[gentoo-project] Agenda for the council meeting 2017-12-10 18:00 UTC

[gentoo-project] Agenda for the council meeting 2017-12-10 18:00 UTC

[Andreas K. Huettel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1948 bytes --]

Agenda for the council meeting 2017-12-10 18:00 UTC
===================================================

0. Roll call
------------

1. Lack of enough package maintainers [1]
-----------------------------------------
Anything that can be done?

2. Update of GLEP 42 [2,3]
------------------------
Removal of the detached signature requirement, clarifications on translations 
and file names

3. Final review of GLEP 74 [4,5]
--------------------------------
Full-tree verification using Manifest files

4. Restricting gentoo-dev/-project posting [6]
----------------------------------------------
* Restricting posting to both gentoo-dev and gentoo-project, while creating a 
gentoo-experts list?
* Restricting posting to gentoo-dev and moving all official business there?
* Restricting posting to gentoo-dev and moving all official business to a 
revived restricted gentoo-council list?
* Moderating lists instead?

5. Open bugs with council participation
---------------------------------------
* Bug 637274 - Missing summaries for 20170514 and 20170611 council meetings 
[7]
* Bug 637328 - GLEP 14 needs to be updated [8]
* Bug 635344 - [TRACKER] manifest-hashes replacement [9]

6. Open floor
-------------


[1] https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/
4771bc564060b7ab1f64d5c094105493
[2] https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/
6f070b64892d2e351bd51b2ffa1dc64e
[3] https://gitweb.gentoo.org/data/glep.git/log/?h=glep42-update
[4] https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/
7d189934e371842fc799ba1eead3d01f
[5] https://www.gentoo.org/glep/glep-0074.html
[6] https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/
6e7cc13cd850be7dbd86376d3a197a16
[7] https://bugs.gentoo.org/637274
[8] https://bugs.gentoo.org/637328
[9] https://bugs.gentoo.org/635344

-- 
Andreas K. Hüttel
dilfridge@gentoo.org
Gentoo Linux developer
(council, toolchain, perl, libreoffice, comrel)

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 981 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Agenda for the council meeting 2017-12-10 18:00 UTC

[Robin H. Johnson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2350 bytes --]

I did wish to participate re two items here, but regretfully I will be
travelling at the time, and it's unlikely that I will have connectivity.

On Sat, Dec 09, 2017 at 08:39:54PM +0100, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> 3. Final review of GLEP 74 [4,5]
> --------------------------------
> Full-tree verification using Manifest files
The implementation is done, some tweaks were made since the previous
month's version.

> 4. Restricting gentoo-dev/-project posting [6]
> ----------------------------------------------
> * Restricting posting to both gentoo-dev and gentoo-project, while creating a 
>   gentoo-experts list?
> * Restricting posting to gentoo-dev and moving all official business there?
> * Restricting posting to gentoo-dev and moving all official business to a 
>   revived restricted gentoo-council list?
> * Moderating lists instead?
I had not weighed in publicly on this before, but wish to make a
statement.
The original split of gentoo-dev to gentoo-project included
moderation of gentoo-dev, however that was never really implemented,
mostly for technical reasons, and a decreased need after the split.

I oppose a further split of -dev/-project/-experts, and instead
propose better list policies of -dev. If it's technical, even coming
from an expert user, it probably belongs on -dev. If it's about the
organizational structures of Gentoo, it belongs on -project.
How do we keep the threads more on-topic? Moderation maybe, but I'm
not convinced that is best.

mlmmj, the list manager app that has powered the lists since 2004/Oct/28
has served us well. However, it needs to be replaced.  Upstream progress
has stalled, and the codebase is not trivial to improve. It lacked
features that are ever more relevant (spam, real moderation,
web-interfaces).

Mailman is my leading replacement candidate, as they have resolved many
of the issues that prevented it's choice ~13 years ago (mostly around
Unicode). It would give improved moderation & subscription control,
amongst other improvements. Also in Python3 rather than the unique style
of C used by mlmmj.

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux: Dev, Infra Lead, Foundation Asst. Treasurer
E-Mail   : robbat2@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP : 11ACBA4F 4778E3F6 E4EDF38E B27B944E 34884E85
GnuPG FP : 7D0B3CEB E9B85B1F 825BCECF EE05E6F6 A48F6136

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 1113 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Agenda for the council meeting 2017-12-10 18:00 UTC

[Andreas K. Huettel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 496 bytes --]

Am Sonntag, 10. Dezember 2017, 00:21:57 CET schrieb Robin H. Johnson:
> The original split of gentoo-dev to gentoo-project included
> moderation of gentoo-dev, however that was never really implemented,
> mostly for technical reasons, and a decreased need after the split.

https://dev.gentoo.org/~dilfridge/decisions.html#pf32
^ see here for the peek into history...


-- 
Andreas K. Hüttel
dilfridge@gentoo.org
Gentoo Linux developer
(council, toolchain, perl, libreoffice, comrel)

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 981 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Agenda for the council meeting 2017-12-10 18:00 UTC

[Brian Dolbec]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3072 bytes --]

On Sat, 9 Dec 2017 23:21:57 +0000
"Robin H. Johnson" <robbat2@gentoo.org> wrote:

> I did wish to participate re two items here, but regretfully I will be
> travelling at the time, and it's unlikely that I will have
> connectivity.
> 
> On Sat, Dec 09, 2017 at 08:39:54PM +0100, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> > 3. Final review of GLEP 74 [4,5]
> > --------------------------------
> > Full-tree verification using Manifest files  
> The implementation is done, some tweaks were made since the previous
> month's version.
> 
> > 4. Restricting gentoo-dev/-project posting [6]
> > ----------------------------------------------
> > * Restricting posting to both gentoo-dev and gentoo-project, while
> > creating a gentoo-experts list?
> > * Restricting posting to gentoo-dev and moving all official
> > business there?
> > * Restricting posting to gentoo-dev and moving all official
> > business to a revived restricted gentoo-council list?
> > * Moderating lists instead?  
> I had not weighed in publicly on this before, but wish to make a
> statement.
> The original split of gentoo-dev to gentoo-project included
> moderation of gentoo-dev, however that was never really implemented,
> mostly for technical reasons, and a decreased need after the split.
> 
> I oppose a further split of -dev/-project/-experts, and instead
> propose better list policies of -dev. If it's technical, even coming
> from an expert user, it probably belongs on -dev. If it's about the
> organizational structures of Gentoo, it belongs on -project.
> How do we keep the threads more on-topic? Moderation maybe, but I'm
> not convinced that is best.
> 
> 


I second this.  I too do not want to see the lists split even further.
There are far too many interested and competent users in it that can
and do contribute in some ways.  There has to be a better solution.


Also:

1. Lack of enough package maintainers [1]
-----------------------------------------
Anything that can be done?


I am intending to set up a buildbot instance and develop some builder
scripts for it to aid in regular package maintenance.  It should be
able to do basic version bumps and run the test suite, present it to the
pkg maintainers for final Q/A and pushes to the tree.  It should also be
able to check/test on whatever arches that have a worker connected to
it.  So this should help take some of the pressure off the various arch
teams.  My first goal is for it to do many of the python pkgs I
maintain to get the basic system up and running.  Plus I should be able
to leverage some of the g-sorcery/gs-pypi code.  Once operational, it
should be possible to add additional parsers to check for and update
dependencies to add additional types of pkgs to its capabilities.

I will be able to have it run on amd64, x86 and arm64 arches with the
equipment I have.  Plus I have had others say they could help with
additional arches such as an armv7 cluster.  So, this should also help
with keywording demand.





-- 
Brian Dolbec <dolsen>


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 981 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Agenda for the council meeting 2017-12-10 18:00 UTC

[Alice Ferrazzi]

On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 4:25 PM, Brian Dolbec <dolsen@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Dec 2017 23:21:57 +0000
> "Robin H. Johnson" <robbat2@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>> I did wish to participate re two items here, but regretfully I will be
>> travelling at the time, and it's unlikely that I will have
>> connectivity.
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 09, 2017 at 08:39:54PM +0100, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
>> > 3. Final review of GLEP 74 [4,5]
>> > --------------------------------
>> > Full-tree verification using Manifest files
>> The implementation is done, some tweaks were made since the previous
>> month's version.
>>
>> > 4. Restricting gentoo-dev/-project posting [6]
>> > ----------------------------------------------
>> > * Restricting posting to both gentoo-dev and gentoo-project, while
>> > creating a gentoo-experts list?
>> > * Restricting posting to gentoo-dev and moving all official
>> > business there?
>> > * Restricting posting to gentoo-dev and moving all official
>> > business to a revived restricted gentoo-council list?
>> > * Moderating lists instead?
>> I had not weighed in publicly on this before, but wish to make a
>> statement.
>> The original split of gentoo-dev to gentoo-project included
>> moderation of gentoo-dev, however that was never really implemented,
>> mostly for technical reasons, and a decreased need after the split.
>>
>> I oppose a further split of -dev/-project/-experts, and instead
>> propose better list policies of -dev. If it's technical, even coming
>> from an expert user, it probably belongs on -dev. If it's about the
>> organizational structures of Gentoo, it belongs on -project.
>> How do we keep the threads more on-topic? Moderation maybe, but I'm
>> not convinced that is best.
>>
>>
>
>
> I second this.  I too do not want to see the lists split even further.
> There are far too many interested and competent users in it that can
> and do contribute in some ways.  There has to be a better solution.
>
>
> Also:
>
> 1. Lack of enough package maintainers [1]
> -----------------------------------------
> Anything that can be done?
>
>
> I am intending to set up a buildbot instance and develop some builder
> scripts for it to aid in regular package maintenance.  It should be
> able to do basic version bumps and run the test suite, present it to the
> pkg maintainers for final Q/A and pushes to the tree.  It should also be
> able to check/test on whatever arches that have a worker connected to
> it.  So this should help take some of the pressure off the various arch
> teams.  My first goal is for it to do many of the python pkgs I
> maintain to get the basic system up and running.  Plus I should be able
> to leverage some of the g-sorcery/gs-pypi code.  Once operational, it
> should be possible to add additional parsers to check for and update
> dependencies to add additional types of pkgs to its capabilities.
>
> I will be able to have it run on amd64, x86 and arm64 arches with the
> equipment I have.  Plus I have had others say they could help with
> additional arches such as an armv7 cluster.  So, this should also help
> with keywording demand.
>
>
>

We are working on a similar thing for Kernel packages.

You can take reference from this:
https://github.com/gentoo/Gentoo_kernelCI

Buildbot:
http://kernel1.amd64.dev.gentoo.org:8010



>
>
> --
> Brian Dolbec <dolsen>
>



-- 
Thanks,
Alice Ferrazzi

Gentoo Kernel Project Leader
Gentoo Foundation Board Member
Mail: Alice Ferrazzi <alicef@gentoo.org>
PGP: 2E4E 0856 461C 0585 1336 F496 5621 A6B2 8638 781A

Re: [gentoo-project] Agenda for the council meeting 2017-12-10 18:00 UTC

[Hans de Graaff]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 617 bytes --]

On Sat, 2017-12-09 at 23:25 -0800, Brian Dolbec wrote:
> 
> I am intending to set up a buildbot instance and develop some builder
> scripts for it to aid in regular package maintenance.  It should be
> able to do basic version bumps and run the test suite, present it to
> the
> pkg maintainers for final Q/A and pushes to the tree.

https://github.com/gentoo/ruby-tinderbox may have some useful ideas or
serve as an example. Unfortunately it currently isn't running because
the Docker integration turned out to be quite fiddly and I never took
the time to track this down further and fix things.

Hans

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Agenda for the council meeting 2017-12-10 18:00 UTC

[Michał Górny]

W dniu sob, 09.12.2017 o godzinie 23∶25 -0800, użytkownik Brian Dolbec
napisał:
> On Sat, 9 Dec 2017 23:21:57 +0000
> "Robin H. Johnson" <robbat2@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > I did wish to participate re two items here, but regretfully I will be
> > travelling at the time, and it's unlikely that I will have
> > connectivity.
> > 
> > On Sat, Dec 09, 2017 at 08:39:54PM +0100, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> > > 3. Final review of GLEP 74 [4,5]
> > > --------------------------------
> > > Full-tree verification using Manifest files  
> > 
> > The implementation is done, some tweaks were made since the previous
> > month's version.
> > 
> > > 4. Restricting gentoo-dev/-project posting [6]
> > > ----------------------------------------------
> > > * Restricting posting to both gentoo-dev and gentoo-project, while
> > > creating a gentoo-experts list?
> > > * Restricting posting to gentoo-dev and moving all official
> > > business there?
> > > * Restricting posting to gentoo-dev and moving all official
> > > business to a revived restricted gentoo-council list?
> > > * Moderating lists instead?  
> > 
> > I had not weighed in publicly on this before, but wish to make a
> > statement.
> > The original split of gentoo-dev to gentoo-project included
> > moderation of gentoo-dev, however that was never really implemented,
> > mostly for technical reasons, and a decreased need after the split.
> > 
> > I oppose a further split of -dev/-project/-experts, and instead
> > propose better list policies of -dev. If it's technical, even coming
> > from an expert user, it probably belongs on -dev. If it's about the
> > organizational structures of Gentoo, it belongs on -project.
> > How do we keep the threads more on-topic? Moderation maybe, but I'm
> > not convinced that is best.
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> I second this.  I too do not want to see the lists split even further.
> There are far too many interested and competent users in it that can
> and do contribute in some ways.  There has to be a better solution.
> 
> 
> Also:
> 
> 1. Lack of enough package maintainers [1]
> -----------------------------------------
> Anything that can be done?
> 
> 
> I am intending to set up a buildbot instance and develop some builder
> scripts for it to aid in regular package maintenance.  It should be
> able to do basic version bumps and run the test suite, present it to the
> pkg maintainers for final Q/A and pushes to the tree.  It should also be
> able to check/test on whatever arches that have a worker connected to
> it.  So this should help take some of the pressure off the various arch
> teams.  My first goal is for it to do many of the python pkgs I
> maintain to get the basic system up and running.  Plus I should be able
> to leverage some of the g-sorcery/gs-pypi code.  Once operational, it
> should be possible to add additional parsers to check for and update
> dependencies to add additional types of pkgs to its capabilities.
> 

I hope you don't mean to bump packages without checking for changed
dependencies and other important build system changes.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

Re: [gentoo-project] Agenda for the council meeting 2017-12-10 18:00 UTC

[Brian Dolbec]

On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 09:29:18 +0100
Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:

> W dniu sob, 09.12.2017 o godzinie 23∶25 -0800, użytkownik Brian Dolbec
> napisał:
> > On Sat, 9 Dec 2017 23:21:57 +0000
> > "Robin H. Johnson" <robbat2@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >   
> > > I did wish to participate re two items here, but regretfully I
> > > will be travelling at the time, and it's unlikely that I will have
> > > connectivity.
> > > 
> > > On Sat, Dec 09, 2017 at 08:39:54PM +0100, Andreas K. Huettel
> > > wrote:  
> > > > 3. Final review of GLEP 74 [4,5]
> > > > --------------------------------
> > > > Full-tree verification using Manifest files    
> > > 
> > > The implementation is done, some tweaks were made since the
> > > previous month's version.
> > >   
> > > > 4. Restricting gentoo-dev/-project posting [6]
> > > > ----------------------------------------------
> > > > * Restricting posting to both gentoo-dev and gentoo-project,
> > > > while creating a gentoo-experts list?
> > > > * Restricting posting to gentoo-dev and moving all official
> > > > business there?
> > > > * Restricting posting to gentoo-dev and moving all official
> > > > business to a revived restricted gentoo-council list?
> > > > * Moderating lists instead?    
> > > 
> > > I had not weighed in publicly on this before, but wish to make a
> > > statement.
> > > The original split of gentoo-dev to gentoo-project included
> > > moderation of gentoo-dev, however that was never really
> > > implemented, mostly for technical reasons, and a decreased need
> > > after the split.
> > > 
> > > I oppose a further split of -dev/-project/-experts, and instead
> > > propose better list policies of -dev. If it's technical, even
> > > coming from an expert user, it probably belongs on -dev. If it's
> > > about the organizational structures of Gentoo, it belongs on
> > > -project. How do we keep the threads more on-topic? Moderation
> > > maybe, but I'm not convinced that is best.
> > > 
> > >   
> > 
> > 
> > I second this.  I too do not want to see the lists split even
> > further. There are far too many interested and competent users in
> > it that can and do contribute in some ways.  There has to be a
> > better solution.
> > 
> > 
> > Also:
> > 
> > 1. Lack of enough package maintainers [1]
> > -----------------------------------------
> > Anything that can be done?
> > 
> > 
> > I am intending to set up a buildbot instance and develop some
> > builder scripts for it to aid in regular package maintenance.  It
> > should be able to do basic version bumps and run the test suite,
> > present it to the pkg maintainers for final Q/A and pushes to the
> > tree.  It should also be able to check/test on whatever arches that
> > have a worker connected to it.  So this should help take some of
> > the pressure off the various arch teams.  My first goal is for it
> > to do many of the python pkgs I maintain to get the basic system up
> > and running.  Plus I should be able to leverage some of the
> > g-sorcery/gs-pypi code.  Once operational, it should be possible to
> > add additional parsers to check for and update dependencies to add
> > additional types of pkgs to its capabilities. 
> 
> I hope you don't mean to bump packages without checking for changed
> dependencies and other important build system changes.
> 

of course not, you should have read what I said completely.  Especially
the last two sentences.

-- 
Brian Dolbec <dolsen>