Hi there,
Is anyone taking care of the stable push for June ? I guess Thorsten is probably busy with other stuff, but is anyone else able to take care of that ? iirc, there are some perms issue.
Regards, Xavier
Hi!
On 09.06.2009 21:44, Xavier Bachelot wrote:
Is anyone taking care of the stable push for June ?
FWIW, there IIRC wasn't even one in May either iirc.
I guess Thorsten is probably busy with other stuff,
Yes, sorry, I was really busy with lot of RPM Fusion stuff and real life; EPEL moved off by radar so I forgot about it.
In fact I feared exactly that and that was the reason why I months ago (is it even more then a year now? not sure, can't remember) tried to get away from EPEL nearly completely (¹), which was running quite fine back then.
But the latter not the case anymore. Sure, packagers are still doing a whole lot of good work, but leadership/steering is afaics nearly not existent at all, which IMHO is a dangerous situation for a project like EPEL (especially as RHEL6 is not that far away anymore and we need to be prepared for that).
Some examples: No weekly reports for months (which were a requirement from FESCo when the EPEL Steering Committee was formed and thus should still be written!), nearly no meetings and the steering committee obviously doesn't even care if testing -> stable move get done. Hey, not even one of the steering committee members actually answered your mail in the past few days which IMHO tells us everything already.
Or IOW: what exactly did the steering committee do over the past six months? Nearly nothing I'd say. Dglimore (maybe one or two others from the Steering Committee; not sure,) did some work for koji and bodhi for EPEL, but that's nearly all afaics.
IMHO it's time for the steering committee to say "Sorry, we screwed up, we all step down; the last thing we do it to make sure a new steering committee is formed somehow"
but is anyone else able to take care of that ?
Anyone can prepare one: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/Tasks/NextTestingStableMove
But I did it a few times already, so I can prepare another one quite easily.
iirc, there are some perms issue.
That is still the case afaics. Only dglimore can actually do the push and testing->stable moves.
CU knurd
(¹) Yes, I did prepare a few stable pushes over the past few months to help out, but I mentioned a few times already that I didn't really want to do them anymore; looking back at it I should have made it more clear to prevent the current situation; sorry for that;
On Jun 12, 2009, at 5:00 AM, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
Hey, not even one of the steering committee members actually answered your mail in the past few days which IMHO tells us everything already.
I was under the impression that only a couple of people have access to do the push. I know I don't have access to do so.
-Jeff
On 12.06.2009 15:35, Jeff Sheltren wrote:
On Jun 12, 2009, at 5:00 AM, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
Hey, not even one of the steering committee members actually answered your mail in the past few days which IMHO tells us everything already.
I was under the impression that only a couple of people have access to do the push.
That's correct, as mentioned in my mail -- only dglimore has permissions to push packages atm afaik.
But no special requirements are needed to prepare the push (which was mentioned in my mail as well; sigh). Heck, the necessary steps were even linked to from the schedule page for the EPEL Steering Committee meetings -- but that page wasn't updated/adjusted since Fedoraproject.org moved to the new wiki, which feels like ages ago -- another area where nearly nothing happened over the past few months :-(
CU knurd
On Jun 12, 2009, at 5:00 AM, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
But the latter not the case anymore. Sure, packagers are still doing a whole lot of good work, but leadership/steering is afaics nearly not existent at all, which IMHO is a dangerous situation for a project like EPEL (especially as RHEL6 is not that far away anymore and we need to be prepared for that).
Some examples: No weekly reports for months (which were a requirement from FESCo when the EPEL Steering Committee was formed and thus should still be written!), nearly no meetings and the steering committee obviously doesn't even care if testing -> stable move get done. Hey, not even one of the steering committee members actually answered your mail in the past few days which IMHO tells us everything already.
Agreed, the leadership has gone stagnant lately. Partly due to conflicting schedules, and I think partly due to lack of interest: "things are working good enough". There have been various grumblings of things to do, but not too much has come from it. I think that EPEL is a side project for most, if not all, of the steering committee, and without at least one dedicated leader, we've all gotten distracted by other things.
IMHO it's time for the steering committee to say "Sorry, we screwed up, we all step down; the last thing we do it to make sure a new steering committee is formed somehow"
I would be glad to step down if I thought it were the best thing to do, but I don't think that it is. We have trouble even getting more than one or two non-steering committee members to the meetings (when we do have them!). What makes you think that we could find enough interested/motivated people to replace the entire committee? I'm under the impression that EPEL is popular with end users but there aren't many in the user pool who are willing or able to step up and help make EPEL better.
(¹) Yes, I did prepare a few stable pushes over the past few months to help out, but I mentioned a few times already that I didn't really want to do them anymore; looking back at it I should have made it more clear to prevent the current situation; sorry for that;
I don't think any of this is your fault...
-Jeff
On 12.06.2009 15:47, Jeff Sheltren wrote:
On Jun 12, 2009, at 5:00 AM, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: [...] Agreed, the leadership has gone stagnant lately. Partly due to conflicting schedules, and I think partly due to lack of interest: "things are working good enough". There have been various grumblings of things to do, but not too much has come from it. I think that EPEL is a side project for most, if not all, of the steering committee, and without at least one dedicated leader, we've all gotten distracted by other things.
Is "good enough" really a adequate description if the stable pushes are not done for two month in a row and nobody cares for something like 40 days? I'd say the answer is "no". "It's working somehow" might be the better description, but that's IMHO still bad for a project the size of EPEL that has a fame and users to lose.
EPEL Steering to me feels a bit like parents that don't care at all what their child (e.g the project as a whole) is doing the whole day. With a lot of luck the child will make its way through life somehow, but chances are way bigger that the children sooner or later don't go to school and do bad things.
IMHO it's time for the steering committee to say "Sorry, we screwed up, we all step down; the last thing we do it to make sure a new steering committee is formed somehow"
I would be glad to step down if I thought it were the best thing to do, but I don't think that it is. We have trouble even getting more than one or two non-steering committee members to the meetings (when we do have them!).
IRC and phone meeting IMHO hang way to high. From my experience a lot of things can easier and better get solved in time-independent ways on the list, if people just want to and as long as there is one driver that brings the issue forward.
What makes you think that we could find enough interested/motivated people to replace the entire committee?
Ohh, I didn't say the entire committee needs to be replaced. I guess one active new member can make a whole lot of a difference if he makes sure things move.
I'm under the impression that EPEL is popular with end users but there aren't many in the user pool who are willing or able to step up and help make EPEL better.
Maybe, but afaics often good people emerge if you give them the chance to get involved properly.
(¹) Yes, I did prepare a few stable pushes over the past few months to help out, but I mentioned a few times already that I didn't really want to do them anymore; looking back at it I should have made it more clear to prevent the current situation; sorry for that;
I don't think any of this is your fault...
I tend to disagree. I should have yelled earlier.
CU knurd
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 7:47 AM, Jeff Sheltrenjeff@osuosl.org wrote:
On Jun 12, 2009, at 5:00 AM, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
But the latter not the case anymore. Sure, packagers are still doing a whole lot of good work, but leadership/steering is afaics nearly not existent at all, which IMHO is a dangerous situation for a project like EPEL (especially as RHEL6 is not that far away anymore and we need to be prepared for that).
Some examples: No weekly reports for months (which were a requirement from FESCo when the EPEL Steering Committee was formed and thus should still be written!), nearly no meetings and the steering committee obviously doesn't even care if testing -> stable move get done. Hey, not even one of the steering committee members actually answered your mail in the past few days which IMHO tells us everything already.
Agreed, the leadership has gone stagnant lately. �Partly due to conflicting schedules, and I think partly due to lack of interest: �"things are working good enough". �There have been various grumblings of things to do, but not too much has come from it. �I think that EPEL is a side project for most, if not all, of the steering committee, and without at least one dedicated leader, we've all gotten distracted by other things.
I agree on this. I think that it requires someone who can and will dedicate the time for a certain amount of time.
IMHO it's time for the steering committee to say "Sorry, we screwed up, we all step down; the last thing we do it to make sure a new steering committee is formed somehow"
I would be glad to step down if I thought it were the best thing to do, but I don't think that it is. �We have trouble even getting more than one or two non-steering committee members to the meetings (when we do have them!). �What makes you think that we could find enough interested/motivated people to replace the entire committee? �I'm under the impression that EPEL is popular with end users but there aren't many in the user pool who are willing or able to step up and help make EPEL better.
I also have to agree on that. If we all step down... who is left? The steering committee has been made mostly of the people who had expressed interest in this over the years.
(น) Yes, I did prepare a few stable pushes over the past few months to help out, but I mentioned a few times already that I didn't really want to do them anymore; looking back at it I should have made it more clear to prevent the current situation; sorry for that;
I don't think any of this is your fault...
-Jeff
epel-devel-list mailing list epel-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
On 14.06.2009 00:56, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 7:47 AM, Jeff Sheltrenjeff@osuosl.org wrote:
On Jun 12, 2009, at 5:00 AM, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
IMHO it's time for the steering committee to say "Sorry, we screwed up, we all step down; the last thing we do it to make sure a new steering committee is formed somehow"
I would be glad to step down if I thought it were the best thing to do, but I don't think that it is. We have trouble even getting more than one or two non-steering committee members to the meetings (when we do have them!). What makes you think that we could find enough interested/motivated people to replace the entire committee? I'm under the impression that EPEL is popular with end users but there aren't many in the user pool who are willing or able to step up and help make EPEL better.
I also have to agree on that. If we all step down... who is left?
Who knows? Just give it a try, maybe new people will show up.
And as mentioned in another mail: I think it's fine and actually a good thing if some of the current members try to get into the Committee again -- a bit fresh blood might be enough to get things into a better shape.
And the last reorganization of the Steering committee iirc was a year ago, so IMHO it's time for another one, as committees like Board and FESCo do elections once a year as well (and no, I don't want to say that we need a election; I'm actually not even sure if it's better with or without one).
[...]
Cu knurd
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
Hi!
On 09.06.2009 21:44, Xavier Bachelot wrote:
Is anyone taking care of the stable push for June ?
FWIW, there IIRC wasn't even one in May either iirc.
I guess Thorsten is probably busy with other stuff,
Yes, sorry, I was really busy with lot of RPM Fusion stuff and real life; EPEL moved off by radar so I forgot about it.
In fact I feared exactly that and that was the reason why I months ago (is it even more then a year now? not sure, can't remember) tried to get away from EPEL nearly completely (¹), which was running quite fine back then.
But the latter not the case anymore. Sure, packagers are still doing a whole lot of good work, but leadership/steering is afaics nearly not existent at all, which IMHO is a dangerous situation for a project like EPEL (especially as RHEL6 is not that far away anymore and we need to be prepared for that).
Some examples: No weekly reports for months (which were a requirement from FESCo when the EPEL Steering Committee was formed and thus should still be written!), nearly no meetings and the steering committee obviously doesn't even care if testing -> stable move get done. Hey, not even one of the steering committee members actually answered your mail in the past few days which IMHO tells us everything already.
Or IOW: what exactly did the steering committee do over the past six months? Nearly nothing I'd say. Dglimore (maybe one or two others from the Steering Committee; not sure,) did some work for koji and bodhi for EPEL, but that's nearly all afaics.
IMHO it's time for the steering committee to say "Sorry, we screwed up, we all step down; the last thing we do it to make sure a new steering committee is formed somehow"
but is anyone else able to take care of that ?
Anyone can prepare one: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/Tasks/NextTestingStableMove
But I did it a few times already, so I can prepare another one quite easily.
iirc, there are some perms issue.
That is still the case afaics. Only dglimore can actually do the push and testing->stable moves.
CU knurd
(¹) Yes, I did prepare a few stable pushes over the past few months to help out, but I mentioned a few times already that I didn't really want to do them anymore; looking back at it I should have made it more clear to prevent the current situation; sorry for that;
epel-devel-list mailing list epel-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
I would see if we could get EPEL more part of Fedora-proper. It is /rather/ important and critical to let pushes not be regular.
I have asked folks to use EPEL-testing for some time, and that keeps working, but since Fedora infra and the build system is rather rock solid, I think pushing things to use the same systems (i.e. the update system) and such are the way to go as that would also encourage more people to package for and use EPEL (hopefully).
It's crazy odd to ask folks to use "testing" to get packages that are recent, and the Fedora build and update system Fedora has would eliminate this problem altogether (especially if kicked from the same place).
--Michael
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 12:00:59PM -0400, Michael DeHaan wrote:
I would see if we could get EPEL more part of Fedora-proper. It is /rather/ important and critical to let pushes not be regular.
I have asked folks to use EPEL-testing for some time, and that keeps working, but since Fedora infra and the build system is rather rock solid, I think pushing things to use the same systems (i.e. the update system) and such are the way to go as that would also encourage more people to package for and use EPEL (hopefully).
It's crazy odd to ask folks to use "testing" to get packages that are recent, and the Fedora build and update system Fedora has would eliminate this problem altogether (especially if kicked from the same place).
--Michael
I know we can do EL scratch builds on Koji now. How close are we to having the entire update process managed through Koji/Bodhi? This would make these monthly pushes unnecessary...
Ray
On 06/12/2009 09:07 AM, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
I know we can do EL scratch builds on Koji now. How close are we to having the entire update process managed through Koji/Bodhi? This would make these monthly pushes unnecessary...
Actually... It wouldn't make the pushes unnecessary. It would just change what needs to be done in order to push. Bodhi queues packages to push. Someone still has to go through and sign the packages in the queue and tell Bodhi to push them out.
-Toshio
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 09:25:34AM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On 06/12/2009 09:07 AM, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
I know we can do EL scratch builds on Koji now. How close are we to having the entire update process managed through Koji/Bodhi? This would make these monthly pushes unnecessary...
Actually... It wouldn't make the pushes unnecessary. It would just change what needs to be done in order to push. Bodhi queues packages to push. Someone still has to go through and sign the packages in the queue and tell Bodhi to push them out.
Ah, obviously I'm not familiar with that process. I guess it's still manual? It certainly happens more than once a month for Fedora. Would an EPEL member need to be tasked with doing the signing and Bodhi interaction?
Does the signer do some sort of manual inspection or QA that prevents this from being automated?
Ray
On 06/12/2009 09:29 AM, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 09:25:34AM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On 06/12/2009 09:07 AM, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
I know we can do EL scratch builds on Koji now. How close are we to having the entire update process managed through Koji/Bodhi? This would make these monthly pushes unnecessary...
Actually... It wouldn't make the pushes unnecessary. It would just change what needs to be done in order to push. Bodhi queues packages to push. Someone still has to go through and sign the packages in the queue and tell Bodhi to push them out.
Ah, obviously I'm not familiar with that process. I guess it's still manual? It certainly happens more than once a month for Fedora. Would an EPEL member need to be tasked with doing the signing and Bodhi interaction?
Currently people want to keep the EPEL signing key and Fedora signing key trusted users separate. I think someone should be able to sign with both the EPEL key and the Fedora key if they're trusted to do so by both projects but it hasn't come to a point where someone wanted to sign for both yet that I know. If there's not enough EPEL signers, getting the rel-eng people who do Fedora signing to also sign for EPEL is a possibility but I think that should be explored once bodhi-EPEL integration is done and we know if it's really where the bottleneck lies.
Does the signer do some sort of manual inspection or QA that prevents this from being automated?
They can. (For EPEL, that might consist of checking whether the package has seen enough time in testing, doesn't break API without reason, etc.) In Fedora there isn't much inspection done except around release time. However, the fact that someone has to type in a password to unlock the signing key means that the process cannot be completely automated.
Also note that currently the Fedora Update process requires some amount of babysitting as problems can occur during update that have to be fixed and then the update resubmitted.
-Toshio
I am trying to prepare this push. I've had some questions about it and am working with the correct people on it. Sorry it's late.
stahnma
On 12.06.2009 23:49, Michael Stahnke wrote:
I am trying to prepare this push. I've had some questions about it and am working with the correct people on it. Sorry it's late.
Hmm, I earlier in this thread said that I'd prepare another one over the weekend. Now that I read your mail I won't do it unless told otherwise to prevent duplicated and thus useless work.
CU knurd
On 12.06.2009 18:00, Michael DeHaan wrote:
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 09.06.2009 21:44, Xavier Bachelot wrote:
I would see if we could get EPEL more part of Fedora-proper. It is /rather/ important and critical to let pushes not be regular.
I have asked folks to use EPEL-testing for some time, and that keeps working, but since Fedora infra and the build system is rather rock solid, I think pushing things to use the same systems (i.e. the update system) and such are the way to go as that would also encourage more people to package for and use EPEL (hopefully).
It's crazy odd to ask folks to use "testing" to get packages that are recent, and the Fedora build and update system Fedora has would eliminate this problem altogether (especially if kicked from the same place).
I'd fully agree to "pushing things to use the same systems (i.e. the update system) and such are the way to go as that would also encourage more people to package for and use EPEL (hopefully)."
But I tend to disagree with the other intention of the mail. EPEL is designed to be a add-on repo for RHEL/CentOS that moves slow and provides stable base you can rely on, just as RHEL/CentOS itself -- the monthly pushes help here, as contributors might start to go wild like in Fedora otherwise. Of course packages can be pushed quicker if there is a good reason to.
CU knurd
On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:00:06 +0200 Thorsten Leemhuis fedora@leemhuis.info wrote:
Hi!
On 09.06.2009 21:44, Xavier Bachelot wrote:
Is anyone taking care of the stable push for June ?
FWIW, there IIRC wasn't even one in May either iirc.
I guess Thorsten is probably busy with other stuff,
Yes, sorry, I was really busy with lot of RPM Fusion stuff and real life; EPEL moved off by radar so I forgot about it.
In fact I feared exactly that and that was the reason why I months ago (is it even more then a year now? not sure, can't remember) tried to get away from EPEL nearly completely (¹), which was running quite fine back then.
But the latter not the case anymore. Sure, packagers are still doing a whole lot of good work, but leadership/steering is afaics nearly not existent at all, which IMHO is a dangerous situation for a project like EPEL (especially as RHEL6 is not that far away anymore and we need to be prepared for that).
Well, somewhat agreed. What critical issue is waiting to be addressed?
Some examples: No weekly reports for months (which were a requirement from FESCo when the EPEL Steering Committee was formed and thus should still be written!), nearly no meetings and the steering committee obviously doesn't even care if testing -> stable move get done. Hey, not even one of the steering committee members actually answered your mail in the past few days which IMHO tells us everything already.
I have tried (twice or three times, I forget) to get regular meetings going again. Either I can't get a time where everyone can attend, no one does attend, or people forget about the meetings.
We did have some meetings a few months ago, and a few things came out of them, but not much. Mostly people were "everything is running ok, what do we need to do".
Or IOW: what exactly did the steering committee do over the past six months? Nearly nothing I'd say. Dglimore (maybe one or two others from the Steering Committee; not sure,) did some work for koji and bodhi for EPEL, but that's nearly all afaics.
Agreed. What items do you think should be addressed?
IMHO it's time for the steering committee to say "Sorry, we screwed up, we all step down; the last thing we do it to make sure a new steering committee is formed somehow"
ok. Happy to do so. Who wants to be in a new committee? Judging from the lack of people interested in meetings I would say not many. I'm happy to step down if others step up tho.
Alternately, if I can get commitment from people to attend meetings I will hold them and try and get things back on track.
Note that a while back we discussed if EPEL is in need of a "steering comittee" which implies elections and such. We decided that it was much more a SIG than a Project. I don't know if that needs to be addressed by fesco.
but is anyone else able to take care of that ?
Anyone can prepare one: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/Tasks/NextTestingStableMove
But I did it a few times already, so I can prepare another one quite easily.
One was/is being done by Michael Stahnke.
iirc, there are some perms issue.
That is still the case afaics. Only dglimore can actually do the push and testing->stable moves.
Yes, this is the case as far as I know.
CU knurd
(¹) Yes, I did prepare a few stable pushes over the past few months to help out, but I mentioned a few times already that I didn't really want to do them anymore; looking back at it I should have made it more clear to prevent the current situation; sorry for that;
yeah, sorry if people have been bugging you on that.
kevin
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 10:24:19AM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
Note that a while back we discussed if EPEL is in need of a "steering comittee" which implies elections and such. We decided that it was much more a SIG than a Project. I don't know if that needs to be addressed by fesco.
To some degree, this is semantics. Let's instead:
1. Figure out what is broken; 2. How to fix it; 3. Meet regularly to keep stuff on track; 4. Keep a clear set of tasks needed/done.
After that is moving, we can address if anyone needs to volunteer for summary execution and replacement by a new regime.
- Karsten
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 12:01 AM, Karsten Wadekwade@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 10:24:19AM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
Note that a while back we discussed if EPEL is in need of a "steering comittee" which implies elections and such. We decided that it was much more a SIG than a Project. I don't know if that needs to be addressed by fesco.
To some degree, this is semantics. Let's instead:
- Figure out what is broken;
- How to fix it;
- Meet regularly to keep stuff on track;
- Keep a clear set of tasks needed/done.
After that is moving, we can address if anyone needs to volunteer for summary execution and replacement by a new regime.
Me.. me.. can I get a cool white handkerchief and a hand-rolled cigarette too? I want to apologize also for the last 6 months. After November, my free time went to crap. I am working on making more time available and should hopefully be able to focus more on EPEL also.
On 12.06.2009 18:24, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:00:06 +0200 Thorsten Leemhuis fedora@leemhuis.info wrote:
On 09.06.2009 21:44, Xavier Bachelot wrote:
Is anyone taking care of the stable push for June ?
FWIW, there IIRC wasn't even one in May either iirc.
I guess Thorsten is probably busy with other stuff,
Yes, sorry, I was really busy with lot of RPM Fusion stuff and real life; EPEL moved off by radar so I forgot about it.
In fact I feared exactly that and that was the reason why I months ago (is it even more then a year now? not sure, can't remember) tried to get away from EPEL nearly completely (¹), which was running quite fine back then.
But the latter not the case anymore. Sure, packagers are still doing a whole lot of good work, but leadership/steering is afaics nearly not existent at all, which IMHO is a dangerous situation for a project like EPEL (especially as RHEL6 is not that far away anymore and we need to be prepared for that).
Well, somewhat agreed. What critical issue is waiting to be addressed?
I didn't follow the EPEL that closely, but these are the things that sprung to my mind without consulting the archives:
- the "java is now in RHEL and EPEL" issue - how to prevent things like the java issue in the future - prepare for RHEL6 -- how do we get lot of Fedora packages into EPEL for release day, as it later get hard for packagers - can we make peace with CentOS and Dag somehow? - can we make support CentOS in the phases better, where RHEL X.Y is out, but Centos ist still on X.(Y-1) - koji/bodhi status - do we have one look and feel? I got the impression that some packagers update their packagers more in a Fedora-like way, while others are more debian-like (which up to a point is okay, but I'm not sure if we have left that point behind us)
There are likely more things.
Some examples: No weekly reports for months (which were a requirement from FESCo when the EPEL Steering Committee was formed and thus should still be written!), nearly no meetings and the steering committee obviously doesn't even care if testing -> stable move get done. Hey, not even one of the steering committee members actually answered your mail in the past few days which IMHO tells us everything already.
I have tried (twice or three times, I forget) to get regular meetings going again. Either I can't get a time where everyone can attend, no one does attend, or people forget about the meetings.
Meetings itself are not important, solving problems and improving the project is -- that can be done via the list to if people want to.
Or IOW: what exactly did the steering committee do over the past six months? Nearly nothing I'd say. Dglimore (maybe one or two others from the Steering Committee; not sure,) did some work for koji and bodhi for EPEL, but that's nearly all afaics.
Agreed. What items do you think should be addressed?
See above.
iirc, there are some perms issue.
That is still the case afaics. Only dglimore can actually do the push and testing->stable moves.
Yes, this is the case as far as I know.
Another problem that IMHO should have get solved -- relying on one person and putting all the push-work on that persons shoulder IMHO is bad for everyone.
(¹) Yes, I did prepare a few stable pushes over the past few months to help out, but I mentioned a few times already that I didn't really want to do them anymore; looking back at it I should have made it more clear to prevent the current situation; sorry for that;
yeah, sorry if people have been bugging you on that.
No need to say sorry. Actually I would have had not much of a problem to prepare another push or two if the Steering Committee or someone would have asked me to. It just felt of my radar -- and even if I had remembered it it likely would have felt a bit like "hey, seems the Steering Committee is mostly inactive, so why should I invest my time then".
CU knurd
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 12:10:45 +0200 Thorsten Leemhuis fedora@leemhuis.info wrote:
On 12.06.2009 18:24, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
...snip...
Well, somewhat agreed. What critical issue is waiting to be addressed?
I didn't follow the EPEL that closely, but these are the things that sprung to my mind without consulting the archives:
- the "java is now in RHEL and EPEL" issue
Agreed. I think we pretty much all agree that it should be removed or replaced with a version that is just the plugin asap.
- how to prevent things like the java issue in the future
We need to find someone who talks to RHEL folks internally to communicate such changes to us. I have no idea at all how to find such a person. Does anyone else?
- prepare for RHEL6 -- how do we get lot of Fedora packages into EPEL
for release day, as it later get hard for packagers
There was talk about this long ago... and some thoughts of doing a mass rebuild of fedora package to see what would be easy to move in, but it's really hard to do that without knowing what RHEL6 is going to be based on or have something we can test against. I think this is really going to have to wait until there is at least a beta out.
- can we make peace with CentOS and Dag somehow?
I would love to, but no idea how to off hand.
- can we make support CentOS in the phases better, where RHEL X.Y is
out, but Centos ist still on X.(Y-1)
I thought we agreed to wait in such cases for centos.
- koji/bodhi status
Being worked on. There are tickets filed and people doing the work.
- do we have one look and feel? I got the impression that some
packagers update their packagers more in a Fedora-like way, while others are more debian-like (which up to a point is okay, but I'm not sure if we have left that point behind us)
Yeah, agreed.
There are likely more things.
...snip...
I have tried (twice or three times, I forget) to get regular meetings going again. Either I can't get a time where everyone can attend, no one does attend, or people forget about the meetings.
Meetings itself are not important, solving problems and improving the project is -- that can be done via the list to if people want to.
Sure, it can, but in practice I find it never does. If there is a meeting on a standard schedule, people get asked about progress on things or new thoughts discussed. When there is no regular meeting people say "I should do that sometime, will try and remember to" and it gets lost, or the work on things where they have been bugged in a meeting about them.
Any of the subparts of Fedora I am active in, I find that the ones that have regular meetings stay active and moving, and the ones that don't or try and just "do things when we want on the list" stagnate.
...snip...
That is still the case afaics. Only dglimore can actually do the push and testing->stable moves.
Yes, this is the case as far as I know.
Another problem that IMHO should have get solved -- relying on one person and putting all the push-work on that persons shoulder IMHO is bad for everyone.
Sure, agreed. However, dgilmore is the only one who can fix it.
No need to say sorry. Actually I would have had not much of a problem to prepare another push or two if the Steering Committee or someone would have asked me to. It just felt of my radar -- and even if I had remembered it it likely would have felt a bit like "hey, seems the Steering Committee is mostly inactive, so why should I invest my time then".
Sure, and thanks for noting things and hopefully getting us revived.
CU knurd
kevin
- the "java is now in RHEL and EPEL" issue
The EPEL team tried to work this issue out once it was known. Red Hat does not see it as critical in any way. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=498967 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499079
- how to prevent things like the java issue in the future
We need to find someone who talks to RHEL folks internally to communicate such changes to us. I have no idea at all how to find such a person. Does anyone else?
Agreed. We need a point person. We also need somebody that RH cares to listen to and understands the ecosystems of corporate customers. The repositories must play well together, and be cohesive.
stahnma
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org