Extras/SteeringCommittee/Meeting-20060217

Summary
Present from Fesco: thl, scop, warren, jeremy, ensc, jpo

Topics:


 * Kernel module standardization
 * We need support in the buildsys. thl posted a mail to buildsys-list last week to get the ball running, but was not successful. warren will poke dcbw so we at least know how to get the whole thing running.
 * Should archs be hardcoded with a "ExclusiveArch: i586 i686 x86_64 ppc" or similar entries? That's how it is done in beehive, but scop doesn't like that idea to much. Warren will ask dcbw if there are alternatives.

wait until $date, assemble a list of not rebuilt to Wiki, have packagers either rebuild packages, note in Wiki why not, and if nothing happens before $date+N, "someone" rebuilds
 * Mass rebuild of Extras for FC5
 * no decision yet if we want to rebuild the noarch packages, too. We continue with the current plan: Rebuild everything binary, and noarch is a lower priority
 * suggestion from scop:
 * jpo mentions problems with perl noarch packages on FC5; appears to be perl 5.8.8 related; He placed a warning in the Perl SIGs page.
 * related topic: With the current use scheme (rebuild everything by maintainer) we force people to show up. Are there any other ways to make sure that all packages in general and especially those that enter FE6 have a active maintainer? Ideas anyone? thl will write a mail with the subject "How to find out if maintainers are still active" to fedora-extras-list.


 * warren> I think *all* extras bugs should go to extras-bugs-list, and people can optionally subscribe to that.
 * Where should the bugzilla-spam for review bugs be send to? fedora-extras-list or extras-bugs-list? Both? Seems some people have been increasingly complaining about too much mail on fedora-extras-list.
 * Feedback appreciated!

19:37 <      nirik> | thl: didn't work too well. Not much activity... I guess we could try again with more advertisement. I only mailed extras list 19:37 <      nirik> | also a weekend time might work better. 19:38 <     warren> | I personally don't think this campaign has any chance of making a real long term difference. 19:40 <     warren> | however I personally would rather invest that time into long-term benefit tools, like more documentation and examples. Review day education is only a short-term solution, maybe even band-aid. 19:44 <     warren> | I think better documentation and training tools, and more explicitly listed examples of tracks toward sponsorship would be helpful 19:44 <     warren> | "review day" needs active participation from the limited time of sponsors, actively engaged in training, so this might be a losing proposition and a short-term solution 19:48 <      |Jef|> | warren: i see your point about tracks... i honestly dont have a clear understanding of how to get sponsorship as a pure reviewer 19:49 <        thl> | |Jef|, could you help to write a "How to become a sponsor" page in the wiki 19:50 <      |Jef|> | thl: i can make up a process to become a sponsor and write a work of fiction 19:51 <      |Jef|> | thl: i'll write something up for the list tonite Site note: everybody can suggest new sponsors. Just drop thl a mail with the name(s) and he'll discuss them with FESCo and the other sponsors privately.
 * Encourage Extras reviews
 * Review day. Highlights from the discussion:

20:00 <        jwb> | wondering about the 'scratch' repo idea that was resurfaced on the extras list today 20:00 <        thl> | jwb, I send a mail to the list; I like the idea 20:00 <        thl> | jwb, But somebody has to work out the details 20:00 <        jwb> | was just about to say i'll wait to see how conversation goes and then go to fesco :) 20:00 <         thl> | jwb, "somebody" can be any active extras contributor 20:01 <       |Jef|> | thl: the deeper question is, is it worth making mock builds a hard requirement for review passing 20:01 <         thl> | is a 'scratch' repo possible at all? 20:01 <         jwb> | i'll see if i can look at what would be needed in plague itself 20:02 <       |Jef|> | thl: once something is submitted... that would just be a special branch 20:02 <         jwb> | i don't think we want to go that route 20:02 <       |Jef|> | thl: for pre-submission review... i have no idea 20:03 <         thl> | |Jef|, who checks what is uploaded to the buildsys? 20:03 <         thl> | |Jef|, security is the buzz-word here 20:04 <       |Jef|> | thl: i realize... and reviewer who already has cvs commit access would have to pushing it in 20:05 <         thl> | and we'll see if there comes out anything further from the current discussion on the list
 * Free discussion. Highlights:

Full Log
18:53           --> | scop (Ville Skytta)  has joined #fedora-extras 18:56 <     warren> | *poof* 18:58             * | jeremy is about 50% here 18:59           --> | ensc|w (Enrico Scholz)  has joined #fedora-extras 19:00           --- | thl has changed the topic to: FESCo Meeting in Progress 19:00 <        thl> | Hello everyone 19:00 <        thl> | who'S around? 19:00             * | scop waves 19:00             * | ensc|w 19:01 <        thl> | okay, let's start 19:01           --- | thl has changed the topic to: FESCo Meeting in Progress -- Kernel module standardization 19:01 <        thl> | scop, jeremy, did you see my mail? 19:01 <    jeremy> | thl: haven't seen any mail from you 19:01 <        thl> | regarding the xen- kernels? 19:01 <       scop> | nope 19:01             * | thl wonders where that one got lost 19:01 <        thl> | okay, I'll send it again 19:02 <        thl> | we still have no plan how to get the buildsys running for the kmods 19:02 <        thl> | jeremy, warren could you poke dcbw after FC5T3 is out? 19:02 <     warren> | sure 19:02 <       scop> | the absolute minimum IMO is that we'd have a way of telling it the archs to build for 19:03 <       scop> | everything else can be temporarily hardcoded in specfiles 19:03             * | thl send the mail out 19:03 <     warren> | why not hard-code archs in specfiles like any other package? 19:03 <        thl> | warren, are you on buildsys-list? 19:03 <       scop> | warren, how? 19:03 <     warren> | ExclusiveArch: i586 i686 x86_64 19:04 <     warren> | explicitly list the archs you want 19:04 <       scop> | ah, that abuse 19:04 <     warren> | and it goes through the list 19:04 <     warren> | Core does it with beehive 19:04 <        thl> | scop, but that's how plague works afaik 19:04 <        thl> | I'm also for the ExclusiveArch solution 19:04 <       scop> | does it? there was a discussion about this on the FE list some time ago, with no clear conclusion 19:05 <        thl> | I tested it once -- worked fine 19:05 <     warren> | Core and beehive works exactly this way. It builds once for each listed arch. 19:05 <     warren> | no mistaking if you supply it an explicit list 19:06 <       scop> | I'd like to point out that doing that based on ExclusiveArch is plain _wrong_ (but an acceptable workaround for now if no better way exists) 19:06 <     warren> | why wrong? 19:06 <     warren> | we've been doing it that way in Core for years 19:07 <       scop> | it is not a buildsys directive, it's a property of the packaged software 19:08 <        thl> | warren, can you ask dcbw if another solution would be possible somehow? 19:08 <        thl> | otherwise I suggest that we go for ExclusiveArch for now 19:08 <        thl> | okay for everybody? 19:08 <     warren> | realistically, you ask the buildsys to build only the archs that work, or the desired archs. The buildsys could build any listed archs that buildhosts are supported, and ignore any others (like s390x) if they are listed. 19:09 <     warren> | This is a simple solution. 19:09 <    warren> | thl, OK, I will ask dcbw 19:09 <        thl> | warren, thx 19:09 <     warren> | and maybe I'm missing context here, maybe there is a better way, I'll find out. 19:10 <        thl> | warren, I posted to buildsys-list some days ago 19:10 <        thl> | there are some questions / open issues 19:10 <        thl> | where we need help from dcbw 19:10 <        thl> | afaics 19:10           --> | jpo (Unknown)  has joined #fedora-extras 19:10 <     warren> | dcbw must be pretty swamped, but I or jeremy will corner him and get answers. 19:10             * | warren evil grin 19:10           --- | thl has changed the topic to: FESCo Meeting in Progress --  Mass rebuild of Extras for FC5 19:11 <        thl> | I'm working on a script that shows how far we are 19:11 <       scop> | the problem with exclusivearch is that let's say you list i586 i686 x86_64 ppc and someone wants to rebuild it for alpha -> won't build, even if the package/software would work 19:11           <-- | fitheach  has left #fedora-extras 19:11 <        thl> | should be ready tomorrow 19:11 <     warren> | scop, you can include other archs in the list, buildsys can simply ignore Extras non-supported archs. 19:12 <        thl> | well, do we want to rebuild the SRPMS? 19:12 <        thl> | I know that SRPM don't need a rebuild per se. But I still think that we should rebuild them, too, because this was me make sure that: 19:12 <        thl> | - they still build 19:12 <        thl> | - they still have a maintainer 19:12 <        thl> | - we have no remaining packages in the distro that have "fc4" in the name due to using "%{dist}" 19:12 <        thl> | - hopefully someone looked at the older packages and checked if the update patch FC -> FC5 works 19:12 <     warren> | ExclusiveArch behaving in this manner has the benefit of also allowing glibc or openssl like multi-arch building, giving you i386 and i686 of a performance intensive (proven by benchmarks) package. 19:13 <       scop> | warren, it's abuse of the tag nevertheless 19:13 <     warren> | scop, I'd personally disagree, but either way this is very simple and it already behaves similar to this in Core literally forever. 19:14 <     warren> | more importantly the simplicity of this allows us to move forward sooner 19:14 <     warren> | (assuming dcbw doesn't have a better idea) 19:14 <       scop> | that I agree with 19:15 <        thl> | okay, now proceed to Mass rebuild? 19:15 <    warren> | thl, I'd say find out what isn't rebuilt, and that list can serve more than one purpose 19:15 <      scop> | thl, I can say that the packages I maintain are checked for those 19:15 <    warren> | thl, 1) Who isn't responsible in maintaining?  (probably me)  2) And we decide if we rebuild it anyway, just like Core. 19:16 <    bpepple> | Has gstreamer-08 been imported in extras yet. There's about 3 or 4 packages dependent on that for a rebuild. 19:16 <        thl> | scop, I now that you checked your packages 19:16 <     jeremy> | bpepple: I don't remember seeing it in the "needs review" queue yesterday 19:16 <        thl> | But just remember comptons packages 19:17 <        thl> | they probably would never have entered FE4 19:17 <       scop> | of course, that's a completely different scenario 19:17 <        thl> | yeah 19:17             * | nirik needs to find time to fire off rebuilds for all his. Pesky lack of time. 19:17 <        thl> | But that's why I would like that every maintainers shows up 19:17 <         thl> | and rebuilds all his packages 19:18 <     warren> | realistically, a volunteer driven project will have people disappear and reappear, and we cannot expect everyone to be there always. 19:18 <    bpepple> | jeremy: Does it need a formal review, since it was just removed from Core? 19:18 <        thl> | warren, sure 19:18 <        thl> | warren, but we need to know if they disapeear 19:18 <    warren> | thl, and even Core is mass rebuilt by the technical leaders without input from the individual package maintainres. 19:18 <        thl> | disappear 19:18 <    warren> | thl, yes, the list after voluntary rebuilds can tell us. 19:18 <     jeremy> | bpepple: everything needs have a review to be imported into extras 19:18 <       scop> | I have some 50+ packages not yet rebuilt this week, the vast majority of which are noarch and would have _no_ practical benefits from a rebuild to anyone but me, and I've checked most of them locally already 19:18 <    warren> | thl, however more simply, parsing the extras-commits-list can tell us the same. 19:19           --> | monkey- (michael)  has joined #fedora-extras 19:19 <     warren> | I personally see no benefit to rebuilding noarch. Actually there is no benefit in rebuilding i386 and x86_64 IIRC. The ABI change was only ppc? Gotta fact check... 19:19             * | warren reads mail 19:19 <        thl> | well, we IMHO should discuss the noarch issue now 19:19 <    bpepple> | jeremy: Rule must have changed. Use to be that if it was in Core, that it could be imported into Extras. 19:19 <        thl> | otherwise we are running out of time 19:19 <     jeremy> | bpepple: yeah, that changed a few months ago 19:20 <     jeremy> | warren: there are security features in 4.1 that help i386 and x86_64 19:20 <        thl> | even core seems to rebuild the noarch packages afaik 19:20             * | scop needs to flee in about 15 or so minutes, btw 19:20 <     warren> | jeremy, oh right 19:20 <        thl> | well, do we want to vote on the noarch issue? 19:21 <        thl> | Or wait another week? 19:21 <     warren> | How about this... rebuild everything binary, and noarch is a lower priority, we can decide to do that next week or later. 19:21 <        jpo> | Build noarch: +1 19:21 <        thl> | warren, that's the current situation already 19:21 <       scop> | -1 19:21 <     warren> | Build noarch: Decide later, low priority +1 19:21 <        jpo> | I am having problems with  a perl noarch packages 19:21           --> | cwickert (Christoph Wickert)  has joined #fedora-extras 19:21 <     warren> | jpo, no longer compatible with FC5 perl for some reason? 19:22 <        jpo> | appears to be perl 5.8.8 related 19:22 <     warren> | should compat symlinks in 5.8.8 be removed? 19:22 <     warren> | jpo, any bugzilla to track this issue? 19:22 <       scop> | wait until $date, assemble a list of not rebuilt to Wiki, have packagers either rebuild packages, note in Wiki why not, and if nothing happens before $date+N, "someone" rebuilds 19:23 <    warren> | thl, scop: Note that "didn't voluntarily rebuild" is not the only way to figure out who isn't active anymore. extras-commits-list can tell us too. 19:23 <        jpo> | I don't think so. I still haven't figured out the problem. 19:23 <        jpo> | warren: I placed a warning in the Perl SIGs page. 19:24 <        thl> | warren, how should that work in extras-commits-list? 19:24 <        thl> | warren, we have some packages that have selfdom upstream updates 19:24 <        thl> | take bonnie++ or tiobench for example 19:24 <        thl> | they are both older than 2 years already 19:24 <    warren> | thl, something to do with package owner, and did they checkin since 19:25 <    warren> | thl, isn't bonnie++ me? ^^ 19:25 <        thl> | warren, and tiobench is mine ;-) 19:25 <         thl> | but they serv as good example 19:25 <      warren> | I know that I'm behind 5,000 mail 19:25 <      warren> | I personally don't think this is a big issue, eventually we should do what we do in Core in every cycle, just rebuild everything and poke all maintainers. 19:26 <      warren> | However the level of expectation of responsibility for maintainers disappearing in Extras is different than core. 19:26 <         thl> | yeah 19:27 <      warren> | Maybe we can consider an automatic timeout, like "If you don't respond in X amount of time, package goes automatically into orphan."  However I wouldn't want bugzilla to stop going to the maintainer. 19:27 <      warren> | orphan mail should be going to a list for multiple people to watch.... 19:27 <         thl> | warren, sound like a plan 19:27 <      warren> | arguably that should be extras-list along with all other extras bugs, in addition to package reviews, however some people have been increasingly complaining about too much mail on that list. 19:28 <     warren> | Other teams have began using another list like foo-bugs-list, maybe we should split it out. 19:28 <        thl> | maybe 19:28 <     |Jef|> | thl: whoa are you talking about the orphans thing i brought up? 19:28 <        thl> | |Jef|, not directly 19:29 <        thl> | I think I'm going to send a separate mail to fedora-extras-list 19:29 <        thl> | "How to find out if maintainers are still active" 19:29 <        thl> | and we wait what comes out of the discussion 19:29 <        thl> | and we proceed with the rebuild as announced 19:29 <        thl> | that okay for everybody for now? 19:30 <        thl> | we can talk about hte noarch packages in the next meeting again 19:30 <     |Jef|> | thl: the stats guy is starting to poke at scripts to try to narrow potential orphaned items 19:30 <     |Jef|> | thl: in private email with me 19:31 <      warren> | separate discussion and decision item, I think *all* extras bugs should go to extras-bugs-list, and people can optionally subscribe to that. 19:31 <        thl> | |Jef|, k, thx, I'll talk to him 19:32 <        thl> | warren, I know somebody that will complain if we do that 19:32 <    warren> | thl, eh? 19:32 <        thl> | warren, he'll say "we need as much people as possible to watch the reviewers" 19:32 <        thl> | But I tend to agree 19:32 <    warren> | thl, when I say *all* extras bug mail, I don't mean removing the maintainers from direct mail, this is an additional auto-CC 19:33 <    warren> | thl, "we need as much people as possible to watch the reviewers"   I don't understand what this means. 19:33 <        thl> | warren, with the current scheme (everything to one list) everybody see the comments in the review-bugs 19:33 <        thl> | If we have a separate mailinglist for bugzilla-spam 19:34 <        thl> | then only a few will subscribe 19:34 <        thl> | and no one watches the reviewers if they do a good job 19:34 <     warren> | ah 19:34 <         thl> | But I tend to agree 19:34 <        thl> | A separte mailinglist has benefits 19:34 <     warren> | I think bug mail should go either to extras-list, or extras-bugs-list 19:34 <     warren> | I don't care which 19:35 <        thl> | warren, I'll note that in the summary 19:35 <        thl> | we can revisit this next week 19:35 <     |Jef|> | thl: on a personal note.. i already filter out the review items in extras-list into a seperate category 19:35 <    warren> | thl, thanks 19:35 <        thl> | |Jef|, hehe, you're probably not the only one doing this 19:35 <     |Jef|> | thl: i doubt highly actively people read extras-list in timestamp order without filtering 19:36 <        thl> | okay, done with this? 19:36           --- | thl has changed the topic to: FESCo Meeting in Progress --  Encourage Extras reviews 19:36 <        thl> | nirik, what's your opinion on the review day after the first one is done? 19:36 <     |Jef|> | thl: seperate lists for reviews have the advantge of web archive threading readability...if we had good web archives 19:37 <     |Jef|> | thl: opps...nevermind topic changed 19:37 <     nirik> | thl: didn't work too well. Not much activity... I guess we could try again with more advertisement. I only mailed extras list 19:37 <      nirik> | also a weekend time might work better. 19:37 <      nirik> | or we could just forget it. ;) 19:37 <      |Jef|> | nirik: let me strongly suggest..from my very experient trying to do bug days...back in the day.... you'll have to advertise more 19:38 <         thl> | nirik, yeah, we should try this further 19:38 <      warren> | I personally don't think this campaign has any chance of making a real long term difference. 19:38 <       nirik> | yeah, probibly true. 19:38 <      warren> | Realistically this goes back to the motivation of volunteers.  Volunteers only do what interests them. 19:38 <      warren> | we should instead be focusing on education 19:38 <       |Jef|> | warren: unless there is a way to get more reviewers into the pool as part of the process 19:39 <       nirik> | I can try again in a few weeks? before fc5? 19:39 <       nirik> | warren: one advantage of review days is that it might help educate people on how to do them... 19:39 <       |Jef|> | warren: what if activity during review days...helped towards getting contributor status? 19:39 <     warren> | perhaps yes 19:40 <       scop> | I need to run now. CU 19:40 <      |Jef|> | warren: so people who dont have the ability to approve could earn that ability by participating in organized review days 19:40 <     warren> | however I personally would rather invest that time into long-term benefit tools, like more documentation and examples. Review day education is only a short-term solutoin, maybe even band-aid. 19:40           <-- | scop has quit ("Leaving") 19:40 <     warren> | |Jef|, maybe, I don't know for sure 19:41 <     warren> | (about effectiveness) 19:41 <      |Jef|> | warren: is there a mechanism in place right now to get approval status that doesn't involve submitting your own package and becoming a package maintainer? 19:41 <      |Jef|> | warren: realistically 19:41 <     warren> | technically getting approval status is proving to a sponsor that you read all documentation and understand all the rules, and are technically sound. You prove it somehow. 19:42 <     warren> | packaging just was a simple way to do it in the past 19:42 <      |Jef|> | warren: "somehow" 19:42 <     warren> | we can probably expand that into example tracks 19:42 <      |Jef|> | warren: what im saying is i dont see a realistic way to do that as a reviewer 19:42 <     warren> | track A, track B, track C, only examples 19:42 <      |Jef|> | warren: review days..organized specifically to build a track record sponsors can use when judging a sponsorship request seem usefule to me 19:42 <      warren> | |Jef|, please educate me, but have you ever packaged anything or done a review yourself in Extras? 19:43 <      |Jef|> | warren: yes 19:43 <     warren> | ok, I haven't been folllowing all traffic, I don't know. 19:43 <     warren> | |Jef|, I personally as a sponsor watch activity of folks over the span of days or weeks and search google to see level of clue before making decisions. 19:43 <      |Jef|> | warren: my ratio right now is 2/1 reviews to maintained packages :-> 19:44 <      |Jef|> | warren: and im trying to keep that ratio 19:44 <     warren> | I think better documentation and training tools, and more explicitly listed examples of tracks toward sponsorship would be helpful 19:44 <     warren> | "review day" needs active participation from the limited time of sponsors, actively engaged in training, so this might be a losing proposition and a short-term solution 19:45 <        thl> | warren, it's better then nothing 19:45 <      |Jef|> | warren: indeed.. review days would need to have sponsors participating to be used for recruitment 19:45 <     warren> | sorry, I shouldn't be discouraging. I'll attempt to attack the problem from the other side. 19:45 <     warren> | multiple fronts... 19:45 <      |Jef|> | warren: and my answer to that is... more sponsors ! 19:46 <        thl> | |Jef|, nominate them 19:46 <     |Jef|> | thl: i can nominate sponsors? 19:46 <        thl> | |Jef|, drop me a mail with some names 19:46 <        thl> | Sure 19:46 <     |Jef|> | thl: i dont have to be a sponsor to nominate more sponsors? 19:46 <     warren> | |Jef|, more sponsors alone cannot solve the problem, you need the right people with the right motivation, and the only way to do that is by education 19:46 <        thl> | I don't think that is required 19:47 <     warren> | I don't particularly see review days as being effective in that. It is too time consuming for the existing experts. 19:47 <        thl> | |Jef|, but the sponsors and/or FESCo will discuss the names 19:47           <-- | cweyl has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)) 19:47 <        thl> | guys, we're running out of time 19:47 <     warren> | |Jef|, thl: I do see value in a nomination list, but perhaps collecting info and URLs of their work would help FESCO make quicker decisions with low time overhead 19:47 <        thl> | does anyone want has anything else important to that topic? 19:48           --> | JSchmitt (Jochen Schmitt)  has joined #fedora-extras 19:48 <      |Jef|> | warren: i see your point about tracks... i honestly dont have a clear understanding of how to get sponsorship as a pure reviewer 19:48 <      |Jef|> | warren: its much more clear how to get it by trying to be a package maintainer 19:48 <     warren> | |Jef|, then examples of that can be added in tracks 19:48 <     warren> | being a package maintainer has never been a hard and fast requirement, the documentation now is very unclear on that and maybe contradcitory to what I've always been thinking 19:49 <      |Jef|> | warren: no not a requirement... but its more clear how to work towards sponsership as a maintainer 19:49 <        thl> | |Jef|, could you help to write a "How to become a sponsor" page in the wiki 19:49 <        thl> | |Jef|, I can help if you need input 19:49 <     |Jef|> | thl: if i knew how 19:49 <     warren> | I think perhaps that owning a package gives you a stake in it, it is difficult to get someone involved enthusiastically if they don't "own" something. Volunteer motivation 19:50 <     |Jef|> | thl: i can make up a process to become a sponsor and write a work of fiction 19:50 <     warren> | |Jef|, write to the list first please, I can combine the problem with my thoughts then redo the existing doc 19:50 <        thl> | warren, sounds like a good idea 19:51 <        thl> | |Jef| ? 19:51 <     |Jef|> | thl: i'll write something up for the list tonite 19:51 <        thl> | |Jef|, thx 19:52 <        thl> | okay, moving on 19:52 <      warren> | I'm almost out of time 19:52           --- | thl has changed the topic to:  FESCo Meeting in Progress  -- Weekly sponsorship nomination 19:52 <        thl> | John Mahowald / jpmahowald ? 19:52 <        thl> | warren? 19:52 <     warren> | He's doing OK, I need to look deeper 19:53 <     warren> | (one benefit of manually approving branches is it force me to read all reviews.   One detriment is that I'm letting ignacio's work stagnate...) 19:53 <        thl> | hehe 19:53 <        thl> | okay, any other nominations? 19:53 <    warren> | thl, don't ask me to decide alone, but I can make a decision by next week. If I'm silent then then I'm +1 19:54 <        thl> | warren, scop also said +1 on FESCo list 19:54 <        thl> | and he remindet me to mention jpmahowald 19:55 <        thl> | reminded 19:55 <        thl> | okay, then next week 19:55           <-- | finalzone has quit ("Download Gaim: http://gaim.sourceforge.net/") 19:55           --- | thl has changed the topic to: FESCo Meeting in Progress  -- free discussion 19:56 <    warren> | thl, I'm liking your meeting organizational style and following up on points. 19:56 <      nirik> | yeah... you're doing great thl. :) 19:56 <        thl> | well, the meetings were shorted in gregdek's days 19:57 <     warren> | thl, you're inspiring us to get to conclusions 19:57 <         thl> | warren, thx :) 19:57 <        thl> | nirik, thx, too 19:57 <     warren> | I'm out of time 19:57 <     warren> | thanks 19:57 <     warren> | everyone 19:57 <       jwb> | thl, i especially like the summary notes being sent to the -extras list 19:57 <        thl> | I's good to also get some positive feedback now and then ;-) 19:57 <      warren> | I like the /topic changing 19:58 <         jwb> | that too 19:58 <         thl> | anyway: does anyone have anything left to discuss? 19:58 <         thl> | Or can we call it a day? 19:59              * | thl will close the meeting in 30 19:59              * | thl will close the meeting in 15 19:59              * | thl will close the meeting in 10 19:59              * | thl will close the meeting in 5 19:59 <         jwb> | one thing 19:59 <         thl> | :) 19:59 <        jwb> | oh, nevermind 19:59             * | thl waits 19:59 <        jwb> | i'll wait for next week 19:59 <        thl> | jwb, shoot 20:00 <        jwb> | wondering about the 'scratch' repo idea that was resurfaced on the extras list today 20:00 <        thl> | jwb, I send a mail to the list 20:00 <        thl> | jwb, I like the idea 20:00 <        thl> | jwb, But somebody has to work out the details 20:00 <        jwb> | was just about to say i'll wait to see how conversation goes and then go to fesco :) 20:00 <         thl> | jwb, "somebody" can be any active extras contributor 20:01 <       |Jef|> | thl: the deeper question is, is it worth making mock builds a hard requirement for review passing 20:01 <         thl> | |Jef|, the real question imho is: 20:01 <         thl> | is a 'scratch' repo possible at all? 20:01 <         jwb> | i'll see if i can look at what would be needed in plague itself 20:02 <       |Jef|> | thl: once something is submitted... that would just be a special branch 20:02 <         jwb> | i don't think we want to go that route 20:02 <       |Jef|> | thl: for pre-submission review... i have no idea 20:02 <         thl> | |Jef|, well, I'm not sure on this 20:03 <         thl> | |Jef|, who checks what is uploaded to the buildsys? 20:03 <         thl> | |Jef|, security is the buzz-word here 20:04 <      |Jef|> | thl: i realize... and reviewer who already has cvs commit access would have to pushing it in 20:04 <        thl> | |Jef|, yeah, that could work 20:04 <        thl> | |Jef|, I'll mention it in the summary 20:05           <-- | kbsingh has quit ("HomeTime") 20:05 <        thl> | and we'll see if there comes out anything further from the current discussion on the list 20:05 <        thl> | okay for everybody? 20:05             * | thl will close the meeting in 15 20:05 <      |Jef|> | thl: scratch post-submission might be more tractable 20:06 <        thl> | |Jef|, yeah 20:06 <        thl> | well, let's stop for today 20:06             * | thl will close the meeting in 5 20:06 <        thl> | MARK Meeting end 20:06 <        thl> | thx everybody