[gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/council/meeting-logs: 20081113-summary.txt 20081113.txt

[gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/council/meeting-logs: 20081113-summary.txt 20081113.txt

[Thomas Anderson (gentoofan23)]

gentoofan23    09/02/17 21:58:12

  Added:                20081113-summary.txt 20081113.txt
  Log:
  Add log and meeting summary for November 13, 2008

Revision  Changes    Path
1.1                  xml/htdocs/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20081113-summary.txt

file : http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20081113-summary.txt?rev=1.1&view=markup
plain: http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20081113-summary.txt?rev=1.1&content-type=text/plain

Index: 20081113-summary.txt
===================================================================
Roll call:
==========
dberkholz: absent, 40 minutes lates
Halcy0n: absent
Cardoe: here
dertobi123: here
lu_zero: here
Betelgeuse: here
jokey: absent, slacker

Topics:
=======

    No topics for the meeting were proposed.

Open Bugs:
==========

    Slacker Arches(bug 234706):
        
        Mark sent a proposal to gentoo-dev about this. No other discussion or
	decision.

    GLEP 55(.ebuild-$eapi extension, bug 234713):
        
        Conclusion:
            This bug has been RESO LATER'ed pending concrete need and
            consensus(GLEP 54 being the main one).

    Code of Conduct Update(Proctors no longer exist, bug 185572):
        
        Conclusion:
            Jorge(jmbsvicetto) will talk to other members of devrel about this
            bug.

    Extent of Code of Conduct enforcement(Banning people entirely from Gentoo,
    bug 234716):

        Conclusion:
            Userrel is responsible for establishing these policies. Since each
            developer is also a user at some point, these policies will apply
            to developers as well as users.

    GLEP 54(-scm package suffix. bug 234711):
    
        Conclusion:
            No decision. David Leverton commented that portage's current
            method for identifying 'live' ebuilds was hackish, as it depends
            on the list of inherited eclasses, which could change. Also, it
	    was pointed out that some ebuilds use scm eclasses to check out
	    specific revisions(mythtv). PROPERTIES=live was considered
            as another option.



1.1                  xml/htdocs/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20081113.txt

file : http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20081113.txt?rev=1.1&view=markup
plain: http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20081113.txt?rev=1.1&content-type=text/plain

Index: 20081113.txt
===================================================================
<13.11.2008 20:01> <@Betelgeuse> Cardoe, dberkholz, Halcyon, jokey, lu_zero 
<13.11.2008 20:01> <@lu_zero> hi Betelgeuse
<13.11.2008 20:03> <@Betelgeuse> So the agenda is to look at open issues again?
<13.11.2008 20:04> <@dertobi123> with a turnout of 3 out 7 ...
<13.11.2008 20:04> <@Cardoe> hello
<13.11.2008 20:04> <@dertobi123> 4 out 7 then :P
<13.11.2008 20:04> <@Cardoe> had to use the restroom, sorry
<13.11.2008 20:04> <@lu_zero> ^^
<13.11.2008 20:04> <@Betelgeuse> dertobi123: well dberkholz set the topic a little while ago
<13.11.2008 20:04> <@lu_zero> who's missing?
<13.11.2008 20:05>  * dertobi123 tried to call jokey on his cellphone - no luck 
<13.11.2008 20:05> <@Cardoe> forgot the meeting started an hour earlier with the time change here in the states
<13.11.2008 20:05> <@Betelgeuse> Halcyon, jokey, dberkholz 
<13.11.2008 20:05> <@Cardoe> I'm willing to bet they did as well
<13.11.2008 20:05> <@dertobi123> Betelgeuse: yep, sure
<13.11.2008 20:09> <@dertobi123> so, how do we proceed?
<13.11.2008 20:09> <@Betelgeuse> well at least there's more than half of us here 
<13.11.2008 20:10> <@Cardoe> I have nothing to report on as-needed
<13.11.2008 20:10> <@lu_zero> I'd wait 20min
<13.11.2008 20:10> <@Cardoe> None of the users wanted to contribute
<13.11.2008 20:11> < darksiide> define 'contribute'
<13.11.2008 20:12> <@dertobi123> lu_zero: *shrugs* ... i think that won't help
<13.11.2008 20:12> <@Betelgeuse> I wasn't in charge of any of the  issues.
<13.11.2008 20:12> <@Betelgeuse> lu_zero, dertobi123 Did you have any?
<13.11.2008 20:12> < jmbsvicetto> Cardoe: flameeyes is/was building his system with forced --as-needed on the specs - so he might have some info
<13.11.2008 20:12> <@lu_zero> no
<13.11.2008 20:12> <@dertobi123> Betelgeuse: no ...
<13.11.2008 20:12> <@lu_zero> I'm prodding diego right now
<13.11.2008 20:12> <@Betelgeuse> Then not much we can do without dberkholz, Halcyon around
<13.11.2008 20:13> <@Cardoe> Well we can assign some new issues
<13.11.2008 20:13> <@lu_zero> I didn't further my alternate gleps
<13.11.2008 20:13> <@dertobi123> Cardoe: yep
<13.11.2008 20:13> <@Cardoe> lu_zero: You want to take over bug #234711?
<13.11.2008 20:13> <@lu_zero> since zmedico autoset for live ebuild sound to me a good solution for at least one problem
<13.11.2008 20:13> < Willikins> Cardoe: https://bugs.gentoo.org/234711 "GLEP 54: scm package version suffix"; Gentoo Linux, Unspecified; NEW; dberkholz@g.o:council@g.o
<13.11.2008 20:13> <@dertobi123> shall we gave a quick view at the open bugs and it's current state?
<13.11.2008 20:13> <@lu_zero> ok
<13.11.2008 20:14> <@lu_zero> Cardoe I could be considered overbiased on it
<13.11.2008 20:14> <@Cardoe> lu_zero: alright well let's work on getting that finalized and get the work for that ticket to be wrapped up
<13.11.2008 20:14> <@Cardoe> alright
<13.11.2008 20:14> <@Cardoe> Do you still have your alternative glep handy?
<13.11.2008 20:14> <@lu_zero> Cardoe it's in my devspace
<13.11.2008 20:14> <@Cardoe> Betelgeuse? dertobi123? You guys wanna take GLEP 54?
<13.11.2008 20:15> <@dertobi123> it fits best for lu_zero i think
<13.11.2008 20:15> <@lu_zero> http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero/glep/
<13.11.2008 20:15> <@Betelgeuse> Cardoe: I would rather not take any stuff if possible.
<13.11.2008 20:15> <@Betelgeuse> Cardoe: Can take stuff when we have another recruiters.
<13.11.2008 20:15> <@Cardoe> Betelgeuse: well it's more like being the council's point man
<13.11.2008 20:15> <@Cardoe> ok
<13.11.2008 20:15> <@Cardoe> dertobi123: ?
<13.11.2008 20:15> <@lu_zero> I'd open a bug about recruiters for council and assign it to Betelgeuse
<13.11.2008 20:15> <@lu_zero> so he could use it to track the situation
<13.11.2008 20:16> <@dertobi123> Cardoe: ?
<13.11.2008 20:16> <@lu_zero> and we'll have to look at it every 2 weeks ^^
<13.11.2008 20:16> <@Betelgeuse> lu_zero: Well can the council do anything concrete for the situation?
<13.11.2008 20:16> <@Betelgeuse> I have a couple people interested so let's just hope they deliver.
<13.11.2008 20:16> <@lu_zero> Betelgeuse sounds great
<13.11.2008 20:19> <@dertobi123> so we have #234711 for luca, right?
<13.11.2008 20:19> <@lu_zero> if you all agree about that
<13.11.2008 20:19> <@dertobi123> guess we do ;)
<13.11.2008 20:19> <@lu_zero> I'll try to update my alternate proposal and document the portage status
<13.11.2008 20:19> <@Cardoe> lu_zero: sounds good
<13.11.2008 20:19> <@Cardoe> lu_zero: re-assign it to yourself please
<13.11.2008 20:20> <@Cardoe> and CC the council
<13.11.2008 20:20> <@lu_zero> doing
<13.11.2008 20:20> <@dertobi123> ok
<13.11.2008 20:20> <@dertobi123> bug #234706 is the next one then
<13.11.2008 20:20> < Willikins> dertobi123: https://bugs.gentoo.org/234706 "Slacker arches"; Gentoo Linux, Unspecified; NEW; dberkholz@g.o:halcy0n@g.o
<13.11.2008 20:21> <@dertobi123> current state: proposal sent to -dev, discussion ongoing
<13.11.2008 20:21> <@Cardoe> Halcyon has posted his proposal to the ML and it's being discussed
<13.11.2008 20:21> <@dertobi123> yep ;)
<13.11.2008 20:21> <@Cardoe> !herd devrel
<13.11.2008 20:21> <@Cardoe> !expn devrel
<13.11.2008 20:21> < Willikins> Cardoe: devrel = (private)
<13.11.2008 20:22> <@lu_zero> Mid-air collision detected!
<13.11.2008 20:22> <@lu_zero> bad Cardoe =P
<13.11.2008 20:22> <@Cardoe> bug #185572 is waiting on devrel
<13.11.2008 20:22> < Willikins> Cardoe: https://bugs.gentoo.org/185572 "As the proctors no longer exist the code of conduct needs an upate"; Doc Other, Project-specific documentation; NEW; neddyseagoon@g.o:devrel@g.o
<13.11.2008 20:22> <@Cardoe> dberkholz isn't around to discuss bug #237381
<13.11.2008 20:22> < Willikins> Cardoe: https://bugs.gentoo.org/237381 "Document appeals process"; Gentoo Linux, Unspecified; NEW; dberkholz@g.o:dberkholz@g.o
<13.11.2008 20:23> < jmbsvicetto> Cardoe: I'll talk with other members of devrel about 185572
<13.11.2008 20:23> <@Cardoe> jmbsvicetto: thank you
<13.11.2008 20:25> <@dertobi123> so we have bug #234713 and bug #234716 left
<13.11.2008 20:25> < Willikins> dertobi123: https://bugs.gentoo.org/234713 "GLEP 55: Use EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (.ebuild-EAPI)"; Gentoo Linux, Unspecified; NEW; dberkholz@g.o:council@g.o
<13.11.2008 20:25> <@dertobi123> bug #234716
<13.11.2008 20:25> < Willikins> dertobi123: https://bugs.gentoo.org/234716 "Extent of Code of Conduct enforcement"; Gentoo Linux, Unspecified; NEW; dberkholz@g.o:council@g.o
<13.11.2008 20:25> <@Betelgeuse> dertobi123: for GLEP 55 I don't think there is any change 
<13.11.2008 20:26> <@Cardoe> for 234716, I'd like to see some members of userrel step up
<13.11.2008 20:26> <@Cardoe> !expn userrel
<13.11.2008 20:26> < Willikins> Cardoe: userrel = (private)
<13.11.2008 20:26> <@dertobi123> Betelgeuse: dito ... i see no need for glep 55 now
<13.11.2008 20:27> <@dertobi123> for 234716 discussions took place months ago, noone seems to be interested in that bug/problem these days
<13.11.2008 20:27> <@Cardoe> I've commented on every bug
<13.11.2008 20:28> <@dertobi123> thanks Cardoe
<13.11.2008 20:28> <@Cardoe> Does anyone have any other topics to bring up?
<13.11.2008 20:29> <@Betelgeuse> What to do with slacker marks?
<13.11.2008 20:29> < fmccor> dertobi123, I thought much of 234716 had been resolved one way or another.  I am a member of userrel, but I for one have zero interest in revisiting any of that.
<13.11.2008 20:29> <@Cardoe> fmccor: what has been resolved?
<13.11.2008 20:30> <@Cardoe> fmccor: do you guys have a firm policy or document in hand that can be linked to?
<13.11.2008 20:30> <@Cardoe> I honestly would like to vote 234716 be put in the hands of userrel
<13.11.2008 20:30> <@Cardoe> Because at some point or another, every Gentoo developer is a user as well
<13.11.2008 20:30> <@Cardoe> so the same policies apply to them
<13.11.2008 20:31> <@dertobi123> would that help to get that bug resolved?
<13.11.2008 20:31> < fmccor> Cardoe, I don't.  I think some of it was considered infeasible, and parts of it are addressed now at retirement, but I don't recall which Council meeting discussed the second.
<13.11.2008 20:31> <@dertobi123> instead of reassigning to userrel@ i'd say mark this one as cantfix, from a technical pov
<13.11.2008 20:32> < jmbsvicetto> Cardoe: A few of us have already exchanged "quite" some mails about that subject
<13.11.2008 20:32> < jmbsvicetto> Cardoe: 234716
<13.11.2008 20:32> <@Cardoe> jmbsvicetto: Where'd you guys get?
<13.11.2008 20:32> < jmbsvicetto> I mean all those mails between userrel, devrel, council and trustees
<13.11.2008 20:32> < fmccor> jmbsvicetto, I assure you I am not going to revisit that episode in Gentoo. :)
<13.11.2008 20:33> < jmbsvicetto> fmccor: I'm just saying we already "watched" that show ;)
<13.11.2008 20:33> < fmccor> jmbsvicetto, Indeed. :)
<13.11.2008 20:33> <@Cardoe> so from userrel and devrel's perspective it's a cantfix?
<13.11.2008 20:33> < jmbsvicetto> I don't think it's a cantfix
<13.11.2008 20:34> < jmbsvicetto> I think it's mostly a arenotwillingtofix
<13.11.2008 20:34> < NeddySeagoon> jmbsvicetto, don't loose the knowledge - summarise it on the bug and resolve CANTFIX.  Then its there for next time
<13.11.2008 20:34> <@Cardoe> That's the best solution
<13.11.2008 20:35> <@dertobi123> :)
<13.11.2008 20:35> < NeddySeagoon> jmbsvicetto, there will be a niext time ... :(
<13.11.2008 20:35> < jmbsvicetto> Cardoe: There are substantial "philosophical" divergences about this subject inside all those teams (and likely all of Gentoo)
<13.11.2008 20:35> <@Cardoe> jmbsvicetto: write that on the bug please
<13.11.2008 20:36> <@dberkholz> crap, time change.
<13.11.2008 20:36> <@lu_zero> ^^
<13.11.2008 20:36> <@dertobi123> heh
<13.11.2008 20:36> <@dberkholz> google calendar is wrong
<13.11.2008 20:36> <@lu_zero> you are still in time to discuss your bugs ^^
<13.11.2008 20:37> < jmbsvicetto> Cardoe: I'll add a few comments there later
<13.11.2008 20:37> <@dberkholz> i would blame flameeyes but he resigned
<13.11.2008 20:37> <@Cardoe> jmbsvicetto: thank you
<13.11.2008 20:37> <@Cardoe> dberkholz: time change got me too
<13.11.2008 20:38> <@Cardoe> I'm willing to bet the same situation for Mark as well
<13.11.2008 20:38> <@dertobi123> for markus too
<13.11.2008 20:38> <@Cardoe> dberkholz: if ya want, take a minute or two to go through the scrollback
<13.11.2008 20:39> <@dertobi123> i guess
<13.11.2008 20:39> <@Cardoe> dertobi123: is he in a place where the time changed?
<13.11.2008 20:39> <@dertobi123> Cardoe: same timezone i'm in
<13.11.2008 20:39> <@dertobi123> though the change was some ~14 days ago
<13.11.2008 20:39> <@dertobi123> *shrugs*
<13.11.2008 20:40> <@dberkholz> anyone keeping a running summary?
<13.11.2008 20:40> <@dertobi123> Cardoe: seeing your comment on 234713 - i think that's a perfect summary for marking this one later
<13.11.2008 20:40> <@dertobi123> dberkholz: i can send a short summary tomorrow
<13.11.2008 20:40> <@dberkholz> i'm wondering for the purposes of catching up
<13.11.2008 20:41> <@dberkholz> if nobody's started one at all, i'll just write it
<13.11.2008 20:41> <@dertobi123> well, there's not that much to note, sadly
<13.11.2008 20:41> <@Cardoe> dberkholz: I was going to write one at the end
<13.11.2008 20:41> <@Cardoe> dertobi123: O
<13.11.2008 20:42> <@Cardoe> dertobi123: I'd have to agree
<13.11.2008 20:42> <@Cardoe> I'd vote for marking #234713 as LATER
<13.11.2008 20:42> <@Cardoe> Anyone else?
<13.11.2008 20:42> <@dertobi123> <- too
<13.11.2008 20:43> <@lu_zero> fine from my side
<13.11.2008 20:44> <@dberkholz> that's fine with me
<13.11.2008 20:48> <@Betelgeuse> fine
<13.11.2008 20:48> <@Betelgeuse> but then again I don't really like LATER in general
<13.11.2008 20:48> <@Betelgeuse> I don't see anything wrong with open bugs
<13.11.2008 20:49> <@Betelgeuse> in this case LATER works as I doubt it gets forgotten
<13.11.2008 20:49> <@dberkholz> i would like open bugs assigned to council@ to be only things requiring action from us
<13.11.2008 20:49> <@dertobi123> open bugs would be regularly checked, LATER bugs would need to be reopened if action is required
<13.11.2008 20:50> <@dertobi123> dberkholz: exactly
<13.11.2008 20:50> <@dberkholz> on that note, anyone mind if i reassign bug 234716 to userrel for the meanwhile?
<13.11.2008 20:50> < Willikins> https://bugs.gentoo.org/234716 "Extent of Code of Conduct enforcement"; Gentoo Linux, Unspecified; NEW; dberkholz@g.o:council@g.o
<13.11.2008 20:51> <@dberkholz> and perhaps we should go LATER or WONTFIX on bug #234711 too
<13.11.2008 20:51> < Willikins> https://bugs.gentoo.org/234711 "GLEP 54: scm package version suffix"; Gentoo Linux, Unspecified; NEW; dberkholz@g.o:lu_zero@g.o
<13.11.2008 20:52> <@Cardoe> for 234716 gonna say
<13.11.2008 20:53> <@Cardoe> "The council charges the userrel team with establishing these policies and guidelines and enforcing them. Since, each developer is also a user, the userrel policies affect them as well."
<13.11.2008 20:53> <@Cardoe> good?
<13.11.2008 20:53> <@lu_zero> sounds fine
<13.11.2008 20:54> <@lu_zero> got Diego on jabber
<13.11.2008 20:54> <@Cardoe> lu_zero: same here
<13.11.2008 20:54> <@Betelgeuse> yes
<13.11.2008 20:55> <@dberkholz> i'm ok with that
<13.11.2008 21:00> <@Cardoe> alright. posted
<13.11.2008 21:00> <@dberkholz> since a few of us were running late from daylight savings, anyone want to keep going till 21:30?
<13.11.2008 21:01> <@Cardoe> sure
<13.11.2008 21:01> <@dberkholz> or sooner, if we get through the couple of other bugs
<13.11.2008 21:01> <@Cardoe> I figured some users and developers might have made the same mistake so let's keep the floor opened as well
<13.11.2008 21:01> <@lu_zero> ok
<13.11.2008 21:01> <@dertobi123> guess we were through the bugs already, but well ...
<13.11.2008 21:02> <@dertobi123> except 237381
<13.11.2008 21:02> <@dberkholz> i'm still working on documenting the appeals thing, most of my gentoo time has gone into planning for a distributed vcs
<13.11.2008 21:02> <@dberkholz> if anyone wants to help draft something up, you're welcome to work with me
<13.11.2008 21:04> <@dberkholz> speak up now. =)
<13.11.2008 21:06> <@dberkholz> ok, then, i'll keep it going.
<13.11.2008 21:06> <@lu_zero> ^^;
<13.11.2008 21:07> <@dberkholz> my main other question was should we just close the GLEP 54 bug somehow, because of the live sets?
<13.11.2008 21:07> <@lu_zero> dberkholz I tend to agree about this
<13.11.2008 21:07> <@dberkholz> or are we waiting for someone to definitely say it's obsolete?
<13.11.2008 21:07> <@lu_zero> I'd wait other 2 weeks and then close the but
<13.11.2008 21:07> <@Cardoe> I was kind of waiting for Zac to say it's obsolete
<13.11.2008 21:08> < dleverton> Why would it be obsolete because of sets?
<13.11.2008 21:09> <@dberkholz> the concrete reasoning presented for glep 54 is that you could use it to reinstall live ebuilds periodically. if a live set does this already, what additional purpose does it serve?
<13.11.2008 21:10> < dleverton> It helps to identify which packages should be in the set in the first place, for one thing.
<13.11.2008 21:10> < jmbsvicetto> dberkholz: Portage still needs a way to only reinstall packages if there was an update in the source tree
<13.11.2008 21:10> <@lu_zero> dleverton portage does that already
<13.11.2008 21:10> < dleverton> The other reason is to provide sane ordering relative to non-live ebuilds.
<13.11.2008 21:11> < dleverton> lu_zero: IIRC it does that by recognising particular eclasses, which is rather hackish.
<13.11.2008 21:11> <@lu_zero> works perfectly
<13.11.2008 21:11> < dleverton> There's talk of introducing PROPERTIES=live support, which is better, but still not as good as -scm IMHO.
<13.11.2008 21:11> < dleverton> It doesn't work when someone introduces a new scm eclass, unless either portage is updated or the user modifies the st definition himself.
<13.11.2008 21:12> < jmbsvicetto> dleverton: There's a proposal to add a live PROPERTIES
<13.11.2008 21:16> <@dberkholz> and it won't work for ebuilds using a new scm unless they're named as such ... either way involves a change somewhere or other..
<13.11.2008 21:16> <@Cardoe> dberkholz: -scm tag or PROPERTIES=live?
<13.11.2008 21:17> <@Cardoe> Cause I would think -scm would be more fraile
<13.11.2008 21:17> <@lu_zero> and having the eclasses for live ebuild reside on a directory apart would solve that
<13.11.2008 21:17> < dleverton> If we go with -scm, then that'll be the rule for live ebuilds, end of story.
<13.11.2008 21:17> <@lu_zero> dleverton mine is simpler, just a specific path.
<13.11.2008 21:17> < dleverton> If we keep with recognising particular eclasses, then things have to be updated whenever someone wants to add a new one.
<13.11.2008 21:18> <@lu_zero> no
<13.11.2008 21:18> < dleverton> No what?
<13.11.2008 21:18> <@lu_zero> if you move all the live eclasses in the same paths
<13.11.2008 21:18> <@lu_zero> you don't have to do anything else
<13.11.2008 21:20> < dleverton> Well, you also have to consider ebuilds that check out a particular revision or tag, and therefore shouldn't be considered live even though they use a scm eclass.
<13.11.2008 21:20> < dleverton> But I think at this point, the potential future solution is between -scm and PROPERTIES=live
<13.11.2008 21:21> <@lu_zero> not really
<13.11.2008 21:21> <@lu_zero> if they checkout something specific they should use a static snapshot and not hammering the upstream server.
<13.11.2008 21:22> <@dberkholz> regarding upstream code updates, i just stumbled across bug #182028
<13.11.2008 21:22> < Willikins> dberkholz: https://bugs.gentoo.org/182028 "[Future EAPI] About managing CVS/SUBVERSION version of software"; Gentoo Hosted Projects, PMS/EAPI; NEW; StormByte@gmail.com:pms-bugs@g.o
<13.11.2008 21:22> < dleverton> lu_zero: "should", perhaps, but there are ebuilds that use the eclasses for that.
<13.11.2008 21:22> < dleverton> lu_zero: and for things like local overlays, it's far more convenient than making a snapshot manually.
<13.11.2008 21:22> <@Cardoe> lu_zero: MythTV is a perfect example of a package that downloads straight from SVN
<13.11.2008 21:23> <@Cardoe> upstream prefers people use straight SVN
<13.11.2008 21:23> <@lu_zero> Cardoe that's hammering upstream resources.
<13.11.2008 21:23> <@lu_zero> and isn't really that kind
<13.11.2008 21:23> <@dberkholz> not if upstream specifically requests that ...
<13.11.2008 21:23> <@Cardoe> lu_zero: upstream has a fit when I made tarballs
<13.11.2008 21:23> <@Cardoe> they want users to use svn
<13.11.2008 21:23> <@lu_zero> live svn
<13.11.2008 21:23> <@Cardoe> yes
<13.11.2008 21:23> <@lu_zero> then it's unrelated to the discussion with dleverton
<13.11.2008 21:24> <@Cardoe> their own shipping tarballs contain the necessary .svn stuff to just svn up
<13.11.2008 21:24> <@Cardoe> lu_zero: well MythTV are specific revisions
<13.11.2008 21:26> <@lu_zero> then it's pointless having them checked out from svn
<13.11.2008 21:26> <@dberkholz> ok, we're off on a tangent here
<13.11.2008 21:26> <@lu_zero> apparently
<13.11.2008 21:27> <@dberkholz> obviously there is still some debate about the best way to move forward, so let's leave the bug open.
<13.11.2008 21:27> <@dberkholz> i'm putting a quick summary in there
<13.11.2008 21:29> <@dberkholz> that seems like enough for today
<13.11.2008 21:29> <@dberkholz> want to end this?
<13.11.2008 21:30> <@Cardoe> lu_zero: it's about 100mb of data
<13.11.2008 21:30> <@Cardoe> dberkholz: sounds good