14:00:20 <mburns> #startmeeting oVirt Weekly Sync
14:00:20 <ovirtbot> Meeting started Wed May 30 14:00:20 2012 UTC.  The chair is mburns. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
14:00:20 <ovirtbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
14:00:45 * itamar in
14:00:53 <mburns> #topic agenda and roll call
14:00:59 * mgoldboi in
14:01:16 * oschreib_1 here
14:01:16 <mburns> #link http://www.ovirt.org/wiki/Meetings#Weekly_project_sync_meeting
14:01:28 * mburns waits for roll call
14:02:24 * lh is here
14:02:35 <rickyh> here
14:02:46 * mburns forgot to send call for agenda this week
14:02:50 * itamar here
14:02:52 <mburns> due to monday holiday in US
14:03:10 <mburns> agenda is:
14:03:14 <mburns> Release status
14:03:18 <mburns> sub project status
14:03:31 <mburns> final java 7 and fedora rpm decision
14:03:41 <mburns> workshops/conferences
14:03:49 <mburns> Other topics that people have
14:03:59 <mburns> #topic Release status
14:04:11 <mburns> #info devel freeze June 7
14:04:16 <mburns> #info Beta shortly after
14:04:22 <mburns> #info GA June 27
14:04:34 <oschreib_1> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822145
14:04:52 <oschreib_1> Currently we have three blockers
14:05:23 * RobertM Here
14:05:30 <oschreib_1> 1. Fedora's JBoss rpm - We had very good progress
14:05:45 <mburns> #info good progress with Fedora JBoss rpms
14:05:49 <oschreib_1> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=824397
14:05:55 <oschreib_1> should be merged tomorrow
14:05:59 <mburns> #chair oschreib_1
14:05:59 <ovirtbot> Current chairs: mburns oschreib_1
14:06:07 <mburns> excellent
14:06:19 <oschreib_1> yes, passed multiple sanity tests
14:06:32 <oschreib_1> 2. VDSM <-> Engine version
14:06:55 <oschreib_1> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822158
14:07:08 <oschreib_1> dougsland: Engine work should be done
14:07:25 <oschreib_1> dougsland: any update on the vdsm part here? (updating to 4.9.10)
14:07:58 <oschreib_1> danken: ^^
14:08:19 <dougsland> oschreib, I will send a patch today, I am testing here
14:08:27 <mburns> #info patch coming today
14:08:34 <oschreib_1> cool, please update engine-devel about progress
14:08:35 <mburns> #undo
14:08:35 <ovirtbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Info object at 0x9bbec2c>
14:08:43 <mburns> #info patch coming today -- testing in progress
14:08:58 <oschreib_1> 3. Fedora 17 Node support
14:09:01 <oschreib_1> mburns: ^^
14:09:12 <mburns> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=824420
14:09:12 <oschreib_1> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=824420
14:09:14 <mburns> #undo
14:09:14 <ovirtbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Link object at 0x9b96a0c>
14:09:48 <mburns> #info dependent blocking bug in util-linux is fixed and verified, but we hit an additional issue yesterday
14:10:00 <mburns> #info still digging into it to find the root cause
14:10:14 <oschreib_1> any time estimation on the util-linux issue?
14:10:31 <mburns> util-linux is fixed and new build has enough karma to push to stable
14:10:39 <oschreib_1> cool
14:10:47 <mburns> just waiting for fedora process to pick it up
14:10:50 <oschreib_1> ok
14:11:00 <oschreib_1> next meeting is on the 06.06
14:11:16 <oschreib_1> so we will have time to revisit all the issues, and delay if needed
14:11:23 <mburns> ack
14:11:51 <oschreib_1> After engine/VDSM issues are fixed, I'll create an alpha build
14:11:59 <oschreib_1> and upload it to ovirt.org
14:12:18 <mburns> i'll do the same once there are builds available for vdsm and we have ovirt-node stable
14:12:24 <oschreib_1> FIN
14:13:05 <mburns> #action oschreib_1 to build alpha build and upload to ovirt.org once vdsm/engine issues are fixed/merged
14:13:24 <mburns> #action mburns to do same with ovirt-node once its blockers fixed and vdsm generated
14:13:42 <mburns> #topic sub project status -- vdsm
14:14:02 <mburns> danken: dougsland:  how do things look on the vdsm side for devel freeze?
14:15:37 <mburns> #info no update from vdsm team
14:15:42 <mburns> #topic sub project status -- engine
14:16:02 <cctrieloff> here
14:16:03 <mburns> how do things look on the engine side for devel freeze?
14:17:12 <itamar> I think most things are in good enough shape. we can debate exceptions next week if relevant. are we rebasing or cherry-picking post feature freeze for first 2 weeks?
14:17:32 <mburns`> itamar: post freeze, it should be cherry-pick only
14:17:36 <oschreib_1> +1 on cherry-pick
14:17:50 <oschreib_1> to a separate engine_3.1 git branch
14:18:03 <mburns`> #info things in good shape on the engine side
14:18:08 <jhernand> May I suggest a short discussion about the version number of the release, 3.1.0 instead of 3.1.0_0001?
14:18:42 <mburns`> jhernand: sure, let's discuss in other topics
14:19:07 <mburns`> #topic sub project status -- node
14:19:11 <RobertM> Are all the projects planing on having a branch this time?
14:19:12 <oschreib_1> jhernand: since itamar is the only engine rep here, I'd suggest- 1. send patch, 2. send a mail to engine-devel, 3. get acks
14:19:53 <mburns`> #info node is unclear at the moment, installs correctly, but blocked by login issues currently
14:19:56 <jhernand> oschreib_1: Ok, will do that.
14:20:00 <mburns`> #info should know more in next couple days
14:20:32 <oschreib_1> RobertM: engine will have one, all other maintainers should have it as well
14:20:45 <oschreib_1> RobertM: I'll send a reminder on the FeatureFreeze to do so
14:20:57 <mburns`> oschreib_1: i think i disagree with the requirement to branch
14:21:21 <mburns``> #topic devel freeze branching
14:21:30 <oschreib_1> mburns: well, engine must have one. other projects- I'm fine with git tag as well
14:21:49 <mburns``> oschreib_1: i think tag is sufficient, and create branch as needed
14:22:23 <oschreib_1> mburns: that's fine for "small" projects (e.g small number of commiters)
14:22:49 <oschreib_1> RobertM: any reason you want branch on each project
14:22:53 <RobertM> mburns`, Why do you feel it is better to not branch?
14:23:23 <itamar> +1, no need to branch "controlled" projects, but need to make sure they are aware they are in stabilization period
14:23:54 <RobertM> oschreib, , Easier to handle Fixes well still allowing the project to move forward.
14:24:21 <mburns> RobertM: i don't see a need to have a branch unless i have to actually commit something there when there are other things on HEAD that i don't want to backport
14:24:35 <mburns> basically, create the branch on demand only
14:25:10 <mburns> RobertM: node, for example, only has 3 committers
14:25:28 <itamar> +1
14:25:33 <mburns> so most likely, we'll only be pushing patches that are absolutely necessary there
14:25:49 <mburns> engine is harder since they'll have people working more on future features
14:26:32 <mburns> ok, anything else for subproject status or release branches?
14:26:54 <mburns> #topic java 7 and fedora jboss rpms
14:27:10 <RobertM> I am just wondering how many patches don't happen because there isn't a gerrit branch to fix bugs in the current released version instead of only fixing in the tree.  I my own person projects I get fixed agaist the released one 2x times the tree.
14:27:54 <mburns> #undo
14:27:54 <ovirtbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Topic object at 0x9b94a6c>
14:28:54 <oschreib_1> RobertM: I think we all agree that once we need to do a specific commit, the maintainer will create a branch
14:29:11 <oschreib_1> until than, tag is good enough
14:29:54 * RobertM Always follows maintainer lead
14:30:38 <oschreib_1> :(
14:30:40 <oschreib_1> :)
14:30:56 <mburns> #topic java 7 and fedora jboss rpms
14:30:59 <mburns> oschreib_1: itamar: can we finally commit to having these in 3.1 and put this topic to rest
14:31:16 <mburns> sounds like jboss rpms is basically done
14:31:23 <mburns> and java 7 was in good shape a couple weeks ago
14:31:41 <oschreib_1> probably yes
14:31:45 <itamar> +1 from me
14:31:51 <oschreib_1> Fedora 17
14:31:51 <itamar> any issues found should be fixed.
14:32:18 <itamar> we can go back if we hit a wall for some reason, but we should stride one basically
14:32:25 <oschreib_1> +1
14:32:36 <mburns> #agreed Fedora 17 jboss rpms and jboss 7 support will be included in 3.1
14:33:11 <mburns> #topic Workshops and Conferences
14:33:21 <mburns> cctrieloff: lh: anything to report here?
14:33:58 <lh> mburns nothing new to report on workshops, though i would like to encourage board members to sign up to let us know if they can attend board meetings at workshops http://www.ovirt.org/wiki/Workshop_Board_Meetings
14:34:15 <mburns> #link http://www.ovirt.org/wiki/Workshop_Board_Meetings
14:34:22 <lh> Our next proposed board meeting is at LinuxCon North America in late August
14:34:43 <mburns> #info Board Members:  please commit to attending Board Meetings at ^^
14:35:08 <lh> I am also not clear on the oVirt bylaws regarding board quorum, etc., so if anyone has a pointer to those it would be most appreciated. I have not found such searching the wiki or oVirt website.
14:35:10 <mburns> #info next proposed board meeting is at LinuxCon North America in August
14:35:47 <lh> mburns, other than those two items, that's all i have for this meeting
14:35:54 <mburns> cctrieloff is probably the best to ask on what is needed for that
14:36:20 <lh> mburns, will do. thanks for the pointer.
14:36:30 <mburns> lh: this might help too:  http://www.ovirt.org/governance/voting/
14:36:56 <mburns> anyone have anything else to say on Workshops and Conferences?
14:36:56 <lh> mburns, great, thank you
14:37:15 <mburns> #topic Other Topics
14:37:34 <mburns> one thing from me...
14:37:47 <mburns> I'll be in Japan next week for LinuxCon
14:38:03 <mburns> so I likely won'y be around to run this meeting
14:38:15 <mburns> since it will be at ~11PM local time
14:38:25 <mburns> any volunteers to run it in my absence?
14:38:29 <oschreib_1> 1. the fact you're in japan won't help you
14:38:31 <oschreib_1> 2. I'll do that
14:38:56 <mburns> #info oschreib_1 to run next week's meeting since mburns won't be around
14:39:00 <mburns> thanks oschreib_1
14:39:09 <mburns> any other topics to bring up?
14:39:12 <oschreib_1> you're welcome
14:39:16 <oschreib_1> jhernand: had one
14:39:26 <oschreib_1> oh, wait, we solved it
14:39:28 <oschreib_1> nm
14:39:53 <cctrieloff> reading
14:40:32 <cctrieloff> lh: want to discuss that here, or on list?
14:40:58 <lh> cctrieloff, i think on list is preferable unless i am simply missing a pointer to the bylaws (don't think I am)
14:41:54 <mburns> on list sounds good
14:42:04 <mburns> anything else for the meeting?
14:42:10 <mburns> going once...
14:43:45 <mburns> twice..
14:44:28 <cctrieloff> ack
14:44:46 <mburns> gone.
14:44:49 <mburns> Thanks everyone
14:44:52 <mburns> #endmeeting