path: root/meeting-logs/20091207.txt

21:00:09 <leio>	Mon Dec  7 19:00:03 UTC 2009
21:00:10 <Betelgeuse>	Calchan: ping?
21:00:13 *	robbat2|na is here is for any questions/issues with his gleps
21:00:32 <Calchan>	Betelgeuse, pong
21:01:02 <Betelgeuse>	Calchan: your show
21:01:12 <Calchan>	robbat2|na, great, sorry for the screwup, I do too many things at the same and didn't see you were requesting that for january only
21:01:21 <Calchan>	Betelgeuse, yes I was on -dev with grobian
21:01:29 <Calchan>	so who's here?
21:01:36 <leio>	I'm here, but see my e-mail
21:01:40 <robbat2|na>	i only said january as IIRC they had to be posted a month in advanced
21:01:42 <Betelgeuse>	Calchan: can you please add a link to the agenda to topic
21:02:20 -->	NeddySeagoon (n=NeddySea@gentoo/developer/NeddySeagoon) has joined #gentoo-council
21:02:23 ---	Calchan has changed the topic to: http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-council/msg_55e2123621095cba53e2fe4d700bfb76.xml
21:02:29 <Betelgeuse>	thx
21:02:54 <Calchan>	Betelgeuse, note that there's a couple changes in the htread
21:03:04 <Betelgeuse>	Calchan: yes I read the thread
21:03:07 <Calchan>	solar said he would very probably not be here
21:03:16 <Calchan>	and we have his votes by email
21:03:22 <Betelgeuse>	Calchan: but best to ahve something for the audience
21:03:22 <Calchan>	in case we want to use them
21:03:57 <Betelgeuse>	Calchan: He preferred post votes so he can see leading discussion and I think we should do that
21:03:58 *	dertobi123 yawns
21:04:14 <Calchan>	Betelgeuse, let's vote
21:04:18 <Calchan>	later
21:04:35 <Calchan>	ulm, lu_zero ping
21:04:40 <ulm>	here
21:04:46 <Calchan>	ok
21:05:25 <Calchan>	so we seem to have: Betelgeuse, leio, ulm, dertobi123 and Calchan
21:05:47 <Calchan>	you guys want to wait for lu_zero a bit more or assume he won't be showing up?
21:06:16 <Betelgeuse>	Calchan: The agenda had 5 minutes so go with that
21:06:29 <Calchan>	ok, who's logging?
21:06:31 <leio>	I am
21:06:32 <Betelgeuse>	There's no votes due before point 3 any way
21:06:35 <Betelgeuse>	Calchan: I do
21:06:42 *	ulm does too
21:06:43 <Calchan>	and who wants to chair?
21:07:02 <Calchan>	as I wrote I can do it if you prefer
21:07:22 <Betelgeuse>	Calchan: You did a good job with the agenda so if you don't mind
21:07:28 <Calchan>	ok
21:07:31 <Calchan>	and thanks
21:07:42 <Calchan>	1.4 remarks on the agenda
21:07:58 <Calchan>	let's move the many GLEPs discussion to open floor, do you agree?
21:08:05 <Betelgeuse>	fine
21:08:06 <leio>	yes
21:08:09 <ulm>	i've already sent remarks in my e-mail reply
21:08:29 <Calchan>	dertobi123?
21:08:30 <solar>	my work meeting got cancled. So looks like I can be here.
21:08:36 <Calchan>	solar, yay
21:08:40 <dertobi123>	Calchan?
21:09:02 <Calchan>	dertobi123, are you ok with moving the glep discussion to open florr and not voting for this meeting?
21:09:07 <dertobi123>	sure
21:09:11 <Calchan>	solar, too?
21:09:20 <dertobi123>	guess that was already decided on list
21:09:25 <Calchan>	ok then
21:09:40 <Calchan>	do we skip the vote by email discussion as solar is here?
21:09:43 <solar>	I have no objections to glep-58 moving fwd as it causes no impact to anybody
21:09:44 <Calchan>	I'd say yes
21:10:01 <Betelgeuse>	yes better suited for discussion by email for example
21:10:43 ---	Calchan gives voice to zmedico
21:11:02 <Calchan>	ok, let's switch to 2 EAPI3 status
21:11:16 <Calchan>	zmedico, you said ETA in roughly 3 months
21:11:36 <Calchan>	in your mail, could you elaborate or was it a very rough guess?
21:12:45 <Calchan>	while we're waiting for zac, what do you guys think of doing an EAPI bump with what's already done?
21:12:50 <dertobi123>	tbh lets remove those eapi-3 status updates from this and the upcoming agendas. it's done when it's done. it doesn't help nor speeds up the process to discuss this again and again
21:12:54 -->	Zorry (n=zorry@fu/coder/zorry) has joined #gentoo-council
21:13:09 <Betelgeuse>	Calchan: It only makes sense if there's something valuable already done.
21:13:23 <Betelgeuse>	Calchan: No reason for having a new one if devs have no need for it.
21:13:25 <ulm>	Calchan: I don't see any use for that, maybe except for prefix
21:13:32 <Calchan>	dertobi123, I was actually going to ask zmedico how we could help him and his team
21:13:41 <Betelgeuse>	Calchan: vim *.py
21:13:52 <Betelgeuse>	s/vim/${EDITOR/
21:14:51 <Calchan>	so the general opinion is that there's nothing worth yet to justify a pre-3 EAPI bump?
21:15:44 <Calchan>	anybody?
21:15:56 <Betelgeuse>	the things done are mainly removing deprecated stuff and cleanups
21:16:15 <ulm>	new (and old) devs have to learn additional stuff for every additional EAPI
21:16:27 <dertobi123>	i don't think it's helpful to split up eapi-3 now
21:16:28 <ulm>	so we should keep their number limited
21:16:32 <Betelgeuse>	Calchan: None of the main EAPI 3 features are done.
21:16:36 <dertobi123>	ulm: agreed
21:17:00 <Calchan>	ok, then if nobody has anything to add let's leave it a tthis and switch to prefix
21:17:12 <Calchan>	and we're almost on time
21:17:25 <solar>	what advantage is it to make others wait on feautres when they are ready?
21:17:52 <Betelgeuse>	solar: There's nothing in the tracker that would make a big difference for devs
21:18:37 ---	Calchan gives voice to grobian
21:18:50 <Calchan>	solar, ok to switch to 3. prefix?
21:19:29 <Calchan>	looks like it
21:19:52 <Calchan>	so, have you guys reviewed the material posted by the prefix team in response to our requests?
21:20:12 <Calchan>	I mean the answers to our questions, the PMS patch and the portage stuff
21:20:12 <ulm>	yes, and looks good to me
21:20:47 <Betelgeuse>	Calchan: I havent' seen a pms patch going through gentoo-pms at least
21:20:54 <Calchan>	it looks good to me too, although I can't comment much on portage code (i.e. it went over my head)
21:21:14 <ulm>	Betelgeuse: http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_62b5df924d6e9e74c94149e7e7f17d23.xml
21:21:19 <Calchan>	Betelgeuse, good point, but you have seen the one posted to the list, right?
21:21:32 <Calchan>	s/the list/the -dev list/
21:22:22 <Calchan>	my only comment is that it refers to the prefix stuff as coming with EAPI3 and that would have to be fixed if we vote to make a quick EAPI bump before
21:22:38 <Betelgeuse>	Calchan: yes there was one there
21:22:38 <Calchan>	and I was satisfied with the answers
21:24:06 <Calchan>	obviously there's some polishing required with all this, but we can vote now on whether we want prefix in the tree as it's been presented to us
21:24:14 <Calchan>	I vote yes
21:24:33 <ulm>	I vote yes
21:24:38 <dertobi123>	yes too
21:25:02 <solar>	yes
21:25:11 <Calchan>	Betelgeuse?
21:25:27 <Calchan>	leio?
21:25:53 <Betelgeuse>	Calchan: yes having prefix support eventually in the main three is worthwhile
21:25:57 <leio>	I abstain from voting, as I have not been able to review yet what has been presented to us. But in what way would this "wanting prefix in the tree" be as?
21:26:19 <leio>	We already voted on the previous meeting on the general desire to see prefix in the main gentoo-x86 portage tree
21:26:45 <Calchan>	leio, the question today is do we accept the technical proposition that is made to us today?
21:26:52 <Calchan>	leio, but you can abstain
21:26:56 <Calchan>	this is ok
21:27:01 <leio>	thanks for clarification, good for summary
21:27:07 <Calchan>	Betelgeuse, do we have a yea from you?
21:28:24 <Calchan>	right now we have 4 yes, 1 abstention, and one that I think is a yes but would like confirmation ( Betelgeuse)
21:28:28 <Betelgeuse>	Calchan: I will abstain from voting on the PMS patch itself as I haven't read/seen any follow up with pms committers
21:28:50 <Calchan>	Betelgeuse, ok, how do we count you though?
21:29:00 <Calchan>	for summary purposes only
21:29:08 <Calchan>	because we already have a majority
21:29:31 <Betelgeuse>	Calchan: If you clarify the vote as being about the patch: abstain
21:29:36 <Betelgeuse>	We already voted on intentions
21:30:08 <leio>	I'm unclear on what is that technical proposition that is made to us today - is it the PMS patch at http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_62b5df924d6e9e74c94149e7e7f17d23.xml ?
21:30:14 <Calchan>	Betelgeuse, ok, although we have the PMS patch and lots of answers we didn't have previously
21:30:34 <Calchan>	leio, PMS patch, all the answers in the thread, the portage branch
21:30:57 <leio>	That's quite far reaching and hard or vague to summarize, but OK...
21:31:17 <Calchan>	ok, then we have 4 yes and 2 abstentions
21:31:34 <Calchan>	prefix can proceed to the tree
21:31:47 <Calchan>	3.2 EAPI bump for prefix
21:31:56 <Calchan>	we have the following choices:
21:32:02 <Calchan>	3.2.1. Should we make a quick, prefix-specific EAPI bump?
21:32:10 <Calchan>	3.2.2. Should we wrap together prefix plus whatever features of EAPI3 which are already ready into an intermediate EAPI and ship that now?
21:32:14 <Calchan>	3.2.3. Should we add prefix to EAPI3 and ship it all together when what's missing of EAPI3 is ready?
21:32:33 <Calchan>	does anybody need clarifications on the above propositions?
21:32:39 <Calchan>	we can discuss a bit and then vote
21:32:45 <Betelgeuse>	I don't think 3.2.2. makes sense. It's easier to have an EAPI that only prefix devs need to care about or then having altogether useful EAPI 3.
21:32:54 <Calchan>	Betelgeuse, agredd
21:33:20 <ulm>	so 3.2.1 means we rename EAPI 3 to EAPI 4? and EAPI 3 would be the prefix one?
21:33:35 <Betelgeuse>	ulm: We don't have to name EAPI N
21:33:38 <Calchan>	ulm, I think the naming is just a cosmetic issue
21:33:43 <Betelgeuse>	ulm: It can be 2+prefix for example
21:33:47 <Calchan>	we can decide that later
21:33:49 <Betelgeuse>	to make it clear
21:34:07 <ulm>	Betelgeuse: true, but integers make a nice scheme ;)
21:34:32 <ulm>	nicer than 2+prefix or 2/prefix or whatever
21:34:53 <Calchan>	ulm, we could go 2.1 for example
21:35:02 <leio>	Increasing integer strings seem easier to remember by developers (2+prefix would work now, but confusion starts with EAPI-3 then existing - does it include prefix support or not, etc)
21:35:24 <leio>	but naming is naming, which option is the first question I suppose
21:35:35 <solar>	problem with that is there are places in the tree that use EAPI as an int.
21:35:47 <Calchan>	guys let's vote on the "what kind of bump first" we'll decide on the naming later, OK?
21:35:51 <Betelgeuse>	solar: those are QA violations
21:35:53 <ulm>	solar: is that so? eclasses?
21:36:04 <ulm>	Calchan: o.k.
21:36:21 <solar>	ulm: I think some eclass and everywhere that checks for EAPI's <= 2
21:36:30 <Calchan>	I vote for 3.2.1, aka let's make a quick bump now
21:36:50 <ulm>	3.2.1 from me, too
21:36:53 <solar>	3.2.1 Yes as EAPI=3
21:37:07 <Betelgeuse>	Calchan: Do you know the latest opinion from grobian on this one?
21:37:21 <Calchan>	Betelgeuse, last time I heard he didn't care much
21:37:27 <dertobi123>	3.2.1 or 3.2.3 for me, both work for me
21:37:28 <Calchan>	grobian?
21:37:35 <grobian>	well
21:37:50 <grobian>	as I said, there is an option 3.2.4
21:38:04 <Calchan>	dertobi123, you sound like my wife... ;o) pick just one... anyone
21:38:32 <grobian>	while 3.2.1 would be very very very cool, there is a little problem wrt to implementation, since Prefix Portage is autotool based, and normal Portage is not
21:38:41 <dertobi123>	Calchan: it's not to choose anyone ...
21:39:14 <Calchan>	grobian, I'm not sure what difference you make between what you propose and 3.2.1 but go ahead and explain us
21:39:17 <leio>	3.2.1 or 3.2.2 from me (it's not a yes/no vote, I can't just pick one)
21:39:21 <grobian>	hence 3.2.4: make a quick bump on EAPI that is upwards compatible with Prefix, and then get the full implementation sorted out lateron
21:39:58 <Calchan>	grobian, full implementation of what? prefix?
21:40:04 <Calchan>	if so what could change?
21:40:19 <grobian>	Calchan: if you guys go for 3.2.1 I need to work with zmedico for some time to get prefix branch merged with trunk, delaying EAPI3
21:40:46 <grobian>	in principle the prefix branch is ready and waiting
21:40:56 <Calchan>	grobian, then why the possible delay?
21:41:28 <ulm>	grobian: any numbers? is it a matter of hours? days?
21:41:28 <grobian>	Calchan: because Prefix branch is based on trunk, not on the 2.1 branches, and uses a different build system
21:42:07 <grobian>	ulm: I think it is a bad idea to blindly rely on my python coding skills for ~arch of Gentoo Linux
21:42:16 <grobian>	simply like that
21:42:26 <grobian>	so zmedico needs to review
21:42:59 <grobian>	therefore we would like to have the specification available in the next EAPI
21:43:21 <grobian>	so we can use Prefix next to normal Gentoo
21:43:28 <Calchan>	grobian, not a show stopper to me, get your thing in a working state and with the proper build system quick enough that it doesn't delay EAPI3
21:43:44 <Betelgeuse>	Well not delay by months
21:43:52 <Betelgeuse>	a month no-one notices
21:44:05 <grobian>	Calchan: if that's what you want, I can try and put the maximum efforts in it to get that done
21:44:08 <Calchan>	grobian, then we'll take bets on who's ready first, if I lose you get whipped ;o)
21:44:26 <grobian>	Calchan: it'll be a joint with zmedico
21:44:35 <grobian>	so I'll always win
21:44:44 <grobian>	because the code is already there
21:45:09 <Calchan>	nobody cares what I think, let's vote though
21:45:29 <ulm>	Calchan: see above
21:45:30 <grobian>	I'd be delighted with 3.2.1
21:45:30 <Calchan>	could you guys please say again which one(s) you'd vote for even if there's more than one?
21:45:36 <ulm>	3.2.1
21:45:49 <solar>	<solar> 3.2.1 Yes as EAPI=3
21:45:53 <Calchan>	under the assumption that the prefix team is going to be fast enough with the implementation
21:45:56 <Calchan>	solar, thanks
21:46:00 <Calchan>	and ulm
21:46:01 <dertobi123>	still 3.2.1 or 3.2.3 for me, both work for me
21:46:13 <Calchan>	I'm for 3.2.1 and 3.2.2
21:46:25 <Calchan>	we'll have to do a quick majority vote here, but no big deal
21:46:36 <Betelgeuse>	3.2.4
21:46:49 <leio>	3.2.1 or 3.2.2
21:46:59 <grobian>	3.2.4 conflicts with your earlier decision this evening, by the way
21:47:33 <ulm>	Calchan: looks like we'll have to do a condorcet vote now ;)
21:47:51 <Calchan>	ulm, no majority will be enough since it's not a secret vote
21:48:05 <Calchan>	I'm missing one vote... who?
21:48:10 <Calchan>	ah leio
21:48:14 <Calchan>	?
21:48:25 <leio>	21:46> <leio> 3.2.1 or 3.2.2
21:48:42 <Calchan>	ok, the results are:
21:48:55 <Calchan>	3.2.1: 5
21:49:00 <Calchan>	3.2.2: 2
21:49:05 <Calchan>	3.2.3: 3
21:49:13 <Calchan>	sorry
21:49:18 <Calchan>	3.2.3: 1
21:49:28 <Calchan>	3.2.4: 1
21:49:37 <Calchan>	looks like 3.2.1 wins
21:49:59 <Calchan>	barring any computational error from my pen&paper computer system
21:50:03 ---	fox2mike_ is now known as fox2mike
21:50:26 <Calchan>	so now we can discuss how we call it
21:50:34 ---	fox2mike is now known as Guest9920
21:50:43 <Calchan>	we already know solar wants to call it EAPI3
21:50:49 <Calchan>	others?
21:50:54 <Betelgeuse>	!= 3
21:50:59 <ulm>	let's call it EAPI 3
21:51:28 <leio>	EAPI 3
21:51:33 <dertobi123>	eapi3 works for me, if we rename what was eapi3 to eapi4
21:51:43 <ulm>	dertobi123: agreed
21:51:57 <Calchan>	I'd vote for some 2 < number < 3
21:51:59 <Calchan>	like 2.1
21:52:37 <ABCD>	FYI, currently Portage itself treats EAPI as an integer (unless I'm mistaken)
21:52:59 <Calchan>	so we have 4 votes for EAPI3 and 2 against
21:53:05 <Calchan>	EAPI3 it is then
21:53:31 *	Calchan slaps ABCD with a PMS printout for speaking without voice :o)
21:53:35 <Betelgeuse>	ABCD: It should be fixed then
21:53:56 *	ABCD also notes that this channel isn't +m...
21:54:08 <Calchan>	ABCD, yes, we suck
21:54:09 <ulm>	right, it should be fixed, but by calling it 3 we don't risk any breakage
21:54:32 <Calchan>	any more comments on the prefix topic?
21:54:38 <leio>	Do we write EAPI-3, EAPI 3 or EAPI3? :)
21:54:39 <grobian>	ABCD: you're mistaken ;)
21:54:59 <ulm>	leio: EAPI=3 :p
21:55:11 <Calchan>	grobian, congrats btw, you just got yourself and your team a shitload of work
21:55:19 <grobian>	yeah, thanks a lot!
21:55:41 <dertobi123>	heh
21:55:51 <Calchan>	if there's no more comments on prefix then we'll move on
21:56:06 <Calchan>	4. GLEPs 58, 59, 60 and 61 is moved to open floor, so:
21:56:11 <Calchan>	5. mtime preservation
21:56:13 <Calchan>	ysy
21:56:14 <Calchan>	yay
21:56:50 <Calchan>	does anybody want to discuss anything on this topics before we vote?
21:56:52 <Betelgeuse>	What's the opinion of pkg maintainers who need mtime preservation?
21:57:00 <Betelgeuse>	Do we have any around?
21:57:05 ---	Calchan gives voice to ferringb
21:57:07 <ulm>	Betelgeuse: me ;)
21:57:23 <Calchan>	ciaranm isn't here
21:57:24 <Betelgeuse>	ulm: yay remembered right then but wasn't sure
21:57:44 <Calchan>	whoever you are, if you want to talk for paludis just ping me
21:57:52 <ulm>	Betelgeuse: the feature is really needed for several lisp packages
21:58:03 <Calchan>	although you don't need voice to speak as we're not +m
21:58:28 <Betelgeuse>	ulm: Yes but what's your preferred way out of 5.n doing in ebuild side?
21:58:43 <ulm>	Betelgeuse: both 5.1 and 5.3 work
21:59:17 <Calchan>	ulm, do I understand 5.1 works if it's made equal to 5.3 or works unconditionally?
21:59:20 <ulm>	5.2 would require that we change at least two eclasses and several (about 50?) ebuilds
21:59:38 <solar>	5.2 seems like it's written in order to make us reject it
21:59:39 <ulm>	Calchan: it works unconditionally
21:59:47 <Calchan>	ulm, ok thanks
22:00:23 <Calchan>	solar, I find the solution rather elegant even if less practical than the others
22:00:39 ---	Guest9920 is now known as fox2mike
22:00:55 <solar>	I find the lack of stripping objects in the name of saving mtime to be stupid
22:01:18 <Calchan>	do we want to vote now? I rebooted my pen&paper computer system
22:01:39 <Betelgeuse>	I am off to toilet, I will go with whatever ulm chooses as they are the ones using it
22:01:47 <ulm>	solar: so mtimes for stripped objects should be preserved too, in your opinion?
22:02:23 <Calchan>	ulm, I'd say yes if we wanted to make it the right wa, the real question is do we?
22:02:25 <solar>	ulm: as noted. Being that there is no consensus among PM devs. 5.3 seems ideal for now.
22:02:33 <leio>	strip from toolchain has a --preserve-dates option btw
22:02:56 <Calchan>	ok, solar votes 5.3, ulm and Betelgeuse 5.1 or 5.3, others>
22:03:01 <Calchan>	?
22:03:13 <ulm>	Calchan: I'd prefer 5.1 but 5.3 works too
22:03:25 <solar>	ulm: the way 5.2 is written. It favors mtime over stripping. IE skip stripping it sounds like
22:03:42 <Calchan>	ulm, I can count you as 5.1 if you want, my system has an eraser :o)
22:03:57 <solar>	and limits it to a given eapi vs being retroactive and a basic feature of the PM
22:04:53 <Calchan>	ulm? so you want 5.1, or 5.1 and 5.3?
22:05:13 <Calchan>	and I vote 5.3 btw
22:05:21 <ulm>	Calchan: 5.1 with fallback to 5.3 ;)
22:05:34 <dertobi123>	5.3 wfm
22:05:40 <Calchan>	leio?
22:06:02 <leio>	abstain
22:06:07 <Calchan>	ok
22:06:38 <Calchan>	we have 2 for 5.1 and 5 for 5.3
22:06:58 <Calchan>	so we'll document protage's behavior and will put that into PMS
22:07:08 <ulm>	Calchan: count me as 5.1 please
22:07:16 <Calchan>	ulm, can you take care of that with for example zmedico ?
22:07:30 <ulm>	*sigh* yes
22:07:47 <Calchan>	ulm, ah ok, so we have 2 for 5.1 and 3 for 5.3
22:08:01 <leio>	into PMS as EAPI-0 clarification or?
22:08:29 <ulm>	leio: EAPI 4, unless we vote otherwise now
22:08:59 <Calchan>	EAPI3+1 for me
22:09:06 <Calchan>	=EAPI4
22:09:16 <Betelgeuse>	3 or 4
22:09:33 <Calchan>	ah right, sticking that with prefix is a good idea
22:09:49 <ulm>	good idea
22:09:56 <leio>	Calchan: can you write out how you counted who as to avoid any misunderstandings?
22:10:05 <Calchan>	leio, ok
22:10:20 <Calchan>	Betelgeuse and ulm 5.1
22:10:32 <Calchan>	dertobi123, solar and Calchan 5.3
22:10:39 <Calchan>	leio abstention
22:10:49 <Calchan>	is it ok for everybody?
22:10:53 <ulm>	yes
22:10:57 <solar>	I can go either way on 5.x
22:11:09 <Betelgeuse>	Calchan: then we don't have a decision?
22:11:24 <Betelgeuse>	Calchan: There's someone missing
22:11:27 <Calchan>	solar, then make your mind and tell us
22:11:34 <solar>	Nobody said anything about making it a new EAPI however
22:12:12 <solar>	portage is not going to limit it's behavior to do this only-if-eapi>=3
22:12:17 <Calchan>	solar, let's decouple the EAPI issue then
22:12:24 <solar>	please lets.
22:12:27 <ulm>	solar: It wouldn't make any practical difference for portage and pkgcore
22:12:34 <ulm>	since they already comply
22:12:55 <Calchan>	solar, the point would be to document what can be relied upon starting with EAPI3
22:12:56 <solar>	ulm: right. But till this meeting nobody said anything about making it an EAPI change.
22:12:59 <Calchan>	not changing enyhting
22:14:59 <ulm>	so, have we accepted 5.3 or what?
22:15:00 <Calchan>	so, anybody who wants to reconsider his vote? solar? then we can discuss the eapi issue
22:15:13 <leio>	Note that on 12th October meeting we re-opened what was known as EAPI-3 for mtime preservation
22:15:46 <leio>	(but nvm)
22:16:32 <Calchan>	solar? do you reconsider your vote or you keep 5.3?
22:17:46 <solar>	I'm still in favor of 5.3
22:17:49 <Calchan>	ok
22:17:53 <leio>	On 12 October meeting we also voted "A: current Portage and Pkgcore behaviour, all mtimes are preserved" with a clear majority, was this topic re-opened since then?
22:18:18 <ulm>	leio: no, just clarifications to it
22:18:23 <leio>	ok.
22:18:26 <Calchan>	leio, the issue was about documenting
22:18:35 <Betelgeuse>	leio: Basically sub seconds involved
22:18:46 <solar>	I need to go. For any remaining open topics and I don't think any remain. See email.
22:19:31 >grobian<	hey, do you have quick links for the prefix support discussion thread and a link to the prefix portage branch, for the purpose of the meeting summary?
22:19:31 <Calchan>	solar, thanks, I think we're good
22:20:28 <dertobi123>	we're done?
22:20:33 <Calchan>	now the question is do we apply the documenttion change to all EAPIs retroactively? to the newly defined EAPI3? or to EAPI4?
22:20:47 <Betelgeuse>	3
22:20:51 <Calchan>	dertobi123, no but we'll use his email
22:20:56 <Calchan>	I vote 3 too
22:21:36 <ulm>	3
22:21:40 <leio>	I vote EAPI3 or retroactively
22:21:48 <Calchan>	dertobi123?
22:22:21 <dertobi123>	for all eapis retroactively makes sense for me, as that's what portage is doing for quite some time - but making it part of our new eapi-3 works as well
22:22:34 <ulm>	really it doesn't make any practical difference
22:22:37 <Calchan>	thanks
22:22:53 <Calchan>	so we have 5 votes for EAPI3 and 2 for retroactive
22:23:17 <leio>	so basically "Since EAPI-3 this behaviour can be relied on in all PMS compliant package managers"
22:23:20 <Calchan>	we'll define mtime preservation based on what portage does today in EAPI3 onwards
22:23:36 <ulm>	right
22:23:50 <dertobi123>	ack
22:23:52 <Calchan>	and ulm you'll take care of the with whoever? is it ok?
22:24:08 <ulm>	Calchan: I'll talk to Zac
22:24:13 <Calchan>	and anymore comments on this topic before we switch?
22:24:49 <leio>	ACTION: ulm to talk with Zac about defining current portage behaviour for documenting in EAPI-3
22:24:59 <Calchan>	thanks leio
22:25:07 <Calchan>	and I understand we can move on
22:25:23 <Calchan>	6.1 logs? summary? I can do summary if nobody wants
22:25:31 <leio>	I have the summary almost ready
22:25:39 <leio>	Logs I will commit today
22:25:40 <Calchan>	leio, great thanks
22:25:41 <ulm>	leio++
22:25:42 <dertobi123>	leio++ for that
22:25:43 -->	Ramonster (n=ramonvan@ramonvanalteren.xs4all.nl) has joined #gentoo-council
22:25:54 <Calchan>	6.2 next meeting?
22:26:03 <Calchan>	I'd like to delay by one week
22:26:08 <leio>	Sorry for slacking on the previous ones (see my private e-mail), writing it during the meeting works a lot better
22:26:23 <leio>	I am fine with either delaying or not
22:26:28 <Calchan>	we've been meeting every 4 weeks instead of every month so we gained a couple weeks on the way
22:26:40 <Calchan>	and I'm not sure my brain and liver will be up to speed
22:27:07 <Betelgeuse>	4 or 18 are best for me in January
22:27:14 <Betelgeuse>	well != 11
22:27:21 <Betelgeuse>	Exams on 12
22:27:26 <dertobi123>	so, january 18th then?
22:27:44 <Betelgeuse>	solar probably has a work meeting
22:27:44 <Calchan>	18th seems a bit late, in which case I don't mind doing it on the 4th
22:28:08 <Betelgeuse>	so we might want to ask what suits him
22:28:28 <Calchan>	Betelgeuse, I'll see with him if another day of the week would help
22:28:47 <Calchan>	Betelgeuse, your exams are on the 12th only or all week?
22:28:48 <ABCD>	May I request that the council consider adding *.xz/*.tar.xz to unpack() for the new EAPI-3 (instead of waiting until EAPI-4)? (or should that wait until the next meeting? Portage already has support, but disabled for older EAPIs)
22:28:54 <Betelgeuse>	Calchan: all week
22:29:09 <Calchan>	ABCD, not the time and place to do that, send an email to the list as usual
22:29:18 <ABCD>	Calchan: okay
22:29:29 <Calchan>	Betelgeuse, so let's see with solar what day in the week of the 4th he prefers
22:29:51 <Calchan>	does anybody have a preference for a day in that week?
22:30:13 <Betelgeuse>	before friday
22:30:22 <leio>	not me, but maybe we need to re-consider Monday if his meetings are always on Mondays?
22:30:32 <leio>	(I mean not for just one meeting, but overall)
22:30:41 -->	ulm__ (n=ulm@p4FD3F0D7.dip.t-dialin.net) has joined #gentoo-council
22:30:43 <Calchan>	leio, yes
22:30:51 <dertobi123>	what about starting a new doodle-poll for the january meeting?
22:31:11 <--	ulm has quit (Nick collision from services.)
22:31:17 ---	ulm__ is now known as ulm
22:31:20 <Calchan>	so if everybody agrees we'll have next meeting on that week of january which starts on the 4th, we need to decide what day exactly
22:31:31 <ulm>	sorry, network hiccup
22:31:33 <Calchan>	dertobi123, great, can you take care of that?
22:31:46 <Betelgeuse>	who does the agenda next time?
22:31:57 <dertobi123>	Calchan: i'll try to do so, yeah
22:32:17 <leio>	ACTION: dertobi123 to check what day of the week is best for council members nowadays, possibly rescheduling the next meetings date
22:32:27 <Calchan>	and follow up topics, just doing the agenda is not enough, devs need to be pushed to do the right thing
22:32:47 ---	ChanServ gives channel operator status to ulm
22:33:21 <Calchan>	I can't do the agenda as I will be without internet for 2 weeks around christmas and new year
22:34:25 ---	dabbott|away is now known as dabbott
22:34:32 <Calchan>	if nobody volunteers I can do it if we delay the meeting by at least one week
22:34:33 <Betelgeuse>	I will mostly be reading for exams so I would prefer someone else
22:34:50 <Calchan>	Betelgeuse, yes, don't sabotage your exams
22:35:16 <Betelgeuse>	Calchan: Well Finnish system gives you infinite retries
22:35:25 <Calchan>	I don't mind doing it if we agree to delay
22:35:32 <Calchan>	Betelgeuse, but life doesn't ;o)
22:35:35 <Betelgeuse>	So sabotaging is impossible :)
22:35:45 <dertobi123>	works for me, besides that i'd like to see luca or solar doing an agenda, too
22:36:40 <dertobi123>	btw. luca ...
22:36:56 <Calchan>	dertobi123, luca has been pretty much inactive so he may not have enough time (and I'd prefer this be done correctly as it's important) and solar is reconsidering all his gentoo activities due to work
22:38:04 <Calchan>	dertobi123, please add to your the possibility to delay the meeting to the week of the 18th, in which case I can take care of the agenda
22:38:14 <Calchan>	s/to your/to your poll/
22:38:39 <dertobi123>	so well, yeah ... speaking of luca ... he missed the july and august meetings according to the logs and he missed this meeting, too. if we follow glep 39 it's time to elect a replacement for luca :/
22:38:41 <leio>	that's like two polls then, day in general, and week
22:39:09 <Calchan>	dertobi123, we usually don't elect and pick the next in list
22:39:18 <Calchan>	which would be bonsaikitten
22:39:30 <Betelgeuse>	Calchan: that's for stepping down
22:39:33 <Betelgeuse>	Calchan: not slackers
22:39:34 <bonsaikitten>	uh-oh :)
22:39:39 <leio>	to my knowledge we elect, but tend to elect the next in list
22:39:49 <Calchan>	Betelgeuse, right, sorry
22:40:04 <Betelgeuse>	New elections it is then.
22:40:05 <dertobi123>	"a new election is held to replace that person"
22:40:20 <Calchan>	whoever that is I want to make sure that person will be committed to the coucil though
22:40:23 <Betelgeuse>	We already voted not to change GLEP 39 ourselves
22:40:57 <Calchan>	Betelgeuse, yes sorry, my brain is low on sugar, I need lunch :o)
22:40:58 <ulm>	dertobi123: but we had _reopen_nominations in the last ballot
22:41:20 <ulm>	so we take the next candidate if he ranks above it
22:41:32 <Calchan>	ulm, reopen nominations is to hold another entire election
22:41:45 <Calchan>	or I'm mistaken again?
22:42:01 <ulm>	Calchan: i'm not sure
22:42:17 <Calchan>	I propose that we have that discussion off list
22:42:45 <Calchan>	and if necessary vote for a new member before the end of next week
22:42:51 <dertobi123>	ulm: _reopen_nominations isn't even mentioned in glep39
22:43:04 <ulm>	Calchan: youre right, glep 39 says "a new election is held to replace that person."
22:43:48 <--	ohnobinki has quit (verne.freenode.net irc.freenode.net)
22:43:48 <--	kallamej has quit (verne.freenode.net irc.freenode.net)
22:43:48 <--	robbat2|na has quit (verne.freenode.net irc.freenode.net)
22:43:48 <--	TomJBE has quit (verne.freenode.net irc.freenode.net)
22:43:48 <--	Caster has quit (verne.freenode.net irc.freenode.net)
22:43:49 <--	ahf has quit (verne.freenode.net irc.freenode.net)
22:44:05 <Calchan>	dertobi123, which is what I meant when I said that glep 39 had been impliciteley and explicitely modified in the past without a vote and I wanted us to decide on a mechanism to do that roperly, but nobody seemed to care so I gave up
22:44:22 -->	robbat2|na (i=nobody@gentoo/developer/robbat2) has joined #gentoo-council
22:44:22 -->	TomJBE (n=tb@gentoo/contributor/tomjbe) has joined #gentoo-council
22:44:22 -->	ohnobinki (n=ohnobink@ohnobinki-1-pt.tunnel.tserv9.chi1.ipv6.he.net) has joined #gentoo-council
22:44:22 -->	Caster (i=Caster@gentoo/developer/caster) has joined #gentoo-council
22:44:22 -->	ahf (i=ahf@irssi/staff/ahf) has joined #gentoo-council
22:44:22 -->	kallamej (n=kallamej@gentoo/developer/kallamej) has joined #gentoo-council
22:44:27 <Calchan>	that was n the first meetings
22:44:36 *	dertobi123 remembers
22:45:01 <Calchan>	if you guys are interested I can reactivate this at some point and we can discuss it again
22:45:30 <dertobi123>	iirc we did vote to hold a general vote of all developers to amend glep39, but someone want to check the logs to be sure ;)
22:45:49 <dertobi123>	Calchan: at least it's something that should be fixed
22:46:01 <leio>	http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20090720-summary.txt
22:46:12 <Calchan>	dertobi123, we only voted that we couldn't decide be didn't vote on who could
22:46:29 <Calchan>	whatever, this is not a discussion for right now, let's wrap up this meeting
22:46:57 <Calchan>	6.2 dertobi123 will setup polls for what week and what day to meet next time
22:47:03 *	dertobi123 nods
22:47:34 <Calchan>	6.3 I volunteer to do the agenda next time unless we don't shift the meeting by at least one week or somebody else volunteers
22:48:01 <Calchan>	and we will decide of who replaces lu_zero (vote or not) by the end of next week
22:48:12 <Calchan>	actually before the 18th
22:48:21 <Calchan>	if everybody is OK with that
22:48:39 <Calchan>	after that date I'm without internet
22:48:52 <dertobi123>	works for me, i'm mostly w/o internet starting the 18th
22:49:06 <Calchan>	does everybody agree?
22:49:13 <solar>	yes
22:49:28 <Calchan>	solar, ah you're back :o)
22:49:51 <solar>	had to pick up my lunch. I've been back watching the chat for the past ~10mins
22:50:31 <Calchan>	if everybody agress then I'll declare the floor open to everybody for discussion of whatever including gleps 57 to 61
22:50:50 <Calchan>	and I'll run to the microwave to prepare my lunch because I'm starving :o)
22:50:50 <dertobi123>	okies, off to bed now. nn
22:51:02 <Calchan>	good meeting, thanks guys
22:51:22 <leio>	Does anyone have links handy for prefix support portage branch and the discussion thread about it?
22:51:36 <dertobi123>	thanks for preparing the agenda and chairing this meeting, Calchan. well organized one :)
22:52:24 <ulm>	yeah, thanks Calchan
22:53:29 <solar>	leio: it was in calchans first mail to -dev ml about the agenda
22:54:08 <solar>	http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_e588558e19aefd9f477f452cfdce955a.xml (you can follow this backwards)
22:54:17 <leio>	oh, right
22:55:29 <--	darkside_ (n=darkside@gentoo/developer/darkside) has left #gentoo-council
22:55:50 <leio>	Presumably http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/portage/main/branches/prefix/ for the branch