Re: meeting

[Eric Bachalo <ebachalo at redhat dot com>]

Elena Zannoni wrote:
> Thanks for posting the minutes, I was out of town.
> I have a question, what is Redhat's position on the versions of frysk
> shipped with
> fedora and RHEL? They were tech previews, but are they going to be kept
> there?
> or obsoleted? Or?

Good questions.  I don't have answers today, but answers to these
questions will be forthcoming,

- Eric

> 
> elena
> 
> 
> Tom Tromey wrote:
>> Tom> I reset the bridge using a trick to try to work around its
>> Tom> timezone woes.  I used this successfully once last week -- I hope
>> Tom> it works again tomorrow.
>>
>> It did, yay.
>>
>> Tom> My agenda items are:
>> [...]
>>
>> Some outcomes:
>>
>> * Thiago is happy with the decision.  As far as we can tell he was the
>>   only non-RH person on the call.
>>
>> * There is some confusion about our relationship to gdb.  This is
>>   understandable, IMO, since it is a bit vague.  Basically I think the
>>   best way to think about this project is that it is a development
>>   branch with reasonably specific goals (see the earlier threads).
>>
>> * Speaking of the goals, an action item for everyone is to look at the
>>   roadmap and see (1) if anything is missing, and (2) what you are
>>   interested in working on.
>>
>>   For #1, Sami asked about the state of non-stop multi-thread
>>   debugging.  There are patches on the list.  Andrew asked about the
>>   multi-process work, but we don't really know enough about it yet --
>>   the discussion on the gdb list seems to be preliminary
>>   investigation.
>>
>> * There was general consensus that we should not reuse the frysk list
>>   for this work.  So, we will set up a new list.  Project name ideas
>>   that I remember:
>>
>>   gdb--
>>
>>   Hmm, that is the only one I wrote down, but I know Phil had another
>>   one.
>>
>>   "--" seems a bit dismal to me, but "++" seems a bit arrogant :)
>>   How about "Project Pelican"?
>>
>>   Or anything else.  Please.
>>
>>   I'd like to settle this today, so...  respond.
>>
>> * Where to host?  Lots of hosting choices out there, but sourceware
>>   seems like the default.  We all have accounts, we have access, etc.
>>   I'd like to get things set up ASAP, say today.
>>
>> * Talked about source control some.  Jim Meyering is setting up a git
>>   mirror of gdb CVS.  We'll use this as our upstream and have our own
>>   git repository.
>>
>>   Andrew brought up gdb's eventual move to svn.  We can revisit our
>>   choices if/when that happens.
>>
>> * We talked about our planned process.
>>
>>   The basic change is introducing universal patch review.  The scratch
>>   idea is:
>>
>>   - All patches must be reviewed by someone other than the author.
>>   - I forgot to mention this, but Apache-like, a strong objection
>>     should stall a patch until a rough consensus is reached.
>>   - Anybody "in the project" can review a patch.  In fact, I think it
>>     is pretty important that everybody do reviews.
>>   - Proposed patch review guidelines:
>>     * Does it have internal documentation (comments)?
>>     * Does it follow upstream coding style?
>>     * Does it have external documentation, if needed?
>>     * Does it have a test case, if needed?
>>     * Is it clear/complete/etc?
>>
>>   Andrew asked about how we will decide to accept new contributors
>>   into the fold.  I think we'll solve this when it comes up.
>>
>> * Action items, for me:
>>   - Set up hosting, mailing list
>>   - Send consolidated roadmap to the new list
>>     (Probably process stuff too)
>>   - Send announcement to gdb list
>>
>> Tom
>>
>>   
> 
>