Re: Summary minutes for today's FESCo meeting (2012-03-19)
Josh Boyer wrote on 20.03.2012 02:26: On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com wrote: * #830 F18 Feature: ARM as Primary Arch -- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/FedoraARM (limburgher, 18:44:13) * LINK: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Machine_Resources_For_Package_Maintainers (nirik, 18:45:42) * AGREED: ask qa, rel-eng, kernel and infra teams to provide feedback on the proposal. Ask fesco members to come up with critera that they would want to add and revisit next week. (+8,-:0,0:0) (limburgher, 19:09:50) It's fairly disappointing this was discussed during this meeting without being on the agenda that was sent out. This is a rather large item that needs a lot of discussion among the various groups in Fedora, and I'm sure that I'm not the only person that wasn't aware it was even going to be in the meeting today. (Even ignoring the fact that the agenda was sent without a proper Subject and easily skipped.) +1 From my point of view the root of the problem is: Crucial information is spread over way to many places which makes it hard to stay on top. If you want to be aware of what happens in Fedora land, that you afaics have to keep an eye on - this list and at least fab-list - parts of the wiki, which is really hard (for example there is afaics no easy way to just follow the pages that are used to track new Features ) - the talk pages to those wiki pages (see yesterdays discussion about the proposed kernel-module, where I missed to look there) - the tickets in trac (like the one for Fesco meetings) - and ideally IRC and some more lists I have no real idea how to fix this, but I tend to say we need to way better make sure that important information and discussion get on this list in a easy consumable way(¹), as that's the only place where everybody looks. Sure, that can lead to a heated discussion, but then let's deal with it. CU knurd (¹) it for example always annoys me a little bit that there are no direct links to the trac tickets in which FESCo tracks the issues it wants to discuss in a meeting -- I know how to find them and it's just one or two additional clicks, but those are a little bit annoying -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Summary minutes for today's FESCo meeting (2012-03-19)
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 03:00:39AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: Josh Boyer wrote: It's fairly disappointing this was discussed during this meeting without being on the agenda that was sent out. This is a rather large item that needs a lot of discussion among the various groups in Fedora, and I'm sure that I'm not the only person that wasn't aware it was even going to be in the meeting today. (Even ignoring the fact that the agenda was sent without a proper Subject and easily skipped.) I think this should also be brought to larger discussion among packagers as a whole. ARM as a primary arch is probably going to slow down our builds by a lot, at least at the beginning. It also means it'd become the maintainer's job to fix ARM-only build failures. I think ARM should NOT become a primary arch, period. Having an actively maintained secondary arch is also the best way to keep improving secondary arch infrastructure with the aim of reducing the delays between primary arch and secondary arch releases, thereby helping all secondary arches, not just ARM (and making them all primary sure wouldn't scale). Changing ARM to a primary arch is the wrong way to get there, and puts an undue burden on Fedora maintainers as a whole, for the benefit of a small niche. I think ARM is going to be very important, especially if Raspberry Pi or similar projects take off. However you are right that (a) ARM is slow and (b) making ARM a secondary arch without a way for maintainers to *easily* get access to ARM machines to try out fixes is a quick way to encourage ExcludeArch. Also there's a whole bunch of wider questions around Fedora on ARM, beginning with the complete lack of a credible installer. Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones virt-p2v converts physical machines to virtual machines. Boot with a live CD or over the network (PXE) and turn machines into Xen guests. http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-p2v -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Summary minutes for today's FESCo meeting (2012-03-19)
Adam Williamson wrote: If you think ARM's a small niche, you may have some large surprising coming your way over the next few years... Then we can discuss making it a primary architecture in a few years. Now it just doesn't make sense. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Summary minutes for today's FESCo meeting (2012-03-19)
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 03:05:07PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: However you are right that (a) ARM is slow and (b) making ARM a secondary arch Erm, s/secondary/PRIMARY/. Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones virt-top is 'top' for virtual machines. Tiny program with many powerful monitoring features, net stats, disk stats, logging, etc. http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-top -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Summary minutes for today's FESCo meeting (2012-03-19)
Well, speaking for myself only, I read this as pretty much a Lets begin discussions on it. There's no way a short bit at the end of a meeting is going to allow enough discussion. So, this is just to start the ball rolling and collect feedback from everyone. No need to feel bad about not being there to give feedback at this first meeting. kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Summary minutes for today's FESCo meeting (2012-03-19)
On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 08:24:09 +0100 Thorsten Leemhuis fed...@leemhuis.info wrote: Josh Boyer wrote on 20.03.2012 02:26: On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com wrote: * #830 F18 Feature: ARM as Primary Arch -- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/FedoraARM (limburgher, 18:44:13) * LINK: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Machine_Resources_For_Package_Maintainers (nirik, 18:45:42) * AGREED: ask qa, rel-eng, kernel and infra teams to provide feedback on the proposal. Ask fesco members to come up with critera that they would want to add and revisit next week. (+8,-:0,0:0) (limburgher, 19:09:50) It's fairly disappointing this was discussed during this meeting without being on the agenda that was sent out. This is a rather large item that needs a lot of discussion among the various groups in Fedora, and I'm sure that I'm not the only person that wasn't aware it was even going to be in the meeting today. (Even ignoring the fact that the agenda was sent without a proper Subject and easily skipped.) I really don't think it's that big a deal. It's only a get the ball rolling and have some high level discussion. I'm sure there's going to be a lot more before any decision is made and lots of feedback from lots of parts of Fedora. This affects lots of us. +1 From my point of view the root of the problem is: Crucial information is spread over way to many places which makes it hard to stay on top. If you want to be aware of what happens in Fedora land, that you afaics have to keep an eye on - this list and at least fab-list - parts of the wiki, which is really hard (for example there is afaics no easy way to just follow the pages that are used to track new Features ) - the talk pages to those wiki pages (see yesterdays discussion about the proposed kernel-module, where I missed to look there) - the tickets in trac (like the one for Fesco meetings) - and ideally IRC and some more lists I have no real idea how to fix this, but I tend to say we need to way better make sure that important information and discussion get on this list in a easy consumable way(¹), as that's the only place where everybody looks. Sure, that can lead to a heated discussion, but then let's deal with it. Yeah, I don't know of a great way to fix that either. Information is spread out because it makes sense usually to be in the place it is. I think for the mailing list at least we could try and have someone 'summarize' discussions that go for 50 posts or something. Might help those who can't read all the discussion. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Engineering/FY13_Plan#Mailing_List_Improvement_Application may well help out someday. ;) CU knurd (¹) it for example always annoys me a little bit that there are no direct links to the trac tickets in which FESCo tracks the issues it wants to discuss in a meeting -- I know how to find them and it's just one or two additional clicks, but those are a little bit annoying Is: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/report/9 not what you are looking for? kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Summary minutes for today's FESCo meeting (2012-03-19)
On Tue, 2012-03-20 at 09:12 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: Well, speaking for myself only, I read this as pretty much a Lets begin discussions on it. There's no way a short bit at the end of a meeting is going to allow enough discussion. So, this is just to start the ball rolling and collect feedback from everyone. No need to feel bad about not being there to give feedback at this first meeting. +1, I do not see any harm in starting the discussion on the yesterday meeting as well. -- Tomas Mraz No matter how far down the wrong road you've gone, turn back. Turkish proverb -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Summary minutes for today's FESCo meeting (2012-03-19)
Once upon a time, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com said: Well, speaking for myself only, I read this as pretty much a Lets begin discussions on it. There's no way a short bit at the end of a meeting is going to allow enough discussion. So, this is just to start the ball rolling and collect feedback from everyone. No need to feel bad about not being there to give feedback at this first meeting. Well, it was proposed as an F18 feature, which _could_ have been approved at a single meeting. Speaking as a mirror admin (granted of a smaller mirror), I don't have sufficient disk space for two new architectures (the Fedora ARM team is actually proposing two different ARM arches). I would like to see the mirrors involved in the discussion, as there may be other (and larger) mirrors that won't carry this. I'm also not really sure what the gain is for moving from secondary to primary arch. -- Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Summary minutes for today's FESCo meeting (2012-03-19)
On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 10:21:01 -0500 Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net wrote: Once upon a time, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com said: Well, speaking for myself only, I read this as pretty much a Lets begin discussions on it. There's no way a short bit at the end of a meeting is going to allow enough discussion. So, this is just to start the ball rolling and collect feedback from everyone. No need to feel bad about not being there to give feedback at this first meeting. Well, it was proposed as an F18 feature, which _could_ have been approved at a single meeting. I suppose. I don't see that as likely... Speaking as a mirror admin (granted of a smaller mirror), I don't have sufficient disk space for two new architectures (the Fedora ARM team is actually proposing two different ARM arches). I would like to see the mirrors involved in the discussion, as there may be other (and larger) mirrors that won't carry this. Absolutely. Feedback from mirrors and also determining size would be great things to do. I'm also not really sure what the gain is for moving from secondary to primary arch. See other posts. kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Summary minutes for today's FESCo meeting (2012-03-19)
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com wrote: * #830 F18 Feature: ARM as Primary Arch -- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/FedoraARM (limburgher, 18:44:13) * LINK: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Machine_Resources_For_Package_Maintainers (nirik, 18:45:42) * AGREED: ask qa, rel-eng, kernel and infra teams to provide feedback on the proposal. Ask fesco members to come up with critera that they would want to add and revisit next week. (+8,-:0,0:0) (limburgher, 19:09:50) It's fairly disappointing this was discussed during this meeting without being on the agenda that was sent out. This is a rather large item that needs a lot of discussion among the various groups in Fedora, and I'm sure that I'm not the only person that wasn't aware it was even going to be in the meeting today. (Even ignoring the fact that the agenda was sent without a proper Subject and easily skipped.) It's plain irritating that per the logs, the proposers of this thought it was just going to be covered in the 'Open Floor' section. Seriously, this is not the way to start off on a great foot for such a major proposal. josh -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Summary minutes for today's FESCo meeting (2012-03-19)
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 8:26 PM, Josh Boyer jwbo...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com wrote: * #830 F18 Feature: ARM as Primary Arch -- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/FedoraARM (limburgher, 18:44:13) * LINK: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Machine_Resources_For_Package_Maintainers (nirik, 18:45:42) * AGREED: ask qa, rel-eng, kernel and infra teams to provide feedback on the proposal. Ask fesco members to come up with critera that they would want to add and revisit next week. (+8,-:0,0:0) (limburgher, 19:09:50) It's fairly disappointing this was discussed during this meeting without being on the agenda that was sent out. This is a rather large item that needs a lot of discussion among the various groups in Fedora, and I'm sure that I'm not the only person that wasn't aware it was even going to be in the meeting today. (Even ignoring the fact that the agenda was sent without a proper Subject and easily skipped.) It's plain irritating that per the logs, the proposers of this thought it was just going to be covered in the 'Open Floor' section. Seriously, this is not the way to start off on a great foot for such a major proposal. Agreed, my apologies. I'm still getting the hang of chairing meetings and only saw the ARM feature after I sent the agenda. I added it to the meeting thinking additional discussion would be helpful, not necessarily that it needed a definitive vote. I'll certainly be more careful all around next time. -J josh -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- in your fear, seek only peace in your fear, seek only love -d. bowie -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Summary minutes for today's FESCo meeting (2012-03-19)
Josh Boyer wrote: It's fairly disappointing this was discussed during this meeting without being on the agenda that was sent out. This is a rather large item that needs a lot of discussion among the various groups in Fedora, and I'm sure that I'm not the only person that wasn't aware it was even going to be in the meeting today. (Even ignoring the fact that the agenda was sent without a proper Subject and easily skipped.) I think this should also be brought to larger discussion among packagers as a whole. ARM as a primary arch is probably going to slow down our builds by a lot, at least at the beginning. It also means it'd become the maintainer's job to fix ARM-only build failures. I think ARM should NOT become a primary arch, period. Having an actively maintained secondary arch is also the best way to keep improving secondary arch infrastructure with the aim of reducing the delays between primary arch and secondary arch releases, thereby helping all secondary arches, not just ARM (and making them all primary sure wouldn't scale). Changing ARM to a primary arch is the wrong way to get there, and puts an undue burden on Fedora maintainers as a whole, for the benefit of a small niche. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Summary minutes for today's FESCo meeting (2012-03-19)
On 03/19/2012 06:38 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote: On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 8:26 PM, Josh Boyerjwbo...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Jon Cieslalimburg...@gmail.com wrote: * #830 F18 Feature: ARM as Primary Arch -- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/FedoraARM (limburgher, 18:44:13) * LINK: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Machine_Resources_For_Package_Maintainers (nirik, 18:45:42) * AGREED: ask qa, rel-eng, kernel and infra teams to provide feedback on the proposal. Ask fesco members to come up with critera that they would want to add and revisit next week. (+8,-:0,0:0) (limburgher, 19:09:50) It's fairly disappointing this was discussed during this meeting without being on the agenda that was sent out. This is a rather large item that needs a lot of discussion among the various groups in Fedora, and I'm sure that I'm not the only person that wasn't aware it was even going to be in the meeting today. (Even ignoring the fact that the agenda was sent without a proper Subject and easily skipped.) It's plain irritating that per the logs, the proposers of this thought it was just going to be covered in the 'Open Floor' section. Seriously, this is not the way to start off on a great foot for such a major proposal. Agreed, my apologies. I'm still getting the hang of chairing meetings and only saw the ARM feature after I sent the agenda. I added it to the meeting thinking additional discussion would be helpful, not necessarily that it needed a definitive vote. I'll certainly be more careful all around next time. My apologies on this as well (EVERYWHERE TONIGHT) - this feature went my way late Friday, I went back and forth with feature owners a bit over the weekend, and added the ticket as open floor (for today) or meeting (next week) figuring that there was not going to be a definitive vote, but that there was likely going to be numerous rounds of questions, and leaving it to the discretion of FESCo to decide if they wanted to even address it today vs. just acknowledge that THIS IS COMING. Perhaps I could have made that clearer in the ticket, or more inherently known that we cannot possibly look at a ticket without immediately having one million questions, but I don't think this should be put on the feature owners themselves as a bad way to start off; they were just looking to start the discussion as way-before-F18 as possible. Throw the blame my way, and I am pretty sure that the team of folks working on this are well aware that this is not going to be a cut-and-dry decision, and understand that it will likely take a while to get through the discussion of the feature with all involved parties. They made themselves quite available today, and I don't doubt that they will be doing the same in future meetings should this continue to go forward. -r -J josh -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Summary minutes for today's FESCo meeting (2012-03-19)
On Tue, 2012-03-20 at 03:00 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: Josh Boyer wrote: It's fairly disappointing this was discussed during this meeting without being on the agenda that was sent out. This is a rather large item that needs a lot of discussion among the various groups in Fedora, and I'm sure that I'm not the only person that wasn't aware it was even going to be in the meeting today. (Even ignoring the fact that the agenda was sent without a proper Subject and easily skipped.) I think this should also be brought to larger discussion among packagers as a whole. ARM as a primary arch is probably going to slow down our builds by a lot, at least at the beginning. It also means it'd become the maintainer's job to fix ARM-only build failures. I think ARM should NOT become a primary arch, period. Having an actively maintained secondary arch is also the best way to keep improving secondary arch infrastructure with the aim of reducing the delays between primary arch and secondary arch releases, thereby helping all secondary arches, not just ARM (and making them all primary sure wouldn't scale). Changing ARM to a primary arch is the wrong way to get there, and puts an undue burden on Fedora maintainers as a whole, for the benefit of a small niche. If you think ARM's a small niche, you may have some large surprising coming your way over the next few years... -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
