17:00:19 <mitr> #startmeeting FESCO (2014-05-07)
17:00:19 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed May  7 17:00:19 2014 UTC.  The chair is mitr. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:00:19 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
17:00:21 <mitr> #meetingname fesco
17:00:21 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fesco'
17:00:23 <mitr> #chair abadger1999 dgilmore mattdm mitr notting nirik pjones t8m sgallagh mmaslano jwb
17:00:23 <zodbot> Current chairs: abadger1999 dgilmore jwb mattdm mitr mmaslano nirik notting pjones sgallagh t8m
17:00:25 <mitr> #topic init process
17:00:27 <mitr> Hello everyone
17:00:33 <abadger1999> greetings
17:00:34 <t8m> Hi
17:00:58 <jwb> hi
17:01:13 <dgilmore> hola
17:01:46 <pjones> greetings, starfighter.
17:02:14 * notting is here
17:02:59 * mclasen lurks
17:03:41 <mitr> That's 6(+), shall we start?
17:03:49 <mitr> #topic #1221 Product working group activity reports
17:04:28 <mitr> #info see activity reports starting at https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1221#comment:51
17:04:35 <mitr> Anything to discuss here?
17:05:45 <jwb> seems no
17:06:03 <mitr> #topic #1291 F21 System Wide Change: BerkeleyDB 6 - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/BerkeleyDB_6
17:07:03 <mitr> AFAICS our original concern has been resolved, but today questions about the plan (add versioning to the new major version) have been raised again
17:07:44 <mitr> Proposal: BerkeleyDB 6 is approved
17:07:54 <mitr> (that is: approved as written, we can revisit if the plan changed)
17:08:58 <notting> i'm a bit confused. the feature owner said on 4/15 that they were planning to contact upstream about symbol versioning
17:09:05 <abadger1999> I'm okay with in in theory but it seems like the plan is evolving in unknown directions.
17:09:28 <notting> in the mail today they were asking for suggestions, and saying they were still planning to contact upstream about symbol versioning. can they just please do that?
17:09:39 <mitr> notting: good catch
17:09:49 <t8m> .fesco 1291
17:09:50 <zodbot> t8m: #1291 (F21 System Wide Change: BerkeleyDB 6 - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/BerkeleyDB_6) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1291
17:10:00 <jwb> i'm missing why this has to be done by f21
17:10:13 <dgilmore> jwb: it doesnt
17:10:16 <jwb> seems like it's a new version add, they're keeping the old version, so punt at this point until they get it cleared up
17:10:29 <pjones> indeed.
17:10:46 <dgilmore> if they can not cleanly implement the plan then they should hit the contingency plan
17:10:59 <t8m> dgilmore, +1
17:11:10 <jwb> that's my point though
17:11:14 <jwb> it's not in-distro yet, is it?
17:11:20 <jwb> if not, then don't even add it for f21
17:11:20 <abadger1999> They have until 2014-07-22 (alpha freeze) to decide to revert, though, yes?
17:11:24 <t8m> we do not have to reject the feature just now
17:11:33 <dgilmore> t8m: right
17:11:36 <abadger1999> Unless we think that the plan is not implementable in that timeframe.
17:12:00 <t8m> abadger1999, and I don't think we think that :)
17:12:06 <pjones> abadger1999: sure, but... why bother thinking that?  Either it is and they succeed...
17:12:49 <notting> pjones: only possibly because rollback of partial implementation would be a messy
17:13:10 <jwb> notting, which is why i'm saying don't add it at all until the plan is clearly doable
17:13:36 <pjones> fair enough
17:13:39 <abadger1999> pjones: <nod>. so I'm unclear as to why we're talking about reverting it at this point in the schedule.
17:14:09 <pjones> abadger1999: yeah, I don't think we need to be talking about /reverting/, but it is in /ChangesReadyForFesco/, so we need to talk about if they can do it at all and if we should finally approve the thing or not.
17:14:14 <jwb> abadger1999, it's not a revert at this point
17:14:27 <jwb> a revert would be messy as notting says
17:15:18 <notting> proposal: suggest owner contact upstream now about symbol versioning, and report back by next week?
17:15:29 * mattdm is here -- sorry, previous thing ran late
17:16:33 <mitr> I could live with that.... I'm thinking that we've done a non-upstream versioning change before so it's something that clearly can be done and we don't strictly need to block on a precise plan, but a little prodding to get the upstream discussion working might be helpful
17:16:34 <abadger1999> and if upstream doesn't agree to symbol versioning by next week, feature owner should make a proposal about how they're planning to proceed.
17:16:44 <t8m> mitr, +1
17:16:55 <mitr> notting: +1 I think
17:17:07 <mitr> t8m: is that a +1 to notting's proposal?
17:17:10 <t8m> notting+abadger1999, +1
17:17:16 <mattdm> notting: +1
17:17:20 <t8m> mitr, yep with the abadger1999's addition
17:17:31 <abadger1999> notting: +1
17:17:49 <dgilmore> notting: abadger1999: +1
17:18:21 <pjones> abadger1999: +1
17:18:39 <mitr> #agreed Please contact upstream now about symbol versioning, and report back by next week; if upstream doesn't agree, have a proposed approach (+7)
17:18:55 <mitr> (I hope I'm not misrepresenting anybody)
17:19:04 <mitr> #topic #1297 F21 System Wide Change: Workstation: Enable Software Collections - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Workstation_Enable_Software_Collections
17:19:06 <mitr> .fesco 1297
17:19:07 <zodbot> mitr: #1297 (F21 System Wide Change: Workstation: Enable Software Collections - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Workstation_Enable_Software_Collections) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1297
17:19:20 <jwb> i have no updates on this.
17:19:30 <mattdm> I pinged mclasen
17:19:35 <mclasen> I'm here
17:19:40 <mattdm> tada :)
17:19:57 <jwb> mclasen was poking cschalle to fill this out a while ago...
17:20:00 <mclasen> I've looked over the two feature pages, and I think we're really going after the same goal here
17:20:16 <mclasen> make it easy to use and work with software collections in fedora
17:20:44 <dgilmore> mclasen: sure. what is the source of the scls you are proposing
17:20:51 <dgilmore> and what is to be enabled by default?
17:21:29 <mitr> https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1297#comment:3 has some specific questions
17:21:31 <mclasen> are there other sources beside softwarecollections.org ?
17:21:42 <dgilmore> mclasen: shipped in fedora
17:21:47 <abadger1999> Fedora itself will have a few scls for F21.
17:21:55 <mclasen> I'm not an expert on software collections by any measure...
17:21:56 <jwb> mclasen, is it fair to say Workstation is looking to enable whatever scl-utils in fedora enables by default?
17:22:02 <dgilmore> if the intention is to enable softwarecollections.org by default that needs to be made clear
17:22:03 <mclasen> yeah, basically
17:22:44 <jwb> so i think the answer is "install scl-utils in workstation and have it use whatever is enabled by default in fedora"
17:22:50 <dgilmore> mclasen: yeah basically to what exactly?
17:22:50 <mitr> mclasen: "softwarecollections.org" and "collections in Fedora" are _not_ the same thing, so "yeah" is not clarifying
17:23:14 <mclasen> ok, that was what I was asking about earlier, sorry
17:23:41 <mattdm> proposal: merge this into https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SCL, and add a note about workstation there (and possible to the release notes)
17:23:48 <mattdm> there is already such a note for cloud
17:23:49 <abadger1999> hmm... softwarecollections.org is essentially copr repos... so it doesn't seem like enablig by default would fit under the current polocy.  I think enabling from devassistant would, though.
17:24:03 <mclasen> what does 'enable by default' even mean ?
17:24:11 <jwb> we have 4 people thinking 4 different things at this point
17:24:11 <mclasen> the typical scl command is 'scl enable', right ?
17:24:14 <abadger1999> I do not think scl-utils is a software installer.
17:24:33 <mclasen> so you enable them when you use them
17:24:34 <mitr> mattdm: That could work but may end up just enabling playground AFAICT
17:24:38 <abadger1999> so talking about repos in the context of scl0utils doesn't make a lot of sense.
17:24:46 <jwb> the jist of this feature is "WORKSTATION WANTS TO USE SCLs WHATEVER THAT MEANS TELL US PLEASE"
17:25:24 <abadger1999> mclasen: So scl enable can be used to setup your environment variables to make use of a specific scl instead of system packages.
17:25:33 <mitr> mclasen: "enabled by default" are your words in the Change so we're basically asking _you_ what that means...
17:25:40 <mattdm> jwb right, which is why I think merging into the previous change makes sense
17:25:48 <abadger1999> s/system/packages/packages installed in the main system directrory hierarchy/
17:25:57 <mitr> mattdm: +1 that seems most practical if there are no more specific desires
17:26:07 <dgilmore> mattdm: i think merging into the SCL change makes sens
17:26:08 <abadger1999> mclasen: The scl has to be installed by some other mechanism.
17:26:08 <dgilmore> sense
17:26:18 <t8m> mattdm, +1
17:26:36 <abadger1999> mclasen: Probably the way that people will install them is via yum.
17:27:17 <dgilmore> mattdm: +1
17:27:58 <mattdm> mclasen does that suggestion make sense to you? (note that the previous change is alreay accepted, if that makes any difference)
17:28:02 <mclasen> sounds good to me too, fwiw; as we gain more experience with software collections, it'll probably become clearer what we actually wanted...
17:28:37 <mitr> mattdm, mclasen: Note that _if_ the /SCL change ends up Playground-only, it would either mean Workstation not having SCLs "by default", or Workstation pulling in all of Playground by default.
17:29:21 <jzb> is there a way to have the same SCLs available that are available for CentOS & RHEL?
17:29:30 <jwb> for once, i think Workstation isn't trying to drive the content definiton here
17:29:30 <mitr> ... and having Playground enabled in a project by default would be rather likely to break something.
17:29:51 <jzb> without pulling in playground, I mean, but installable via Yum
17:30:08 <jzb> e.g., ruby193, python27, python33, etc.
17:30:30 <jwb> "the same" doesn't make sense if the default python is already 3.3
17:30:33 <abadger1999> jzb: Only if someone rebuilds them for Fedora-N.
17:30:39 <jzb> jwb: sure
17:30:51 <abadger1999> jwb: actually... it does.
17:30:59 <mclasen> mitr: I think it is clear by now that 'enable by default' was an unfortunate choice of words; the goal is to have a straightforward way to use software collections - it is perfectly fine (and in fact expected) if you have to install something first
17:31:06 <t8m> I hope SCL change does not end up Playground-only - I'd expect some scls more "mature" than playground level
17:31:14 <abadger1999> because the scl-python33 will be a different stack than the main system python3.x
17:31:23 <mitr> t8m: Me too but that eventuality is AFAICT very much on the table
17:31:31 <t8m> mitr, I know
17:31:38 <mitr> mclasen: OK...
17:31:50 <mattdm> mclasen *nod*
17:32:05 <abadger1999> jzb: Also -- not by default; the user would have to enable some other repository to get the packages.
17:32:12 <mitr> I've seen 4 people in agreement with mattdm's idea of merging them.  mattdm: care to make it a formal proposal?
17:32:21 <abadger1999> mattdm: +1
17:32:59 <mattdm> mitr: I thought that was formal enough?
17:33:15 <notting> i'm +1 to the merge
17:33:49 <mattdm> proposal (restated for the record): merge workstation SCL change into https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SCL, and add a note about workstation there
17:34:08 <mitr> mattdm: works for me...
17:34:15 <mitr> #agreed merge workstation SCL change into https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SCL, and add a note about workstation there (+6)
17:34:38 <mitr> #topic #1303 Add exception for enabling nss-pam-ldapd's nslcd to start by default in obsoleting-install cases
17:34:40 <mitr> .fesco 1303
17:34:42 <zodbot> mitr: #1303 (Add exception for enabling nss-pam-ldapd's nslcd to start by default in obsoleting-install cases) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1303
17:35:14 <mitr> I was +1 in the ticket, restating for the record
17:35:22 <mattdm> +1 looks reasonable.
17:35:29 <notting> makes sense - +1
17:36:02 <t8m> +1
17:36:16 <dgilmore> +1
17:36:47 <abadger1999> +1
17:36:49 <pjones> +1
17:36:58 <mitr> #agreed Exception for enabling nss-pam-ldapd's nslcd approved (+7)
17:37:04 <mitr> #topic #1304 replacing reSIProcate in Fedora 20
17:37:06 <mitr> .fesco 1304
17:37:07 <zodbot> mitr: #1304 (replacing reSIProcate in Fedora 20) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1304
17:37:22 * abadger1999 was +1 in ticket
17:37:39 <mattdm> +1 this looks like a reasonable exception
17:37:55 <notting> +1
17:37:55 <jsmith> As a VoIP geek, it's got my +1
17:38:47 <dgilmore> +1
17:38:55 <mattdm> it should sit in updates-testing for a couple of weeks and not have a low auto-karma threshold
17:38:59 <t8m> +1
17:39:19 <pjones> +1
17:39:31 <dgilmore> perhaps have autokarma turned off
17:39:48 <mitr> +1, also noting pocock is one of the upstream authors
17:40:03 <mitr> #agreed reSIProcate update policy exception approved (+7)
17:40:26 <mitr> #info Please let the packages stay in updates-testing for an extended period, and consider turning off autokarma
17:40:34 <mitr> #topic #1305 F21 System Wide Change: Application Installer Continued - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/AppInstallerContinued
17:40:35 <pjones> jsmith: please refrain from voting, as voting is restricted to elected fesco members and others voting leads to count confusion.
17:40:36 <mitr> .fesco 1305
17:40:37 <zodbot> mitr: #1305 (F21 System Wide Change: Application Installer Continued - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/AppInstallerContinued) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1305
17:41:11 <jsmith> pjones: No worries
17:41:35 <mitr> notting: Were there other questions besides my note on relnotes?  IMHO they need improving but aren't a blocker to our decision.
17:41:44 <notting> mitr: no, just those
17:42:16 <mattdm> proposal: approve, ask for help from docs team to improve relnotes
17:42:24 <mattdm> to which I am +1
17:42:34 <notting> +1
17:43:08 <mitr> I don't think it's strictly necessary to get external help but good enough, +1
17:43:34 <t8m> +1
17:43:59 <dgilmore> I am still waiting on patches to integrate creating the metadata needed into createrepo
17:44:24 <dgilmore> today we have no way to make the metadata needed
17:44:32 <pjones> mattdm: +1
17:45:24 <mitr> dgilmore: that's accounted for in the contingency plan AFAICS
17:45:38 <abadger1999> Was choice of backends discussed to death on the list?
17:45:39 <dgilmore> mitr: its not listed at all
17:45:58 <mitr> dgilmore: "If application metadata extraction and hosting is not getting implemented by F21" ...
17:46:04 <dgilmore> mitr: its not listed as a dependency or in the contingency plan
17:46:29 <mattdm> dgilmore looks like you are talking about https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5721  ?
17:46:30 <mitr> abadger1999: I have privately reached out to jzeleny and he didn't raise any objections, and again it's in the contingency plan
17:47:09 <dgilmore> mattdm: yes, and I talked with Richard at devconf and laid out what has to happen
17:47:23 <mitr> (it was discussed to death^W^Wto lack of followups in a fesco ticket https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1148 )
17:47:25 <dgilmore> mattdm: he commited to doing teh work but i have seen no progress.
17:47:42 <mattdm> dgilmore it looks kind of like that ticket is waiting for a reply?
17:47:58 <dgilmore> mattdm: its not.
17:48:12 <dgilmore> mattdm: the reply was in person
17:48:26 <dgilmore> mattdm: we sat down and discussed what we need and why
17:49:21 <mitr> dgilmore: So if nobody does that work, it won't get done for F21.  Is that good enough for FESCo?
17:49:32 <abadger1999> mitr: k.  So +1 contingent on jzeleny/packaging team doesn't have any objection to the backend.
17:49:39 <mitr> #agreed Application Installer Continued was approved (+6)
17:49:42 <dgilmore> mitr: I guess.
17:49:51 <pjones> dgilmore: may be worth adding a note to that effect, and maybe include a rough summary of the decision
17:49:53 <mattdm> ok. it might be helpful to give a quick poke in the ticket. but, as long as it's all worked out... what mitr said.
17:50:20 <mitr> #topic #1306 F21 System Wide Change: Wayland - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Wayland
17:50:23 <mitr> .fesco 1306
17:50:24 <zodbot> mitr: #1306 (F21 System Wide Change: Wayland - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Wayland) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1306
17:50:59 <pjones> so very +1
17:51:03 <dgilmore> +!
17:51:05 <dgilmore> +1
17:51:08 <mitr> +1
17:51:16 <notting> +1
17:51:27 <mattdm> +1
17:52:07 <t8m> +1
17:52:50 <mitr> #agreed Wayland change approved (+6)
17:52:58 <mitr> #topic #1307 F22 System Wide Change: Default Local DNS Resolver - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Default_Local_DNS_Resolver
17:53:01 <mitr> .fesco 1307
17:53:02 <zodbot> mitr: #1307 (F22 System Wide Change: Default Local DNS Resolver - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Default_Local_DNS_Resolver) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1307
17:53:03 <mitr> Note, this is targeted at F22
17:53:06 <mclasen> sorry, I was away for a bit - so, Richard has done quite a lot of work on the tools
17:53:10 * sgallagh is here (better late than never)
17:53:34 * abadger1999 late +1 to wayland
17:53:44 <pjones> mclasen: we seem to have approved it despite his efforts ;)
17:53:52 <mitr> #agreed Wayland change approved (+7)
17:55:23 <t8m> I am not sure that we need to approve F22 changes just now, but +1 anyway as I'd like to see better DNSSEC support in Fedora as soon as possible
17:55:27 <mattdm> ok, so, dns resolver.... should we just wait until f22?
17:55:49 <abadger1999> It sounds like it could get release noted as a tech preview.
17:55:53 <abadger1999> (for f21)
17:55:56 <sgallagh> No, I think this is one of those long-term tasks that we should green-light (or not) early
17:55:58 <dgilmore> mattdm: i think we should wait until we have branched f21
17:55:59 <mattdm> I have unanswered concerns about how this would work with Fedora Cloud (let alone docker)
17:56:02 <pjones> I think if anybody has major objections it'd be good to bring those up now so people aren't wasting time on it
17:56:03 <mitr> I think having early discussion of large-scale plans like this isgenerally beneficial
17:56:34 <notting> there's the 'something needs to be done about the docker case' problem. it would be nice to have the plan idea in hand for that
17:56:41 <mitr> mattdm: I agree, having final approval blocked on having a Cloud/Docker plan would make sense
17:56:52 <dgilmore> discussing and talkingabout it resolving conflicts is great. we should wait to vote until they can actually implement I think
17:57:00 <mattdm> annnnd, I need to run to another meeting.
17:57:07 * mattdm runs
17:57:52 <mitr> To separate concerns:
17:57:54 <mitr> Proposal 1: FESCo doesn't have significant objections to the idea as such, or its use on physical machines and VMs
17:57:56 <t8m> notting, the plan could be to just not have it in cloud product enabled by default - the current default way would have to work still
17:57:56 <mitr> Proposal 2: Deferring approval of the change for a plan that accommodates containers, Docker in particular
17:58:20 <sgallagh> +1/+1
17:58:21 <mitr> t8m: That's not great for DNSSEC...
17:58:29 <t8m> mitr, if that plan could be status quo for containers I would agree
17:58:29 * mitr is +1/+1 for the record
17:58:46 <mitr> t8m: Let me reword that then...
17:59:07 <mitr> Proposal 2: Deferring appproval fo the change for a plan that explicitly describes what, if anything, will be done for containers, Docker in particular
17:59:23 <t8m> mitr, I know, but we should not block DNSSEC for the other products/installations by not having solution for containers
17:59:51 <t8m> mitr, I can be +1/+1 then
18:00:04 <dgilmore> +1/+1
18:00:15 <pjones> I can be +1 on both with the new language.
18:00:19 <sgallagh> +1/+1 again
18:00:19 <notting> mitr: +1 to both
18:00:23 <abadger1999> +1/+1
18:00:39 <mitr> #agreed FESCo doesn't have significant objections to the idea as such, or its use on physical machines and VMs (+7)
18:00:51 <mitr> #agreed Deferring appproval fo the change for a plan that explicitly describes what, if anything, will be done for containers, Docker in particular (+7)
18:01:03 <mitr> #topic #1302 Fedora Core OS Product
18:01:05 <mitr> .fesco 1302
18:01:06 <zodbot> mitr: #1302 (Fedora Core OS Product) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1302
18:01:24 <sgallagh> Viking-Ice: Were you withdrawing this?
18:01:42 <mitr> Jóhann has said in the ticket that "This is not something that needs to be discussed" [today]; skip?
18:02:35 <Viking-Ice> sgallagh, obviously since I'm leaving the project + it was just a point in what eventually needs to be done ( from my pov ) with regards to the wg as in the base wg to be split into corewg
18:02:51 <Viking-Ice> and basewg
18:03:17 <pjones> mitr: +1 to skip.
18:03:31 <sgallagh> Proposal: Close this ticket
18:03:42 <t8m> sgallagh, +1
18:04:05 <Viking-Ice> yeah just close it
18:04:17 <notting> sgallagh: +1
18:04:20 <mitr> #info Will close the ticket based on Jóhann's request
18:04:27 <mitr> #topic Next week's chair
18:04:29 <mitr> Anybody?
18:05:08 <sgallagh> mitr: I haven't done it in a while. I'll take it
18:05:17 <mitr> #info sgallagh will chair next week's meeting
18:05:19 <mitr> sgallagh: thanks
18:05:24 <mitr> #topic Open Floor
18:05:30 <mitr> Are there any topics for open floor?
18:05:33 <notting> did we forget https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1250#comment:22 ?
18:05:48 <t8m> seems so
18:05:56 <mitr> oops, my fault.  Sorry.
18:06:03 <mitr> #topic #1250 F21 Self Contained Changes
18:06:06 <Viking-Ice> I would like mattdm clarifiy what I was refering to in that ticket
18:06:07 <mitr> .fesco 1250
18:06:08 <zodbot> mitr: #1250 (F21 Self Contained Changes) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1250
18:06:25 <sgallagh> Viking-Ice: Which ticket?
18:06:31 <Viking-Ice> core os
18:06:59 <Viking-Ice> my disturbing trend
18:07:06 <mitr> That is:
18:07:08 <mitr> Remote Journal Logging - ​https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Remote_Journal_Logging discussed at ​https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2014-April/197980.html
18:07:10 <mitr> Cache Logical Volumes - ​https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Cache_Logical_Volumes discussed at ​https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2014-April/198692.html
18:07:12 <mitr> MariaDB 10.0 - ​https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/MariaDB10 discussed at ​https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2014-April/198796.html
18:07:14 <mitr> Shogun - ​https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/shogun discussed at ​https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2014-April/198795.html
18:07:16 <mitr> (skipping Docker Cloud)
18:07:43 * dgilmore is +1 to those self contained changes
18:07:43 <sgallagh> Viking-Ice: Please discuss that with him outside the meeting. He also left a little while ago: "<mattdm> annnnd, I need to run to another meeting."
18:08:17 <sgallagh> +1 as well
18:08:18 <Viking-Ice> sgallagh, or fesco can just have him clarify that on the ticket
18:08:31 <Viking-Ice> since he's an official fesco representive
18:08:43 <mitr> +1 to all of them as well
18:08:56 <notting> mitr: +1 to those
18:09:31 <t8m> +1
18:10:26 <mitr> #agreed Self-Contained Changes: Remote Journal Logging, Cache Logical Volumes, MariaDB 10.0, Shogun approved (+5)
18:10:45 <mitr> #info Docker Cloud skipped per mattdm's request
18:10:56 <mitr> Returning to ...
18:10:58 <mitr> #topic Open Floor
18:11:10 <pjones> er, late +1 to that.
18:11:16 <pjones> (but whatever)
18:11:26 <mitr> #agreed Self-Contained Changes: Remote Journal Logging, Cache Logical Volumes, MariaDB 10.0, Shogun approved (+6)
18:12:19 <mitr> Anything more for open floor?
18:13:17 * mitr will close the meeting in 2 minutes if not
18:15:23 <sgallagh> Thanks, mitr!
18:15:37 <mitr> #endmeeting