[gentoo-council] Council meeting summary for 8 November 2007

[gentoo-council] Council meeting summary for 8 November 2007

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 156 bytes --]

Hi all,

Here is the summary from today's council meeting. The complete log will
show up at http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/ shortly.

Thanks,
Donnie

[-- Attachment #2: 20071108-summary.txt --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 4723 bytes --]

amne        here
betelgeuse  absent (1 hour late)
dberkholz   here
flameeyes   here
lu_zero     here
vapier      absent (no show)
uberlord    resigned
jokey       here (replacing uberlord)

Agenda:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/52772

Also continuing discussion on CoC enforcement. Proposal:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.council/82

==============================================================================

Empty council slot: vote for Jokey to happen on gentoo-council list
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Jokey is the candidate to replace uberlord [1], and it requires a 
unanimous council vote [2]. Since not all council members are present, 
we'll do this vote on the gentoo-council list. All 6 present council 
members supported Jokey's addition.

1. http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20070208-summary.txt
2. http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/voting-logs/council-2007-vote-distribution.txt


Daylight savings change: no slacker marks
-----------------------------------------

In the US and Europe, 2000 UTC shifted by an hour in local time. The 
email announcement was wrong, so we will not give slacker marks to the 
two absent council members.

vapier needs to fix his script before the next announcement.


EAPI=1 approved for use in the main tree
----------------------------------------

Stable portage version 2.1.3.12 supports EAPI=1. It's now officially OK 
to start using it in the main tree. From the ebuild ChangeLog for 
portage:

  This release is the first to have support for EAPI-1 (#194876), which 
  includes SLOT dependencies (#174405), IUSE defaults (#174410), and 
  ECONF_SOURCE support for the default src_compile function (#179380). 
  Package maintainers should carefully consider the backward compatibility 
  consequences before defining EAPI="1" in any ebuilds, especially if
  other packages depend on those ebuilds. See the ebuild(5) and emerge(1) 
  manual pages for EAPI related documentation.

EAPI=1 features are documented in PMS as well as the man pages, but they 
are not yet documented in the devmanual or the dev handbook.

Code of Conduct enforcement proposal: generally positive feedback
-----------------------------------------------------------------

dberkholz sent out a proposal this morning [1], so we just discussed it 
today instead of voting. Initial feedback from council members was 
positive. Some concerns came up on the list about time zone differences 
and coverage, which were brought up again during the meeting.

People generally agreed that although the environment is better now, it 
hasn't been before and won't always be good.

lu_zero brought up the point that since things are fairly good now, we 
don't need to rush through this process and we can take our time and do 
things right.

Council support for the team's actions should not be as controversial 
with the requirement that all actions be private.

The team will need to create the tools to deal with the actions it needs 
to take (short-term moderation on IRC, mailing lists, and Bugzilla). 
This could happen during the initial training period suggested on the 
gentoo-council list.

If there's already existing moderation somewhere (for example many of 
the #gentoo-* IRC channels or the forums), the team will first liaise 
with them rather than preempt them. All official Gentoo forums must 
adhere to the CoC, however; having their own moderation does not exclude 
them from following Gentoo's standards as a whole.

The expectation is that successive actions against the same person will 
increase in length, eventually reaching the 3-day cutoff that requires 
council approval and forwarding to devrel/userrel. The idea is that if 
someone keeps violating the CoC after a given length of moderation, it 
apparently wasn't enough so it shouldn't be repeated.

Next month, we will vote on a concrete proposal.

1. http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.council/82


Baselayout-2: uberlord will continue to maintain it
---------------------------------------------------

lu_zero asked whether we had anything to do about baselayout-2 since 
uberlord resigned. He's continuing to maintain it in a git repository 
and will remain upstream for it. More details will emerge over time.

kingtaco raised the question of trusting external releases and hosts. 
Some responses suggested that using git may prevent the malicious host, 
because of the possibility of GPG-signed tags. He mentioned the 
possibility of the infra team hosting Gentoo-critical repositories with 
access by non-Gentoo developers. It's just an idea at this point, but 
he's going to talk to the rest of the infra team.

Re: [gentoo-council] Council meeting summary for 8 November 2007

[Roy Marples]

On Thu, 2007-11-08 at 14:25 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Here is the summary from today's council meeting. The complete log will
> show up at http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/ shortly.



> Baselayout-2: uberlord will continue to maintain it
> ---------------------------------------------------

> lu_zero asked whether we had anything to do about baselayout-2 since 
> uberlord resigned. He's continuing to maintain it in a git repository 
> and will remain upstream for it. More details will emerge over time.

> kingtaco raised the question of trusting external releases and hosts. 
> Some responses suggested that using git may prevent the malicious 
> host, 
> because of the possibility of GPG-signed tags. He mentioned the 
> possibility of the infra team hosting Gentoo-critical repositories
> with 
> access by non-Gentoo developers. It's just an idea at this point, but 
> he's going to talk to the rest of the infra team.

They should be treated in the same way as any other package. Or do you
trust a gentoo dev MORE than say a gcc/glibc/kernel/bash/foo dev? If so,
why?
More to the point, if said dev then joins Gentoo, do you implicitly
trust that dev more?

As I've gone the other way, do you now trust me less? I'd like to know
why also :)

At the end of the day, open source is about quite a bit of trust really,
regardless of who you are or who (if anyone) you're coding for at the
time.

And as it may become an external project, it makes things easier to drop
it and say move to einit, init-ng or upstart which has been discussed
before.

Thanks

Roy

-- 
gentoo-council@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-council] Council meeting summary for 8 November 2007

[Donnie Berkholz]

On 07:53 Fri 09 Nov     , Roy Marples wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 2007-11-08 at 14:25 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > Here is the summary from today's council meeting. The complete log will
> > show up at http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/ shortly.
> 
> 
> 
> > Baselayout-2: uberlord will continue to maintain it
> > ---------------------------------------------------
> 
> > lu_zero asked whether we had anything to do about baselayout-2 since 
> > uberlord resigned. He's continuing to maintain it in a git repository 
> > and will remain upstream for it. More details will emerge over time.
> 
> > kingtaco raised the question of trusting external releases and hosts. 
> > Some responses suggested that using git may prevent the malicious 
> > host, 
> > because of the possibility of GPG-signed tags. He mentioned the 
> > possibility of the infra team hosting Gentoo-critical repositories
> > with 
> > access by non-Gentoo developers. It's just an idea at this point, but 
> > he's going to talk to the rest of the infra team.
> 
> They should be treated in the same way as any other package. Or do you
> trust a gentoo dev MORE than say a gcc/glibc/kernel/bash/foo dev? If so,
> why?
> More to the point, if said dev then joins Gentoo, do you implicitly
> trust that dev more?

I brought up that point during the meeting, if you read the log you'll 
see it. =)

> As I've gone the other way, do you now trust me less? I'd like to know
> why also :)

I don't hold this opinion, but people could bring up later resentment at 
Gentoo for not being able to get your way, etc.

I think we successfully directed any paranoia away from you and in the 
direction of whether wherever a git repo would get hosted is less 
trustable than Gentoo infra.

Could you tell us a bit about what you're thinking for where to host the 
repo?

Thanks,
Donnie
-- 
gentoo-council@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-council] Council meeting summary for 8 November 2007

[Robin H. Johnson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 808 bytes --]

On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 12:05:56AM -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> I think we successfully directed any paranoia away from you and in the 
> direction of whether wherever a git repo would get hosted is less 
> trustable than Gentoo infra.
> 
> Could you tell us a bit about what you're thinking for where to host the 
> repo?
I'll bite on this one, because I see folks aren't playing with a full
deck of cards.

Uber has asked to host the baselayout2 git repo on the overlays machine,
where we do allow external folk to have access. Stay tuned to -core and
-dev for more about Git offerings from Infra, and the overlays box as
well.

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux Developer & Infra Guy
E-Mail     : robbat2@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP   : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED  F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 321 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-council] Council meeting summary for 8 November 2007

[Donnie Berkholz]

On 00:35 Fri 09 Nov     , Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 12:05:56AM -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > Could you tell us a bit about what you're thinking for where to host 
> > the repo?
<
> I'll bite on this one, because I see folks aren't playing with a full 
> deck of cards.
> 
> Uber has asked to host the baselayout2 git repo on the overlays 
> machine, where we do allow external folk to have access. Stay tuned to 
> -core and -dev for more about Git offerings from Infra, and the 
> overlays box as well.

I think it should be very important to get something besides crappy git 
over http to do this, and I presume that's one of the offerings you're 
talking about.

Thanks,
Donnie
-- 
gentoo-council@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-council] Council meeting summary for 8 November 2007

[Roy Marples]

On Fri, 2007-11-09 at 00:42 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On 00:35 Fri 09 Nov     , Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 12:05:56AM -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > > Could you tell us a bit about what you're thinking for where to host 
> > > the repo?

I was planned to host it on my home server, but using someone else for
actual tarballs to save on my bandwidth. Not that many people have been
interesting in developing for baselayout ouside of base-system beyond
providing the odd patch here and there.

> <
> > I'll bite on this one, because I see folks aren't playing with a full 
> > deck of cards.
> > 
> > Uber has asked to host the baselayout2 git repo on the overlays 
> > machine, where we do allow external folk to have access. Stay tuned to 
> > -core and -dev for more about Git offerings from Infra, and the 
> > overlays box as well.
> 
> I think it should be very important to get something besides crappy git 
> over http to do this, and I presume that's one of the offerings you're 
> talking about.

This would be preferred, as I would assume Gentoo has more rebust infra
than my raid backed Gentoo hardened home server.

git over ssh is trivial to setup and use as it's the default. So I would
assume the non trivial bit is allowing ssh access, but restricting what
a full ssh account shell can do on the box in question.

Development has now actually stopped and will resume once I know where
the master repo is going to be unless anyone knows if I can start a git
repo from a baselayout snapshot and then "push" it's commits to the main
repo, or I can get a svn dump of the current baselayout and make a
master git repo from that which then becomes the master? Maybe someone
with more git knowledge could clarify?

Thanks

Roy

-- 
gentoo-council@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-council] Council meeting summary for 8 November 2007

[Donnie Berkholz]

On 08:59 Fri 09 Nov     , Roy Marples wrote:
> Development has now actually stopped and will resume once I know where
> the master repo is going to be unless anyone knows if I can start a git
> repo from a baselayout snapshot and then "push" it's commits to the main
> repo, or I can get a svn dump of the current baselayout and make a
> master git repo from that which then becomes the master? Maybe someone
> with more git knowledge could clarify?

If you can create a git repo from the svn, feel free to develop locally. 
Since you'll have the exact same history as any other converted repo, 
you'll be able to push to it if you just add an entry to .git/config to 
tell git where to find it.

If you just create a new git repository from the files themselves, 
things would be a bit funny and I expect you'd have trouble preserving 
any development history because git would think it was some sort of 
strange, ridiculously huge merge.

Thanks,
Donnie
-- 
gentoo-council@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-council] Council meeting summary for 8 November 2007

[Roy Marples]

On Fri, 2007-11-09 at 00:05 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > As I've gone the other way, do you now trust me less? I'd like to know
> > why also :)
> 
> I don't hold this opinion, but people could bring up later resentment at 
> Gentoo for not being able to get your way, etc.

I left of my own free will, with no animosity. I have no resentment at
Gentoo.

I would also note that at least 5 Gentoo developers have encouraged me
to make commits after I announced my retirement. I have not done a
single commit as I feel that would break any trust or integrity I have
earned during my time as a Gentoo developer. If I wanted to screw Gentoo
because of this, I would have done this already whilst I still wield the
ultimate power.

No, such people that would think like that are idiots.

Thanks

Roy

-- 
gentoo-council@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-council] Council meeting summary for 8 November 2007

[Roy Marples]

On Fri, 2007-11-09 at 01:04 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On 08:59 Fri 09 Nov     , Roy Marples wrote:
> > Development has now actually stopped and will resume once I know where
> > the master repo is going to be unless anyone knows if I can start a git
> > repo from a baselayout snapshot and then "push" it's commits to the main
> > repo, or I can get a svn dump of the current baselayout and make a
> > master git repo from that which then becomes the master? Maybe someone
> > with more git knowledge could clarify?
> 
> If you can create a git repo from the svn, feel free to develop locally. 
> Since you'll have the exact same history as any other converted repo, 
> you'll be able to push to it if you just add an entry to .git/config to 
> tell git where to find it.

OK, great. So if Gentoo won't host it then hopefully I can get the full
svn dump from infra. I'll wait and see which way you decide go then :)

Thanks

Roy

-- 
gentoo-council@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-council] Council meeting summary for 8 November 2007

[Robin H. Johnson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1490 bytes --]

On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 08:59:57AM +0000, Roy Marples wrote:
> > I think it should be very important to get something besides crappy git 
> > over http to do this, and I presume that's one of the offerings you're 
> > talking about.
> This would be preferred, as I would assume Gentoo has more rebust infra
> than my raid backed Gentoo hardened home server.
> 
> git over ssh is trivial to setup and use as it's the default. So I would
> assume the non trivial bit is allowing ssh access, but restricting what
> a full ssh account shell can do on the box in question.
Those parts are actually both trivial to do, and are already in place
for the Git repos on the main CVS machine. Trickier (and in progress) is
limitation of actions inside Git, to prevent non-fast-forward merges
for example.

> Development has now actually stopped and will resume once I know where
> the master repo is going to be unless anyone knows if I can start a git
> repo from a baselayout snapshot and then "push" it's commits to the main
> repo, or I can get a svn dump of the current baselayout and make a
> master git repo from that which then becomes the master? Maybe someone
> with more git knowledge could clarify?
I'll see if I can get you a converted repo up ahead of the actual repo
being accessible to everybody else.

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux Developer & Infra Guy
E-Mail     : robbat2@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP   : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED  F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 321 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-council] Council meeting summary for 8 November 2007

[Luca Barbato]

Roy Marples wrote:
> OK, great. So if Gentoo won't host it then hopefully I can get the full
> svn dump from infra. I'll wait and see which way you decide go then :)

git-svn let you have that right now

git-svn clone foo://path/to/repo

Then you can use git as usual

lu

-- 

Luca Barbato

Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero

-- 
gentoo-council@gentoo.org mailing list