Agenda for the council meeting of February 8th 2010 at 2000UTC

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Agenda for the council meeting of February 8th 2010 at 2000UTC

Denis Dupeyron
Please find below the agenda for the council meeting of 8 February
2010 at 2000UTC. Note that the time is one hour later than usual, i.e.
21:00 in western Europe, 3:00PM US east coast and noon for US west
coast

Denis.

----------.

1. Intro (5 minutes, including late arrivals)
 1.1. Make sure somebody is logging
 1.2. Roll call
 1.3  Who wants to chair?
 1.4. Last chance for remarks on the agenda

2. GLEP 58 (5 minutes)
Make sure you have read the latest version of GLEP 58 [1] and vote.
Proposed plan, see [2]:
 1. Council approves GLEP58.
 2. Portage support is added, we add MetaManifests everywhere needed
   (top-level, categories, metadata, eclass etc) in the tree.
 3. Old Portage versions still work at this point, because they ignore
 the other Manifest files.
 4. Wait 6-12 months for Portage upgrade cycle.
Then when and if desired we can proceed to dropping the per-package
Manifests but that will have to be the subject of an additional GLEP
at a later time (and we do have quite some time to come up with that
due to the above timeline):
 5. Change the content of the MetaManifests to be per solar's proposal.
 6. Drop per-package Manifests from the tree.

3. GLEP 59 (5 minutes)
Make sure you have read the latest version of GLEP 59 [3] and vote.
Note that due to Robin having had some issues with his flight to
FOSDEM the changes in [4] may not be in there yet, but vote as if they
were committed.
Proposed plan (see [2]):
- Can add new hashes right now.
- Some of the old hashes we can remove right now.
- Have to keep just one old hash for old Portage to still work.

4. GLEP 60 (5 minutes)
Make sure you have read the latest version of GLEP 60 [5] and vote.
Proposed plan (see [2]):
- Can add new types right now.
- Cannot remove ANY types for a full upgrade cycle.

5. GLEP 61 (5 minutes)
Make sure you have read the latest version of GLEP 61 [6] and vote.
Proposed plan (see [2]):
- (unconfirmed) Cannot add the compressed files in per-package locations until
 the upgrade cycle is done, as old Portage will complain about their existence.

6. Open-ended discussion on VDB (30 minutes)
See the thread at [7]. Here's a non-exhaustive list of topics to
discuss (please try and keep technical details of potential
implementations for the end of the discussion):
Do we care about VDB caches currently not being compatible across
package managers?
Do we want to develop a way to work with more than one type of VDB
cache (similar to Brian's proposal or not) or do we prefer investing
our time into developing a new VDB?
What do you think about Brian's proposal in general?
Is a VDB cache EAPI material, i.e. should it be defined in PMS?
(currently PMS says explicitly that it shouldn't)

7. Conclusion (5 minutes)
 11.1 Action list. Who does what and when?
 11.2 Who takes care of the summary and log for this meeting? When?
 11.3 Next meeting date/time.
 11.4 Who will follow-up discussions and prepare the agenda for the
next meeting?

8. Open floor (ad libitum)

[1] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0058.html
[2] http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_e55ccdc31273afb01baf156c682d1cfe.xml
[3] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0059.html
[4] http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_506e7a7fd3147b49ce1394b88c67293b.xml
[5] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0060.html
[6] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0061.html
[7] http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_6b3e00049a1bf35fbf7a5e66d1449553.xml

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Agenda for the council meeting of February 8th 2010 at 2000UTC

Robin H. Johnson-2
On Sun, Feb 07, 2010 at 07:20:45AM -0700, Denis Dupeyron wrote:
> 3. GLEP 59 (5 minutes)
> Make sure you have read the latest version of GLEP 59 [3] and vote.
> Note that due to Robin having had some issues with his flight to
> FOSDEM the changes in [4] may not be in there yet, but vote as if they
> were committed.
The changes are committed as of a few hours ago, from a FOSDEM talk :-).

> [1] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0058.html
> [2] http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_e55ccdc31273afb01baf156c682d1cfe.xml
> [3] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0059.html
> [4] http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_506e7a7fd3147b49ce1394b88c67293b.xml
> [5] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0060.html
> [6] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0061.html
> [7] http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_6b3e00049a1bf35fbf7a5e66d1449553.xml
Please consider the .txt versions as the canonical version, not the HTML
conversions.

--
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux: Developer, Trustee & Infrastructure Lead
E-Mail     : [hidden email]
GnuPG FP   : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED  F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Agenda for the council meeting of February 8th 2010 at 2000UTC

Tobias Scherbaum
In reply to this post by Denis Dupeyron
Heya,

I'm getting a headache and can't promise to make it for today's meeting.
If i can't make it, my votes are listed below.

Denis Dupeyron wrote:
> 2. GLEP 58 (5 minutes)
> Make sure you have read the latest version of GLEP 58 [1] and vote.
> Proposed plan, see [2]:
>  1. Council approves GLEP58.
>  2. Portage support is added, we add MetaManifests everywhere needed
>    (top-level, categories, metadata, eclass etc) in the tree.
>  3. Old Portage versions still work at this point, because they ignore
>  the other Manifest files.
>  4. Wait 6-12 months for Portage upgrade cycle.

Vote: Yes

> Then when and if desired we can proceed to dropping the per-package
> Manifests but that will have to be the subject of an additional GLEP
> at a later time (and we do have quite some time to come up with that
> due to the above timeline):
>  5. Change the content of the MetaManifests to be per solar's proposal.
>  6. Drop per-package Manifests from the tree.

Not sure if we already should vote on this part (this is not the scope
of GLEP58). The general idea looks good to me, but I'd prefer to wait
with this decision until it's necessary. Basically that's what you meant
with "Then when and if desired" I guess.

> 3. GLEP 59 (5 minutes)
> Make sure you have read the latest version of GLEP 59 [3] and vote.
> Note that due to Robin having had some issues with his flight to
> FOSDEM the changes in [4] may not be in there yet, but vote as if they
> were committed.
> Proposed plan (see [2]):
> - Can add new hashes right now.
> - Some of the old hashes we can remove right now.
> - Have to keep just one old hash for old Portage to still work.

Vote: Yes

> 4. GLEP 60 (5 minutes)
> Make sure you have read the latest version of GLEP 60 [5] and vote.
> Proposed plan (see [2]):
> - Can add new types right now.
> - Cannot remove ANY types for a full upgrade cycle.

Vote: Yes

> 5. GLEP 61 (5 minutes)
> Make sure you have read the latest version of GLEP 61 [6] and vote.
> Proposed plan (see [2]):
> - (unconfirmed) Cannot add the compressed files in per-package locations until
>  the upgrade cycle is done, as old Portage will complain about their existence.

In general I'm in favor of this GLEP, but seeing Robin's answer in
<[hidden email]> I'm not sure if
we already need to vote on this GLEP or if it would make sense to wait
until we have MetaManifests generated on our rsync master and have some
real world measurements.

If people do feel like voting on this tonight my vote is: Yes

- Tobias

--
Praxisbuch Nagios
http://www.oreilly.de/catalog/pbnagiosger/

https://www.xing.com/profile/Tobias_Scherbaum

signature.asc (205 bytes) Download Attachment