16:30 < mmcgrath> #startmeeting 16:30 < zodbot> Meeting started Tue Jul 21 16:30:32 2009 UTC. The chair is mmcgrath. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 16:30 < zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 16:30 < mmcgrath> abadger1999: ping 16:30 < mmcgrath> rishi: ping 16:30 < mmcgrath> err 16:30 < mmcgrath> ricky: ping 16:30 < mmcgrath> rishi: sorry 16:30 < abadger1999> yep. 16:30 < mmcgrath> lmacken: ping 16:30 < ricky> pong 16:30 < mmcgrath> spot: ping 16:30 < mmcgrath> J5: ping 16:30 -!- tc141516 [i=blewis@fedora/tc1415] has joined #fedora-meeting 16:31 < J5> pong 16:31 -!- Viking-Ice [n=johannbg@valhalla.rhi.hi.is] has quit "Ex-Chat" 16:31 -!- nixdude [n=jhp@pool-70-109-10-41.atl.dsl-w.verizon.net] has joined #fedora-meeting 16:31 -!- Viking-Ice [n=johannbg@valhalla.rhi.hi.is] has joined #fedora-meeting 16:31 * spot is here 16:31 -!- drago01 [n=linux@chello062178124130.3.13.univie.teleweb.at] has joined #fedora-meeting 16:31 * nixdude 1s too 16:32 < mmcgrath> I've not seen lmacken today so I'll assume he's not able to make it. 16:32 < mmcgrath> So this meeting's just a quick round up of what happened during the fedora community deployment, trying to shake out some communication issues, and hopefully clear up any misunderstandings. 16:32 < mmcgrath> or missed emails or notifications or anything 16:32 < mmcgrath> We have a hard stop in 30 minutes when the packaging committee meets and I hope it won't go anywhere near that long. 16:33 < mmcgrath> There's two main points of contention that I know of 16:33 < mmcgrath> 1) deployment times/expectations and 2) is the very late in the game license change. 16:33 < mmcgrath> anyone have anything they'd like to add to that? 16:33 < abadger1999> General communication is an issue but could be talked about some other time. 16:33 < mmcgrath> K, so I'll knock 1) out because I think it's more straight forward then 2) 16:33 < mmcgrath> yeah 16:34 < mmcgrath> So around the F10 launch, just a day or so before the launch J5 came to me asking for fedora community to be deployed. 16:34 < smooge> ok here I am 16:34 < ricky> s/10/11 :-) 16:34 < mmcgrath> We didn't know much about it at that time 16:34 < mmcgrath> ricky: this was F10 16:34 < ricky> Oh, wow, my mistake :-) 16:34 -!- neverho0d [n=psv@62.68.142.214] has quit Read error: 110 (Connection timed out) 16:34 < mmcgrath> it was in our final freeze and I made it known that it was just not possible to deploy it at that time. 16:34 < mmcgrath> that final 2 week freeze is critical 16:35 < mmcgrath> So flash forward to F11. 16:35 < mmcgrath> We had a few minor issues when deploying to test, 16:35 < mmcgrath> we got it ready in staging. 16:35 < mmcgrath> but at no point in time did I have a date for when this was to go live. 16:35 < mmcgrath> Now, on the F11 release date, lmacken told me that it was to go live that day and that spot said so. 16:35 < mmcgrath> This put me in a horribly ackward position. 16:36 < mmcgrath> spot is very much one of us, but he's also the boss (both my manager and the Fedora Project Engineering lead) 16:36 < spot> So, we definitely had a communication breakdown here. 16:36 -!- stickster is now known as stickster_food 16:36 < spot> In our Fedora Community meetings, I repeatedly asked luke to make sure you knew about our schedule 16:37 < spot> I'm not sure where it fell apart, but we definitely can do better. 16:37 < mmcgrath> So if it was just a communications breakdown (that happens) then there's not much else to discuss on it. We'll just all be more careful next time. 16:37 < mmcgrath> There were also some announcements that went out about it being live before it was actually live 16:37 < spot> Yeah, we had every intent of giving you advance notice. 16:37 -!- shepherd [n=shepherd@unaffiliated/shepherd] has quit Read error: 60 (Operation timed out) 16:37 < mmcgrath> but I don't think those were public 16:38 -!- sm|test-1ox [n=morpheus@209.132.186.254] has joined #fedora-meeting 16:38 < spot> mmcgrath: yeah, that was because it was mentioned in the early F11 interviews 16:38 -!- runa_b [n=runab@209.132.186.254] has joined #fedora-meeting 16:38 < mmcgrath> <nod> 16:38 < spot> before the instance was live 16:38 < J5> It partly has to do with not being clear on what checkmarks need to be hit to get things deployed. What do you do to get it into staging and then what was needed after things were in staging to say ok it is good to go 16:38 -!- paragn_ [n=paragn@209.132.186.254] has joined #fedora-meeting 16:38 -!- shepherd [n=shepherd@unaffiliated/shepherd] has joined #fedora-meeting 16:39 < mmcgrath> so one note I think I'd like to make more clear (not related to fedora community directly) is that maybe we should have a more clear feature process similar to the OS. 16:39 < mmcgrath> our livecycle is very tied to the Fedora releases. 16:39 < J5> agreed 16:39 < abadger1999> J5: Partly but not all -- we would not make a new app go-live date coincide with the release date no matter what. 16:39 < mmcgrath> and I think we're starting to get into a little groove where stuff that gets deployed is related to the Fedora release (start.fedoraproject.org, mirrorlist, etc) all could directly impact users. 16:39 < abadger1999> We could announce it was live on that date but it would have already been deployed on the production instance long before that date.... just the announcement would coincide. 16:40 -!- runab__ [n=runab@209.132.188.254] has joined #fedora-meeting 16:40 < spot> abadger1999: sure. that makes sense. 16:40 -!- paragn__ [n=paragn@209.132.188.254] has joined #fedora-meeting 16:40 -!- sm|test-box [n=morpheus@fedora/sankarshan] has quit Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer) 16:40 < mmcgrath> Ok, so does anyone have anything else on the deployment thing? It seems we all agree communication could be better and I don't think anyone is against a better documented Fedora-Infrastructure -> Fedora (OS) lifecycle 16:41 < mmcgrath> Ok, 16:41 -!- azneita [n=azneita@121.97.142.237] has quit Remote closed the connection 16:41 < mmcgrath> the next bit is the licensing. 16:41 < mmcgrath> which has come under more light over the last couple of meetings. 16:41 -!- paragn [n=paragn@fedora/paragn] has quit Read error: 60 (Operation timed out) 16:41 < mmcgrath> in particular things like hot patching concern me as an operations guy. 16:42 < mmcgrath> I'm still learning how the agpl will affect us 16:42 -!- giallu [n=giallu@fedora/giallu] has quit Read error: 60 (Operation timed out) 16:42 < mmcgrath> So what happened there? Is it too late to go back and release it under a GPL license? 16:42 < spot> well, we really want it under the AGPL 16:43 < spot> the reason we didn't use the GPL is because the GPL is not a good fit for web apps 16:43 -!- runa_b [n=runab@209.132.186.254] has quit Read error: 60 (Operation timed out) 16:43 -!- sm|test-box [n=morpheus@209.132.188.254] has joined #fedora-meeting 16:43 < spot> we wanted to encourage people to use the FC/moksha code, but we also want to get back improvements 16:43 < mmcgrath> who's "we", because it's not the infrastructure team. AGPL means a lot more process, and higher barriers to running this app then before. 16:43 < spot> under the GPL, someone (*cough*google*cough*canonical*cough*) could take moksha and FC, make a ton of changes, and run it 16:44 < spot> without any requirement that they share their fixes, or changes, or anything 16:44 < mmcgrath> and that's a problem for who? 16:44 < mmcgrath> it's just not something we wanted to allow them to do? 16:44 < abadger1999> spot: Did you get the email I sent you: I believe Subject: Licensing Part II ? 16:44 < spot> we want to be able to get those fixes 16:44 < spot> and encourage open development 16:44 < mmcgrath> spot: I have to be honest, the license in mokesha will probably prevent me from ever using it in any of my projects. 16:44 < abadger1999> spot: we == moksha & Fedora Community. 16:44 < spot> mmcgrath: why exactly? 16:45 < mmcgrath> it's just too much of a pain to comply with. especially from an operations point of view. 16:45 < spot> mmcgrath: really? a url to fixes is too much of a pain? 16:45 < mmcgrath> I can't just go in and make a change. 16:45 < jwb> mmcgrath, maybe if you state your concerns first, it might help 16:45 < mmcgrath> spot: a week ago mirrormanger broke and I had a pot on the stove. 16:45 < abadger1999> jwb: The concerns were in the Licensing Part II email. 16:45 < mmcgrath> It took a couple of seconds to fix. 16:45 < jwb> abadger1999, ok 16:45 < spot> mmcgrath: to comply with the AGPL, you just need to have a link to the source that is running. 16:46 < mmcgrath> that couple of seconds, takes much longer when I have other stuff to do with linking to this or that and publishing, etc. 16:46 < spot> that could be a link to the base source control and a link to the hotfixes 16:46 < mmcgrath> except none of our code currently does that. 16:46 < abadger1999> spot: I think infra needs to know more about what compliance to the AGPL means in order to understand how costly/inexpensive it is to comply. 16:46 < spot> honestly, you should be tracking your hotfixes anyways 16:46 < jwb> spot, that is sort of orthogonal 16:46 < spot> no, not really 16:46 < mmcgrath> awhat about config files? 16:47 < spot> mmcgrath: config files aren't code. 16:47 < jwb> yes, sure. but if they don't right now, they aren't violating a license 16:47 < mmcgrath> additionally if I worked at either of the last two places I worked with, they'd immediatly say no to using it. 16:47 < ricky> With something like mod_wsgi, code and configuration can be very mixed at times. 16:47 < mmcgrath> just because of that. 16:47 < ricky> But I think the bigger concern is exactly how we have to link to hotfixes 16:47 < abadger1999> spot: But they're in the tarball along with the code and the only license in the tarball is AGPLv3. 16:47 < J5> A lot of people say no to GPL 16:47 < spot> mmcgrath: because they ran proprietary web apps 16:47 < spot> we don't. 16:47 < abadger1999> So how do we differentiate. 16:47 < J5> because of the same reasons 16:47 < abadger1999> J5: Yeah, once of the infra developers does, in fact. 16:47 < mmcgrath> spot: they also ran open source apps, it took a long time to get them to do it. 16:48 < mmcgrath> now imagine if the barrier to using those apps was even higher. 16:48 * abadger1999 notes meeting reaches halfway point. 16:48 < spot> abadger1999: well, we've never been that anal about configs in any other fedora package 16:48 < spot> abadger1999: but we can explicitly relicense the configs if it helps people sleep at night 16:48 < abadger1999> spot: We've never had a license that might require us to release them. 16:48 < smooge> spot, config files may be code depending on how they are implemented and if the file has a "AGPL" header in it. I couldn't find an exclusion to config files in the AGPL :/ 16:49 < mmcgrath> I'm not talking about developing code, I'm talking about very practical operations issues. 16:49 < spot> abadger1999: thats not true, there are plenty of licenses that could be interpreted that way 16:49 < J5> I personally think LGPL would make sense in some of the code in Moksha 16:49 < smooge> spot, I am not against the AGPL, I just want to make sure we have a process in place so that we know the following: 16:49 < spot> mmcgrath: the issue is this, you need to make the code that is running available. 16:49 -!- sassmann [n=sassmann@g229133070.adsl.alicedsl.de] has quit Read error: 113 (No route to host) 16:49 < abadger1999> spot: We just need to know what the rules are for compliance. If there's some escape hatch built into the code vs config that says configs are uncopyrightable therefore they are freely copyable/do not fall under AGPL, that's fine. 16:49 < spot> to the user of the web app 16:49 -!- jeff_hann [n=arares@188.24.37.69] has quit "Leaving" 16:49 < mmcgrath> spot: and alter the webapp to point at it. 16:50 < spot> well, the webapp can point to a directory or a git tree or a url where source can be found 16:50 < smooge> a) How do we run in staging. Who are the 'customers' we need to publish the code for. {If some joe comes across it do we have to show them the exact code at that moment?} 16:50 -!- rishi [n=rishi@gnu-india/supporter/debarshi] has quit "Ex-Chat" 16:50 < ricky> One thing we were concerned about is how we need to link to hotfixes. 16:50 < spot> it doesn't have to be an explicit link 16:50 < spot> you just have to be able to get it from there 16:50 < abadger1999> spot: Are you talking Fedora or Fedora Infra? 16:50 * spot sighs 16:50 < ricky> OK, and what about what smooge said? Does this entire process need to be followed for our staging environment too just because it's web accessible? 16:50 < spot> this is a royal pain to do over irc. 16:50 < mmcgrath> but git trees and directories don't come out of thin air. We have to put them somewhere, we have to back them up 16:50 < mmcgrath> etc, etc. 16:50 -!- jeff_hann [n=arares@188.24.37.69] has joined #fedora-meeting 16:51 < mmcgrath> spot: imagine being legally liable for it. 16:51 < J5> ricky: why wouldn't a hotfix go into version control and the app be packaged first? 16:51 < spot> mmcgrath: guess what, i am. ;) 16:51 < smooge> spot I agree. I will send my problems via email and we can work out a process there. 16:51 < spot> no, lets try this again. 16:51 < spot> the webapp 16:51 < spot> has to have a link to the source of the code it is running 16:51 < spot> thats it. 16:51 < jwb> and if someone hotfixes a python bit that's live? 16:51 < mmcgrath> and the benefit to us is now canonical and google won't use mokesha? 16:51 < spot> that link can go to a page that says "here is the base git" and "here is a directory that contains any hotfixes we have applied" 16:52 < J5> mmcgrath: launchpad was just AGPL'ed 16:52 < ricky> J5: In staging, it probably should, but we use staging for debugging as well. One thing I did recently was write some debugging middleware for FAS in staging and leave that running for a few days 16:52 * mmcgrath writes down another reason not to use launchpad. 16:52 < nixdude> lol 16:52 < mmcgrath> I really don't like the AGPL and here's why. It protects the developer at the cost of the user. 16:52 < spot> honestly, i'm starting to get a little pissed off at the AGPL hate here. 16:53 < spot> you should be tracking your damn hotfixes anyway 16:53 < abadger1999> spot: People don't understand the AGPL. 16:53 < spot> and if you're doing that, its trivial to put up a link to them 16:53 < mmcgrath> spot: but having to do so in public is a higher burden then you think it to be. 16:53 < mmcgrath> from your point of view we don't get it 16:53 < spot> mmcgrath: if you're doing it right, you have nothing to fear. 16:53 < mmcgrath> from our point of view you don't get it. 16:53 < J5> mmcgrath: actually it protects users at the cost of the developers - you said it yourself, you are afraid of what it will cost us to do hotfixes but it allows users to not be locked in 16:53 < spot> if you're doing it wrong, you have more to fear than AGPL clauses 16:53 < abadger1999> Without understanding, people don't know what they can implement to comply and how much time that will take; what changes will be needed. 16:54 < abadger1999> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-infrastructure-list/2009-July/msg0009... 16:54 < spot> abadger1999: you can implement it pretty much any way you want as long as the user can get the source that is running 16:54 < ricky> https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/query?status=new&status=a... 16:54 < smooge> well ok lets try a different tack. what we need to do to properly track changes: 16:54 < mmcgrath> spot: you mean as long as the developer can get the source that is running right? 16:54 < spot> mmcgrath: no, the user of the webapp 16:54 < spot> any user of the webapp 16:55 < abadger1999> That's the summary of questions people asked at the last infra meeting about AGPL. 16:55 < mmcgrath> spot: and if the webapp doesn't have some way to do that we have to constantly patch the app to do it? 16:55 < spot> thats why FC has a link at the bottom of the page 16:55 * abadger1999 notes we are down to 7 minutes. 16:55 < mmcgrath> spot: but none of that links to where we track bugs 16:55 < spot> mmcgrath: then fix the webapp so it doesn't. 16:56 * mmcgrath doesn't think s/AGPL/GPL/ is legal though :) 16:56 < lmacken> Hey guys, sorry I'm late :) 16:56 < spot> mmcgrath: if you say "we put hotfixes for FC and moksha <here>", we'll link to it. 16:56 * lmacken wsa thinking it was at 13:00 16:56 < spot> and we're compliant 16:56 < mmcgrath> spot: and from your poitn of view, as someone that doesn't actually have to do that work, it seems trivial doesn't it? 16:56 < abadger1999> spot: I was wondering if that covers us or not -- it doesn't link to the version of code that we're running.... even with hotfixes. 16:56 -!- mishti [n=runab@209.132.188.254] has quit No route to host 16:56 < abadger1999> But once again, that was once of the questions in the email. 16:56 < ricky> lmacken: Hey, I have a bodhi question for you after this meeting if you'll be around 16:56 < spot> abadger1999: legal says it does cover us because the code we're running is there. 16:56 < mmcgrath> so what, we just copy the file into puppet, alter it, and hope upstream doesn't change it? 16:56 < abadger1999> spot: But it's not. 16:57 -!- sm|test-1ox [n=morpheus@209.132.186.254] has quit Read error: 110 (Connection timed out) 16:57 -!- paragn_ [n=paragn@209.132.186.254] has quit Connection timed out 16:57 < lmacken> ricky: ok 16:57 < spot> abadger1999: how is it not there? we're linking to git 16:57 -!- mcepl [n=mcepl@49-117-207-85.strcechy.adsl-llu.static.bluetone.cz] has joined #fedora-meeting 16:57 < abadger1999> spot: There's code i nthe moksha/fedoracommunity repo -- but it's not necessarily what we're running. 16:57 < spot> abadger1999: the code that we're running is in git. 16:58 < spot> unless one of you applied hotfixes without telling lmacken or J5 16:58 < J5> abadger1999: you can get to the revision 16:58 < ricky> what if mmcgrath finds a security bug in fcomm and doesn't have commit access? 16:58 < spot> or without checking it into git 16:58 < abadger1999> spot: Where? What revision? 16:58 -!- cassmodiah [n=cass@fedora/cassmodiah] has quit Read error: 110 (Connection timed out) 16:58 < abadger1999> What tag/branch/etc 16:58 < spot> abadger1999: i'm pretty sure "HEAD" is the answer 16:58 < ricky> I can see this being painful when it happens that we aren't upstream, or that we're not directly involved in development 16:58 -!- nim-nim [n=nim-nim@fedora/nim-nim] has quit Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer) 16:59 < spot> abadger1999: and even if it wasn't, legal said it was sufficient to point to git 16:59 < abadger1999> spot: So even though we aren't running HEAD, it's sufficient to point to HEAD? 16:59 * mmcgrath notes 1 minut left 16:59 < spot> abadger1999: as long as the code we're running is actually in git 16:59 < jwb> they are telling you it's not 16:59 < spot> now, if you guys have a directory or a git repo or something 16:59 < spot> where you store hotfixes 16:59 < abadger1999> spot: k. So we don't need to point to our hotfixes either as long as they've been checked into some branch in git at some point? 16:59 < spot> we can link to that too 17:00 < abadger1999> Even if they've later been reverted, etc? 17:00 < spot> and we're compliant 17:00 < spot> yeah, sure. 17:00 < abadger1999> Excellent. 17:00 < mmcgrath> ugh 17:00 < mmcgrath> what a pita 17:00 < ricky> So what do we do for cases where we don't have commit access like the one I mentioned above? 17:00 < spot> you're making a mountain out of a molehill here. 17:00 < mmcgrath> Ok, we're at the stop point guys, sorry. We said hard stop so we're going to hard stop. 17:00 < mmcgrath> spot: you don't have to live with the consequences of this decision. 17:00 * mmcgrath does 17:00 < abadger1999> spot: System admins have to understand the worse case scenarios. 17:01 < mmcgrath> #stopmeeting 17:01 < mmcgrath> #meetingstop 17:01 < mmcgrath> it's one of those 17:01 < ricky> #endmeeting 17:01 < nirik> (endmeeting) 17:01 < ricky> (But you have to do it) 17:01 < mmcgrath> #endmeeting 17:01 < zodbot> Meeting ended Tue Jul 21 17:01:25 2009 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . 17:01 < zodbot> Minutes: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2009-07-21/fedora-meeting.20... 17:01 < zodbot> Minutes (text): http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2009-07-21/fedora-meeting.20... 17:01 < mmcgrath> there we go 17:01 < zodbot> Log: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2009-07-21/fedora-meeting.20...