- Wednesday, November 19, 2014

release-team@conference.openafs.org

Wednesday, November 19, 2014< ^ >

Room Configuration

Room Occupants

GMT+0
[05:36:16] shadow@gmail.com/barnowlE5B64A04 leaves the room
[05:36:25] shadow@gmail.com/barnowlE5B64A04 joins the room
[09:57:26] wiesand joins the room
[10:07:49] wiesand leaves the room
[13:20:45] meffie joins the room
[14:52:25] kaduk joins the room
[14:56:22] wiesand joins the room
[14:57:22] <kaduk> $timeofday
[14:57:35] <wiesand> Hi
[14:59:02] <meffie> hi
[14:59:25] <wiesand> Of course I didn’t manage to prepare anything today :-(
[15:00:53] <shadow@gmail.com/barnowlE5B64A04> hi
[15:01:22] <wiesand> Thus, effectively nothing has happened the last week which would be relevant to 1.6.11.
[15:01:25] <wiesand> Hi Daria.
[15:02:17] <kaduk> well, we have an agenda at least.
[15:03:08] deason joins the room
[15:03:09] <wiesand> Yes, but it’s pretty much the same one as last week. Consequently, not much to discuss I believe. I’m going to merge the changes foreseen for pre1, no matter how little review, unless anyone complains during today’s meeting.
[15:04:30] <wiesand> So, unless you want to bring up something regarding 1.6.11, we can probably move on to “1.8 branch”?
[15:04:58] <kaduk> I don't think that has changed since two weeks ago, either.
[15:05:01] <kaduk> :(
[15:05:13] <wiesand> Great. We’re done :)
[15:06:19] <meffie> :)
[15:06:30] <kaduk> I guess we can talk about what sort of timeout we'll have on waiting for jhutz to look at volume header timestamp updates.
[15:07:06] <wiesand> One of the 1.8 branch blockers, right?
[15:07:22] <kaduk> Right.
[15:08:06] <wiesand> I guess you have a proposal?
[15:08:59] <kaduk> Four weeks would be my proposal.
[15:11:31] <kaduk> Jeff, any thoughts?
[15:13:01] <Jeffrey Altman> hi
[15:13:32] <Jeffrey Altman> I don't think there is much different between two weeks and four weeks
[15:13:56] <Jeffrey Altman> A deadline might help him prioritize it
[15:14:20] <Jeffrey Altman> I don't know what his thanksgiving weekend will be like
[15:14:59] <kaduk> Yeah, I don't know what his thanksgiving is like either, so I erred on the side of caution.
[15:15:42] <Jeffrey Altman> four weeks is effectively xmas
[15:15:57] <wiesand> deja vu ...
[15:16:06] <kaduk> Would three weeks be better, then?
[15:16:30] <Jeffrey Altman> let him know two and extend a week if he asks ?
[15:17:22] <kaduk> Sounds good here.
[15:18:08] <wiesand> The changes in question are ... 11468 ? ...
[15:19:23] <Jeffrey Altman> its going to be 11468 plus other potentially other changes that are not yet in the tree
[15:19:54] <kaduk> I thought there was one other gerrit change extant, checking logs...
[15:20:25] <Jeffrey Altman> there are two issues.  The first is which timestamps should be used for which type of volume in the dump headers.   The second is whether or not the selected timestamp is correctly updated in the volume header on disk when volume meta data changes occur.
[15:21:08] <Jeffrey Altman> one change was already merged on master and then jhutz commented on the 1.6 pullup that he disagreed with it
[15:21:26] <kaduk> Ah.
[15:21:54] <wiesand> http://gerrit.openafs.org/#q,status:open+project:openafs+branch:openafs-stable-1_6_x+topic:volume-clone,n,z ?
[15:22:17] <Jeffrey Altman> Marc says there are no new Linux issues for 3.18
[15:22:25] <wiesand> Thanks :)
[15:22:34] <Jeffrey Altman> np
[15:23:02] <kaduk> 10-29 logs say 11432 but clearly mean 11433 as that topic indicates
[15:23:39] <wiesand> Right. And 11468 seems to be the answer to that.
[15:25:06] <kaduk> I will try to hammer jhutz into making time to look at them.
[15:25:20] <wiesand> So, 11468 + whatever may come up during its review, as Jeffrey said.
[15:25:32] <wiesand> Ok.
[15:25:52] <kaduk> Any volunteers to axe vos release -stayonline (or whatever it's actually called)?
[15:26:18] <Jeffrey Altman> someone from YFS will take care of it
[15:26:26] <kaduk> Thanks.
[15:27:16] <kaduk> We already merged the HOST_TO_ZERO bits (wiki needs updating), and I guess I was going to do the KeyFileExt doc and asetkey list updates.
[15:28:45] <kaduk> I don't know of any other 1.8 issues to talk about today.
[15:29:45] <wiesand> Ok, thanks for the refresh.
[15:30:48] <wiesand> I see we had also talked about “d_revalidate” (3298).
[15:31:39] <kaduk> Yeah, that was on the "to be done before release (but not necessarily before branching)" part of the wiki page.
[15:33:31] <wiesand> Good. Anything else to discuss today?
[15:33:48] <meffie> acinclude.m4 ?
[15:34:01] <wiesand> Any volunteer for writing up minutes?
[15:34:12] <kaduk> meffie: "patches welcome" ;)
[15:34:43] <meffie> heh. i pushed to my github for now.
[15:34:54] <wiesand> Mike: sorry.  I just thought there’s not much to add to your mail reply?
[15:35:22] <meffie> just trying to see if it's worth my time to continue.
[15:35:45] <kaduk> I think it seems pretty clearly worth doing, if I remember correctly from skimming the mail.
[15:36:25] <wiesand> It would really help reduce the number of conflicts between actually unrelated changes.
[15:36:27] <meffie> btw, what is the copyright/license for acinlude.m4?
[15:37:25] <kaduk> [insert laughter of the damned here]
[15:37:30] <meffie> ha
[15:37:37] <wiesand> [grins]
[15:37:54] <meffie> ok, i'll punt.
[15:39:04] <meffie> i'll finish the clean up and push to a gerrit topic for review/flames
[15:39:35] <Jeffrey Altman> license on everything that originated with IBM is IPL
[15:39:47] <deason> it should be reasonable to assume it's ipl
[15:40:01] <deason> it didn't originate from ibm, though
[15:40:02] <meffie> is after IBM, as far as i can tell?
[15:40:22] <kaduk> I want to say a lot of it is moved code, but could be wrong.
[15:40:24] <Jeffrey Altman> If you are breaking things up and are able to do so based upon commits of new code, you could add copyrights based upon the submitters
[15:40:24] <deason> the commit to create it came from jhutz, but that was just moving stuff from configure.in, which came from shadow, in aaca2cacd986ec546095a9b4e29e284070e2491e
[15:40:50] <meffie> yes
[15:41:34] <meffie> so, i think daria is the original author?
[15:41:46] <kaduk> introduce-autoconf-for-openafs-20010628, okay then
[15:41:51] <Jeffrey Altman> or was the committer of record
[15:42:19] <deason> yeah, the point of contact to ask
[15:42:43] <shadow@gmail.com/barnowlE5B64A04> i wrote outr first autoconf support on the train to boston for lisa
[15:43:08] <deason> it seems pretty reasonable to me to assume ipl, but if we want to try to say it's bsd, we probably need daris to explicitly say that or something
[15:43:09] <meffie> what license do you want for it :)
[15:43:20] <shadow@gmail.com/barnowlE5B64A04> bsd is fine
[15:43:23] <meffie> ok, thanks
[15:43:24] <deason> no no, "what license was it, which we just forgot to note down"
[15:43:39] <meffie> yes, that's what i meant to ask.
[15:43:54] <shadow@gmail.com/barnowlE5B64A04> well, given that weekend i might have said x11 at the time. i spent a
bunch of time talking to keithp
[15:44:37] <Jeffrey Altman> a file can only be relicensed if all of the contributors to the file agree
[15:45:37] <deason> yeah, it's not being relicensed
[15:46:04] <meffie> seems IPL is the safest assumption here, with the exception the generated configure file is not a derived work (like the exception for all autoconf macros)
[15:46:31] <meffie> that is the orignal commits did not specify a license we should assume IPL?
[15:46:35] <deason> generated configure isn't in the tree anymore, mike
[15:46:48] <wiesand> From comments in shadow’s inital commit (Makefile.in) it looks like GPL. acinclude.m4 was introcuded by 309122e8, w/o explicit  copyright terms.
[15:46:49] <Jeffrey Altman> assume IPL unless an explicit license was specified
[15:47:30] <deason> wiesand: you mean ipl?
[15:47:30] <Jeffrey Altman> yay
[15:47:42] <wiesand> I mean *G*PL.
[15:47:57] <deason> the initial commit by shadow explicitly mentions the IPL
[15:48:01] <deason> in that Makefile.in
[15:48:27] <wiesand> Ah, no, it says IPL. My bad.
[15:48:45] <meffie> ah, ok, yes, the aclocal doenst count here.
[15:49:25] <deason> yeah, just do IPL; this isn't the first thing anyone would want to try to use elsewhere anyway
[15:50:36] <meffie> ok, thanks.
[15:51:29] <wiesand> Thanks for caring.
[15:52:08] <wiesand> Ben, Andrew: Thanks for the +1s
[15:53:27] <wiesand> Minutes: I’ll try. Like the last few times.
[15:54:31] <wiesand> Things will eventually return to normal, but the last few weeks have been just crazy, and it’s going to last for a few more :-(
[15:56:03] <wiesand> Looks like we’re done?
[15:56:20] <Jeffrey Altman> good day
[15:56:26] <Jeffrey Altman> have to go
[15:56:38] <wiesand> Thanks a lot everyone!
[15:56:49] <wiesand> Have to go too.
[15:56:58] <wiesand> Bye.
[15:56:59] wiesand leaves the room
[15:57:24] meffie leaves the room
[16:00:12] kaduk leaves the room
[16:07:55] deason leaves the room
[19:00:01] kaduk joins the room
[22:39:26] kaduk leaves the room