1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
|
\summary{2008}{5}{8}
\agendaitem{New process}
The last few meetings have dragged out for hours unnecessarily. This
time, we tried moderating the channel during discussion of each topic,
then temporarily opening the floor for that topic before a vote so
anyone could contribute. Here's the time breakdown:
\begin{verbatim}
2000-2030: closed, 30 min
2030-2046: open, 16 min
2046-2056: closed, 10 min
2056-2114: open, 18 min
2114-2146: closed, 32 min
2146-2209: open, 23 min
2209-2242: closed, 33 min
2242- : open floor
\end{verbatim}
Total before open floor: 105 minutes closed, 57 minutes open.
Optimistically, we could have saved an hour if the channel was moderated
throughout the meeting. That's unlikely to be the case in reality,
because we'd be redirecting people's comments from queries into the
channel.
Should we keep it moderated until the final open floor? Should we have
an open "backchannel"?
\agendaitem{Document of being an active developer}
\index{developer certificate}
Last month:
No updates
Updates:
araujo made http://dev.gentoo.org/~araujo/gcert1.pdf in Scribus.
He'd like to ask for approval of this design and discuss the
script, in particular its infrastructure requirements.
Suggestions on certificate content:
\begin{itemize}
\item Add title to the top: "Developer Certification"
\item Add devrel contact info (general devrel email address)
\item Add link to devrel userinfo page
\item Add start and end dates to devrel retired developers
page
\item Add a sentence saying e.g. "This certifies that XXX was
a
Gentoo developer from START_DATE to TODAY_DATE." The point
is to avoid implying that the developer is certified
forever, or will be a developer in the future.
The information should be gotten from LDAP, for example using
python-ldap. Could base this script on devrel's slacker script.
It's unsure how signatures are going to happen, but one option
is to keep a GPG-encrypted image of a signature and decrypt it
on-demand for certificate creation. This should be discussed
with the person doing the signing.
\end{itemize}
\agendaitem{Slacker arches}
\index{arches!slacking}
4 months ago: vapier will work on rich0's suggestion and repost it for
discussion on -dev ML
2 months ago: vapier said he was going to work on it that weekend.
Last month: No updates
Updates: ---
\agendaitem{When are ChangeLog entries required?}
\index{ChangeLog}
This question mainly relates to arch stabilizations.
The consensus was that ChangeLog entries even for arch
stabilizations provide valuable information that is unique without
network access and more accessible than CVS logs even with network
access.
So, Always required. If you aren't making them now, fix
your script to call echangelog.
Some people were curious what proportion of space ChangeLogs take in
the tree, but most people didn't think that was relevant.
welp suggested making a changelog message part of repoman commit.
It would be helpful for the QA team to help with checking for and
enforcing ChangeLog messages. If that doesn't help matters, the
council may have to take action.
\agendaitem{Can the council help fewer bugs get ignored by arm/sh/s390 teams?}
\index{arch!arm}\index{arch!sh}\index{arch!s390}
The work happens, but Mart says it's not communicated to anyone and
has no relationship to whether bugs are open.
We need to understand the workflow of undermanned arch teams and see
whether there's anything we can help improve.
Possibly improving recuitment -- add a good, motivating
staffing-needs entry.
\agendaitem{PMS: Are versions allowed to have more than 8 digits?}
References:
\begin{itemize}
\item
\agoref{gentoo-dev}{db2f5c09c2c0c8b042ca3d0dcec7cdaf}
\item
\bug{188449}
\end{itemize}
What do various PMs/tools support? Portage, Pkgcore, Paludis all
handle >8. portage-utils does not but could be fixed to use longs
instead of ints, with some loss of performance (magnitude unclear).
versionator.eclass also needs fixing for >8 digits.
Apparently [ ]-style tests break with large numbers, but [[ ]]
works. Have to be careful which tests are getting used anywhere
large versions are compared.
The council generally favored allowing versions to have <=18 digits.
This allows them to fit into 64 bits (18 signed digits or 19
unsigned) and gives them an upper bound, which some implementations
of version parsing could find useful.
We voted to do more research and testing, specifically to ask the
package maintainers with extremely long PVs whether they were needed
and to test the impact of extending versionator.eclass. The involved
packages:
\begin{verbatim}
sys-process/fuser-bsd
sys-apps/net-tools
sys-apps/gradm
net-im/ntame
media-video/captury
media-libs/libcaptury
media-libs/capseo
sys-block/btrace
www-apache/mod_depends
net-wireless/rt2500
sys-fs/unionfs
\end{verbatim}
\agendaitem{Enforced retirement}
\index{retirement!enforced}\index{project!devrel}
The meeting had already gone 2.5 hours and we were short multiple
council members because of the late hour in their timezone, or
broken hardware in the case of jokey. Because of the urgency of
getting this resolved, we decided it couldn't wait for next month's
meeting and scheduled a special session for next week at the same
time.
\agendaitem{Open floor}
\index{retirement!appeal}
Some people thought that we were going to make a final decision on
the above appeals today, because the agenda was insufficiently clear
on that. That was not the case. What we intended to do was explain
why we can take the appeal and then figure out the process for it
because we haven't done any appeals before.
|
GitWeb