirik> | either way is fine with me... 19:34 < mschwendt> | would it be an idea if review request submitters add the "RPM Group" value into the bugzilla ticket summary? 19:34 --> | fitheach (Oliver Andrich) has joined #fedora-extras 19:34 < ignacio> | Both in parallel. 19:35 < nirik> | yeah, will take a while to setup times, announce, etc... 19:35 < mschwendt> | so we get something like: package name | group name | summary? 19:35 < roozbeh> | mschwendt: RPM Group is so deprecated it won't really help 19:35 < thl> | mschwendt, maybe -- but why not more tracker bugs for the SIGs? 19:35 < roozbeh> | mschwendt: we need something like a comps.xml group 19:36 < mschwendt> | thl: more tracking increases bugzilla spam, doesn't it? 19:36 < roozbeh> | thl: in the meeting report, list some of the mentioned SIG names, so poeple get ideas. 19:37 < thl> | well, let's stop here and work out the deatils later 19:37 < thl> | mschwendt, "Broken deps report" 19:37 < mschwendt> | We could run it on a fedoraproject.org machine. 19:38 < ignacio> | Is the script on the wiki? 19:38 < mschwendt> | no, but I can upload it to some place 19:38 < thl> | mschwendt, sound like a good idea 19:38 < f13> | thl: I've made some changes to the proposal, but overall its just the saem. Can you reference it in your meetings minutes, I'd rathernot sub to another list. 19:38 < thl> | f13, okay 19:38 < thl> | mschwendt, and send a link to fedora-extras-list for discussion 19:39 < ignacio> | Maybe in UsefulScripts? 19:39 < thl> | ignacio, no, it really should run on a fedoraproject.org machine 19:39 < ignacio> | I realize that, but why not allow the public have access to it? 19:40 < mschwendt> | ignacio: because currently it still needs some work 19:40 < mschwendt> | ignacio: it downlodas quite a lot of metadata 19:40 < mschwendt> | ignacio: and contains hardcoded repository URLs 19:40 < ignacio> | Fair enough. 19:40 < ignacio> | What about using one of the yum-utils to do the heavy lifting? 19:41 < mschwendt> | it it based on a modified "repoclosure" script already 19:42 < thl> | okay, how to proceed? 19:43 < thl> | post it for discussion? 19:43 < mschwendt> | I've posted request for feedback to fesco list already 19:43 < thl> | upload it to a public place? 19:43 < thl> | mschwendt, I know 19:43 < mschwendt> | questions remain unanswered: how often to run it? whether to post a summary to fedora-extras-list or whether to mail packagers privately? 19:44 < thl> | okay 19:44 < thl> | how often: 19:44 < nirik> | mschwendt: after the rawhide push daily? 19:44 < thl> | daily for devel? 19:44 < nirik> | extras and packager both would be nice... 19:44 < mschwendt> | nirik: well, FE Development is broken like hell for a long time 19:44 < thl> | and with every push for FE3 and FE5? 19:45 < mschwendt> | nirik: the script currently sends out a new mail every 14 days only ;) 19:45 < thl> | s/FE5/FE4/ 19:45 < roozbeh> | mschwendt: definitely extras, so people can get some idea of the semi-orphaned packages 19:45 < nirik> | mschwendt: yeah, I guess if devel is broken that could show up as a lot of extras breakage. 19:45 < mschwendt> | nirik: no, FE devel is broken, because packagers don't fix their packages 19:46 < mschwendt> | nirik: they wait for a mass-rebuild or instructions from FESCO 19:46 < nirik> | ah. Perhaps we could do a 'if the repo is broken by your package for some amount of time we remove it? 19:47 < mschwendt> | nirik: this can result in even more breakage 19:47 < jpo> | and perl 5.8.8 (which appeared today in rawhide) ;) 19:47 < nirik> | mschwendt: can you send a inital breakage to extras list? might get people to fix the inital stuff? They might not know they are causing breakage? 19:47 < roozbeh> | mschwendt: well, we can offet the package for retaking before the removal 19:48 < mschwendt> | nirik: I've done that since Nov 2005. only few found it really helpful. 19:48 < thl> | roozbeh, I don't like the removal idea 19:48 < thl> | roozbeh, If it is broken is is useless already 19:48 < thl> | roozbeh, the gain of removing it then is doubtful 19:48 < thl> | imho 19:48 < roozbeh> | thl: you're right. may be we can orphan it? 19:48 < nirik> | mschwendt: I remember seeing those a long time ago, but haven't seen any recently... perhaps I am just not paying attention. Will look again. 19:49 < thl> | the real question was: 19:49 < thl> | how often to run it 19:49 < thl> | I vote for every extras push 19:49 < bpepple> | thl: +1 19:49 < mschwendt> | nirik: what is your bugzilla e-mail address? 19:49 < roozbeh> | definitly every push at least for FE4. 19:50 < thl> | does anyone disagree? 19:50 < nirik> | mschwendt: email@example.com 19:50 < ignacio> | Only the crazy people. 19:50 < mschwendt> | nirik: no broken deps reported for you 19:51 < nirik> | thats nice to hear. ;) 19:51 < thl> | okay, the next question: 19:51 < mschwendt> | thl: remember that means "one mail each day until a package is fixed" 19:51 < mschwendt> | thl: or unless the script continues with not repeating mails for 14 days 19:51 < nirik> | mschwendt: oh, kevin-redhat-bugzilla at tummy.com might have my packages. 19:51 < thl> | I have no problem with that 19:51 < mschwendt> | nirik: doesn't appear in the list of broken packages either 19:52 < thl> | okay, now really the next question: 19:52 < thl> | whether to post a summary to fedora-extras-list or whether to mail packagers privately? 19:52 < thl> | short summary together with the push mails? 19:52 < thl> | Is that possible? 19:53 < dgilmore> | thl: i would say private, no word in a day or so list 19:53 < f13> | thl: at RH we send email to individual package maintainers as well as the summary to fedora-foo-list 19:53 < mschwendt> | thl: well, a complete repoclosure takes some time 19:53 < thl> | f13, I would prefer a similar solution 19:53 < nirik> | I would say both if possible. 19:53 < roozbeh> | both 19:53 < thl> | mschwendt, okay, then a separate mail might be better 19:54 < mschwendt> | Are they any _local_ repositories the script could access when running on a fedoraproject.org machine? 19:54 < thl> | don't know 19:55 < thl> | we'll let's stop with that issue here 19:56 < thl> | or does anyone want to add something to the discussion? 19:56 < thl> | mschwendt, I really would like it if you could post a mail on this topic to extras-list 19:56 < mschwendt> | will do 19:56 < thl> | with the results of this discussion incorporated 19:56 < thl> | mschwendt, thx 19:57 < thl> | okay, next point 19:57 < thl> | "Weekly sponsorship nomination" 19:57 < thl> | anyone? 19:57 < thl> | I take that as "no" 19:58 < thl> | does anyone want to discuss any "2" or "3" items? 19:58 < mschwendt> | Anybody who thinks he/she should become a sponsor? 19:58 < thl> | I take that as "no", too 19:59 < thl> | anyone anything else to discuss? 19:59 <-- | finalzone has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)) 19:59 < Sopwith> | The backlog of package reviews. 19:59 < ignacio> | The 'Make "current"...' option needs to be updated. 19:59 < thl> | Sopwith, what should we do about it? 20:00 < Sopwith> | thl: Dunno. Making people aware of it is the first step. 20:00 < thl> | okay, I'll add it to the report 20:00 < thl> | ignacio, shoot 20:00 < thl> | ignacio, btw, feel free to update http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/ImportMakeBranches yourself 20:01 < ignacio> | I've submitted the patches to BZ and -buildsys, but no one's looked at them much AFAIK. 20:01 < ignacio> | warren said something about reworking his final review but nothing's happened yet. 20:01 < f13> | thl: I would like ot talk about removing myself from the FESCO 20:01 < f13> | and letting somebody else take my spot. 20:02 <-- | Eitch has quit ("Leaving") 20:02 < thl> | ignacio, this should probably be handled by jeremy and warren directly 20:02 < ignacio> | Indeed. But the schedule should be updated. 20:02 --> | monkey|wrk (michael) has joined #fedora-extras 20:02 < thl> | ignacio, okay, will do 20:03 < mschwendt> | f13: Further withdrawels of Red Hat from FESCO? Hear!Hear! 20:03 < ignacio> | My part is done, we're just waiting on them. 20:03 < thl> | ignacio, thx for the work 20:03 < thl> | f13, if you want to step down that's okay 20:04 < thl> | but we probably should work out some details how to handle such things in the future 20:04 < thl> | and how to get into fesco 20:05 < thl> | f13, I'll think about the whole situation 20:05 < thl> | f13, that okay for now? 20:05 < f13> | mschwendt: I was on FESCO mostly because of Legacy, which is its own project now. I rarely have anything to do w/ FESCO and it doesn't make sense for me to be trying ot make decisions for hte project. 20:05 < f13> | thl: sure. 20:05 < thl> | f13, thx 20:05 < thl> | okay, anything else? 20:06 < thl> | we should discuss the "Bugs must be filed for all ExcludeArch" sooner or later 20:06 < thl> | but we are already quite late 20:06 < thl> | next week? 20:06 <-- | roozbeh has quit ("Leaving") 20:07 < thl> | I take that as yes 20:07 * | thl will close the meeting in 30 20:07 < mschwendt> | we should discuss more topics on mailing-lists 20:07 * | thl will close the meeting in 15 20:07 < thl> | mschwendt, fully agreed 20:07 < thl> | more on public lists 20:07 < thl> | and nearly nothing on fesco-list 20:08 * | thl will close the meeting in 10 20:08 * | thl will close the meeting in 5 20:08 * | thl will close the meeting in 1 20:08 < thl> | MARK: Meeting end 20:08 < thl> | thx guys 20:09 < thl> | FYI: 20:09 < thl> | I probably can't finish the report of todays meeting before sunday 20:09 < thl> | sorry for that 20:09 * | thl will be offline Friday and Saturday 20:10 < nirik> | offline? out in that big blue room? scary. :)