IRC logs Thursday 2018.02.22 14:00 CEST

From OTBWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
[13:59] == gpasero [5d11eb02@gateway/web/freenode/ip.] has joined #otb
[13:59] <gpasero> hello
[14:00] == Antoine___ [5d11eb04@gateway/web/freenode/ip.] has joined #otb
[14:01] == gpasero [5d11eb02@gateway/web/freenode/ip.]
[14:01] ==  realname :
[14:01] ==  channels : #otb
[14:01] ==  server   : [Webchat]
[14:01] ==  idle     : 0 days 0 hours 1 minutes 42 seconds [connected: Thu Feb 22 13:59:04 2018]
[14:01] == End of WHOIS
[14:01] == Antoine___ [5d11eb04@gateway/web/freenode/ip.]
[14:01] ==  realname :
[14:01] ==  channels : #otb
[14:01] ==  server   : [Webchat]
[14:01] ==  idle     : 0 days 0 hours 0 minutes 43 seconds [connected: Thu Feb 22 14:00:22 2018]
[14:01] == End of WHOIS
[14:01] == cresson [] has joined #otb
[14:01] <cresson> Hi
[14:01] <gpasero> Hello Rémi
[14:02] == jmichel [c2c7ac21@gateway/web/freenode/ip.] has joined #otb
[14:03] <Antoine___> Hello everyone!
[14:03] <jmichel> hi
[14:04] == VictorPoughon [c2c7ac23@gateway/web/freenode/ip.] has joined #otb
[14:04] <VictorPoughon> hello all
[14:04] <VictorPoughon> I'm here
[14:07] <VictorPoughon> ok ready to start?
[14:07] <cresson> Yes
[14:07] <gpasero> yes
[14:07] <gpasero> Jordi is not coming?
[14:07] <VictorPoughon> gpasero: dunno
[14:08] <VictorPoughon> === - Feedback after release 6.4 ===
[14:09] <VictorPoughon> i have nothing to say personally
[14:09] <VictorPoughon> anyone?
[14:09] <gpasero> nothing to add either, I think our release process is good
[14:10] <VictorPoughon> ok next topic
[14:10] <VictorPoughon> === - Migration to GitLab and new workflow ===
[14:10] <cresson> On my side I am a bit lost
[14:10] <gpasero> at first, I found it a bit messy too
[14:10] <gpasero> but I am getting used to it
[14:11] <VictorPoughon> the code review is definitly great
[14:11] <gpasero> +1
[14:11] <cresson> yes
[14:11] <grizonnetm> what is messy?
[14:11] <jmichel> I have something to say
[14:12] <grizonnetm> remi can you elaborate?
[14:12] <cresson> 1.RFC = Merge Requests?
[14:12] <jmichel> Our old request for changes are now merge requests yes
[14:12] <cresson> 2.Bugs: Gitlab or Mantis?
[14:12] <VictorPoughon> cresson: Request for Comments -> Issue ; Request for Changes -> Merge Request
[14:12] <cresson> noted
[14:12] <jmichel> everything to gitlab
[14:12] <jmichel> no more mantis
[14:12] <cresson> perfect
[14:12] <VictorPoughon> no more Jira
[14:13] <cresson> ok, nice
[14:13] <jmichel> this is what is messy : all issues (request for changes, features request, bugs) go to gitlab issues
[14:13] <jmichel> So there are tags and guidelines to use them
[14:13] <cresson> do we have some documentation (just a bit for new comers)
[14:13] <jmichel> yes
[14:13] <gpasero> (jmichel: this is what I meant)
[14:13] <VictorPoughon> cresson:
[14:14] <cresson> Great
[14:14] <jmichel> but we definitively should write a small blog post to advertise all this
[14:14] <cresson> Yeah jmichel
[14:14] <grizonnetm> there is also now :
[14:14] <jmichel> (but I have no time to do it before leaving for vacation tonight)
[14:15] <grizonnetm> me neither
[14:15] <VictorPoughon> me neither
[14:15] <VictorPoughon> it's not urgent, but +1 for a blog post
[14:15] <cresson> I can do it
[14:15] <VictorPoughon> ok
[14:15] <grizonnetm> ok thanks Remi
[14:16] <cresson> But you guys should check my rights access to the blog, last time I was unable to edit something
[14:16] == yannick [c2c7ac21@gateway/web/freenode/ip.] has joined #otb
[14:16] <grizonnetm> @remi: I'm checking your access right now
[14:17] <jmichel> Ok, so another thing on gitlab
[14:17] <jmichel> with previous RFC mode, we required at least 2 psc votes
[14:18] <jmichel> to accept
[14:18] <grizonnetm> yes
[14:19] <grizonnetm> and no '-1'
[14:19] == VictorPoughon_ [c2c7ac23@gateway/web/freenode/ip.] has joined #otb
[14:19] <cresson> Votes are still expressed in the coments section of the Merge Request?
[14:19] <jmichel> with gitlab there is no obvious way of enforcing that. Everyone can vote, it is up to the merger to check the identity of voters
[14:19] <cresson> (like "+1")
[14:19] <jmichel> plus we are only 4 in PSC, and 1 of them will be off for the 5 next weeks
[14:19] <jmichel> so I wonder if this vote process is still useful or efficient
[14:20] <gpasero> @cresson there is a specific "+1" button in gitlab
[14:20] <cresson> the thumb up button?
[14:20] <VictorPoughon_> cresson: yes
[14:20] <gpasero> ye
[14:20] == VictorPoughon [c2c7ac23@gateway/web/freenode/ip.] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
[14:20] <jmichel> what do you think ?
[14:20] <gpasero> And you can't vote for your own merge request
[14:21] <cresson> Ok
[14:21] <gpasero> I agree that 4 PSC members is not enough to validate the merge requests
[14:21] <jmichel> we repeatedly said that, over and over
[14:21] <VictorPoughon_> note that nothing has changed compared to the previous mailing list system. We alrady couldn't enforce number of votes, identity of voters, etc.
[14:21] <jmichel> but we still have no new members
[14:21] <jmichel> VictorPoughon_: sure
[14:22] <gpasero> Proposition: we wait a PSC meeting to validate the merge requests to be merged ?
[14:22] <VictorPoughon_> well we can't force people to apply to the PSC
[14:22] <jmichel> But I feel that with gitlab it is easier to send merge requests, so there are more of them (smaller)
[14:22] <VictorPoughon_> jmichel: that's a good thing
[14:22] <cresson> You can access to Gitlab with your Github, etc. accounts, right?
[14:23] <jmichel> All I say is that a PSC that has only 4 members or that does not vote evolution looses its purpose
[14:23] <jmichel> cresson: right
[14:23] <yannick> Hi, maybe for some simple merge requests, one PSC vote would be enough ?
[14:23] <VictorPoughon_> yannick: the problem is that "simple merge request" is loosely definied
[14:23] <grizonnetm> what we can propose, PSC votes are not required on all merge requests but on more strategic questions (new committers, big changes...)
[14:23] <cresson> The RM define it
[14:23] <VictorPoughon_> cresson: +1
[14:23] <cresson> ==>more responsability for the RM
[14:24] <grizonnetm> merge request in this case should be reviewed and '+1' by one or 2 core developers
[14:24] <jmichel> grizonnetm, that would be good
[14:24] <cresson> yes
[14:24] <yannick> Yes, I think it make sense
[14:25] <jmichel> one rule I liked in another project is to avoid the situation where all votes come from the same entity
[14:25] <yannick> But there is still a problem to decide which subject need votes, and which others don't
[14:25] <jmichel> i.e. from cnes or cs for example
[14:25] <gpasero> ok, so only one +1 and a code review for large MR
[14:25] <grizonnetm> by "core developers", I mean "committers" which means people with write access to develop branch
[14:26] <jmichel> so what are the new rules ?
[14:26] <VictorPoughon_> So the new rule is simply "Two +1 from core devs" instead of "Two +1 from PSC members"?
[14:26] <jmichel> 1) I think all modification should go through merge request
[14:26] <jmichel> 2) code review and voting should apply to all merge requests
[14:27] <jmichel> so we are left we who votes for what
[14:27] <grizonnetm> two +1 or only one (as suggested by gpasero)? I don't have a strong opinion about it...
[14:27] <jmichel> I am fine with core developers voting, and 2 votes is a minimum I think
[14:27] <Antoine___> Should a vote implies a review?
[14:27] <jmichel> Antoine___: no I do not think so
[14:28] <jmichel> but usually I try to review changes before voting, and I hope everybody does
[14:28] <gpasero> I am okay with "Two +1 from core devs"
[14:28] <jmichel> gpasero: if possible, not from the same entity (even if that can not be enforced, it is a rule of thumb)
[14:28] <cresson> We can try this way for a few next releases
[14:29] <jmichel> so PSC vote is not required anymore, for any merge request ?
[14:29] <VictorPoughon_> jmichel: only if the RM says so
[14:29] <yannick> Can we distinguish merge request linked to a "simple" bug fix and those related to more complex issues ?
[14:30] <VictorPoughon_> yannick: how?
[14:30] <jmichel> VictorPoughon_: I am not sure that this is practical
[14:30] <yannick> That's my question ;)
[14:30] <VictorPoughon_> yannick: In practice it is difficult
[14:30] <yannick> Ok..
[14:31] <VictorPoughon_> yannick: But in the previous workflow we simply trusted people with push access and it was going well
[14:31] <jmichel> In a way, saying that all core committers can vote is a kind of PSC enlargement
[14:31] <gpasero> Even a bugfix may be harmful, so I would not separate bugfixes from features
[14:31] <VictorPoughon_> So I'm not sure why we need to change anything
[14:31] <yannick> Ok, that's fine. But there is a little change : core developers can vote.
[14:32] <cresson> Fine for me
[14:32] <grizonnetm> we should udpate and the governance status
[14:33] <VictorPoughon_> fine for me
[14:33] <grizonnetm> @remi: it will be nice to talk about this change in the blog post (to attract more reviewers and developers)
[14:33] <gpasero> yannick : I guess the rule of veto from PSC member still apply
[14:33] <cresson> Yes I'll mention it
[14:33] <VictorPoughon_> gpasero: sure*
[14:33] <yannick> Ok, fine for me.
[14:33] <jmichel> ok, so the PSC actually still has a purpose
[14:34] <jmichel> this is good for me
[14:34] <VictorPoughon_> So to sum up, two changes to the workflow: core devs can vote on merge requests, and ALL changes must be done via feature branch + merge request. Correct?
[14:35] <gpasero> let say : "ALL changes must be done via merge request"
[14:35] <gpasero> Doing a merge request from fork/develop to origin/develop is also valid
[14:35] <grizonnetm> and PSC members have still a role and vote some "strategic" decisions  about the project
[14:35] <VictorPoughon_> gpasero: good point
[14:36] <grizonnetm> new commiters, release planning, change infrastructure, communications, legal issues....
[14:36] <cresson> In summary : 1. core devs members can vote, 2. At least two +1 are required (instead of three), 3. PSC members have veto. Did I miss something else (about what's changed)?
[14:36] <VictorPoughon_> cresson: 4. all changes must be with a MR
[14:37] <cresson> Yes of course
[14:37] <grizonnetm> I think that in fact a '-1' from any core developers should block the merge request, but it is a minor detail
[14:38] <jmichel> ok grizonnetm, but what is the purpose of PSC then ?
[14:38] <VictorPoughon_> grizonnetm: agreed. But -1 are so rare that we can discuss the problem when it actually occurs
[14:38] <grizonnetm> VictorPoughon_ +1
[14:39] <cresson> The RM is a member of PSC and he's still 'in charge' if there is an issue here
[14:39] <cresson> eg -1/+1 battle
[14:40] <VictorPoughon_> jmichel: see grizonnetm answer above about PSC role
[14:40] <grizonnetm> @jmichel: vote on subject like new commiters, release planning, change in infrastructure, communications, legal issues, release manager designation...
[14:40] <jmichel> ok good
[14:40] <jmichel> shall we vote ?
[14:40] <VictorPoughon_> ok so anything else?
[14:40] <jmichel> +1  for me
[14:41] <jmichel> power to the dev
[14:41] <grizonnetm> yes the PSC have to vote for this change :)
[14:41] <cresson> yes +1 it makes sense
[14:41] <VictorPoughon_> +1
[14:41] <cresson> and with gitlab/github accounts we open to contributors, which is great
[14:41] <grizonnetm> who can take care of updating ?
[14:41] <VictorPoughon_> I propose to keep push access to develop open, but only for exceptions or 'emergencies' :)
[14:42] <gpasero> +1 for the new rules
[14:43] <VictorPoughon_> ok next topic?
[14:43] <yannick> @grizonnetm  : I can try to update but I may need some help to review it !
[14:44] <VictorPoughon_> yannick: we'll do that in the merge request ;)
[14:44] <grizonnetm> @gpasero: can you check that all "commiters" especially outside cnes/cs have write access to the git repo?
[14:44] <gpasero> Yes
[14:44] <grizonnetm> Not sure for instance that Daniel Mcinerney has an access (
[14:44] <grizonnetm> thanks
[14:46] <grizonnetm> next?
[14:46] <VictorPoughon_> ok next topic...
[14:47] <VictorPoughon_> === Next Release Manager ===
[14:48] <grizonnetm> I've done 6.4 so I'm out for this one
[14:48] <VictorPoughon_> I have a feeling rémi is up for it ;)
[14:48] <jmichel> or yannick ? with Antoine___ as backup ?
[14:48] <grizonnetm> @Antoine ?
[14:49] <cresson> Ok I can do this one
[14:49] <yannick> Yes, why not doing that with Antoine.
[14:50] <cresson> Ok or backup RM for Antoine
[14:50] <yannick> I have to learn the job :)
[14:50] <cresson> I can do the next one
[14:50] <cresson> as you want
[14:50] <jmichel> I think Antoine___ did not say yes
[14:51] <yannick> If Antoine wants to do it, I can do the next..
[14:51] <yannick> Otherwise, I can do it with you cresson
[14:51] <yannick> Sorry Rémi, I'm not familiar with IRC
[14:51] <jmichel> ok good
[14:52] <grizonnetm> ok
[14:52] <VictorPoughon_> +1 for yannick
[14:52] <cresson> ok +1 for yannick
[14:53] <grizonnetm> first thing to do for the next RM is to decide and announce the date of the next feature freeze on otb-developers mailing list
[14:54] <grizonnetm> next?
[14:54] <yannick> Ok, and who wants to do it with me ?
[14:54] <gpasero> I can backup
[14:55] <gpasero> +1
[14:55] <VictorPoughon_> ok +1
[14:55] <yannick> Ok, thank you Guillaume
[14:55] <jmichel> +1
[14:55] <grizonnetm> (@cresson: you should have correct access now to otb blog admin)
[14:56] <cresson> ok, I'll write a post
[14:56] <VictorPoughon_> === Status of 6.0.1 ===
[14:56] <Antoine___> I'll be the back up, I do not feel ready to be the RM yet!
[14:56] <jmichel> Ok plenty of candidates for backup, good
[14:57] <jmichel> let say Antoine___ does it, and the other can do it next tile
[14:57] <jmichel> time
[14:57] <cresson> ok
[14:57] <yannick> Ok for me.
[14:58] <VictorPoughon_> ready for next topic?
[14:58] <grizonnetm> yes
[14:59] <Antoine___> ok
[14:59] <gpasero> ok
[14:59] <VictorPoughon_> Status of 6.0.1
[15:00] <gpasero> Yes, this contribution is ready, only thing to decide is how to merge it
[15:00] <grizonnetm> the corresponding RFC (draft) is here:
[15:01] <VictorPoughon_> gpasero: what's special about it? we just merge it into release-6.0 branch, no?
[15:01] <jmichel> +1 for VictorPoughon_
[15:01] <jmichel> merge request to release-6.0 branch
[15:02] <jmichel> but maybe there is something I do not get
[15:03] <gpasero> should we name a ReleaseManager to take care of this minor release ?
[15:03] <gpasero> (I mean, once the branch is merged into release-6.0)
[15:03] <jmichel> yeah why not
[15:03] <VictorPoughon_> gpasero: oh you mean for going through the 'how to release'?
[15:04] <VictorPoughon_> sure why not
[15:04] <jmichel> gpasero: do you want do to a complete release process, with packages and all ?
[15:04] <jmichel> or is a tag in release-6.0 branch enough ?
[15:04] <gpasero> we can do sources + binaries without much trouble
[15:05] <jmichel> ok
[15:05] <gpasero> @Victor : maybe not the full release process, the one for minor release is lighter anyway
[15:05] <jmichel> so is there anything blocked here ?
[15:06] <VictorPoughon_> gpasero: you want to be RM for this minor release? seems the simplest option
[15:06] <jmichel> maybe move the rfc to a merge request, it will be easier to follow
[15:06] <gpasero> I can be RM for this minor release
[15:06] <VictorPoughon_> gpasero: ok +1
[15:06] <gpasero> I will ask Rashad to submit a merge request
[15:06] <jmichel> +1
[15:07] <jmichel> just cut&paste the RFC to the merge request
[15:07] <gpasero> ok
[15:07] <grizonnetm> ok good
[15:08] <VictorPoughon_> That's it for the agenda. Any other items to discuss?
[15:08] <grizonnetm> Note that we've got 3 pending RFC on the wiki
[15:09] <VictorPoughon_> up the the authors to migrate them to merge requests when they are ready, no?
[15:09] <grizonnetm> but there is only now only RFC 127 related to shark that should be move to a merge request
[15:09] <grizonnetm> other are already merged or will be (like 6.0.1)
[15:09] <grizonnetm> all good
[15:10] <grizonnetm> someone can copy the meeting minute to the wiki?
[15:10] <grizonnetm> minutes
[15:10] <gpasero> I will do it
[15:10] <jmichel> grizonnetm: we can move the last pending rfcs on the wiki to appropriate sections
[15:11] <VictorPoughon_> the wiki is up to date with today's key points already
[15:11] <VictorPoughon_> jsut need to add the full transcript
[15:12] <grizonnetm> goodf
[15:12] <VictorPoughon_> Thanks everyone
[15:12] <jmichel> thanks
[15:12] <grizonnetm> hasta luego
[15:12] <jmichel> shorter, faster, stronger
[15:12] <cresson> :D
[15:12] == VictorPoughon_ [c2c7ac23@gateway/web/freenode/ip.] has quit [Quit: Page closed]
[15:12] <jmichel> ++
[15:12] <gpasero> bye, thanks
[15:12] <cresson> bye
[15:12] == jmichel [c2c7ac21@gateway/web/freenode/ip.] has quit [Quit: Page closed]
[15:13] == cresson [] has quit [Quit: Quitte]