16:00:33 <djmitche> #startmeeting weekly
16:00:33 <bb-supy> Meeting started Tue Jul 18 16:00:33 2017 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is djmitche. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:00:33 <bb-supy> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
16:00:33 <bb-supy> The meeting name has been set to 'weekly'
16:00:54 <djmitche> #topic Introduction
16:01:02 <djmitche> #link http://bit.ly/2rup31x Agenda
16:01:19 <djmitche> #nick tardyp
16:01:24 <djmitche> who else is here for the meeting?
16:01:48 <djmitche> #info Apologies for last week - I got something scheduled over the meeting at the last minute
16:02:32 <tardyp> Same happened to me too..
16:02:39 <djmitche> at least we did it the same week :)
16:02:52 <djmitche> #topic Week(s) in Review
16:02:54 <bdbaddog> :D
16:02:55 <djmitche> what's new?
16:02:58 <tardyp> looks like we have our weekly summary email blocked
16:03:09 <tardyp> last week I received it on wednesday
16:03:13 <djmitche> is that related tot he DNS issues mentioned earlier?
16:03:19 <tardyp> might be
16:04:20 <bdbaddog> Yup. didn't get updates this week either.
16:04:39 <djmitche> #info weekly update email appears to be malfunctioning - maybe related to systems issues
16:04:40 <bdbaddog> Did get last weeks updates on time.
16:05:07 <djmitche> I did too, I remember seeingit in my mailbox after I had missed the meeting :)
16:07:15 <djmitche> anything else this week?
16:07:20 * djmitche fills awkward silence
16:07:45 <tardyp> I was trying to figure out the news
16:07:51 <tardyp> actually it is pretty quite
16:07:54 <tardyp> a few bugs
16:08:38 <tardyp> new rolesFromDomain authz plugin, which allows to give roles to anybody with an email @company.com
16:08:44 <skelly> bug filing is definitely way up since move to github
16:09:00 <skelly> feels like greater participation overall
16:09:01 <tardyp> looks like we are in the summer period. after a big June month, July is quiet
16:09:14 <skelly> (DNS is still borked too)
16:09:14 <tardyp> skelly: agreed
16:09:44 <djmitche> #info feels like participation is up since moving issues to github - lots more bugs filed
16:09:53 <djmitche> ok, let's talk dns
16:09:56 <tardyp> also since we didn't meet  last week, I released a 0.9.9.post2
16:10:11 <djmitche> oh, nice - what's new in that?
16:10:16 <djmitche> #info released 0.9.9.post2
16:10:19 <tardyp> because post1 had a lot of issue as our setup.py didn't like to have a postfix
16:10:21 <skelly> not broken ;)
16:10:31 <djmitche> that's good!
16:10:46 <djmitche> so it was packaging fixes?
16:10:55 <tardyp> it wasn't broken, but the tarball wheren't properly pushed, and the distro guys were complaining about that
16:11:09 <tardyp> its a good thing to have distro guys complaining
16:11:22 <djmitche> indeed!
16:11:27 <djmitche> it used to be distros were a year or more behind
16:11:39 <djmitche> #info fixes a broken tarball upload
16:11:43 <djmitche> #topic Systems Issues - DNS
16:11:55 <djmitche> so what's going on? I think I'm missing part of the context here
16:12:25 <skelly> tl;dr:
16:12:25 <skelly> $ host www.github.com
16:12:26 <skelly> Host www.github.com not found: 5(REFUSED)
16:12:26 <tardyp> so this morning, I had 500 errors on nine.bb.net when connecting via github
16:12:41 <tardyp> and I debugged that as being a DNS issue
16:12:56 <tardyp> not sure if its only github
16:13:06 <skelly> everything
16:13:14 <tardyp> right
16:13:17 <djmitche> ok, so resolution from BB infra is broken
16:13:41 <djmitche> #info DNS resolution from BB infra is broken
16:13:44 <tardyp> we could switch to
16:13:47 <bdbaddog> who provides DNS for buildbot.net?
16:13:53 <skelly> OSUOL
16:14:00 <skelly> (it's hosted there)
16:14:03 <djmitche> I think the direct upstream is ns.rtems.org
16:14:11 <bdbaddog> any other systems on OSUOL running into issues?
16:14:18 <skelly> I wonder if the nameservers moved
16:14:29 <djmitche> I stand corrected - is osuosl
16:15:02 <djmitche> so we could file an OSUOSL support req
16:15:23 <djmitche> support@osuosl.org
16:15:31 <djmitche> and copy amar?
16:15:47 <tardyp> right
16:16:16 <djmitche> skelly: you want to do that or should I?
16:16:31 <djmitche> #info will file an OSUOSL support request, as the recursive resolvers are theirs
16:16:39 <skelly> I'll send something
16:16:41 <djmitche> kk
16:16:50 <djmitche> #action skelly will contact support
16:17:05 <djmitche> #topic Broken mentionbot: action: nocolour
16:17:12 <tardyp> noc0lour: ?
16:17:17 <djmitche> Did this get fixed?
16:17:30 <tardyp> no
16:18:34 <noc0lour> oh hi
16:18:45 <noc0lour> I investigated into the issue
16:18:47 <djmitche> hi!
16:19:03 <noc0lour> and it seems that the "original" mention-bot user and its comments are deleted
16:19:21 <noc0lour> and thus there is no bot user anymore commenting on our PRs
16:19:35 <noc0lour> we could self-host that thing if we want to have a mention bot
16:19:39 <noc0lour> requires nodejs
16:19:48 <tardyp> so they are stopping it as a service?
16:20:04 <skelly> booo figures
16:20:11 <noc0lour> there is no official announcement, but looks like it.
16:20:18 <tardyp> weird
16:20:20 <djmitche> darn facebook
16:20:24 <djmitche> it was probably costing too much
16:20:24 <noc0lour> the heroku service is still online and accepting PRs
16:20:27 <djmitche> they have such small profits
16:20:52 <skelly> email sent
16:20:56 <djmitche> ++
16:21:06 <tardyp> probably the guy who maintained this go hired by tesla..
16:21:06 <noc0lour> https://github.com/facebook/mention-bot/issues/230 <<
16:21:27 <skelly> I like the PS
16:21:43 <djmitche> subtle :)
16:21:54 <djmitche> well, we certainly have the cycles to host it on our infra
16:22:03 <tardyp> frankly I am not sure if it wasn't more an annoyment than a value added
16:22:14 <djmitche> oh!
16:22:25 <djmitche> it could probably be implemented with suggested reviews + the new code-ownership stuff
16:22:51 <tardyp> yes, there is suggested review, which does similar thing
16:22:57 <djmitche> also, I think part of the idea was to broaden "ownership" by pinging people other than tardyp to do reviews -- how well did it do that?
16:23:18 <tardyp> I am not convinced we got more reviews because of it
16:23:24 <djmitche> ok
16:23:36 <djmitche> maybe we could do without and/or set up code ownership?
16:23:42 <djmitche> https://github.com/blog/2392-introducing-code-owners
16:23:45 <tardyp> I know that people interresting in doing reviews are just registered to PR events
16:23:51 <djmitche> yeah
16:24:06 <djmitche> I have my review assignments hooked up to TaskWarrior, but I'm werid
16:24:08 <djmitche> *weird
16:24:58 <djmitche> are there >1 code owners?
16:25:57 <tardyp> not really
16:26:41 <tardyp> the fact is for low used component, I'd like the original author to actually be more involved, but practically there are not..
16:27:11 <tardyp> djmitche tried the maintainer file once. I am not sure it worked
16:27:21 <tardyp> I dont think a OWNER file would work better :-/
16:27:33 <djmitche> ok
16:27:40 <djmitche> so should we just leave mention-bot as-is?
16:27:48 <noc0lour> so basically we want to drop mention-bot and don't replace it?
16:28:33 <tardyp> well, we can keep it, and see if it comes back
16:28:48 <djmitche> ok
16:29:04 <djmitche> #agreed will keep using mention-bot if it starts working again, but won't try to replace it with something else
16:29:06 <tardyp> so we remove that from topics.
16:29:10 <djmitche> anything else?
16:29:11 <djmitche> yep
16:29:22 <djmitche> "Anonymous Ifrit" :)
16:29:58 <djmitche> #endmeeting