#fedora-meeting: Env and Stacks (2013-12-03)
Meeting started by mmaslano at 16:02:38 UTC. The full logs are available
* ACTION: handsome_pirate will do wiki pages (mmaslano, 16:09:53)
* init process (mmaslano, 16:10:04)
* In scope ecamples: Automated Review tools (abadger1999, 16:37:25)
* In scope example: DevAssistant (abadger1999, 16:37:39)
* In scope example: work on enhancing build systems (copr & koji)
* In scope example: Taskotron - Automated task system (abadger1999,
* In scope example: scale manpower of infra/qa/releng to add features
to tools and deploy new tools (abadger1999, 16:43:58)
* ACTION: people to work on outlining the sections of
Meeting ended at 17:22:40 UTC.
* handsome_pirate will do wiki pages
* people to work on outlining the sections of
Action Items, by person
* handsome_pirate will do wiki pages
* people to work on outlining the sections of
People Present (lines said)
* abadger1999 (69)
* tjanez (42)
* mmaslano (29)
* drieden (21)
* handsome_pirate (14)
* pkovar (13)
* hhorak (7)
* zodbot (5)
* tflink (3)
* samkottler (3)
* vpavlin (2)
* bkabrda (0)
* juhp (0)
Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4
.. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot
16:02:38 <mmaslano> #startmeeting Env and Stacks (2013-12-03)
16:02:38 <zodbot> Meeting started Tue Dec 3 16:02:38 2013 UTC. The
chair is mmaslano. Information about MeetBot at
16:02:38 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea
16:02:49 <mmaslano> #meetingname Env and Stacks
16:02:50 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'env_and_stacks'
16:03:00 <handsome_pirate> Ahoy
16:03:14 <mmaslano> #chair abadger1999 pkovar tjanez samkottler bkabrda
handsome_pirate hhorak juhp
16:03:14 <zodbot> Current chairs: abadger1999 bkabrda handsome_pirate
hhorak juhp mmaslano pkovar samkottler tjanez
16:03:14 * samkottler is here
16:03:23 <mmaslano> handsome_pirate: hi, I was looking for you. What
about wiki pages?
16:03:29 <handsome_pirate> Sorry for the last couple of weeks; I've had
a lot of personal stuff going on that's killed my free time
16:03:34 <tjanez> hello
16:03:34 <hhorak> Hi all!
16:03:37 <handsome_pirate> mmaslano: ^^
16:03:47 <handsome_pirate> mmaslano: I just haven't had time to do them
16:05:05 <mmaslano> handsome_pirate: okay
16:05:42 <handsome_pirate> mmaslano: However, that should be cleared
up, so I'll have some time again
16:06:01 <drieden> Hello
16:08:50 * pkovar is late
16:09:28 <mmaslano> abadger1999: ?
16:09:31 <mmaslano> are you here?
16:09:42 * abadger1999 here
16:09:53 <mmaslano> #action handsome_pirate will do wiki pages
16:10:04 <mmaslano> #topic init process
16:10:18 <mmaslano> does anyone have a new topic for discussion?
16:10:23 <mmaslano> new goal
16:10:55 <drieden> I have a question about the PRD, is there an outline
16:11:36 <mmaslano> it shouldn't be real PRD, because we won't do a product
16:11:37 <abadger1999> drieden: I do not believe so... we don't really
have a PRD as we're not producing a single product like the
16:12:21 <abadger1999> drieden: We may be able to look at what Base is
doing for ideas though.... they don't have precisely the same issues but
their issues are somewhat similar.
16:12:22 <drieden> abadger1999 okay, but is there a table of contents so
we have some idea of the sections which will be in it?
16:13:02 <abadger1999> drieden: Nope. We have a hard job as we're
different than everyone else.
16:13:10 <abadger1999> so we have to come up with all of this from scratch.
16:13:52 <drieden> Perhaps we can use a template and take out the things
which don't pertain to us.
16:13:53 <tflink> I have some questions about tooling plans but they can
wait for open floor
16:14:17 <drieden> I didn't know if there was a PRD template provided
that all groups would be using.
16:15:10 <mmaslano> no template
16:15:43 <abadger1999> drieden: groups are cribbing off of each other...
but like I said, since we're not producing a produt.. a lot of what
other groups are coming up with doesn't really match up with what we
need to write up to clearly define our role.
16:15:49 <drieden> mmaslano Ok. Do we want to propose a TOC and then we
can focus on each section?
16:16:17 <drieden> abadger1999 I realize that, but if we don't have at
least a TOC, then it's hard to focus on what we are supposed to provide
for the PRD.
16:16:20 <abadger1999> For instance:
16:16:41 <mmaslano> drieden: sure
16:16:44 <abadger1999> drieden: Right. I agree.... but it's up to us to
put together the outline/toc/etc.
16:16:56 <drieden> Terrific. Want to use that and decide what doesn't
16:17:46 <abadger1999> drieden: basically... section 3 to the end of
document don't aply to us.
16:18:34 <abadger1999> (Section 1 & 2 are boilerplate.... who is doing
this? typographic conventions, etc)
16:19:22 <tjanez> abadger1999: I use we could come up with something
like section 4
16:19:25 <drieden> I think we also should have a section on "Use Cases".
16:19:34 <tjanez> *use reckon
16:19:35 <drieden> tjanez yes
16:20:23 <tjanez> So, we discussed packaging automation and tools
16:20:39 <tjanez> we could describe the intended audience, use cases
16:20:52 <abadger1999> <nod> Use cases would be useful
16:21:01 <abadger1999> althought "users" probably not so much
16:21:07 <hhorak> Some particular headlines from Section 1 and 2 seems
yet usable for us -- Tracking of Progress, Definitions and Acronyms..
16:21:43 <tjanez> abadger1999: "users" are probably developer, upstream
developers, packagers, etc.
16:22:03 <abadger1999> none of that is really meat though.... what are
we really working on.
16:22:17 <abadger1999> tjanez: with emphasis on the etc..
16:22:34 <tjanez> abadger1999: Hmm, care to elaborate on that?
16:23:04 <abadger1999> My thinking is that we're going to end up
producing many disparate "products" and they might each have a different
16:23:35 <mmaslano> our group should create technologies instead of
16:23:54 <tjanez> abadger1999, I think I get your point
16:23:54 <handsome_pirate> +1
16:24:46 <tjanez> So our PRD should be centered around
topics/technologies and for each of them we should define goals, users, etc.
16:25:01 <abadger1999> Let's say we start working on automated spec
review -- audience is: packagers, reviewers, and QA. OTOH, when we're
working on a Repository for SCLs, our audience is sysadmins and web
16:26:03 <abadger1999> tjanez: <nod> or more meta than that ... I guess
-- a PRD would be setting down some examples of what we're working on.
But we also want to be able to make clear what our scope is.
16:26:51 <abadger1999> does our scope include working on alternate build
systems? Does it include deploying and hosting those?
16:26:51 <drieden> Yes I agree, the scope needs to be clear in the PRD
16:27:09 <abadger1999> What are the points at which we interact with
other groups instead of doing it all on our own?
16:27:57 <tjanez> Yes, the scope is crucial since it will establish our
place within Fedora
16:28:27 <tjanez> The items/technologies will probably change over time
16:28:32 <abadger1999> tjanez: +1
16:28:53 <mmaslano> abadger1999: we might build some stuff on copr
16:29:27 <abadger1999> mmaslano: Right. Or the copr+koji merge. Or
something else entirely (if we're thinking of building non-rpms)
16:30:36 <abadger1999> So we might not be thinking about doing any of
those now... but we need to state how those are in the scope of this gorup.
16:31:00 <mmaslano> we are discussing what should be doing everytime
with no consensus
16:31:09 <mmaslano> shouldn't we discuss actual topics?
16:31:29 <abadger1999> mmaslano: +1
16:31:57 <tjanez> mmaslano, it's sad but you're right
16:32:47 <tjanez> Well, IMO hosting and deploying e.g. new build systems
should be better taken care of by some other group, like Fedora Infra
16:33:26 <mmaslano> it would be enough to think about other existing
16:34:10 <tjanez> mmaslano, I didn't understand what you meant
16:34:29 <abadger1999> tjanez: +1 -- OTOH, there's definitely something
for us there as well... Looking at mattdm's rings, I think that
everything outside of the "Fedora Commons" ring comes through us at some
point (even if it goes on to another working group later).
16:35:31 <abadger1999> tjanez: so things like "RPM Repository where
packages can override things in the base packageset" is something that
would be in scope for us to try to implement.
16:35:59 <vpavlin> I think the right way would be to list actual
technologies this group should be concerned about and then derive "the
scopes" from them.. build systems (copr+koji), help for developers
(DevAssistant), help for packagers (automate review tool)...
16:36:08 <abadger1999> but as you say, infra is who would actually host
the packages, the buildsystem that builds those, any git repos, etc.
16:36:23 <abadger1999> vpavlin: works for me.
16:36:43 <hhorak> vpavlin: +1
16:36:50 <drieden> vpavlin +1
16:37:02 <abadger1999> So what have we got so far?
16:37:17 <mmaslano> abadger1999: what vpavlin mentioned
16:37:19 <mmaslano> we have nothing more
16:37:25 <abadger1999> #info In scope ecamples: Automated Review tools
16:37:39 <abadger1999> #info In scope example: DevAssistant
16:38:07 <abadger1999> #info In scope example: work on enhancing build
systems (copr & koji)
16:38:20 <handsome_pirate> #info In scope example: Taskotron
16:38:27 <tjanez> I was asking about SCLv2 on the ML. What do you thing
of those w.r.t. our scope?
16:38:54 <tjanez> handsome_pirate: Taskotron?
16:38:58 <abadger1999> tflink: This might be a time for you to speak up
too.. we seem to be talking a little about tooling.
16:39:17 <abadger1999> tjanez: I think that working on defining them
would be in scope.
16:39:25 <pkovar> tjanez: would be great to get some input from jzeleny
16:39:44 <handsome_pirate> tjanez: Automated task system
16:39:44 <abadger1999> tjanez: I also think if we made a new repository
for them/SCL-v1 that would also be in scope
16:40:10 <abadger1999> tjanez: Packaging guidelines would need to work
with FPC; hosting of any new repository would need to work with infra.
16:40:21 <tflink> I think handsome_pirate is hinting at what I was
wondering about - mostly how any automation would fit into all this
16:40:25 <abadger1999> (building of new repositories would need to work
16:41:16 <abadger1999> So... perhaps work on tooling in general is in scope?
16:41:18 <tflink> and what all I should be planning for and/or keeping
16:41:48 <handsome_pirate> Indeed
16:41:50 <tjanez> tflink, good point
16:42:02 <abadger1999> ie -- one thing in scope for us is working
closely with infrastructure/qa/releng to add features to tools, deploy
new tools, and scale their manpower?
16:42:35 <tjanez> When we discussed automated package updates, automated
QA would be essential for that
16:42:46 <handsome_pirate> abadger1999: That would be wonderful
16:43:01 <handsome_pirate> abadger1999: QA's biggest tooling issue is
lack of people to work on tools
16:43:03 <abadger1999> #undo
16:43:03 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Info object
16:43:05 <tjanez> abadger1999: I like your wording
16:43:20 <abadger1999> #info In scope example: Taskotron - Automated
16:43:58 <abadger1999> #info In scope example: scale manpower of
infra/qa/releng to add features to tools and deploy new tools
16:46:12 <tjanez> Well, another thing we discussed on the ML were
Packaging guidelines and the related documentation
16:46:30 <tjanez> What do you think regarding their scope?
16:46:45 <abadger1999> I've been thinking about that over the weekend
and I'm a little less enthused about it.
16:47:35 <pkovar> what seems to be the problem?
16:48:07 <tjanez> If people are willing to work on it, then I'd be in
favor since they would be in touch with the latest development w.r.t.
16:48:23 <pkovar> i personally think that manpower will be ultimately a
deciding factor here
16:48:28 <abadger1999> talking with mattdm it seemed like we would
Fedora Commons/mainstream/whatever repository would kinda continue to be
what it is presently and we'd be working on enabling new things
(including new ways to get Fedora, new things that are fedora).
16:49:20 <abadger1999> Thinking about it... I'm not sure how much we're
not really changing the process of packaging guidelines any... so we'd
just be adding focus to it.
16:49:43 <tjanez> But we will still need documentation and (emerging)
guidelines for the new things?
16:49:45 <abadger1999> So my question would be... is it a distraction?
16:49:54 <abadger1999> tjanez: yes.
16:50:25 <mmaslano> abadger1999: many people told me, they should be
improved, they are hard to follow etc.
16:50:28 <abadger1999> tjanez: I was thinking over the weekend, though,
that maybe we'd be a bit like EPEL (for some of the new things)
16:50:50 <tjanez> OTOH, I think documentation is just a by-thing, not
16:51:22 <abadger1999> tjanez: EPEL's relation to the guidelines is "By
default follow the guidelines but we differ in these listed ways: A, B,
16:51:43 <mmaslano> pkovar would disagree, documentation is important
16:51:43 <pkovar> abadger1999: that sounds good
16:51:49 <mmaslano> pkovar: :)
16:51:50 <abadger1999> tjanez: I was thinking we could have repos where
we say "Follow the guidelines but it's okay to have Conflicts"
16:52:00 <tjanez> abadger1999, I like that
16:52:01 <abadger1999> "Follow the Guidelines but it's okay to bundle
16:52:05 <abadger1999> etc.
16:52:13 <pkovar> that's actually what we are providing the software
16:52:25 <pkovar> we document differences
16:52:39 <pkovar> mmaslano: indeed! :-)
16:53:08 <pkovar> s/what/why
16:53:37 <tjanez> I think we came closer to defining the scope of our WG
16:53:40 <abadger1999> mmaslano: I agree with the hard-to-follow and so
on... what I'm wondering is whether working on the guidelines within
this group is within scope and valuable for this group... or if the
group should concentrate on new things and the indivudals in this gorup
should work on guideline reorg separately.
16:54:41 <abadger1999> I... don't want us to get bogged down in
guidelines reorg if the priority should be to be solving problems
relating to creating new repositories and such.
16:55:01 <handsome_pirate> +1
16:55:15 <hhorak> abadger1999: I still think that something like "new
spec standards" can be taken as new thing that needs to be developed..
and would be covered under "making life of packagers easier" scope
16:55:40 <pkovar> abadger1999: i think that documentation (not just
official guidelines) is important enough to be a part of our primary goals
16:55:58 <hhorak> abadger1999: but I agree it doesn't have to be our
16:56:35 <drieden> hhorak: +1
16:56:57 <abadger1999> Sure... I'm not opposed to work on either
documenting or coming up with new standards... I'm just throwing out
there the quesetoin of whether it should be our priority or not.
16:57:08 <tjanez> I'm also in favor of having less goals and more focus
16:57:42 <samkottler> +1
16:58:01 <pkovar> well, if we want people to start trying/using new
things, we need proper docs for that :-)
16:58:03 <hhorak> what about to copy cloud_prd's style -- having primary
scopes and secondary scopes?
16:58:34 <abadger1999> and if it's not our priority, then we might as
well say, if you have an idea, just go work with FPC/docs on that --
they already exist and are interested in those areas.
16:59:28 <pkovar> abadger1999: i still think our group should be part of
16:59:47 <pkovar> we want those people to talk to us too
17:00:24 <abadger1999> pkovar: Okay, I'll bite -- what do we add to the
17:01:14 <tjanez> Another thing we should also decide on is the
environment part. Mattm talked about desktop environments, etc.
17:01:25 <tjanez> I think they are clearly out of scope
17:01:35 <tjanez> and in the domain of the Workstation WG
17:01:48 <abadger1999> tjanez: Tentative +1.
17:02:07 <mmaslano> tjanez: +1
17:02:19 <handsome_pirate> +1
17:02:19 <abadger1999> I could see us touching that as part of alternate
repos providing conflicting/alternate things.
17:03:05 <abadger1999> But as a "We will be producing desktop
environments for end users to install".... clearly not us.
17:03:16 <tjanez> Aha, I see, but that would be us providing the means
of shipping those things
17:03:29 <tjanez> Not actually caring about the DEs themselves
17:03:44 <abadger1999> tjanez: +1 That's a good way to make the distinction.
17:03:47 <vpavlin> development environment + test environment might be
covered by DevAssistant + Docker integration
17:04:11 <samkottler> are there any numbers around devassistant adoption?
17:04:53 <tjanez> On the github.com
web-page it says 4.9K downloads
17:05:24 <tjanez> But yea, that doesn't really tell much :-)
17:05:59 * mmaslano needs to go home
17:06:09 <mmaslano> abadger1999: could you chair the rest of the meeting?
17:06:43 <abadger1999> mmaslano: I can close it out -- would you be
willing to publish the logs later/tomorrow?
17:06:58 * abadger1999 has a busy day in front of him
17:07:03 <tjanez> vpavlin, I agree with the DevAssistant part
17:07:12 <mmaslano> abadger1999: sure I can
17:07:17 <mmaslano> bye
17:07:28 <handsome_pirate> Peace, y'all
17:07:43 <hhorak> bye
17:07:50 <drieden> bye
17:08:21 <abadger1999> any action items to work on this week?
17:08:43 <drieden> How about a PRD TOC?
17:09:29 <tjanez> And maybe put in some examples of what is (not) in
scope from today
17:10:02 <drieden> tjanez +1
17:11:31 <tjanez> We can put it on
and them move it to our PRD when we have the Wiki set up
17:12:55 <drieden> tjanez sounds good to me
17:13:11 <drieden> abadger1999 is this okay with you?
17:13:20 <abadger1999> tjanez: Works for me.
17:13:24 <abadger1999> Everyone feel free to edit that.
17:14:09 <abadger1999> #action people to work on outlining the sections
17:14:35 <abadger1999> Alright, anything else?
17:14:52 <tjanez> When is the deadline for the PRD?
17:16:23 <drieden> tjanez I thought it was in Jan, I'm trying to find
17:17:39 <tjanez> Ok, found it, it's Jan 13 (see:
17:18:11 <drieden> tjanez Yikes, okay, that's going to come quickly.
17:19:14 <tjanez> drieden, yes
17:19:48 <tjanez> Should we wrap-up this meeting?
17:19:55 <drieden> tjanez +1
17:22:31 <tjanez> abadger1999, care to wrap-up the meeting?
17:22:38 <abadger1999> Yep.
17:22:40 <abadger1999> #endmeeting