17:00:43 <geppetto> #startmeeting fpc
17:00:43 <zodbot> Meeting started Thu Feb 23 17:00:43 2017 UTC.  The chair is geppetto. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:00:43 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
17:00:43 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fpc'
17:00:44 <geppetto> #meetingname fpc
17:00:44 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fpc'
17:00:44 <geppetto> #topic Roll Call
17:00:49 <mbooth> Hi
17:00:53 * limburgher here
17:00:53 <orionp> hello
17:00:54 <geppetto> #chair mbooth
17:00:54 <zodbot> Current chairs: geppetto mbooth
17:00:56 <geppetto> #chair orionp
17:00:57 <zodbot> Current chairs: geppetto mbooth orionp
17:02:47 <tomspur> Hi
17:02:56 <racor> hi
17:03:11 <tibbs> Howdy.
17:03:11 <geppetto> #chair tomspur
17:03:12 <zodbot> Current chairs: geppetto mbooth orionp tomspur
17:03:14 <geppetto> #chair racor
17:03:14 <zodbot> Current chairs: geppetto mbooth orionp racor tomspur
17:03:17 <geppetto> #chair tibbs
17:03:17 <zodbot> Current chairs: geppetto mbooth orionp racor tibbs tomspur
17:03:46 <tibbs> Sorry about last week.  Was going out of town for my birthday and thought I'd have time to attend the meeting but that just didn't happen.
17:03:47 <geppetto> ok, give limburgher a couple of minutes
17:04:01 <limburgher> but. . .I'm here.
17:04:11 <geppetto> #chair limburgher
17:04:11 <zodbot> Current chairs: geppetto limburgher mbooth orionp racor tibbs tomspur
17:04:11 <limburgher> I can do a little dance or something. . .
17:04:15 <geppetto> limburgher: :-o
17:04:21 <limburgher> <busts move>
17:04:22 <geppetto> And boogie?
17:04:36 <orionp> make it rain FPC members....
17:04:43 <limburgher> Hallelujah. . .
17:04:50 <geppetto> #topic Schedule
17:04:52 <geppetto> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/URBIDXVA4L74PNHYMEF3LVUI2W77U4BK/
17:05:14 <limburgher> FPC: The Gathering Storm
17:05:24 <geppetto> #topic #679 Actively discourage Group:  .fpc 679
17:05:30 <geppetto> #topic #679 Actively discourage Group
17:05:36 <geppetto> .fpc 679
17:05:37 <zodbot> geppetto: Issue #679: Actively discourage Group: - packaging-committee - Pagure - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/679
17:05:50 <ignatenkobrain> .hello ignatenkobrain
17:05:51 <zodbot> ignatenkobrain: ignatenkobrain 'Igor Gnatenko' <ignatenko@redhat.com>
17:06:00 <geppetto> Hmm, those urls aren't going to work are they
17:06:18 <ignatenkobrain> geppetto: they are
17:06:21 <orionp> seems to redirect
17:06:56 <geppetto> Ahh, cool someone did a redirect
17:07:16 <ignatenkobrain> as a random person who is somehow connected to RPM, I have opinion -- unless we are going to standardize our own "Group" categories and make tools relying on them, we should discourage usage of Group tag
17:08:59 <geppetto> Yeh, I'll take that as another "SHOULD NOT" +1 :)
17:09:06 <geppetto> Also +1 on that from me
17:09:16 <tomspur> +1 as well
17:09:22 <tibbs> +1
17:09:23 <racor> +1, on "SHOULD NOT"
17:09:28 <orionp> yeah, I'm fine with a SHOULD NOT even now - it's still not an absolute prohibition if someone wants to support EL5 +1
17:09:30 <limburgher> +1 SHOULD NOT
17:09:37 <limburgher> Unless you want to go with DO NOT WANT
17:09:57 <limburgher> But don't.
17:10:12 <geppetto> mbooth: I assume you are still +1
17:10:19 <mbooth> Yep :-)
17:10:33 <geppetto> #action Actively discourage Group in specfiles (+1:7, 0:0, -1:0)
17:10:39 <geppetto> Ok, that was easy :)
17:10:49 <geppetto> #topic #680 tmpfiles.d minor cleanup
17:10:53 <geppetto> .fpc 680
17:10:53 <limburgher> Like Sunday morning. . .
17:10:54 <zodbot> geppetto: Issue #680: tmpfiles.d minor cleanup - packaging-committee - Pagure - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/680
17:12:15 <geppetto> The comment needs to be fixed too
17:12:32 <limburgher> Seems legit.
17:12:51 <mbooth> I haven't heard this tune, "tmpfiles in d-minor"
17:13:12 <tibbs> I did have a comment in the ticket.
17:13:15 * orionp goes to fix comment
17:13:31 <limburgher> mbooth: /rimshot
17:13:58 <tibbs> Just that generally we might want avoid magic things like install from /dev/null because our audience includes people who might not comprehend what that does.
17:13:59 <tomspur> Installing from /dev/null is a bit abstruse for me at least
17:14:20 <geppetto> yeh, /dev/empty is probably better
17:14:25 <limburgher> It seems like touch would be fine, too.
17:14:40 <geppetto> ha, no /dev/empty
17:14:56 <tibbs> Err, not installing with a source that's a device node would be better still.
17:15:04 <orionp> I'm fine with whatever, I was just fixing the broken install command
17:15:13 * geppetto nods
17:15:17 <limburgher> We could touch an empty file at install, %ghost it and copy it over. /ducks
17:16:19 <geppetto> It must have been a good week because that sounded almost reasonable limburgher
17:16:36 <tibbs> I know it's the "simplest" way to install an empty file with a chosen mode, but if that mode is 644 and the packager isn't messing with umask elsewhere then a plain touch will be equivalent.  And touch followed by chmod makes it obvious and doesn't lead to poor packagers having to look up what install /dev/null actually does.
17:16:57 <limburgher> geppetto: ROTFLMAOWTFBBQOMG
17:17:13 <limburgher> geppetto: Not so much. :)
17:17:33 <geppetto> limburgher: Yeh, it says more aout my week than anything else, I think
17:17:34 <limburgher> geppetto: Or you need to see a mental health professional.
17:17:57 <orionp> https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Packaging%3ATmpfiles.d&diff=current&oldid=458504
17:18:00 <mbooth> Yeah +1 for touch && chmod... installing /dev/null weirds my internal command parser
17:18:12 <geppetto> Given people playing with umask in the build/install will hopefully know what they are doing … I'm happy with just a touch
17:18:20 <tibbs> Anyway, we've just had someone gripe because we said that something is unnecessary instead of telling them not to use it, so I guess I'm overly sensitive to how much abstrusity we can bake into the guidelines these days.
17:18:41 <tibbs> orionp: ++
17:19:09 <geppetto> +1
17:19:12 <limburgher> When you cat /dev/null, cat /dev/null > /dev/ttys0
17:20:17 <geppetto> limburgher: is that a vote ?;)
17:20:28 <limburgher> +1
17:20:47 <limburgher> Isn't my spoken language self-documenting? :)
17:20:58 <geppetto> mbooth: racor: tomspur: vote?
17:21:08 <mbooth> geppetto: See above, +1 :-)
17:21:16 <orionp> +1 from me :)
17:21:24 <racor> +1
17:21:31 <tomspur> +0
17:21:54 <geppetto> #action tmpfiles.d minor cleanup (+1:6, 0:1, -1:0)
17:22:07 <geppetto> tomspur: Any comment you want to make?
17:23:00 <racor> One question: is /dev/null guaranteed to exist an all occasions tmpfiles are being used (installation, upgrades, etc)?
17:23:22 <tomspur> geppetto: Still slightly confused from the previous /dev/null thing. This looks fine and we can move on. Just didn't feel to +1 it ;)
17:23:26 <orionp> racor: we dropped /dev/null
17:23:33 <geppetto> tomspur: Ok, no problem
17:23:45 <racor> orionp: seemingly, I missed that
17:23:54 <geppetto> #topic #678 Ban use of directory Requires
17:23:59 <geppetto> .fpc 678
17:24:00 <zodbot> geppetto: Issue #678: Ban use of directory Requires - packaging-committee - Pagure - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/678
17:24:01 <limburgher> I love the idea that /dev/null may or may not exist. :)
17:24:50 <tibbs> I think this is actually waiting on ignatenkobrain.
17:25:01 <geppetto> Yeh, but given here's here we can poke him :)
17:25:09 <geppetto> he's here, even
17:25:12 <ignatenkobrain> yeah, I promised to write some automated check, but didn't
17:25:14 <tibbs> But this ties into a separate ticket.
17:25:18 <racor> limburgher: yes, there are phases /dev/null isn't up.
17:25:26 <ignatenkobrain> an I'm running away now for pyvo =(
17:25:41 <geppetto> ok, no problem
17:25:49 <tibbs> There's actually a draft relating to this in 632.
17:26:06 <tibbs> Which discourages directory dependencies in the same way we discourage file dependencies.
17:26:19 <tibbs> But banning them.... makes no sense at all.
17:26:56 <geppetto> Ok
17:26:58 <geppetto> #topic #656 version guidelines major simplification for the git era
17:27:01 <geppetto> .fpc 656
17:27:02 <zodbot> geppetto: Issue #656: pre/post-release version guidelines need major simplification for the git era - packaging-committee - Pagure - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/656
17:27:15 <geppetto> tibbs: You did some more changes here … want to talk about them?
17:27:28 <tibbs> Well, I basically got it to the state where it's "finished".
17:27:58 <tibbs> Which means that it looks OK to me and probably not that great to everyone else.
17:28:09 <geppetto> ha
17:28:10 <tibbs> But it comes down to whether it is actually "better".
17:28:57 <geppetto> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Tibbs/VersioningCleanup
17:29:16 <tibbs> I summarized the functional differences in the ticket.
17:29:58 * geppetto nods .... if you do the diff it looks like everything :-o
17:30:18 <tibbs> Also, fedorahosted is now not responding for me.  If anyone else is having the same problem, the ticket is at https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/656
17:31:45 <tibbs> Anyway, this is more of a "please everyone read it and give me feedback".
17:32:19 <tibbs> Also note that the page does look great without the examples, but... the page with examples really does need to be filled in.
17:32:42 <tibbs> If anyone has suggestions for examples to add, or for how on earth I can actually organize the examples, please let me know.
17:32:50 <tibbs> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Tibbs/VersioningCleanupExamples
17:33:21 <geppetto> That looks fine to me
17:33:26 <limburgher> I really don't have anything to contribute.  It's come a long way.
17:33:33 <limburgher> Baby.
17:33:59 <geppetto> You removed all the examples … and it certainly looks saner now, but did we want to still have them somewhere?
17:34:44 <tibbs> Maybe my last few messages here were lost.
17:34:51 <tibbs> [11:32] <tibbs> Also note that the page does look great without the examples, but... the page with examples really does need to be filled in.
17:34:53 <tibbs> [11:32] <tibbs> If anyone has suggestions for examples to add, or for how on earth I can actually organize the examples, please let me know.
17:34:54 <tibbs> [11:32] <tibbs> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Tibbs/VersioningCleanupExamples
17:35:30 <geppetto> ahh, yeh, you did those while I was reading and my brain skipped them for some reason
17:35:31 <tibbs> That's also linked from the Examples section.
17:35:42 <tibbs> It's just not "done".
17:36:15 <tibbs> Whenever I try to work on the examples I get stuck screwing with wiki syntax and hating life.
17:36:54 * geppetto nods
17:37:24 <tibbs> If we are at least leaning towards liking this, then I still have an outstanding promise to make the same transformation on the "tilde in version" draft.
17:37:57 <orionp> I like, thanks for all the work.  tibbs++
17:37:57 <zodbot> orionp: Karma for tibbs changed to 7 (for the f25 release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
17:38:03 <limburgher> I'm leaning at like, 40 degrees from vertical.
17:38:09 <limburgher> tibbs++
17:38:09 <zodbot> limburgher: Karma for tibbs changed to 8 (for the f25 release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
17:38:35 <geppetto> Yeh, we can get to that after we've changed things once :)
17:38:38 <tibbs> Though this cleanup we're talking about has nothing at all to do with that tilde thing at all.
17:39:02 <tibbs> That whole discussion just made me realize just how bad the versioning guidelines actually are.
17:39:10 <geppetto> And I think I'm happy to +1 this as is, we can add more examples or  link them more prominently or something too … but I'm ok either way
17:39:21 * geppetto nods
17:41:41 <limburgher> mmhmm
17:43:19 <geppetto> I think the "pkg pre-release svn checkout" example is wrong … as it needs something after the "svn"
17:43:46 <orionp> tibbs: I'll just note that in the examples, the "Release Tag" column generally has %{name}-%{version}-%{release}
17:45:19 <tibbs> Note that everything below "Complex versioning examples" is just a copy of what's on the current page with the name of the package changed to "pkg".
17:46:08 <tibbs> If you have any idea of how to communicate what we need to show in these examples, please just edit that page.  I stopped when I couldn't think of any really good way.
17:48:46 <geppetto> Anyone else have any comments?
17:48:57 <tibbs> Yeah, I'm not sure we need to block the meeting on it.
17:49:38 <geppetto> Well if we all agree the page is better, we might as well vote on it … also if anyone does have any comments might as well discuss them with the group
17:51:34 <tibbs> Well at this point I'm +1 but I wouldn't write it up without having at least a few more examples formatted properly.
17:51:45 * geppetto nods
17:51:56 <tomspur> +1
18:00:00 <geppetto> ok
18:00:32 <geppetto> #info FWIW: +1: geppetto  tibbs tomspur
18:00:53 <geppetto> tibbs: You want to look at the 532 ticket?
18:01:13 <geppetto> Yeh, you did a draft
18:01:15 <geppetto> #topic #632 Requires: hicolor-icon-theme or own dir
18:01:20 <geppetto> .fpc 632
18:01:21 <zodbot> geppetto: Issue #632: Requires: hicolor-icon-theme or own %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor - packaging-committee - Pagure - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/632
18:01:34 <geppetto> Draft: https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ATibbs%2FPackageDependencies&diff=latest&oldid=486668
18:01:56 <tibbs> Ah, yeah, 632.  I was looking for 532.
18:02:09 <geppetto> Just added "or directories" 3 ties ?:)
18:02:16 <tibbs> This ties in with 678 as well.
18:02:26 <geppetto> I'm +1
18:02:36 <tibbs> Right, it just applies the same rules to directory deps which are already applied to file ones.
18:02:54 <limburgher> +1
18:03:07 <tibbs> I was surprised to find dir deps weren't even mentioned.  Not sure why that was.
18:03:09 <tibbs> +1
18:03:12 <tomspur> +1
18:03:30 <tibbs> Of course, I don't actually know if some of the text there about having to download file lists is even still true in the dnf era.
18:03:58 <tibbs> Maybe dnf2 is better, but at least F25 still downloads a huge amount of metadata all the time.
18:03:59 <orionp> do we want to mention that file or directory deps may not express the actual dependency? (ala ticket 678) or handle that separately
18:04:20 <tibbs> I guess it depends on what you mean by "the actual dependency".
18:04:30 <tibbs> Though, really, dir deps are different in that regard.
18:04:49 <tibbs> I would expect very few cases where multiple packages supply the same file.
18:04:51 <geppetto> tibbs: it's all the same, there are still plans for different metadata … but no movement
18:04:55 <orionp> yeah, does appear more related to directories
18:05:25 <tibbs> An additional sentence in there might be good:
18:06:18 <tibbs> Please also note that it is not uncommon for multiple packages to provide the same directory.  If using a directory dependency.....
18:06:31 <tibbs> And.. how do I finish that sentence?  My brain stopped working there.
18:07:23 <orionp> "Directory dependencies should only be used to express the dependency on that directory existing, not on any other functionality of any other package that might provide that directory" ?
18:07:36 <geppetto> Sure
18:07:40 <tibbs> ++
18:09:49 <geppetto> tomspur: mbooth: racor: limburgher: Want to vote on either of those changes?
18:10:14 <limburgher> +1
18:10:34 <mbooth> +1
18:11:25 <tomspur> +1
18:11:55 <tomspur> Orion's change is interesting. Was this expressed somewhere before?
18:12:29 <tibbs> Draft updated with an additional paragraph including Orion's change: https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ATibbs%2FPackageDependencies&diff=latest&oldid=486668
18:12:50 <geppetto> tomspur: Not directly, I don't think
18:13:35 <tomspur> This seems like a better reason to use directory dependencies than the general "technical considerations"
18:14:01 <tomspur> +1
18:19:08 <geppetto> #action Directory deps. wording added/updated. (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0)
18:19:23 <geppetto> #topic #613 "provenpackagers" tag
18:19:25 <geppetto> .fpc 613
18:19:26 <zodbot> geppetto: Issue #613: "provenpackagers" tag - packaging-committee - Pagure - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/613
18:20:38 <racor> Sorry folks, I was distracted for the last 20mins+ and now have to quit.
18:20:43 <geppetto> Diff: https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ATibbs%2FSensitiveSpecs&diff=latest&oldid=486601
18:20:47 <racor> bye
18:20:48 <geppetto> racor: Ok
18:22:37 <geppetto> Seems fine to me +1
18:22:52 <tibbs> It was kind of a strawman.
18:23:22 <tibbs> Basically I am completely opposed to the concept of ignoring what happens in Fedora git and just copying over your specfile from somewhere else.
18:23:33 <limburgher> This whole thing is icky.
18:23:37 <limburgher> What tibbs said.
18:24:05 <geppetto> I can see it from the other side … but I'm not sure I care right now
18:24:07 <tibbs> I understand that there are some instances where an excess of caution is warranted.
18:24:12 <limburgher> I mean, PPs should be exercising caution anyway. . .
18:24:14 <limburgher> But. . .
18:25:17 <tibbs> Thing is, this is really not a packaging committee thing.  We're dealing with a clash of development methodologies.
18:25:32 <limburgher> I don't see a way to specify whether or not a package merits a SPECIAL tag.  So it's the packagers discretion.  Fast forward to f35, and 45% of the distro has SPECIAL tags.
18:25:38 <limburgher> Yes.
18:25:58 <limburgher> I mean I could see replacing the whole mess with DON'T.
18:26:00 <tibbs> Right, but what's the out ther?
18:26:01 <geppetto> ha
18:26:03 <tibbs> there?
18:26:15 <tibbs> "If you want this, file an FPC ticket and...."
18:26:29 <limburgher> Bundled Libs 2.0
18:26:32 <limburgher> <headdesk>
18:26:40 <tibbs> I had to stretch to come up with what I thought might be valid examples just to have something to put in the draft.
18:26:57 <limburgher> Absolutely, and I like what you did, just not the fact of it.
18:27:06 <tibbs> Those examples are so artificial that I can't see how they would actually apply to any spec.
18:27:59 <tibbs> So it comes down to two cases: "Don't touch _MY_ package" and "We'll ignore everything you do anyway because we're going to copy the specfile in from elsewhere".
18:28:06 <tibbs> Neither of which are valid cases.
18:28:12 <limburgher> Right.
18:28:26 <limburgher> Both are social/process issues.
18:28:37 <tibbs> So I'm basically -1 to my own draft.
18:28:48 <tibbs> Well, some of it.
18:28:50 <tomspur> It would be at least better to know from where exactly it comes from, which is not written in the proposal yet at all
18:29:11 <tibbs> Thing is, the proposal explicitly bans the concept of externally maintained specfiles.
18:29:14 <limburgher> You mean, the inciting incident?  The problem this aims to fix?
18:29:32 <limburgher> tibbs: Can't we just shorten it to that? :)
18:29:50 <tomspur> :)
18:30:07 <tibbs> Well, that's the part of the of the draft about specfile canonicity.
18:30:25 <tibbs> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Tibbs/SensitiveSpecs#Spec_Maintenance_and_Canonicity
18:30:53 <tibbs> Which really is kind of a passive-aggressive thing I tossed in there because what the hell, I'm the one writing the draft.
18:30:54 <limburgher> Right.  Just whack the rest and use that.
18:31:03 <limburgher> But it's brilliant!
18:31:10 <tibbs> But... is that even our call?
18:31:18 <limburgher> And more diplomatic than Knock It Off.
18:31:25 <limburgher> I think so.
18:31:32 <limburgher> FESCO is What, we are How.
18:31:45 <limburgher> Stomping the git .spec is solidly How.
18:31:54 <limburgher> What a horrible sentence.
18:33:00 <tibbs> I will say that I've had problems with people doing this as far back as the CVS days with "make import" which wiped out the entire package tree and replaced it with the contents of an srpm.
18:33:09 <limburgher> YES.
18:33:35 <orionp> yeah, that was fun
18:33:37 <tibbs> So anyway, if people just want to +1 that one section (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Tibbs/SensitiveSpecs#Spec_Maintenance_and_Canonicity) then we could basically just do that separately.
18:33:37 <limburgher> I remember starting out and doing that to myself and someone said, no, just learn the CVS commands, you'll thank me later.
18:33:57 <limburgher> And they were right.
18:34:32 <tibbs> But it still fails to address what we were requested to actually do, which was provide some way to mark "delicate" specfiles.
18:35:04 <limburgher> I dont' think it does.  It addresses it by saying that that's the wrong approach.
18:35:24 <orionp> So what don't you like about marking the spec files that you laid out?
18:35:35 <limburgher> Some specs will tell you that they're delicate *cough*texlive*cough*
18:35:54 <tibbs> But nobody has a problem if you mess with the texlive spec.
18:36:09 <tibbs> All you have to do is exercise reasonable caution and test things.
18:36:24 <limburgher> I will have a problem. :)
18:36:27 <tibbs> That should be a requirement for every single commit anyone makes to package git.
18:36:34 <limburgher> Exactly.
18:36:56 <tibbs> So we're talking about specs which need even more than that.
18:37:07 <tibbs> Do they actually exist?
18:37:13 <limburgher> And I don't think we want people to designate their spec as above the law somehow; it discourages them from improving their workflow.
18:37:33 <orionp> the ticket mentions kernel, grub2, etc and firefox,...
18:37:37 * geppetto nods … as I said I'm +1
18:37:41 <geppetto> I assume tibbs is?
18:37:57 <tibbs> geppetto: Well, I'm certainly +1 to the "spec maintenance and canonicity" section.
18:38:03 <limburgher> Me too, +1
18:38:06 * geppetto nods … that's what I meant
18:38:24 <orionp> +1 to canonicity
18:38:35 <tibbs> So, the thing is, what exactly makes kernel, grub2 and firefox special?
18:38:46 <geppetto> tomspur: mbooth: vote on Spec_Maintenance_and_Canonicity?
18:39:10 <tomspur> +1
18:39:39 <limburgher> I know the mozilla products are trademark issues.
18:39:55 <limburgher> I'm not sure of the reasons for kernel or grub2.
18:40:02 <mbooth> geppetto: Sorry I've been distracted for last half hour :-(
18:40:05 <tibbs> Is there maybe something we could write about provenpackager responsibilities which would serve to more generally alleviate these concerns?  Doesn't have to even be in the packaging guidelines.
18:40:21 <tibbs> I mean, even if that's not an FPC thing, I can draft it.
18:40:30 <geppetto> mbooth: No problem, if you are distracted atm we already have 5 +1s
18:40:44 <mbooth> Okay, if you have the votes, I will abstain
18:40:53 <mbooth> And catch up afterwards
18:41:00 <geppetto> #action Spec Maintenance and Canonicity changes (+1:5, 0:1, 1:0)
18:41:09 <geppetto> #topic Open Floor
18:41:32 <geppetto> Anything anyone wants to bring up before next week?
18:41:51 <limburgher> Not I, said the duck.
18:42:20 <geppetto> Ok, new rule for next week … limburgher needs to bring enough drugs for everyone ;)
18:42:39 <limburgher> +1
18:42:53 <tibbs> Well, anyone have any comment on the pagure migration?
18:43:06 <limburgher> I think it's been pretty smooth.
18:43:11 <tibbs> Also at some point we need to talk about 591.
18:43:13 <geppetto> It seems fine to me, I updated the wiki but more needs to be done
18:43:22 <geppetto> Could do with someone updating the bot too
18:43:26 <tibbs> Yeah, I didn't even look at the wiki stuff.
18:43:44 <tibbs> I have no idea how the bot is supposed to work.  What did it actually do?
18:43:45 <geppetto> Mainly the template I sent out … I think I caught all the actual text
18:44:10 <geppetto> I assume nirik is in charge of it and just needs to chnage the text template for the .fpc command?
18:44:24 <tibbs> Note that when you file tickets in pagure, there are defined templates for the type of ticket you're filing.  Folks might want to look at how that works.
18:44:35 <geppetto> cool
18:44:38 <tibbs> I'm not entirely satisfied with it at this point but haven't filed an RFE.
18:45:07 <tibbs> Everyone in FPC should have full privs on the pagure instance.  Just don't click the "delete everything" button.
18:45:17 <limburgher> Awww, COME on.
18:45:33 <tomspur> The duck hits the button now
18:46:10 <limburgher> Am I the only one who read The Little Red Hen?
18:46:31 <tibbs> Also, if you dislike the amount of wasted space in the issue list, see https://pagure.io/pagure/issue/1933
18:46:40 <limburgher> Or just the only one whose mind randomly supplies things from children's literature?
18:46:49 <tibbs> There's a greasemonkey script in there which makes it a bit denser.
18:47:01 <limburgher> LIKE
18:48:54 <limburgher> In any case, thanks for your work on this.
18:49:09 <tibbs> Of course.  We didn't have much choice anyway, since trac goes away in six days.
18:49:17 * geppetto nods
18:49:43 <tibbs> I do like tags better than ticket states, though.
18:50:32 <tibbs> Also, I did try to put 591 on the meeting agenda.  https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/591
18:50:41 <limburgher> We could always have tags, ticket states, and 4 other things.  We could call it JIRA.
18:51:00 <limburgher> Good.
18:51:04 <tibbs> I will probably just do what's asked in the last comment there because most of it is cleanup of cruft anyway.
18:51:29 <limburgher> I'm fine with that.
18:52:03 <tibbs> That ticket is kind of a mess and I'd just like to close it with the minimal bit of work.  If someone wants to dig into that pile and draft something better, they're welcome to do so.
18:58:02 <tomspur> bye see you next week
18:58:08 * limburgher waves
18:58:18 <tibbs> Yeah, we're at two hours and I'm drifting off to actual work.
18:58:24 <limburgher> Same.
18:58:39 * geppetto nods
18:58:43 <tibbs> I will try to get this all written up soon so the queue doesn't grow again.
18:58:53 <geppetto> #endmeeting