Release Engineering Meeting Recap from Monday 16-APR-07

[Josh Boyer]

On Fri, 2007-04-20 at 07:28 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Josh Boyer wrote:
> > This release was all that was discussed.  If new proposals for future
> > releases come to bear, this topic can be revisited.  For now, a note
> > will be placed in the Release Notes for F7 about packages potentially
> > containing .fcX where X can be different from the current release.
> 
> You have just a day before the docs are frozen.
> 
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject/Schedule. I am editing the 
> release notes right now so if anyone has suggestions for the wording let 
> me know. My proposal for the future release is essentially the same as 
> the one now preferably early during the devel cycle and no later than 
> the feature freeze
> 
> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/2007-April/msg00137.html
> 
> I wanted FESCo to decide on the issue on the whole rather than just for 
> this release as the last time I requested it was before the test 4 
> release. That was ignored somehow it a bit too late to do rebuilds.

Given that test4 is so close, and the release in general is approaching
rapidly, FESCo decided to delay a general ruling until after the release
of F7.  This allows us to gage the magnitude of the "confusion" factor,
as well as allow time for further disttag discussions to take place
before determining a general policy.

> So let me place a request now for FESCo to consider a general approach 
> on dealing with dist tags early during Fedora 8 development. Also we 
> might have delta rpms by default then so the argument of lesser churn of 
> packages becomes weak.

Your request is noted.  There are other proposals at the moment as well.
Thorsten mentioned changing what the disttag was in devel.  Could you
take a look at his proposal and see if you find it to be
better/worse/complementary to yours?

Given the questioning on the content of the meeting, I've disclosed the
full logs of the discussion below.

josh

Apr 19 12:07:44 *	bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCO-Meeting -- MISC -- Vote on rebuilding packages with old disttag - jwb
Apr 19 12:07:50 <bpepple>	f13: -1
Apr 19 12:07:54 <bpepple>	dgilmore: -1
Apr 19 12:07:59 <jwb_gone>	1
Apr 19 12:08:00 <bpepple>	from the mailing lists.
Apr 19 12:08:08 <c4chris>	-1
Apr 19 12:08:23 <notting>	-1
Apr 19 12:08:28 <jwb_gone>	is anyone not familiar with the discussion?
Apr 19 12:08:29 <bpepple>	-1 here also, since it's pretty much a cosmetic reason.
Apr 19 12:08:30 <nirik>	-1 (too late in the cycle). I would suggest we revist mass rebuilding per cycle after f7 is out.
Apr 19 12:08:55 <jeremy>	-1
Apr 19 12:08:55 <jwb_gone>	that's a majority -1 already
Apr 19 12:08:56 *	bpepple agrees with nirik on having a discussion about future rebuilds.
Apr 19 12:09:06 <c4chris>	nirik: yes
Apr 19 12:09:08 <tibbs>	-1.  But the users may freak out so much that we'll have to reconsider.
Apr 19 12:09:09 <nirik>	all the dist tag/repotag mess... I think we should push for tools to be better about saying what repo/dist a package is from....
Apr 19 12:09:26 <jwb_gone>	yep.  i agree
Apr 19 12:09:28 <bpepple>	tibbs: maybe we should put something in the release notes regarding it?
Apr 19 12:09:32 *	cweyl|work belatedly grabs a seat in the rabble section
Apr 19 12:09:37 <thl>	nirik, we could try to get that into the vendor field
Apr 19 12:09:38 <jeremy>	bpepple: sure
Apr 19 12:09:47 <thl>	nirik, or some of the other fields in the rpm header maybe
Apr 19 12:09:50 <tibbs>	The people who freak are probably the ones who will never read the release notes.
Apr 19 12:09:52 <jwb_gone>	yeah, release notes would be a good idea
Apr 19 12:10:00 <LetoTo>	yes: right now, to find out where a package is from, one looks at Buildhost
Apr 19 12:10:06 <bpepple>	tibbs: true, but they only have themselves to blame for that.
Apr 19 12:10:10 <tibbs>	But of course, it really needs to be documented.
Apr 19 12:10:11 <jwb_gone>	tibbs, doesn't matter.  when they freak, we at least have it written down somewhere to point them at
Apr 19 12:10:13 <nirik>	ie, have yum say: package clamav-0.90.2 (fedora) conflicts with clamav-0.90.2 (dag) or whatever...
Apr 19 12:10:41 <jwb_gone>	nirik, can we have that discussion later?
Apr 19 12:10:59 <thl>	nirik, sounds good, too
Apr 19 12:10:59 *	abadger1999 apologizes for being late
Apr 19 12:11:00 <bpepple>	who do we need to poke to get that into the release notes?
Apr 19 12:11:08 <nirik>	yes, later is good. Just thought I would mention the idea.
Apr 19 12:11:25 <tibbs>	Ideally the repo flavor could get into the RPM header somewhere.
Apr 19 12:11:26 <quaid>	bpepple: write it into Docs/Beats/ directly is the best way
Apr 19 12:11:40 <bpepple>	Ok, so FESCo is against the rebuild, and we'll add it to the release notes.
Apr 19 12:11:53 <quaid>	alt find the beat writer on DocsProject/ReleaseNotes/Beats and ask that person to help
Apr 19 12:12:04 <bpepple>	moving on, unless someone has something to add.
Apr 19 12:12:08 <bpepple>	quaid: ok, thanks.
Apr 19 12:12:17 <tibbs>	Some note about how Fedora moves quickly and not all packages change, and
Apr 19 12:12:36 <tibbs>	how upgrades go faster when we aren't needlessly replacing packages might placate a few folks, I guess.