Notes from PR Triage on January 22nd, 2014

[Andy Parker]

Joined:

Adrien, Henrik, Igor, Jeff Bechtel, Joshua, Kylo, Peter, Rob, Andrew, Ashley, Some random stoned guy

To address after review of actions from last time::

Puppet:

Held over 2x:

2137: Held off last week because of CI failures. Adrien will grab right now - Waiting on windows spec failures
2200: We appear to have coverage of the pkg provider in our acceptance tests. Commits are mostly good. Peter will fix up 2 commits (no bug number prefix) and then merge it in. - It would cause a regression. Contributor pinged. Need some guidance on how to proceed. Kylo
2212: ping haus. Dan took a look and it looks like we just need to know the origin of the patches. Note added - Thread still going on. Andy pinged haus again.

Held over 1x:

stdlib:
198: Commented. Asked one of the contributors to handle the renaming. - Andy pinged them again
204: Closed. The change was strange and the real issue seems to be inside puppet Conversion continued after close - Adrien was going to find Nan and Dan in IRC and see about it, should it be reopened and revisited
213: Delaying until the next PR triage where Henrik is available. - Henrik to comment on the PR with where it stands and where it needs to go. Start conversation on puppet-dev to discuss the future of stdlib.

New:

Puppet:

2288: According to adrien, ashp has another PR that might collide with this. Ashley will pull it into his PR and close this one
2086: Ashley and Adrien will work out the details. Looks good. Want to change the provider name from ruby to ini file
2287: Failing tests. Andy left comment for erik to fix up the test
2286: Looks good. Kylo to merge in
2284: If they want it, they can have it :) Joshua to merge in
2282: Probably not quite the right direction. Ashley to follow up with the contributor
2281: Changes default squelch from true to false, which seems like it will regress Redmine #565. Peter to take a look and give feedback.
2277: It is technically backwards incompatible, but it is also just wrong behavior that it had before. Henrik will add a test and merge it in.
2276: Looks ok, but we need a little bit of backstory to justify that we can actually do this (When exactly did ubuntu drop init?). Adrien to look into
2269: Some packaging changes. Andy pinging haus
2268: Just another property. Ashley will fold it into the grand yumrepo fix up
2243/2238/2237: Basically looks good. Adrien's comments haven't been addressed, but he'll just pick it up.
2236: Basic idea is in the right direction, but after a lot of discussion we came to the conclusion that this is a really a packaging time thing. Andy will write up a response and some suggestions on the PR.
2227/2226/2225/2130: Based on the direction that is happening on puppet-dev, it looks like these are going to sit there for a while as everything gets sorted out. Kylo will close them with a comment that we might reopen them later once we get external maintainers figured out better.

--

Andrew Parker

an...@puppetlabs.com

Freenode: zaphod42

Twitter: @aparker42

Software Developer

Join us at PuppetConf 2014, September 23-24 in San Francisco

[Jeff McCune]

On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Andy Parker <an...@puppetlabs.com> wrote:

2236: Basic idea is in the right direction, but after a lot of discussion we came to the conclusion that this is a really a packaging time thing. Andy will write up a response and some suggestions on the PR.

I'm a little confused since the purpose of the change in behavior is to avoid forcing end users to repackage puppet in order to get the desired behavior.  If this remains a packaging task how do you envision those who use the "official" puppet Gem released to rubygems.org realizing this change in behavior?

Do you have a sense of when the PR will be updated with suggestions?  I ask because I'll be traveling for awhile starting tomorrow morning and would love to sort this out before then.

Thanks for reviewing it.

Cheers,

--

Jeff McCune