19:01 <@Chainsaw> Alright, let's get started.
19:01 <@Chainsaw> Roll call.
19:01 <@Chainsaw> Chainsaw is here.
19:01  * grobian is here
19:01 <@dberkholz> present and reporting for duty
19:01 <@Chainsaw> dberkholz, hwoarang, betelgeuse, jmbsvicetto, ulm: ping
19:01  * jmbsvicetto is here
19:02  * hwoarang here
19:02 <@Betelgeuse> hello
19:02 <@ulm> here
19:02 <@Chainsaw> That is everyone, thank you.
19:02 <@Chainsaw> Okay, we have 3 bugs with council involvement.
19:02 <@Chainsaw> Correction, 4.
19:03 <@Chainsaw> What do we need to do to move https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=331987 along?
19:03 <@jmbsvicetto> Chainsaw: I count 10
19:03 <@Chainsaw> jmbsvicetto: I look forward to seeing your list.
19:04 <@jmbsvicetto> I think we never replied to Robin - https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=331987#c9
19:04 <@dberkholz> Chainsaw: i count 9, from assignee and CC
19:05 <@jmbsvicetto> Petteri replied on comment 10, but I don't think we decided anything (council)
19:05 <@Chainsaw> Can we make this decision now?
19:05 <@hwoarang> we did din't we?
19:05 <@jmbsvicetto> hwoarang: I mean about comment 9, not about closing the ml
19:05 <@Chainsaw> hwoarang: We made a decision, but we did not follow up with robbat2.
19:05 <@ulm> we did in last meeting
19:06 <@grobian> bounce + send email people can subscribe to -project
19:06 <@hwoarang> ok
19:06 <@Chainsaw> post-merge, how should mails to -council be handled? (I suggest SMTP-level
19:06 <@Chainsaw> bounce since the address will not be valid anymore)
19:06 <@jmbsvicetto> ok, I didn't recall that. We should probably add a comment there then
19:06 <@Chainsaw> ^ This is the easy one, where "we concur" is an easy answer.
19:06 <@ulm> the archive of -council will be preserved I hope?
19:06 <@Chainsaw> - What should be done with the subscribers that are only on -council and not on
19:06 <@Chainsaw> -project?
19:06 <@Chainsaw> ^ That is the more interesting question.
19:06 <@dberkholz> i'd go with whatever's easiest w/ infra for mails to the list
19:07 <@dberkholz> autosubscribe but still send the confirmation email
19:07 <@dberkholz> that way people still have to opt in, but the barrier to entry is low
19:08 <@jmbsvicetto> hmm, I think autosubscribe will get them in, so they'll be able to opt-out, not opt-in
19:09 <@Chainsaw> Well, it sounds like we have consensus on the first matter, but not on the second.
19:09 <@jmbsvicetto> I do agree with the autosubscription
19:09 <@hwoarang> would be nice to know how many ppl are subscribed in -council
19:09 <@ulm> maybe send a last message to -council explaining that the list will be closed down and that people should subscribe to -project instead?
19:09 <@grobian> I'm flexible, if people want autosubscription, it's ok with me
19:09 <@hwoarang> would be the decision much easier
19:09 <@dberkholz> well, i want it to be treated as if they just sent an email to gentoo-project+subscribe
19:09 <@dberkholz> so they get the email saying "do you really want to sign up?" and have to reply
19:10 <@Chainsaw> Okay. Shall we reply that we agree with the SMTP-level rejection, but ask how many people are affected by the second question?
19:10 <@grobian> I prefer the way I wrote down first, but better explained by ulm
19:10 <@Chainsaw> That way we do not have to discuss the details until we know how big of an issue it really is.
19:10 <@Chainsaw> If we are talking about 3 people, we might as well e-mail them individually.
19:10 <@hwoarang> if the audience is small then autosubscribe them
19:10 <@hwoarang> otherwise be polite and let them decide what to do
19:11 -!- jbartosik [~jbartosik@gentoo/developer/jbartosik] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
19:11 <@hwoarang> just my 0.02c
19:11 <@grobian> what are the different opinions here?
19:11 <@grobian> if we can all easily agree, we're done with it
19:11 <@jmbsvicetto> Robin asked we filed a bug to know those numbers, so let's just make the request on that bug and we can have a quite vote after we get the numbers
19:11 <@Chainsaw> grobian: Do we agree that we need to know the numbers affected?
19:12 <@dberkholz> 1) email them and tell 'em to switch. 2) autosubscribe w/ confirmation email 3) autosubscribe w/o confirmation
19:12 <@jmbsvicetto> s/quite/quick/
19:12 <@dberkholz> is there another option?
19:12 <@grobian> Chainsaw: not important to me, if we want automigration, we don't care if it's 3, or 30000 people
19:12 <@Chainsaw> grobian: But do you agree to ask for numbers and postpone?
19:12 <@Chainsaw> grobian: I would like to move the discussion forward to other bugs. There's 9 more.
19:12 <@grobian> Chainsaw: if you all want that, then I agree if we then can make a "decision" before the next months' meeting
19:13 <@grobian> this takes way too long for a simple little issue
19:13 <@hwoarang> true
19:13 <@Chainsaw> grobian: I know, that is why I am asking you all to agree to a set of two answers.
19:13 <@Chainsaw> grobian: "1) Yes, that is fine. 2) Please give us the number of affected subscribers."
19:13 <@ulm> sounds good
19:13 <@jmbsvicetto> Chainsaw: let's vote on waiting for numbers before starting a mail vote
19:13 <@grobian> Chainsaw: ok, agreed
19:13 <@Chainsaw> ulm, grobian: Thank you.
19:13 <@Chainsaw> jmbsvicetto: Agreed?
19:14 <@jmbsvicetto> yes
19:14  * Chainsaw posts
19:14 <@Chainsaw> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=341959
19:15 <@Chainsaw> The bug is still open. Is it clear what we need to do to close it?
19:16 <@ulm> Chainsaw: tove reopened it with comment #5
19:16 <@hwoarang> the new patch is already merged to devmanual
19:16 <@hwoarang> i think the bug is fixed
19:16 <@grobian> tove: are you still around?
19:16 <@hwoarang> let me check the devmanual
19:16 <@grobian> let's ask him
19:16 <@Chainsaw> If tove agrees, it would be good to close this off.
19:17 <@hwoarang> ok
19:17 <@grobian> ok, he's not here, let's ask on the bug
19:17 <@jmbsvicetto> I think the mention about eclass deprecation could also be tied to the recent discussions on doing eclass bumps on major rewrites
19:17 <@Chainsaw> hwoarang: Could you post to that bug please?
19:17 <@Chainsaw> hwoarang: You were last to respond.
19:17 <@hwoarang> yes I will
19:17 <@Chainsaw> hwoarang: Thank you.
19:17 <@Chainsaw> jmbsvicetto: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=362803
19:18 <@Chainsaw> jmbsvicetto: Was that update done please? If it was, could you resolve the bug?
19:18 <@jmbsvicetto> Chainsaw: I forgot to touch the xml. I'll try to do it this week, but if anyone wants to do it quickly, feel free to
19:18 <@Chainsaw> All: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=374931 <- What is left to do?
19:19 <@jmbsvicetto> Chainsaw: I'll take care of the bug in either case
19:19 <@Chainsaw> jmbsvicetto: tove implied he was willing to do it. Could you post a reply saying so?
19:20 <@grobian> Chainsaw: bug seems to suggest the system is up now
19:20 <@Chainsaw> grobian: So can it be resolved?
19:21 <@dberkholz> ask jbartosik whether it's fixed, since he reported it
19:21 <@grobian> Chainsaw: ask betelgeuse, he was mentoring
19:21 <@jmbsvicetto> Chainsaw: the app is up, but it's probably best to leave this one to Petteri
19:21 <@Chainsaw> Betelgeuse: Is that bug ready to be resolved? If not, could you post an update saying what is outstanding please?
19:21 <@Betelgeuse> Let's close that.
19:21 <@Chainsaw> All: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=234706 <- With Halcy0n no longer on the council, is this dead?
19:21 <@Chainsaw> Betelgeuse: Thank you. Could you do that?
19:22 <@Betelgeuse> new bugs can be filed with https://bugs.gentoo.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=Gentoo%20Hosted%20Projects
19:22 <@Chainsaw> MIPS & PowerPC appear to be back to life, so is it obsolete?
19:22 <@grobian> Chainsaw: I vote for yes on 234706
19:22 <@Chainsaw> Thank you grobian. Other opinions on 234706 please?
19:22 <@Chainsaw> I would like to mark it RESO OBSOLETE.
19:22 <@grobian> agreed
19:22 <@ulm> yeah, it's obsolete
19:22 <@Chainsaw> Both for losing its champion, and for the situation having been more or less resolved now.
19:23 <@hwoarang> Betelgeuse: if we go to close that bug maybe it is time to use tha application?
19:23 <@jmbsvicetto> Chainsaw: that bug lead to the mail discussions of the previous council
19:23 <@hwoarang> it is not clear to me if the application is deployer or not :)
19:23 <@jmbsvicetto> Chainsaw: if there's no one "fighting" for that bug, I'd close it
19:23 <@dberkholz> maybe hwoarang wants to volunteer to be the first victim
19:23 <@Betelgeuse> hwoarang: hopefully
19:23 <@dberkholz> since he's chairing the next meeting
19:24 <@hwoarang> is it up and running?
19:24 <@hwoarang> i have to check first :)
19:24 <@jmbsvicetto> Betelgeuse: how's the bot doing?
19:24 <@Chainsaw> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=234706#c9
19:24 <@Chainsaw> "This proposal has lost its champion. On a personal note, I believe that the
19:24 <@Chainsaw> situation has improved since this bug was filed, and that the status quo is
19:24 <@Chainsaw> acceptable."
19:24 <@dberkholz> you're chairing, you can make the call. try it out and see if it meets your standards
19:24 <@hwoarang> kk
19:24 <@Betelgeuse> jmbsvicetto: I think the bot needs to be started manually atm
19:25 <@Chainsaw> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=234711 <- There is mostly PM discussion here, is there more that is required of us?
19:25 <@jmbsvicetto> but is it working? Last time I tried it, it wasn't working that well
19:25 <@Betelgeuse> hwoarang: you probably want to email jbartosik and ask what he thinks
19:25 <@hwoarang> ok
19:25 <@Chainsaw> jmbsvicetto: But isn't that a new issue then?
19:26 <@jmbsvicetto> Chainsaw: GLEP54 and GLEP55 bugs never got "resolved". I think the argument has been that there never was a final decision about them
19:26 <@Betelgeuse> jmbsvicetto: jbartosik did work on QA towards the end of the project so hopefully better
19:26 <@Chainsaw> jmbsvicetto: Yes. So is there more that we can do to move them along?
19:26 <@grobian> sdeems like portage + pms work
19:26 <@grobian> for the next EAPI
19:26 <@ulm> jmbsvicetto: IIRC, 54 was accepted but 55 was declined by some previous council
19:26 <@jmbsvicetto> Chainsaw: I think we should probably push them back
19:27 <@Chainsaw> jmbsvicetto: No is a valid answer. But I do not want it to linger out of apathy.
19:27 <@Chainsaw> jmbsvicetto: Push back?
19:27 <@jmbsvicetto> ulm: yes, 55 was declined
19:28 <@Chainsaw> And 55 is RESO LATER.
19:28 <@jmbsvicetto> Chainsaw: handle it back to pms or the proponents and tell them they need to work on it or drop it
19:28 <@Chainsaw> jmbsvicetto: "The council believes that this GLEP is not ready for implementation as-is, and invites proponents to reopen this bug with suggestions to move it forward."
19:29 <@Chainsaw> jmbsvicetto: RESO LATER?
19:29 <@Betelgeuse> RESO LATER is gone
19:29 <@Chainsaw> Betelgeuse: RESO OBSOLETE?
19:29 <@jmbsvicetto> iirc, 55 ended up as RESO LATER because of the discussion on how to allow major changes to repo format
19:29 <@ulm> GLEP 54 was "Conditionally approved on whether GLEP 55 is approved."
19:29 <@ulm> 20090514 meeting
19:29 <@jmbsvicetto> Chainsaw: RESO CANTFIX ?
19:29 <@jmbsvicetto> or OBSOLETE
19:30 <@grobian> NEEDINFO
19:30 <@Chainsaw> jmbsvicetto: "Because this GLEP is dependent upon GLEP 55, which was not accepted by the council, we believe that the current proposal can not be implemented. We would respectfully request that a new GLEP is filed for this matter." RESO CANTFIX
19:30 <@Chainsaw> jmbsvicetto: ?
19:30 <@jmbsvicetto> The final discussion on 55 isn't obsolete, imho
19:30 <@jmbsvicetto> seems ok to me (54)
19:30 <@Chainsaw> grobian, ulm: Does that sound acceptable please?
19:31 <@jmbsvicetto> Chainsaw: new GLEP or that the GLEP is revised
19:31 <@grobian> Chainsaw: yes, ok with me
19:31 <@ulm> Chainsaw: sounds like the best we can do about it, for the time being
19:31 <@Chainsaw> jmbsvicetto: New GLEP is clearer, it prevents a new lingering state.
19:31 <@Chainsaw> jmbsvicetto: And avoids the dependency on the dead 55.
19:31 <@jmbsvicetto> ok
19:32 <@Chainsaw> Posted, thank you.
19:32 <@Chainsaw> jmbsvicetto: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=237381 <- What can we do about this one?
19:32 <@dberkholz> anyone feel like pushing on glep 55?
19:32 <@dberkholz> or is it just going to sit there?
19:32 <@Chainsaw> dberkholz: It is RESO LATER, which means I am not considering it in this review.
19:33 <@Chainsaw> dberkholz: (As I am reviewing open bugs with the council)
19:33 <@Chainsaw> Betelgeuse: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=316401 <- I believe this is resolved, if you agree, could you please close it?
19:33 -!- darkside_ [~darkside@gentoo/developer/darkside] has joined #gentoo-council
19:33 <@jmbsvicetto> Chainsaw: someone needs to describe / document the appeals process
19:34 <@dberkholz> i think that's fixed
19:34 <@jmbsvicetto> Chainsaw: I've been meaning to take care of that one for a long time, but I keep getting distracted with other stuff
19:34 <@Chainsaw> jmbsvicetto: But "someone" is not a person on this council, so we need to be more specific.
19:34 <@dberkholz> see http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/#doc_chap3
19:34 <@Betelgeuse> Chainsaw: see the last comment
19:34 <@Betelgeuse> Chainsaw: I will ask idl0r if it can be closed
19:35 <@dberkholz> can we just close the appeals bug?
19:35 <@Chainsaw> dberkholz, Betelgeuse: So you would vote RESO FIXED; "This has been adequately documented in http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/#doc_chap3. This issue has been resolved."
19:35 <@Chainsaw> jmbsvicetto: Are you willing to join in on that?
19:35 <@jmbsvicetto> dberkholz: I think the bug was asking for a more detailed description and was mostly directed towards disciplinary appeals
19:36 <@dberkholz> i'm pretty sure that description was actually posted after the bug was filed
19:36 <@jmbsvicetto> Chainsaw: If the reporter accepts that, sure
19:36 <@Chainsaw> jmbsvicetto: The reporter is not present at this time.
19:36 <@jmbsvicetto> Chainsaw: let me rephrase, yes, let's close it and see if the reporter is fine with that
19:36 <@Chainsaw> jmbsvicetto: But if we as the council feel that the matter is resolved, I feel the bug should be closed.
19:36 <@Chainsaw> jmbsvicetto: Thank you.
19:36 <@Chainsaw> Is my summary agreed?
19:36 <@Chainsaw> If so, I will post that now.
19:36 <@jmbsvicetto> yes
19:37 <@grobian> yes
19:37 <@ulm> yes
19:37 <@Chainsaw> Cheers guys. Posted.
19:37 <@dberkholz> the bug was filed in late 2008, i added the appeal description in early 2009
19:37 <@Chainsaw> jmbsvicetto: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=362803 -> This is with tove then?
19:38 <@jmbsvicetto> Chainsaw: with me
19:38 <@Chainsaw> Betelgeuse: You were last to post in https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=330361
19:38 <@jmbsvicetto> Chainsaw: If he doesn't take care of it, I will
19:38 <@Chainsaw> Betelgeuse: Is there an action point for the council?
19:38 <@Chainsaw> jmbsvicetto: Thank you. Could you post a chase on the bug?
19:38 <@Chainsaw> jmbsvicetto: In the interests of transparency, etc.
19:38 -!- jbartosik [~jbartosik@gentoo/developer/jbartosik] has joined #gentoo-council
19:39 <@jmbsvicetto> Chainsaw: you skipped 316401 which should be done for us
19:39 <@Chainsaw> <Chainsaw> Betelgeuse: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=316401 <- I believe this is resolved, if you agree, could you please close it?
19:39 <@jmbsvicetto> Chainsaw: I added a note to that bug
19:39 <@Chainsaw> I did no such thing.
19:39 <@Chainsaw> jmbsvicetto: Thank you.
19:39 <@jmbsvicetto> Chainsaw: sorry, it seems it were my eyes who skipped your comment
19:40 <@grobian> python3, isn't the stage building fine in that regard by now, jmbsvicetto ?
19:40 <@Chainsaw> jmbsvicetto: Not to worry. Betelgeuse says it is in hand.
19:40 <@jmbsvicetto> grobian: it is building fine, but the "request" was to drop python3 from stage3 (it's still there)
19:41 <@jmbsvicetto> You should be able to read my opinion (and that of releng) about that bug in my comments there
19:41 <@Betelgeuse> Chainsaw: probably not
19:41 <@Betelgeuse> Chainsaw: hopefully people can solve what's left among themselves
19:41 <@grobian> my feeling is that bug can be closed
19:41 <@jmbsvicetto> basically, we won't add manual hacks to fix an issue with the tree - python3 is in the stage3 because the system set pulls it in
19:41 <@grobian> right
19:42 <@grobian> I vote for WONTFIX then
19:42 <@jmbsvicetto> for what is worth, I'm sure no one in releng will "fix this" even if council were to "push" a decision about it
19:43 <@jmbsvicetto> grobian: I'd vote WONTFIX, but I should probably excuse myself from this bug
19:43 <@Chainsaw> jmbsvicetto: "The council feels it is inappropriate to manually filter dev-lang/python-3 from the tree as it is marked stable." RESO WONTFIX?
19:43 <@grobian> jmbsvicetto: heh
19:44 <@Chainsaw> ^ grobian, Betelgeuse?
19:44 <@jmbsvicetto> Chainsaw: I'd be more happy if the decision was "the council considers there's nothing to gain from intervening on this issue and defers to releng"
19:44 <@grobian> Chainsaw: I'm thinking
19:44 <@Chainsaw> jmbsvicetto: That kicks the can further down the street.
19:44 <@grobian> Chainsaw: what jmbsvicetto said
19:44 <@hwoarang> i agree
19:44 <@Chainsaw> That is a majority, so I will post that.
19:45 <@grobian> Chainsaw: I like that Council has nothing to decide here, it's in the end just a package that is added, and stable now
19:45 <@ulm> +1
19:45 <@Chainsaw> "The council feels there is nothing to gain from interfering on this issue. We defer to Release Engineering and consider their vote binding."
19:45 <@Chainsaw> RESO WONTFIX
19:45 <@Chainsaw> Agreed?
19:45 <@ulm> or reassign
19:46 <@Chainsaw> Leave open, assign to releng@gentoo.org?
19:46 <@ulm> yes
19:46 <@Chainsaw> grobian, hwoarang, jmbsvicetto?
19:46 <@hwoarang> yes
19:46 <@ulm> releng can close it if they want
19:46 <@grobian> Chainsaw: reassign releng with your message
19:47 <@Chainsaw> releng@gentoo.org did not match anything
19:47 < darkside_> it is actually release@g.o iso releng@
19:47 <@Chainsaw> Right, thank you.
19:47 <@Chainsaw> That has been posted.
19:48 <@Chainsaw> That leaves us with 4 open bugs.
19:48 <@Chainsaw> And active work going on within them.
19:48 <@grobian> good job so far
19:48 <@jmbsvicetto> Chainsaw: yes
19:48 <@Chainsaw> I would like to open the floor for community involvement, unless there is any other business from the council members at this time?
19:48  * Chainsaw looks round the room
19:49 <@dberkholz> there's the one thing i mentioned beforehand
19:49 <@dberkholz> regarding changelog autogeneration
19:49 <@grobian> dberkholz: suggested to continue voting on the changelog points
19:49 <@Chainsaw> grobian: It seemed to be in the discussion phase still, with no clear set of points to vote on.
19:49 <@dberkholz> the remaining point, which was unclear to some of us (at least me) at the last meeting, was whether we should require that autogenerated changelogs have a way to edit them afterwards to fix typos and such.
19:50 <@ulm> I don't think that we should vote on it now, if it wasn't in the agenda
19:51 <@grobian> it preferably should have been discussed, so have to agree with ulm here
19:51 <@dberkholz> sigh.
19:51 <@dberkholz> can we just start adding a template field to the agenda that says "old business" then?
19:51 <@dberkholz> it's clearly an unresolved issue from the previous meeting that could have been voted upon then, but whatever
19:51 <@Chainsaw> dberkholz: It is any other business, so I am happy to discuss it. But I do not believe we have a clear-cut set of vote items.
19:52 <@Chainsaw> dberkholz: Could you put it up for next month please?
19:52 <@Chainsaw> It is unfortunate, but I have been set a time limit of 1 week for the draft agenda.
19:52 <@grobian> I don't thing we need a meeting per se, if it were to be discussed and all of us would agree
19:53 <@dberkholz> i might wait a couple more meetings just to see how absurdly long the council can take to vote on this minor issue. =P
19:53 <@jmbsvicetto> ulm / grobian: we could vote on this matter
19:53 <@Chainsaw> That limits what I can add to it. I wanted less notice so we could be more flexible, but I was not in majority on that.
19:53 <@jmbsvicetto> we did leave it for a voting in the mls
19:53 <@grobian> jmbsvicetto: I'm prepared for the issue, so no problem to vote from my side, but technically speaking I think we should have everyone prepared on this
19:54 <@jmbsvicetto> iirc, this issue was also considered "obsolete" since the decisions made implied that we would still have a file and so it would be possible to edit it
19:55 <@Chainsaw> It, like many things, hinges on a git conversion.
19:55 <@ulm> jmbsvicetto: that was my understanding too
19:55 <@grobian> I'm reinterpreting what's written down, and I now think it doesn't force that ;)
19:55 <@Chainsaw> So, do we want to spend time on this? We can if you want to?
19:55 <@grobian> but yes, I believe that was the intention last meeting
19:55 <@grobian> which I think is a shame
19:56 <@jmbsvicetto> Chainsaw: I think we should try to clarify whether the decisions imply the existance of a file or not
19:56 <@dberkholz> i need to get going in a few minutes here
19:56 <@grobian> Chainsaw: I still think the discussion needs to be opened, since jmbsvicetto had new ideas last meeting
19:56 <@jmbsvicetto> Chainsaw: if so, then we don't need to vote about this issue. If not, we can quickly vote
19:56 <@Chainsaw> jmbsvicetto: If there is an ambiguity, we should vote on a set of points that clarifies the earlier decision.
19:56 <@Chainsaw> jmbsvicetto: And I am happy to do that now, as it is a continuation of what we voted on before.
19:57 <@jmbsvicetto> I'm ready to discuss vote
19:57 <@jmbsvicetto> + /
19:57 <@grobian> I want: ChangeLog file being generated completely from VCS log, nothing stored
19:57 -!- _AxS_ [~axs@gentoo/user/axs] has joined #gentoo-council
19:57 <@Chainsaw> grobian: But do you want that now? Can we do that with CVS?
19:57 <@grobian> yes
19:57 <@grobian> Prefix is doing it
19:57 <@grobian> for both CVS and SVN by the way
19:57 <@ulm> I want to be able to correct mistakes
19:58 <@Chainsaw> ulm: That is what I like about having a file, yes. And I have made mistakes in Changelogs before that I fixed.
19:58 <@grobian> right, for simplicity, I just take mistakes for granted
19:58 <@Chainsaw> ulm: But at least that is a clear A/B vote. Do we want to move, in the current CVS tree, towards automatically generated Changelogs, removing the files from the tree?
19:58 <@grobian> people suggested using git notes for making fixes to commit messages
19:58 <@hwoarang> errr git is a long-shot atm
19:59 <@Chainsaw> grobian: That means running patch in your mind, rather than on a file.
19:59 <@hwoarang> i think the solution should be based on the current $VCS
19:59 <@jmbsvicetto> Chainsaw: automatic generation was already voted for
19:59 <@ulm> grobian: if git will allow such a thing, I'm fine with it
19:59 <@grobian> ulm: which implies, we only do it when git comes
19:59 <@Chainsaw> jmbsvicetto: Then we do not appear to have a clear A/B vote that we can work on now.
19:59 <@jmbsvicetto> I agree with voting on an implementation that is not tied to a particular VCS
20:00 <@Chainsaw> jmbsvicetto: As such I suggest that this is moved back to the mailing list for discussion, well in advance of the next draft agenda being set.
20:00 <@jmbsvicetto> Chainsaw: it was approved by the previous council and wasn't reverted by this council on the previous meeting
20:00 <@Chainsaw> jmbsvicetto: We are nearing 1 hour of meeting now, and dberkholz will have to leave.
20:00 <@grobian> I think if we want commit messages to be edited somehow, we make it hard for ourselves, and echangelog being called automatically from repoman is the closest option to "autogeneration"
20:00 <@jmbsvicetto> ok, I'm fine with that
20:00 <@hwoarang> the discussion in ML has already moved to git specific stuff
20:01 <@hwoarang> i am not sure if it makes sense to keep that discussion
20:01 <@Chainsaw> hwoarang: Then I suggest that it is steered with an appropriate comment.
20:01 <@jmbsvicetto> hwoarang: I never started the discussion - my fault :\
20:01 <@hwoarang> Chainsaw: well yes
20:01 <@Chainsaw> I would like to open the floor at this point?
20:01 <@jmbsvicetto> hwoarang: The current discussion on the dev ml was started on a parallel issue
20:01 <@hwoarang> but the git discussion will kick in eventually at some point
20:01 <@jmbsvicetto> Chainsaw: I'm fine with that
20:01 <@hwoarang> someone has to constantly drive this thread :)
20:02 <@Chainsaw> hwoarang: Perhaps the initial message will need to be more stern on what is and isn't appropriate for the discussion?
20:02 <@hwoarang> ok
20:02 <@hwoarang> i will take care of that since I chair the next meeting
20:02 <@Chainsaw> hwoarang: Thank you.
20:02 <@jmbsvicetto> hwoarang: I suggest you start a new thread
20:02 <@hwoarang> will reset(?) the discussion as soon as possible
20:02 <@hwoarang> yes
20:02 <@Chainsaw> jmbsvicetto: I second that.
20:03 <@grobian> git reset --hard :)
20:03 <@jmbsvicetto> hehe
20:03 <@Chainsaw> jmbsvicetto: Would you be willing to do a summary of this meeting please, to make sure that it is impartial?
20:03 <@jmbsvicetto> Chainsaw: me doing the summary and it being impartial? ;)
20:04 <@grobian> since dberkholz is leaving, can we round up?
20:04 <@jmbsvicetto> Chainsaw: I can take care of it later
20:04 <@Chainsaw> jmbsvicetto: It would be more impartial than if I wrote it. I was planning to do this during the meeting, but I got carried away with the discussion.
20:04 <@Chainsaw> jmbsvicetto: I would rather admit this now then post a sub-par summary.
20:04 <@jmbsvicetto> Chainsaw: I'll take care of it
20:04 <@Chainsaw> grobian: I am happy to round up. I believe we can open the floor to the community at this time.
20:04 <@Chainsaw> jmbsvicetto: It is most appreciated.
20:05 <@Chainsaw> Do we agree that the next meeting is on the second Tuesday of next month please?
20:05 <@dberkholz> i'd like to see us start sending summaries to -dev-announce again, too, so that everyone gets some visibility into what the council is doing.
20:05 <@hwoarang> yes
20:05 <@Chainsaw> dberkholz: I second that.
20:05 -!- zmedico [~zmedico@gentoo/developer/zmedico] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
20:05 <@grobian> yes
20:05 <@jmbsvicetto> Chainsaw: right, we need to set the date for the next meeting
20:06 <@Chainsaw> The second Tuesday of the next month works well for me.
20:06 <@hwoarang> dberkholz: +1
20:06 <@dberkholz> why do we need to agree on a yearlong policy that we set a meeting or two ago?
20:06 <@grobian> that is the 11th?
20:06 <@jmbsvicetto> October 10th?
20:06 <@Chainsaw> That would be the 11th of October, indeed.
20:06 <@dberkholz> tuesday 11 october, 1900 utc
20:06 <@Chainsaw> dberkholz: Yes. That works for me.
20:06 <@jmbsvicetto> sorry, 11th, not 10th
20:06 <@grobian> ok, 11th
20:07 <@jmbsvicetto> btw, the daylight savings only kick in at the end of the month, correct?
20:07 <@Chainsaw> dberkholz: Because we are all human, and our circumstances may change?
20:07 <@grobian> jmbsvicetto: 30th of october
20:07 <@Chainsaw> dberkholz: And because it is a nice harmonious "we all agree" moment for the end of the meeting?
20:07 <@jmbsvicetto> grobian: Europe, right? iirc, US does it on a different weekend
20:08 <@grobian> jmbsvicetto: Europe/Amsterdam
20:08 <@jmbsvicetto> grobian: Europe/Portugal too, iirc
20:08 <@grobian> Chainsaw: thank you mister chairman for this productive meeting
20:08 <@Chainsaw> jmbsvicetto: Thankfully we plan meetings for UTC, which means we are blissfully unaffected.
20:08 <@dberkholz> i'm just getting all cranky in my old age
20:08  * Chainsaw bows to grobian and closes the meeting, so dberkholz can leave
20:09 <@dberkholz> thanks Chainsaw, nice meeting
20:09 <@jmbsvicetto> Chainsaw: well, I won't be surprised if we want to push it back 1 hour after the day light savings
20:09 <@ulm> jmbsvicetto: I think that's the plan indeed ;)
20:09  * grobian nods
20:09 <@jmbsvicetto> Thanks Chainsaw for taking care of the meeting
20:09 <@Chainsaw> Any time. Willing to do it again if there's a slot later in the year.
20:10 <@Betelgeuse> thanks and sleepy time
20:10 <@Chainsaw> Good night.
20:10 <@grobian> gnight
20:10 <@jmbsvicetto> night, I'm heading out
20:11 <@Chainsaw> jmbsvicetto: Thanks again for the summary.
20:14 <@dberkholz> oh btw everyone, the chair schedule is on the council webpage now
20:15 <@grobian> dberkholz: seen, thanks
20:16 -!- Chainsaw changed the topic of #gentoo-council to: Next meeting: October 11, 1900UTC | http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/utctolocal.html?time=1900 | http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/