16:02:15 <jforbes> #startmeeting FESCO (2017-09-01)
16:02:16 <zodbot> Meeting started Fri Sep  1 16:02:15 2017 UTC.  The chair is jforbes. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:02:16 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
16:02:16 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fesco_(2017-09-01)'
16:02:16 <jforbes> #meetingname fesco
16:02:16 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fesco'
16:02:16 <jforbes> #chair maxamillion dgilmore bowlofeggs nirik jforbes jsmith kalev sgallagh tyll
16:02:16 <jforbes> #topic init process
16:02:16 <zodbot> Current chairs: bowlofeggs dgilmore jforbes jsmith kalev maxamillion nirik sgallagh tyll
16:02:23 <maxamillion> #hello maxamillion
16:02:24 <jsmith> .hello jsmith
16:02:25 <zodbot> jsmith: jsmith 'Jared Smith' <jsmith.fedora@gmail.com>
16:02:28 <maxamillion> errrr
16:02:33 <jforbes> .hello jforbes
16:02:34 <zodbot> jforbes: jforbes 'Justin M. Forbes' <jforbes@redhat.com>
16:02:43 <maxamillion> .hello maxamillion
16:02:44 <zodbot> maxamillion: maxamillion 'Adam Miller' <maxamillion@gmail.com>
16:02:47 <nirik> .hello kevin
16:02:48 <zodbot> nirik: kevin 'Kevin Fenzi' <kevin@scrye.com>
16:02:49 <tyll> .hello till
16:02:51 <kalev> .hello kalev
16:02:51 <zodbot> tyll: till 'Till Maas' <opensource@till.name>
16:02:54 <zodbot> kalev: kalev 'Kalev Lember' <klember@redhat.com>
16:02:59 <bowlofeggs> .hello bowlofeggs
16:03:00 <zodbot> bowlofeggs: bowlofeggs 'Randy Barlow' <randy@electronsweatshop.com>
16:03:08 <adamw> not fesco, but hi
16:03:34 <dgilmore> hola amigos
16:03:52 <jforbes> Well, we definitely have quorum today
16:03:54 * langdon lurks
16:04:35 <jsmith> sgallagh sends his regards, but he's commented on the tickets he cares about
16:04:39 * maxamillion throws a shoe at langdon
16:04:48 <mattdm> .hello mattdm
16:04:49 <zodbot> mattdm: mattdm 'Matthew Miller' <mattdm@mattdm.org>
16:04:52 <bowlofeggs> ¿Que pasa?
16:04:53 <langdon> mattdm: are you in the wrong meeting?
16:04:59 * langdon ducks
16:05:09 <mattdm> I'm in this meeting for about 5 more minutes then I'll join you :)
16:05:28 <mattdm> bexelbie said he's ordering pizza for *that* meeting so I'll come when THAT is available
16:06:01 <jforbes> #topic #1761 Update of "Fedora Release Live Cycle" and "Changes / Policy"
16:06:01 <jforbes> .fesco 1761
16:06:02 <jforbes> https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1761
16:06:03 <zodbot> jforbes: Issue #1761: Update of "Fedora Release Live Cycle" and "Changes / Policy" - fesco - Pagure - https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1761
16:06:40 <maxamillion> #info maxamillion forgot to update tickets from last week, meeting minutes here: https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/teams/fesco/fesco.2017-08-25-16.00.html .... issues will be updated
16:07:27 <mattdm> langdon: you officially don't need to be here :)
16:07:37 <jforbes> langdon: you were correct, modularity was approved
16:08:06 <maxamillion> langdon: sorry! :X
16:08:39 <langdon> maxamillion: yeah.. i thought y'all approved the process/guidelines last week
16:09:44 <jforbes> So we were asked to ignore the string freeze piece while that is being worked out, but review the rest
16:10:00 <maxamillion> langdon: yerp
16:10:26 <mattdm> every word you say out loud you must type
16:10:40 <langdon> sorry.. lost my connection for a minute
16:10:44 <mattdm> (people are here in a room at flock and it is not working)
16:10:52 <jsmith> That's why I'm sitting over here, eating my lunch
16:10:57 <bowlofeggs> (i'm reading the ticket)
16:10:59 <mattdm> jsmith++
16:10:59 <zodbot> mattdm: Karma for jsmith changed to 3 (for the f26 release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
16:11:04 <adamw> lunch++
16:11:10 <mattdm> .fire lunch
16:11:13 <zodbot> adamw fires lunch
16:11:19 <nirik> so where are we here? just the string freeze question?
16:11:21 <adamw> noooooo, my lunch!
16:11:23 <maxamillion> so were the items that were of concern addressed around the schedule or are we still waiting on things?
16:11:32 <jforbes> no, we are at everything but the string freeze question
16:12:16 <dgilmore> we have not enforced the string freeze in years
16:12:17 <jsmith> I don't have a clear understanding -- the ticket makes it sound like we're at "everything but String Freeze"
16:12:40 <adamw> yes. jkurik wants you to ignore that line item (as To Be Decided Later) and consider the rest of the proposal.
16:12:46 <jforbes> So if we completely ignore the string freeze, does anyone have any concerns with anything else?
16:13:36 <maxamillion> I don't
16:13:38 <mattdm> I *think* the https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/28/Schedule
16:13:42 <mattdm> and https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/29/Schedule
16:13:42 <bowlofeggs> no concerns from me
16:13:43 <dgilmore> nope
16:13:45 <nirik> I'm ok with it. We can always adjust later.
16:13:46 <mattdm> drafts line up with this
16:13:50 <mattdm> or at least very close
16:13:54 <maxamillion> +1
16:14:04 <mattdm> so that's examples of what this results in in practice
16:14:06 <jsmith> My only concern is "month" instead of "four weeks" or "28 days" -- based on a previous meeting
16:14:07 <jforbes> +1 here
16:14:22 <adamw> i'm a _bit_ worried that branch might be a bit too close to beta, but i'm ok with trying this for now and maybe adjusting based on experience with 27/28
16:14:45 <jsmith> adamw: Agreed -- but also willing to try it
16:15:13 <jforbes> anyone else wish to vote?
16:15:14 <tyll> +1 from me, too
16:15:17 <bowlofeggs> +1
16:15:50 <jsmith> +1 from me, for the record
16:15:51 <kalev> +1
16:16:06 <maxamillion> +1
16:16:12 <nirik> +1
16:16:21 <dgilmore> +1
16:16:26 <kalev> also, I was under the impression that we approved it last time already, didn't we?
16:16:39 <dgilmore> kalev: nope
16:16:41 <nirik> we deffered it until after flock
16:16:44 <maxamillion> kalev: we agreed to defer until after flock
16:16:48 <kalev> ahh, fair enough
16:16:56 <tyll> kalev: https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/teams/fesco/fesco.2017-08-25-16.00.html
16:16:58 <jforbes> #agreed Update of "Fedora Release Live Cycle" and "Changes / Policy" is approved (+8,0,-0)
16:17:12 <mattdm> nice :)
16:17:13 <jforbes> #topic #1765 Proposed Fedora 28 schedule
16:17:13 <jforbes> .fesco 1765
16:17:13 <jforbes> https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1765
16:17:14 <zodbot> jforbes: Issue #1765: Proposed Fedora 28 schedule - fesco - Pagure - https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1765
16:18:03 <maxamillion> +1
16:18:05 <kalev> ok, but this one we definitely approved last time :)
16:18:07 <dgilmore> I am concerned over the timing of change proposals
16:18:20 <maxamillion> bah
16:18:22 <maxamillion> I failed
16:18:28 <maxamillion> this was approved
16:18:35 <jforbes> This one was approved last week, sorry
16:19:01 <jforbes> topic #1767 F28 Self Contained Changes
16:19:01 <jforbes> .fesco 1767
16:19:01 <jforbes> https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1767
16:19:02 <zodbot> jforbes: Issue #1767: F28 Self Contained Changes - fesco - Pagure - https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1767
16:19:25 <mattdm> to dgilmore's concern: we should make sure to ask people to submit in december
16:20:11 * kalev agrees.
16:20:45 <nirik> yeah, or sooner even!
16:21:28 <jsmith> Is mid-December too early?
16:21:37 <dgilmore> jsmith: now is okay
16:21:46 <jsmith> I'm afraid saying late December will mean a lot of people miss it due to the holidays, etc.
16:21:50 <jforbes> Packaging Rust applications/libraries (deferred in F27) is the only item in this at the moment
16:22:32 <bowlofeggs> this one was deferred because of rpm features?
16:22:38 <bowlofeggs> (deferred from f27)
16:22:40 <nirik> toolchain issues.
16:22:43 <bowlofeggs> ah
16:22:48 <nirik> bodhi/mash/etc.
16:23:25 <bowlofeggs> bodhi is planning to switch from mash to pungi
16:23:25 <maxamillion> so here's a question, if something causes the tooling used to create Fedora to fail ... is it still considered self contained?
16:23:46 <bowlofeggs> there are some open PRs for it, but more testing/development is needed
16:23:49 <ignatenkobrain> .hello2
16:23:50 <zodbot> ignatenkobrain: ignatenkobrain 'Igor Gnatenko' <ignatenko@redhat.com>
16:23:55 <nirik> not sure... but until we have bodhi switched to pungi we have to defer this.
16:24:06 <bowlofeggs> agreed
16:24:13 <maxamillion> I suppose the answer is "yes" since the self contained impact is on Fedora itself as we deliver it, but just a thought
16:24:24 <maxamillion> nirik: +1
16:24:27 <ignatenkobrain> well, but I really assume that after 4 years of having feature in RPM it can be used
16:24:30 <bowlofeggs> theoretically, the plan is to have pungi in bodhi "soon"
16:25:09 <ignatenkobrain> we are already delayed this feature by 2 releases
16:25:19 <maxamillion> 087983
16:25:25 <maxamillion> oops
16:25:28 <bowlofeggs> yubibomb
16:25:41 <ignatenkobrain> bowehehe
16:25:46 <ignatenkobrain> bowlofeggs: ++
16:25:46 <nirik> yes, sorry. Sometimes things take a while to get all lined up.
16:25:48 <jforbes> proposal: defer a decision on this until we know what is we have toolchain support
16:25:54 <nirik> +1
16:25:58 * ignatenkobrain disagrees honestly
16:26:03 <dgilmore> jforbes: +1
16:26:18 <nirik> ignatenkobrain: and the alternative is? just defer f27 until it's done?
16:26:22 <bowlofeggs> is bodhi the only toolchain piece that is missing what is needed?
16:26:40 <ignatenkobrain> nirik: aren't we talking about f28 now?
16:26:41 <dgilmore> bowlofeggs: no
16:26:51 <bowlofeggs> ok
16:26:56 <nirik> ah sorry...
16:26:59 <maxamillion> bowlofeggs: well, I think technically mash is the toolchain piece and I'm not certain what all uses it
16:27:17 <ignatenkobrain> nirik: ideally, I want to see it supported in f27 as well, but this can come later
16:27:31 <ignatenkobrain> but for f28 I disagree for deferring decision until toolchain supports it
16:27:34 <jforbes> #topic #1767 F28 Self Contained Changes
16:27:45 <ignatenkobrain> because to me it seems that this feature drives toolchain changes
16:27:52 <ignatenkobrain> and I offered my help many times
16:28:04 <bowlofeggs> it would be good to know what toolchain pieces use mash, in addition to bodhi
16:28:13 <nirik> we can't do this until the toolchain is ready.
16:28:34 <maxamillion> ignatenkobrain: so I think the reality is that the change will happen by f28, so the idea of deferring until the toolchain supports it is acceptable
16:28:43 <maxamillion> will most likely happen*
16:28:50 * kalev nods.
16:28:50 <ignatenkobrain> nirik: that's what changes completion deadline is for, now? to see whether it is ready or not
16:28:55 <nirik> bowlofeggs: nothing I know of.
16:29:15 <dgilmore> ignatenkobrain: we are not quite ready to commit to it, I "think" it will be okay, but not 100%
16:29:15 <bowlofeggs> i am +1 to waiting until we know the toolchain is ready. good news is that there is active work from dustymabe to get bodhi to use pungi instead of mash
16:29:27 <bowlofeggs> but not sure what else uses mash
16:30:06 <ignatenkobrain> on a unrelated note, did FESCo take any actions to get more information from rel-eng?
16:30:22 <ignatenkobrain> (as was decided when we deferred change from f27)
16:30:23 <kalev> right, so I think we have two ways to solve this right now: a) defer the feature until toolchain is ready, b) defer the decision if we want to take this for F28 until we're closer to deadlines
16:31:14 <adamw> ignatenkobrain: well, dgilmore and nirik kinda are releng...
16:31:19 <ignatenkobrain> kalev: 2nd means that we accept it now and see if we should defer it later, right?
16:31:19 <nirik> kalev: what dates would b mean?
16:31:26 <maxamillion> ignatenkobrain: yes, there have been discussions about it and the biggest issue with going for it and then deferring if something goes wrong is that it's non-trivial to revert and defer if we realize the toolchain won't be ready in time
16:31:52 <nirik> the problem with accepting it now is that a bunch of packages could start using it, and then if we were not ready rolling that back might be bad.
16:32:25 <ignatenkobrain> maxamillion: it is already 2 releases.. for this particular change delay
16:32:44 <kalev> nirik: according to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/28/Schedule , the proposal submission deadline is 2018-01-30 -- we could delay the decision until then I guess
16:33:23 <nirik> might be good to be before the mass rebuild... but I guess it doesn't matter...
16:33:43 <ignatenkobrain> adamw: that doesn't really help. although we agreed to try-and-see-what-happens with nirik after Flock
16:33:56 <dgilmore> proposal, change is systemwide
16:33:58 <nirik> I would think an earlier meeting in jan might  be ok
16:34:08 <dgilmore> mid January should be okay
16:34:11 <nirik> ignatenkobrain: sure, but that will test only part of things.
16:34:52 <ignatenkobrain> nirik: that's why I asked if FESCo took any actions to get more info from rel-eng... because I still don't know what needs to be checked (and I guess it is not written anywhere)
16:35:07 <maxamillion> ignatenkobrain: correct, and this is not the only change that has been on the TODO list for releng and infra, and it's not higher priority than the other work as per the initiatives of the Fedora Council
16:35:12 <ignatenkobrain> dgilmore: change itself is not system-wide
16:35:20 <dgilmore> ignatenkobrain: the imact is
16:35:23 <dgilmore> impact
16:35:47 <ignatenkobrain> dgilmore: it's not problem of change that infrastructure is not capable to support 5 years old feature
16:35:52 <nirik> ignatenkobrain: we need to check updates. I assure you 100% mash will fail.
16:36:02 <ignatenkobrain> so I don't consider it as system-wide
16:36:04 <nirik> but there's likely other parts too...
16:36:07 <dgilmore> ignatenkobrain: you are free to your opinion
16:36:34 <dgilmore> ignatenkobrain: there are many things that have gone into getting us to the place we are today
16:37:21 <ignatenkobrain> dgilmore: I definitely understand this and I'm ready to help with any kind of actions, but so far (for more than half year) I don't even see what I should do
16:37:57 <nirik> proposal: defrer until either a) we know the toolchain is ready (ie, bodhi is using pungi) or b) after jan 30th
16:38:10 <bowlofeggs> +1
16:38:14 <ignatenkobrain> so I'm fine if FESCo wants to delay decision for a bit, but I would expect way more collaboration from rel-eng
16:38:15 <dgilmore> +1
16:38:23 <kalev> +1
16:38:24 <tyll> +1
16:38:28 <maxamillion> +1
16:38:48 <jforbes> +1
16:38:53 <nirik> +1
16:39:06 <nirik> yes, hopefully we know long before jan... and can move forward on it.
16:40:12 <jsmith> +1
16:40:18 <dgilmore> thansk jsmith
16:40:22 <jforbes> #agreed defrer until either a) we know the toolchain is ready (ie, bodhi is using pungi) or b) after jan 30th (+8,0,-0)
16:40:38 <jforbes> #topic #1768 fesco input for Outreachy projects
16:40:38 <jforbes> .fesco 1768
16:40:39 <jforbes> https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1768
16:40:41 <zodbot> jforbes: Issue #1768: fesco input for Outreachy projects - fesco - Pagure - https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1768
16:41:40 <nirik> both sgallagh and jsmith have said they are willing to help here...
16:41:52 <bowlofeggs> sounds cool to me
16:41:53 <dgilmore> +1 to them both helping
16:41:56 <tyll> both sound good to me
16:41:57 <maxamillion> +1
16:42:00 <tyll> +1
16:42:01 <kalev> +1
16:42:02 <jsmith> Sure, no complaints here -- +1
16:42:09 <bowlofeggs> also, +1 to outreachy in general
16:42:14 <jforbes> +1 here
16:42:16 <bowlofeggs> +1
16:42:17 <nirik> sure, if they want 2...
16:42:20 <nirik> +1
16:43:08 <jforbes> I will say let jsmith and sgallagh figure out who wishes to serve the next cycle
16:43:27 <bowlofeggs> "i get this mental image of santa claus, dancing towards you with an axe" -nirik wrt. elevator music in the hotel lobby
16:43:27 <jsmith> I'll work it out with sgallagh
16:43:32 <dgilmore> jsmith++
16:43:38 <jsmith> bowlofeggs: ++
16:44:10 <nirik> sounds good.
16:44:12 <jforbes> #agreed FESCo will give input for Outreachy projects (+8,0,-0)
16:44:47 <tyll> #info jsmith or sgallagh allah will represent FESCo
16:44:51 <dgilmore> labbott++
16:44:51 <zodbot> dgilmore: Karma for labbott changed to 4 (for the f26 release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
16:44:53 <jforbes> #topic #1769 F28 System Wide Change: Switch libidn-using applications to IDNA2008
16:44:53 <jforbes> .fesco 1769
16:44:54 <jforbes> https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1769
16:44:55 <zodbot> jforbes: Issue #1769: F28 System Wide Change: Switch libidn-using applications to IDNA2008 - fesco - Pagure - https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1769
16:45:35 <maxamillion> seems like a logical move
16:45:39 <maxamillion> +1
16:45:54 <dgilmore> +1
16:46:01 <nirik> +1
16:46:06 <jsmith> +1
16:46:15 <tyll> +1
16:46:16 <jsmith> Seems straightforward, isn't removing the old library yet, etc.
16:46:25 <kalev> +1
16:46:41 <bowlofeggs> +1
16:46:46 <jforbes> +1
16:47:18 <jforbes> #agreed F28 System Wide Change: Switch libidn-using applications to IDNA2008 is approved (+8,0,-0)
16:47:30 <jforbes> #topic #1766 Is ImageMagick 7 appropriate for Fedora 27 (and even 28)?
16:47:31 <jforbes> .fesco 1766
16:47:31 <jforbes> https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1766
16:47:32 <zodbot> jforbes: Issue #1766: Is ImageMagick 7 appropriate for Fedora 27 (and even 28)? - fesco - Pagure - https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1766
16:48:24 <nirik> I'm in favor of sgallagh's proposal in ticket
16:48:30 <jsmith> Proposal: Use sgallagh's proposal in the ticket
16:48:33 <kalev> yes, that pretty much sums up my thoughts as well
16:48:36 <jsmith> nirik++
16:48:36 <zodbot> jsmith: Karma for kevin changed to 20 (for the f26 release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
16:48:36 <kalev> big +1 to that
16:49:02 <bowlofeggs> +1
16:49:41 <maxamillion> +1 to sgallagh's proposal from the ticket
16:49:56 <nirik> +1
16:49:57 <jsmith> I'm +1, obviously
16:50:00 <tyll> +1
16:50:14 <dgilmore> +1
16:50:59 <tyll> #info proposal is to make imagemagick 7 a system wide change for F28 and not have anything on default install or blocking F27 media require imagemagick 7
16:51:45 <jforbes> +1 here
16:52:56 <jforbes> #agreed sgallagh's proposal in ticket is accepted (+8,0,-0)
16:53:11 <jforbes> #topic Next Week's chair
16:53:49 <jsmith> I'll likely be out next week :-(
16:53:55 <nirik> I can probibly do it
16:55:00 <bowlofeggs> +1 to probability
16:55:20 <jforbes> #info nirik will chair next weeks meeting
16:55:25 <tyll> Will we continue next week with the current meeting time?
16:55:36 <jforbes> #topic open floor
16:56:00 <adamw> so I have an open floor topic
16:56:06 <maxamillion> tyll: still waiting on results from sgallagh
16:56:18 <maxamillion> so ... undetermined
16:56:22 <adamw> there's a question related to the 'upstream first' initiative to land red hat test cases into fedora
16:56:23 <jforbes> #info next weeks meeting will be at the same time as current since we do not have whenisgood results
16:56:33 <maxamillion> jforbes: +1
16:56:58 <adamw> there's an idea that people maintaining those test cases just be given dist-git commit rights so they can land (and perhaps maintain) those tests in fedora
16:57:19 <adamw> which i think is going to be kinda a strong no...but we might want to come up with a process that's not just 'send pull requests forever'
16:57:35 <nirik> if we still had the seperate rpms-tests thaty would be one thing... but not rpms
16:57:42 <maxamillion> I don't like the idea of "just be given" ... community members generally go through a mentorship of some sort before getting access to things
16:57:48 <maxamillion> nirik: +1
16:57:55 <jsmith> maxamillion: Couldn't have said it more eloquently myself
16:58:02 <tyll> how about a bot to merge PRs when they only touch tests?
16:58:15 <bowlofeggs> proventester?
16:58:27 <mattdm> tyll: mmmm, robots!
16:58:48 <adamw> yeah, four people have mentioned proventesters so far
16:58:53 <bowlofeggs> if the system also asserts that the tests pass?
16:58:57 <adamw> and using the infra-apprentice system as a model
16:58:59 <nirik> not sure how much problem its going to be. we could wait and see
16:59:02 <maxamillion> tyll: that could work, having the bot become the sanity checking team member
16:59:04 <jforbes> Pull requests are less work than an actual update
16:59:21 <maxamillion> adamw: +1 - I like that idea as well
16:59:25 <bowlofeggs> i personally think the pull request model is ok - what are downsides to it?
16:59:37 <bowlofeggs> pull requests with PR feedback that the new tests passed/failed
16:59:52 <kalev> we could have proventesters group that can only commit tests to git, similar to how provenpackagers work, but a git hook would reject changes outside of tests
17:00:05 <nirik> well, there might be some maintainers who don't land them... but provenpackagers might work here?
17:00:35 <adamw> kalev: it's kinda a technical problem there though, since the tests are just a directory in git
17:00:39 <jforbes> If we are gating on test results, it could cause issues for package maintainers, so even restricting commit rights to tests might not be perfect
17:01:03 <adamw> this was one of the downsides of the 'tests in same repo' approach as opposed to the 'tests in separate repo' approach, and it was thought about at the time, but as someone said the other day that train has sailed
17:01:04 <kalev> adamw: sure, but can't a git hook check that the changeset only touches the tests subdirectory? and reject if not?
17:01:18 <adamw> i mean, maybe? we'd have to try it
17:01:22 <jforbes> proposal: file a ticket and open a discussion on -devel?
17:01:25 <maxamillion> adamw: couldn't there be a pre-commit hook that checks what the patch touches? (I'll admit that every off-the-top-of-my-head implementation idea for that is kind of a hack though)
17:01:26 <puiterwijk> kalev: except that Pagure does not enforce git hooks, so we'd need that feature
17:01:27 <adamw> +1
17:01:50 <bowlofeggs> +1
17:01:53 <maxamillion> puiterwijk: ah
17:02:01 <maxamillion> jforbes: +1
17:02:07 <adamw> i really just wanted to bring this up and get it in people's minds, and be able to tell the people asking me that it's moving forward and y'all are open to coming up with something
17:02:10 <nirik> Might consult with pingou about whats possible here.
17:02:33 <jforbes> in general, commit hooks would be nice to have
17:02:51 <puiterwijk> jforbes: agreed, and there's an RFE for that. But that's more tricky than you'd hope :(
17:03:34 <kalev> I'd personally much prefer if people would be able to fix tests directly, so I wouldn't have to be merging 200+ gnome packages all the time
17:04:45 <adamw> kalev: well, i guess you always can *choose* to grant commit rights
17:04:56 <adamw> except there's one wrinkle with that which i should bring up
17:05:07 <adamw> i think at present only members of the packagers group *can* be granted commit rights, right?
17:05:15 <adamw> that may be a roadblock to this, and need adjusting somehow
17:06:01 <tyll> IMHO using PRs for now would be ok and then revisit when there are actual issues
17:06:27 <puiterwijk> tyll: +1
17:06:28 <maxamillion> adamw: oh, ha... yeah
17:07:05 <puiterwijk> adamw: right, but that's simple enough to change
17:07:51 <nirik> tyll: yeah....
17:08:48 <adamw> alright, so yeah, that's all the bits of this issue i think - let's let it percolate and move on
17:08:56 <jforbes> Anything else for open floor?
17:09:02 <dgilmore> nada
17:09:03 <maxamillion> not I
17:09:08 <jforbes> If not I will close in 2  minutes
17:09:26 <kalev> say hi to everybody at Flock from me :)
17:09:42 <bowlofeggs> "hi to everybody at Flock from me :)"
17:09:53 <dgilmore> gday kalev
17:10:07 <maxamillion> kalev: hi!
17:10:17 <tyll> Hi from everyone around here
17:10:23 <puiterwijk> bowlofeggs: click https://hackmysystem.local/
17:10:28 <bowlofeggs> lol
17:11:11 <jforbes> #endmeeting