From Fedora Project Wiki
Fedora Release Engineering Meeting :: Monday 2008-11-03
Preview Release
- on track for release on tomorrow (Tuesday)
- schedule CVS outage for Thursday evening in order to mass-branch for F-10
- have some really bad split media splitting going on
- needing more than one disc for a minimal install
- needing 5 disks for a default minus office install, etc.
- f13 to look at where packages are going and why they aren't being split right
Fedora 11 Schedule
- https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/843 (discussion to date)
- Includes three proposals
- attendees would like to see a different proposed scenario to compare to a regular "may day" schedule
- May Day schedule should GA on 2009-05-05 (not 2009-04-28)
- second scenario should be F10 GA date + six month schedule (2009-05-05 + ~30 days)
IRC Transcript
| f13 | ping: notting jeremy spot rdieter lmacken wwoods poelcat warren | 10:01 |
|---|---|---|
| jeremy | hi | 10:01 |
| rdieter | here | 10:01 |
| * poelcat here | 10:02 | |
| * notting is here | 10:02 | |
| * wwoods here mostly | 10:03 | |
| * warren here | 10:03 | |
| f13 | sorry, got slightly distracted by a shiney | 10:09 |
| -!- f13 changed the topic of #fedora-meeting to: Fedora Releng - Preview | 10:09 | |
| f13 | Preview is being mirrored currently, and should be in good shape. Lets run through the remaining tickets. | 10:09 |
| f13 | .rel 865 | 10:11 |
| zodbot | f13: #865 (Compose Fedora 10 Preview "Spins" Live images) - Fedora Release Engineering - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/865 | 10:11 |
| f13 | This I'm going to be working on today. They won't likely be done and synced by release time tomorrow, there are just too many of them, so they'll go up at some point after that. | 10:11 |
| f13 | the bandwidth between PHX and the torrent server doesn't help here either. | 10:11 |
| f13 | .rel 866 | 10:11 |
| zodbot | f13: #866 (Give legal heads up on Preview release) - Fedora Release Engineering - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/866 | 10:11 |
| f13 | This I'll also be doing today, it's quick and easy. | 10:12 |
| f13 | .rel 867 | 10:12 |
| zodbot | f13: #867 (Stage Fedora 10 Preview content for mirrors / torrents) - Fedora Release Engineering - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/867 | 10:12 |
| f13 | this is all done except for the spins to torrent part. I shoudl probably make that a different ticket next time. | 10:12 |
| f13 | .868 | 10:12 |
| f13 | er | 10:12 |
| f13 | .rel 868 | 10:13 |
| zodbot | f13: #868 (Create torrent configs for Fedora 10 Preview) - Fedora Release Engineering - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/868 | 10:13 |
| f13 | again, on my plate for today, should be relatively painless. All the torrent content (minus spins) is on alt. as well, for the people that help with seeding the torrents. | 10:13 |
| f13 | .rel 869 | 10:13 |
| zodbot | f13: #869 (Release Fedora 10 Preview) - Fedora Release Engineering - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/869 | 10:13 |
| f13 | that's for tomorrow morning. I'll be up nice and early to release those bits. I assume we'll hang in #fedora-admin during the release hours to make sure things go well. | 10:14 |
| f13 | .rel 870 | 10:14 |
| zodbot | f13: #870 (Branch for F11) - Fedora Release Engineering - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/870 | 10:14 |
| wwoods | woo! fresh, hot bits! | 10:14 |
| f13 | this is the big ticket item for this week | 10:14 |
| f13 | abadger1999: and I have been working together on it, to make the outage as short as possible. | 10:15 |
| f13 | he added logic to pkgdb so that pkgdb can query koji and figure out what needs to be branched and then do all it needs to do | 10:15 |
| f13 | we should only need to have an outage for the actual branching, and that outage is only so that we don't mail-bomb the world. | 10:15 |
| f13 | abadger1999: can you confirm? | 10:15 |
| abadger1999 | f13: We can do the mas branch in pkgdb without email, so no need for an outage during that portion. | 10:16 |
| f13 | abadger1999: you can turn off the cvs commit mail? | 10:16 |
| abadger1999 | f13: I'm not sure if we want to have an outage during the cvs branch creation. | 10:16 |
| f13 | via pkgdb? | 10:16 |
| abadger1999 | No, not the cvs commit mail. | 10:16 |
| f13 | that's what we had outages for | 10:16 |
| abadger1999 | So we would want to have an outage for that portion. | 10:16 |
| f13 | we wanted to kill the commit mail, but not let commits hide during that time. | 10:16 |
| f13 | nod | 10:17 |
| abadger1999 | It's still a two step process but now the pkgdb half doesn't send email. | 10:17 |
| abadger1999 | And should be faster. | 10:17 |
| f13 | goot. | 10:17 |
| f13 | abadger1999: what day did we decide on donig it? | 10:17 |
| abadger1999 | We should do it towards the end of the week. No specific day yet. | 10:17 |
| abadger1999 | there's a bunch of new branching code and I'd like nirik and other people processing cvs requests to pound on it for a few days before we hit it with mass branching. | 10:18 |
| f13 | ok, I'm good with Thurs or Fri evening. | 10:18 |
| nirik | abadger1999: is that code live now? | 10:18 |
| abadger1999 | nirik: Not yet. I'm waiting for the infra freeze to end. | 10:19 |
| nirik | abadger1999: ok. Let me know when it's in and I would be happy to test. | 10:19 |
| f13 | Proposal: schedule CVS outage for Thursday evening in order to mass-branch for F-10 | 10:19 |
| abadger1999 | +1 | 10:20 |
| notting | +1 | 10:20 |
| jeremy | +1 | 10:21 |
| f13 | depending on how fast it goes, (and we shoudl time it), I think we should schedule this earlier in the cycle next time. | 10:22 |
| f13 | right now, we're going to wind up with a lot of builds in 'dist-f10-updates-candidate' that aren't inherited into dist-f11 and confusing maintainers. | 10:22 |
| f13 | of course, I dont' think we want to do a wholesale tag over of -candidate to dist-f11, but maybe that's the answer for this time. | 10:23 |
| f13 | IMHO branching should occur at the same time we enter the final freeze where builds don't just "go" somewhere automatically | 10:23 |
| f13 | alright, that's enough + votes, I'll announce the outage. | 10:25 |
| f13 | since abadger1999 and I are west coast, we can do it relatively later in the evening, abadger1999 what time would you aim to start the CVS outage? | 10:25 |
| abadger1999 | f13: Up to you. I can do it anytime on Thursday evening. | 10:26 |
| abadger1999 | I need to time a complete run of the pkgdb side on app1.stg today as well. | 10:27 |
| abadger1999 | cvs server we don't know how long... just that it's much faster since notting made the changes to what information we add to the modules file last release. | 10:27 |
| f13 | yeah, it was incredibly fast once those changes were made | 10:28 |
| f13 | I recall doing 30+ packages in like 3 seconds | 10:28 |
| f13 | or something rediculous like that | 10:28 |
| f13 | abadger1999: say 7pm Pacific? 0300 UTC Sat | 10:30 |
| abadger1999 | Sounds good. | 10:30 |
| f13 | ok. | 10:31 |
| abadger1999 | 0300UTC Sat would be Friday evening Pacific. | 10:31 |
| f13 | right | 10:31 |
| abadger1999 | Okay. | 10:31 |
| f13 | er whoops | 10:31 |
| f13 | sorry | 10:31 |
| f13 | 0300 UTC Fri for Thursday Pacific | 10:31 |
| abadger1999 | Okay:-) | 10:31 |
| f13 | alright, other things that I'm looking at. | 10:32 |
| f13 | We've got some really bad split media splitting going on. | 10:32 |
| f13 | needing more than one disc for a minimal install, needing 5 disks for a default minus office install, etc.. I need to look at where packages are going and why they aren't being split right. | 10:32 |
| f13 | also | 10:32 |
| f13 | Even after jeremy's patch for filtering available groups in anaconda, we're still getting af ew groups with just one or two packages in them. This is mostly due to packages being in multiple groups, or packages being pulled in via deps of another package in another group | 10:33 |
| f13 | this leads to some confusing UI. I'm going to be reviewing the "available" groups in the install spin and trying to do some comps tweaks to make this better. | 10:33 |
| f13 | those are my two main concerns this week | 10:34 |
| -!- f13 changed the topic of #fedora-meeting to: Fedora Release Engineering - Open Floor | 10:34 | |
| f13 | anybody got anything else? | 10:34 |
| poelcat | f13: there was so feedback on the schedule in the ticket | 10:35 |
| poelcat | schedule for F11 that is | 10:35 |
| f13 | "so" == "no" ? | 10:36 |
| f13 | .rel 843 | 10:36 |
| zodbot | f13: #843 (Draft Fedora 11 Schedule) - Fedora Release Engineering - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/843 | 10:36 |
| f13 | I gave some feedback based on what I just experienced trying to get PR done 2 days after the final freeze | 10:37 |
| poelcat | earlier in the ticket there were some objections to the drafted schedules | 10:38 |
| jeremy | I very strongly object to rel-eng proposing a drastically different schedule than our standard for f11 | 10:39 |
| jeremy | if we have suggestions about how to lay out milestones within the constraints of the every six month mandate that we're under, that's reasonable | 10:39 |
| jeremy | more than that, rel-eng feels very much like the wrong place to have the discussion | 10:40 |
| jwb | mandate from whom | 10:40 |
| * notting isn't even sure that the schedule discussion started in rel-eng | 10:41 | |
| poelcat | it started on the releng list | 10:41 |
| jeremy | jwb: was originally the board iirc | 10:41 |
| poelcat | by stickster i think | 10:41 |
| jwb | i'm pretty sure if rel-eng and FESCo went to the board and said "this needs to be changed", they would at least entertain it | 10:42 |
| jeremy | jwb: I think that such a disucssion should happen in the open, not in some rel-eng trac ticket that no one watches | 10:43 |
| jeremy | any prior "we need to have a different schedule" discussions have begun either on fedora-devel or fedora-advisory-board | 10:43 |
| f13 | jeremy: what's wrong with releng itself using the trac ticket to come upw ith our suggestion, to propose to the community? | 10:43 |
| f13 | jeremy: I'd rather not have a 20 day long bikeshed argument before we even get to a suggested alternative to the existing schedule. | 10:43 |
| jwb | ok, sure. i was just pointing out that the 'mandate' can be changed | 10:44 |
| f13 | jeremy: the alternative schedule being discussed in that ticket can /be/ the starting point for the "we need something different for F11" discussion on F-A-B/Fedora-devel-whatever | 10:44 |
| jeremy | f13: fine. send it to f-a-b | 10:44 |
| jeremy | f13: let's have the discussion there. | 10:44 |
| jeremy | you call it bikeshedding | 10:45 |
| jeremy | I call it being inclusive | 10:45 |
| f13 | jeremy: we're going to, once we as rel-eng agree that the proposed alternative works for us | 10:45 |
| poelcat | of the three schedules proposed in the ticket... is there one that folks would like me to tweak/adjust to get closer to the desired end product? | 10:45 |
| f13 | starting a thread with "we need change" and not having anything to propose is rather.. pointless. | 10:45 |
| jeremy | f13: if there is a suggestion coming from the set of people that make up rel-eng, then we stifle real discussion | 10:46 |
| f13 | poelcat: personally I'm in favor of the http://poelstra.fedorapeople.org/schedules/f-11/f-11-all-tasks.html as being proposed as our suggested "change" to various lists for discussion. | 10:46 |
| f13 | jeremy: so, suggestions are only useful if they come from individuals? | 10:47 |
| f13 | discussing a suggestion beforehand isn't useful? | 10:47 |
| f13 | I'm not allowed to ask a few of my peers to sanity check something before I post it to a wider audience? | 10:47 |
| jeremy | f13: sanity checking is one thing | 10:47 |
| jeremy | f13: coming to a conclusion and presenting it is entirely different. | 10:48 |
| jeremy | because then the argument is "well, this has already been agreed on by X, Y and Z" | 10:48 |
| f13 | "coming to a conclusion" | 10:48 |
| spot | FWIW, I think I'm more inclined towards http://poelstra.fedorapeople.org/schedules/f-11/f-11-may-day.html | 10:48 |
| f13 | yes, the releng team is hell bent on railroading this schedule into place. | 10:49 |
| f13 | end of story. | 10:49 |
| stickster | spot: And I'm thinking about something in between :-D | 10:49 |
| notting | there was http://poelstra.fedorapeople.org/schedules/f-11/f-11-standard.html which was somewhere in between (although not halfway) | 10:50 |
| spot | stickster: i think that we need at least 6 months | 10:50 |
| f13 | er, may-day doesn't give us 6 months | 10:50 |
| spot | notting: thats an 8 month schedule | 10:50 |
| f13 | spot: the may-day schedule is an extremely short schedule for F11 | 10:50 |
| f13 | how about this though. | 10:50 |
| spot | f13: yeah, its not quite perfect | 10:51 |
| f13 | I don't necessarily see any glaring problems with all three options. | 10:51 |
| f13 | I propose that all three be passed along to the relavent lists for discussion | 10:51 |
| spot | i'd like to propose a fourth option | 10:51 |
| spot | which is essentially the may day schedule out to May 31 | 10:51 |
| * notting would like to apologize for his eyes glazing over from one too many schedule discussions and not posting much input | 10:51 | |
| spot | give it a proper 6 months | 10:51 |
| notting | spot: we can't do that until we ship f10 on time ;) | 10:52 |
| spot | but leave the feature freeze date as is in feb | 10:52 |
| jeremy | (... so, why is it fair that this discussion only have input from the people that are here / pay attention to rel-eng as opposed to having it on f-a-b or fedora-devel-list? that other input is valuable and we should not be looking to avoid it. it's not "bikeshedding") | 10:53 |
| f13 | jeremy: because what we're doing right now is discussing what the schedules would look like with a suggested adjustment to the F11 cycle. | 10:54 |
| f13 | jeremy: what rel-eng would suggest the community review | 10:54 |
| notting | for example, the may-day one has two weeks between alpha GA and beta freeze, which, well... | 10:54 |
| f13 | the adjustment really isn't that hard to get to, adjust F11 to the same manner that F10 was delayed | 10:54 |
| f13 | although, wait a sec. | 10:55 |
| notting | poelcat: refresher - what's the genesis of the 'regular' schedule being 230 and not 180 days? | 10:56 |
| poelcat | notting: link? | 10:57 |
| f13 | poelcat: also, I thought "regular" and "regular with extra freezes" was supposed to be the same length in time, but with some dates picked out to freeze key software earlier | 10:57 |
| notting | poelcat: http://poelstra.fedorapeople.org/schedules/f-11/f-11-combined-scenarios.html | 10:57 |
| poelcat | notting: okay | 10:57 |
| * poelcat looks just to be sure | 10:58 | |
| f13 | yeah, regular with extra freezes seems to have a few extra days at the tail end of Beta that are somewhat unaccounted for | 10:58 |
| notting | f13: and at the start of alpha. or i'm missing something. | 10:59 |
| f13 | crap, I should have noticed this before, sorry poelcat | 10:59 |
| poelcat | notting: i (wrongly/rightly) pushed things forward ~1.5 weeks to compensate for holidays | 10:59 |
| poelcat | f13: no worries... it is all changeable :) | 10:59 |
| notting | poelcat: that's still doesn't account for 50 days | 10:59 |
| poelcat | + 1 month for f10 slip | 11:00 |
| * jeremy thinks there are multiple things trying to be worked at the same time and thus make the discussion hopelessly complex. 1) end date) 2) changes to how some of the internal freezes work out | 11:00 | |
| * poelcat is trying schedule w/ "work days" not "calendar days"... a separate debate :) | 11:01 | |
| notting | poelcat: ??? that month is taken care of by the later start date | 11:01 |
| jeremy | poelcat: every day is a work day in the community :-) | 11:01 |
| notting | honestly, i think you chop a month off the pre-alpha in either of the later two schedules, and you have something eminently reasonable | 11:03 |
| f13 | so lets take a step back. | 11:03 |
| f13 | for the sake of community discussion, I think we can make things simple by talking about 2 scenarios. | 11:04 |
| f13 | 1) Shoot for May Day release, disregarding the delay in F10's schedule. | 11:04 |
| f13 | 2) Pad F11's schedule by the month we delayed F10's schedule. | 11:04 |
| f13 | Those two options should be pretty simple for people to grasp. | 11:05 |
| poelcat | we have #1 already, correct? | 11:05 |
| notting | f13: just to have clarity, 'shift', not 'pad' | 11:05 |
| f13 | in addition to that, as a side discussion, regardless of end date I want to explore adjusting the freeze dates slightly, move feature freeze a week back from beta freeze, and ask for a freeze of critical software a bit before that even. | 11:05 |
| f13 | notting: ah right, 'shift' | 11:06 |
| f13 | poelcat: I think we'll confuse people too much by throwing full schedules at them, and wind up derailing those conversations like this one is on the details of the individual inter-schedule dates. :/ | 11:06 |
| poelcat | so scenarios #2 you want a GA of ~May 1 + 30 days ? | 11:06 |
| notting | poelcat: ignore GA, start by taking a 'normal' six month schedule, and just have it start at the start point? | 11:07 |
| notting | GA-as-output, not input | 11:07 |
| poelcat | notting: people seem to disagree on what a "normal" 6 month schedule is | 11:07 |
| notting | poelcat: take what the mayday schedule used, and add back whatever was taken out ;) | 11:08 |
| * poelcat definitely isn't clear what that is... is May/Halloween the "normal 6 month" | 11:08 | |
| poelcat | ? | 11:08 |
| f13 | yeah, I"d say shoot for the nearest Tuesday to a May 1 + 30 days. | 11:08 |
| * f13 hates that we're piling more work on poelcat after these schedules sat in a ticket for weeks :/ | 11:09 | |
| poelcat | that's okay :) | 11:10 |
| poelcat | it is an itterative process | 11:10 |
| poelcat | so here is what I'm going to do... | 11:11 |
| poelcat | 1) scenario #1 is considered "okay enough for now" ... agreed? | 11:11 |
| notting | as a proposal? sure! as something sane to do? hell no! | 11:11 |
| poelcat | right | 11:12 |
| f13 | poelcat: just for snorts and giggles, move that final day to May 4th (: | 11:12 |
| f13 | er may 5th | 11:12 |
| poelcat | okay | 11:12 |
| f13 | (you know, just so that you have more work to do) | 11:12 |
| f13 | sooner or later poelcat is going to take the train up here and beat me. | 11:12 |
| poelcat | 2) create a "better" scenario #2 which mirrors f10 and ends May 5 + ~30 days | 11:13 |
| notting | (for it to be a valid 'something sane to do', realistically you have to move the alpha back so you have more than 2 weeks of alpha) | 11:13 |
| poelcat | where "mirrors" is defined loosely in the sense that changes can be made for "lessons learned" in F10 | 11:13 |
| poelcat | notting: yes, most likely the cuts are going to come from the length of devel time | 11:14 |
| poelcat | before alpha | 11:14 |
| notting | erm, the main lesson learned during f10 is not applicable to scheduling. *sigh* | 11:14 |
| poelcat | though i purposefully made it the way it was based on what we usually hit for length of devel time before alpha | 11:14 |
| f13 | right, for the sake of discussions on lists concentrating on the duration of the schedule in whole is important, not the individual dates within teh schedule. | 11:14 |
| poelcat | f13: okay so i remove several layers of detail | 11:15 |
| poelcat | so mostly what we end up w/ is ~ 10 milestones? | 11:15 |
| f13 | even that can be misleading | 11:15 |
| poelcat | lol | 11:15 |
| * poelcat runs out of ideas :) | 11:16 | |
| notting | so | 11:16 |
| notting | you have a 6 month schedule | 11:16 |
| f13 | all I really want to hear from the community at large is whether or not they'd accept a shifting of the F11 schedule or not. | 11:16 |
| notting | you have a generally accepted length of time for a milestone that is counted from *availability of that milestone, to availability of the next milestone* | 11:16 |
| f13 | a shifting of the f11 and using F12 to try and bring it back to mayday/haloween | 11:16 |
| f13 | compatabilty with RHEL 6 is my primary motivation to a full shift of the F11 schedule, capturing as much of the RH attention as possible. | 11:17 |
| notting | freezes are added to that schedule based on whatever those avail dates are. and when those freezes are are the bits that f13 wants to adjust, iirc. those adjustments should not affect the length of the milestones, necessarily | 11:17 |
| notting | (unless you get into a 'we're freezing for milestone A+1 two weeks after milestone A') | 11:17 |
| notting | am i over-simplifying or over-complicating? | 11:17 |
| poelcat | f13: what do you mean by "capture attention of RH" ? | 11:18 |
| f13 | poelcat: well, when Red Hat is gearing up to base a RHEL release on a Fedora release, more facilities within Red Hat pay attention to Fedora, and try to improve things within Fedora. Because it's easier than doing them within Red Hat for RHEL | 11:18 |
| f13 | poelcat: maximizing their time to generally improve Fedora within Fedora seems like a worthwhile goal. | 11:19 |
| f13 | they had expected a 6~ month schedule for F11 to deal with, and I don't want to short-change that. | 11:19 |
| f13 | however, if the greater community does not agree, then we're going to go with what the greater community wants. | 11:20 |
| jwb | be careful | 11:20 |
| wwoods | that has to be phrased carefully or we're gonna hear a lot of complaints. well. a lot more than normal. | 11:20 |
| jwb | heh | 11:21 |
| f13 | well sure, careful but honest | 11:21 |
| jwb | particularly when "greater community" seems to equate to "the people that bark the loudest and most" | 11:21 |
| f13 | jwb: by 'greater community' I think I mean a FESCo vote after the requsite arguing on mailing lists | 11:21 |
| wwoods | It totally makes sense to summarize as: well, we slipped a month, so *something* has to be a month shorter. And since large chunks of RHEL engineering are going to be getting involved in F11 improvements | 11:21 |
| f13 | and maybe a board nod for doing a schedule adjustment. | 11:22 |
| jwb | f13, then maybe you should just say that | 11:22 |
| f13 | jwb: agreed | 11:22 |
| wwoods | it makes sense to shorten the F12 cycle and make *that* release more focused on stabilization/polish than new features | 11:22 |
| f13 | wwoods: I like where you're going with this | 11:22 |
| wwoods | (besides, I think we have the beginnings of a star-trek-movie tradition: only the even numbered ones are good) | 11:22 |
| f13 | anyway, I can take up the task of doing the proposals to lists | 11:23 |
| f13 | and taking any heat that blows back from it. | 11:23 |
| f13 | we can re-visit the finer points of our schedules once we have a generally agreed upon end date | 11:23 |
| poelcat | f13 would we want to increase the "six month" schedule by two more weeks to accomodate the "extra freezes" | 11:24 |
| poelcat | or do we | 11:24 |
| poelcat | want to somehow make those work w/in the "6 month" schedule? | 11:24 |
| f13 | poelcat: no, the "extra freezes" were just dates set within the existing schedule time. | 11:24 |
| f13 | not extra time added. | 11:25 |
| poelcat | where "we" == "me" w/ the scheduling tool :) | 11:25 |
| poelcat | okay, got it | 11:25 |
| poelcat | so most likely we'll have to take that time from time before alpha... is that okay? | 11:25 |
| poelcat | if this too detailed for now, close me down :) | 11:25 |
| f13 | Proposal: jkeating will post to $somewhere asking for a discussion on the F11 schedule, providing two simple scenarios. Shoot for May 1 (May 5th), or shoot for May 1 + the month we lost in F10. | 11:26 |
| f13 | poelcat: I'm not exactly sure why we need to take "time" away when adding the extra freeze points. | 11:26 |
| f13 | poelcat: we're A) asking for features to be "done" earlier, but that doesn't stop them from doing more bugfixing. "Done" just means testable. | 11:27 |
| f13 | and B) we're asking some key software to be "done" (testable) even earlier to provide room for integration work just prior to the beta freeze. | 11:27 |
| poelcat | fair enough | 11:27 |
| * poelcat didn't mean to drag in underlying schedule semantics | 11:28 | |
| f13 | if anybody is still paying attention to IRC, some voting would be appreciated, or else I'll just dictate (: | 11:28 |
| poelcat | +1 to proposal but change it to "May 4" + 1 month | 11:29 |
| f13 | sure | 11:29 |
| poelcat | because normally we would have targetted 2008-04-28 | 11:29 |
| poelcat | 2009 that is | 11:29 |
| wwoods | well, I'll give it a +1, but I'd prefer we put forth the "keep f11 6-months, shorten f12" proposal as the first choice | 11:29 |
| wwoods | but that's just my preference in the matter | 11:30 |
| f13 | wwoods: sure, I think releng as a whole leans more to that. | 11:30 |
| f13 | we'd rather see a 6 month schedule, and I'll provide rational as we discussed here as to why | 11:30 |
| notting | isn't may 4 + one month roughly 6 months? | 11:33 |
| wwoods | yep. I'm just saying the choices should be: (may 4 + 1mo), may 4. Quibbling over ordering. | 11:33 |
| f13 | notting: it is. I had commented earlier that if we didn't shift the f11 schedule, I'd like the release point to be may 4, rather than april 28th | 11:33 |
| wwoods | those sorts of things have significant polling effects. stupid election makes me think too much about this stuff. | 11:34 |
| f13 | I think our "standard" schedules should be "on or after May1/Oct31" | 11:34 |
| f13 | alright, no further votes coming in, I'll run with it. | 11:37 |
| f13 | now that we're 40 minutes over, anything else? | 11:37 |
| wwoods | oh | 11:38 |
| wwoods | there's no koji tag for preview, right? | 11:38 |
| wwoods | is there a tree somewhere so I can check to see what packages are in the preview (and thus close bugs etc.) | 11:38 |
| f13 | wwoods: nope. | 11:39 |
| f13 | wwoods: you could check the kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/mash/rawhide-20081031 tree | 11:39 |
| f13 | that's what I used to compose the PR (minus the fedora-release package) | 11:39 |
| f13 | alright, ending the meeting, thanks all. | 11:40 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!