Meeting Minutes - Office Hours for CTI - 2026-02-27

[Andrew Pinski]

On Fri, Mar 6, 2026 at 7:23 AM Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/27/26 11:25 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 27, 2026 at 8:18 AM Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Office Hours for CTI - 2026-02-13
> > Isn't this just normal glibc branch maintaince. Why is it being
> > discussed in a CTI meeting then? Shouldn't there just be a few glibc
> > meetings about branch maintaince since it can be done even without
> > being related to the migration?
> We're talking on the list about it where everyone can comment and discuss:
>
> https://inbox.sourceware.org/libc-alpha/055968ee-ac2f-43c0-9d09-9291ebc9ed56@archlinux.org/
> https://inbox.sourceware.org/libc-alpha/3833418.oiGErgHkdL@pinacolada/
> https://inbox.sourceware.org/libc-alpha/f81ff5f1-7551-4ebb-bd59-c5466042e7c7@linaro.org/
> https://inbox.sourceware.org/libc-alpha/e9b8ed96-2cc5-4936-8de8-b169fa2ca2d6@redhat.com/
>
> Is there anything you would like me to do differently?

Yes seperate out the branch discussion and NOT discuss it during the
CTI open house at all.

>
> Is there something you think we're missing in the review of these branches?
>
> Would you like to see a different model for branch maintenance?
>
> >>     * Updated https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/SSDLC/Projects/gitolite#Branch_Structure_Evaluation

Why is this listed as part of gitolite movement? I don't see why this
can't be done even without moving gitolite.

So basically what I am trying to say is there should be 3 different
discussions, branch maintaince discussion, gitolite discussion and
CTI/LF SOW discussion.
Yes there are dependances on the first for the second and the 3rd on
the second but that does not mean they can't be indendent discussions.

So a secondary discussion is who is going to do the git hook development?
Yes there was an audit, but the implementation from what I understand
is not dependent on moving to gitolite or LF IT. Is there money put
aside to hire someone to do it or has someone already volunteered to
do? This is needed for the security side of things. Without this there
is no movement to gitolite happening.
If security is an important part of the move to gitolite, then this
needs to be done as mentioned by JSM and others.
>From what I have seen the development of the new/changed git hook has
not even started or put as an action item to do. Rather it has been
the SoW of using LF IT for hosting.



>
> --
> Cheers,
> Carlos.
>