20:08:58 <boutil> #startmeeting
20:08:58 <MeetBot> Meeting started Thu Jun  4 20:08:58 2015 UTC.  The chair is boutil. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
20:08:58 <MeetBot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
20:09:09 <boutil> #topic say Hi!
20:09:15 <boutil> hi! everybody!
20:09:20 <hggh> hello boutil :)
20:09:23 <boutil> welcome to the Ruby meeting
20:10:23 <lucas> hi!
20:10:39 <tnnn> hey :)
20:11:21 <boutil> so the topics today are ruby2.2, rspec3, gitlab and diaspora, and misc
20:11:40 <boutil> #topic ruby2.2
20:12:06 <boutil> terceiro is apparently ready to upload ruby2.2.
20:12:32 <hggh> so ruby-defaults will point to 2.2?
20:12:37 <boutil> I would go for it, what do you think?
20:13:07 <boutil> the question is: will we have a transition period where we build for ruby2.1 and ruby2.2?
20:13:40 <lucas> it wouldn't hurt, right?
20:13:56 <boutil> to have a smooth transition, as we had for ruby2.0→ruby2.1 (or was it ruby1.9.1→ruby2.0?)
20:14:10 <boutil> yes, I'm in favor of smooth transitions
20:14:34 <boutil> #info terceiro is ready to upload ruby2.2
20:15:03 <lucas> it's more about uploading ruby-defaults, right?
20:15:12 <lucas> ruby2.2 is already in the archive
20:15:35 <boutil> yes, indeed... sorry.
20:16:47 <hggh> perhaps we should use the transition for ruby 2.2 also to ship rsepc3. so breaking the archive only once ;)
20:18:41 <boutil> why not
20:19:08 <boutil> terceir wanted a volunteer to track various problems related to ruby2.2.
20:19:32 <hggh> or we should rebuild first all packages with rspec3 and 2.2 from exp to open bugs (I think it will be many)
20:20:36 <boutil> #action boutil will track problems related to ruby2.2
20:21:20 <boutil> #action terceiro will activate ruby2.2 in ruby-defaults
20:21:23 <tnnn> I'd go for an exp rebuild along masstest first
20:23:41 <boutil> tnnn: you mean a rebuild of all ruby arch:any packages with ruby2.2, using e.g the Amazon account?
20:24:49 <boutil> there is a priori no hurry: if ruby2.2 is activated in ruby-defaults, only new built packages will get support for ruby2.2
20:24:51 <tnnn> boutil: Yup, exactly. Antoinio has access to AWS so maybe he can schedule a quick rebuild?
20:25:19 <boutil> at some point, we'll need to ask for NMU for not updated packages
20:25:35 <boutil> but as long as ruby2.1 is the default version is ruby2.1, we are pretty safe
20:26:10 <tnnn> Mhm, I get it. Still, running a 2.2 rebuild might give us some insights
20:26:20 <boutil> I mean, the rebuild with AWS can be done in parallell.
20:26:31 <tnnn> Yup, exactly what I thought
20:26:38 <boutil> yes, it will good to know what the problems will be
20:27:13 <boutil> #info a rebuild of all arch:any package on AWS with ruby2.2 would be (very) good
20:27:43 <boutil> other comments/questions about ruby2.2?
20:28:04 <boutil> #topic rspec3
20:28:31 <boutil> We have still rspec2 in unstable, and rspec3 is available in experimental
20:29:17 <boutil> more and more upstream projects are switching to Rspec3
20:29:28 <hggh> since release of jessie is done, we can upload it to sid
20:29:40 <boutil> about 200 packages build-depend on rspec
20:30:12 <hggh> after the upload we can do a mass rebuild on aws with rspec3 from sid?
20:30:23 <boutil> I think that about 2/3 of them will FTBFS in their current state if we upload rspec3 to unstable
20:30:40 <hggh> and then we have to deal with dead upstream not fixing bugs :-/
20:30:55 <lucas> is there a way to restore compatibility with rspec2 in rspec3?
20:31:17 <lucas> to buy some time on the rspec side, rather than patch many packages?
20:32:02 <boutil> a project which used a fairly recent version of rspec2 should be ok with rspec3 if the deprecation warning were fixed
20:32:30 <boutil> there is a tool, which is supposed to help with the conversion from rspec2 to rspec3
20:33:05 <boutil> #info the transpec gem can help to update Rspec test suite to v3
20:33:48 <hggh> oh nice
20:34:07 <boutil> I also started a wiki page to list the most common problems
20:34:27 <boutil> #link https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Ruby/RSpec3
20:34:53 <boutil> almost empty, feel free to add items
20:35:02 <hggh> good work
20:35:23 <boutil> there is also a Gobby document, with the list of packages, and some triage
20:35:30 <boutil> I haven't finished yet
20:35:51 <boutil> under Teams/RubyExtras/rspec3.txt
20:36:35 <boutil> Some active upstream projects are stuck with a older version of RSpec2, and it will be more difficult
20:36:48 <boutil> e.g. yard
20:37:45 <boutil> Should we upload rspec3 to unstable, and simply deactivate (at least for the moment) test suites we cannot fix?
20:37:54 <hggh> +1; yes
20:38:04 <bsc> Just an info - the datamapper family of gems still use RSpec 1..
20:38:09 <bsc> :(
20:38:12 <boutil> :(
20:38:45 <boutil> yeah... ruby-httparty was in that situation, but surprisingly enough, a new upstream version made it jump directly to Rspec3
20:38:59 <boutil> so keep faith :)
20:39:13 <bsc> +1 for uploading rspec 3 to sid
20:39:19 <boutil> ok.
20:39:29 <boutil> #action boutil will upload rspec3 to unstable
20:39:55 <boutil> As terceiro suggested, I'll take the opportunity to make a unique tarball
20:40:11 <boutil> it will be easier to work with than the current multitarball setup
20:41:24 <boutil> #info there is a 'rspec3' BTS user tag
20:41:32 <boutil> https://udd.debian.org/cgi-bin/bts-usertags.cgi?tag=rspec3&user=debian-ruby%40lists.de
20:41:51 <boutil> #link https://udd.debian.org/cgi-bin/bts-usertags.cgi?tag=rspec3&user=debian-ruby%40lists.debian.org
20:42:06 <boutil> feel free to fill and tag some more bugs
20:42:52 <boutil> questions about rspec3?
20:43:07 <hggh> no, I'm fine
20:43:12 <boutil> #topic gitlab and diaspora
20:43:54 <hggh> did you see the mail from Pirate about crowd funding?
20:44:16 <boutil> I think that diaspora is almost ready, right?
20:44:18 <boutil> yes
20:44:37 <bsc> yes.. IIRC, diaspora is apt-gettable
20:44:40 <tnnn> yup (I did see)
20:44:53 <bsc> some more polishing works and tests are remaining I think
20:45:14 <boutil> great news.
20:45:41 <hggh> I think supporting gitlab over a release would very very hard, because gitlab fixes security with new release, they don't ship fixes for old releases
20:46:20 <boutil> there is no package diaspora ATM in the archive or in NEW. (only diaspora-installer)
20:46:38 <boutil> but there will be a diaspora binary package, right?
20:47:36 <boutil> hggh: ah :/ Is it not possible to make them change their mind?
20:48:05 <bsc> didn't gitlab guys mention something about an LTS version?
20:48:48 <hggh> I don't know. they ship there own "debs" but these debs are :( (shipping ruby and all other stuff) (Puppetlabs does this now also :( )
20:49:42 <bsc> boutil: I think Praveen is ready with the diaspora package.. he is currently undergoing some treatment and don't have much access to computers.. he may upload it soon (hopefully)
20:51:31 <boutil> bsc: ok
20:52:38 <bsc> Sytse, mentioned that they are ready to do an LTS version if it helps packaging (in a personal mail). Is that a considerable idea?
20:52:47 <boutil> bsc: can you recall the link to the status bar for Gitlab dependencies
20:52:49 <boutil> ?
20:53:38 <boutil> bsc: this is of course a considerable idea.
20:53:41 <bsc> boutil, the one I used? - http://balasankarc.in/gitlab/   - there may be some false positives/negatives
20:54:38 <boutil> FYI, I fixed my broken script, the pdf graphs should be produced successfully
20:54:46 <boutil> https://people.debian.org/~boutil/gitlab/
20:55:29 <bsc> boutil, Ah.. cool.. This was just my hobby project to learn ruby.. :)
20:56:30 <boutil> :)
20:57:00 <boutil> #info anybody is welcome to package some Gitlab dependencies
20:57:09 <boutil> #link https://people.debian.org/~boutil/gitlab/
20:57:16 <boutil> #link https://people.debian.org/~boutil/gitlab/
20:57:28 <boutil> #link http://balasankarc.in/gitlab/
20:58:19 <boutil> A good think is that upstream seems very responsive
20:58:26 <boutil> *thing
20:58:39 <bsc> boutil, I think we can send a mail to Sytse, ccying debian-ruby, about discussing more on the idea of an LTS version.. So far, they are cool to work with. :)
20:59:02 <boutil> bsc, would you like to do that?
20:59:23 <bsc> bsc, Yeah, I can do that.
21:00:02 <bsc> boutil, ^
21:00:03 <boutil> and ask if they can commit for a support of a release cycle (~3 years)
21:00:22 <bsc> boutil, ok
21:00:32 <boutil> #action bsc will contact Gitlab upstream about a possible LTS version
21:01:10 <boutil> let's move to the misc questions
21:01:21 <boutil> unless there is something to add on this
21:01:30 <boutil> #topic misc stuff
21:01:52 <boutil> are there any comments/questions ?
21:03:15 <bsc> I've a suggestion about RFSs.. Can we adapt something from DPMT - along with sending RFS to mailing list, one may add the package name to the topic of this IRC channel?? For more visibility of the RFS?
21:03:16 <boutil> do you think we can organize the meeting around 16:00 UTC next time?
21:04:23 <bsc> Well, for us from GMT+5.30, that is the better option (It is 2.30 AM here. zzzzz ). So, I am all good for UTC 1600. :)
21:04:49 <boutil> I think that the problem is not visibility for the RFS, but manpower to process them
21:05:40 <boutil> In fact, I meant 14:00
21:06:21 <boutil> I have a black zone: 16:00-19:30 UTC
21:06:40 <tnnn> Quite a few people are at GMT+1, which makes it 16 so some people might be still at work or stuck in transport. Still, it would be proably easier to join while at work so, 14 is better than 16 IMO.
21:06:59 <bsc> boutil, don't know about others, but I am good with 1400 also. :)
21:07:34 <boutil> we could make it even a bit earlier, during lunch time (in Europe)
21:07:49 <tnnn> boutil: I'd go for it if you ask me.
21:08:14 <boutil> I'll send a poll, to see what would be the most convenient time. (it will be easier than the wiki)
21:08:35 <bsc> yeah.. let's do that poll
21:09:06 <boutil> other comments/questions?
21:09:23 <bsc> none from me
21:09:36 <boutil> For RFS, no need to be a DD to review packages
21:09:55 <boutil> so everybody is invited to check packages prepared by others
21:10:07 <tnnn> That's a good point. You could learn a thing or two by reviewing...
21:10:32 <boutil> that's how praveen and I started a few years ago, along the proper packagign
21:10:43 <boutil> ok, let's close the meeting then
21:10:53 <bsc> ok
21:10:57 <boutil> #endmeeting