=== johnc4510-laptop is now known as johnc4510[A]
=== johnc4510[A] is now known as johnc4510-laptop
=== Pere_Noel is now known as illovae
=== Varka_ is now known as Varka
=== johnc4510-laptop is now known as johnc4510[A]
=== johnc4510[A] is now known as johnc4510-laptop
=== asac_ is now known as asac
=== Riddelll is now known as Riddell
=== _czessi is now known as Czessi
=== sladen_ is now known as sladen
theunixgeekWhen's the next meeting16:40
ubotuCurrent time in Etc/UTC: December 15 2007, 16:40:29 - Next meeting: Server Team meeting in 2 days16:40
theunixgeekthank you16:41
=== \sh_away is now known as \sh
=== Mamarok is now known as markey
=== \sh is now known as \sh_away
=== bigon_ is now known as bigon
=== alleeHol is now known as allee
ubotuCurrent time in Etc/UTC: December 15 2007, 21:00:21 - Next meeting: Server Team meeting in 2 days21:00
imbrandonDktrKranz , LaserJock , ummm21:00
imbrandonwhoelse we need ?21:00
imbrandonheya nixternal21:01
DktrKranzthemuso and jdong21:01
nixternalwasabi...impromptu meeting?21:01
imbrandonnixternal: well kinda, we dident put it on the fridge but yea21:01
imbrandonafk one sec, ping me when all showup21:02
somerville32What meeting is this?21:06
norsettothe 3 of the Apocalypse21:07
DktrKranzwasn't is about some Sergio Leone's spaghetti western?21:07
DktrKranzI've seen them too many times I'dont even remember21:08
norsettohave you been cleaning the u-u-s queue recently? Seems to be getting back to a reasonable size again21:09
DktrKranzA couple of bugs, yes21:09
norsettotell Mario that if he requests sponsoring for another desktop/icon file I'm personally going to find him in his house and burn it down21:10
DktrKranzLOL, why?21:10
norsettoits about time he starts doing something  ... hmmmm ... with more meat in it21:11
somerville32Mario who?21:11
DktrKranznorsetto, time for him to do something more "useful"21:12
TheMusoSorry I'm late guys.21:12
DktrKranzNot at all :)21:12
imbrandonok, TheMuso jdong DktrKranz  , how does this look https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates/imbrandon21:13
DktrKranzwe've just finished and uploaded almost everything21:13
norsettowell ... its not that what he did was not useful, at least it was for him, but after the 256785th one it gets on my nerves21:13
imbrandonok shhhhh21:13
imbrandonplease :) heh lets do the stuff at hand for the SRU team then we'll chit-chat :)21:13
imbrandonTheMuso: no worries :)21:13
jdongimbrandon: looking...21:13
* DktrKranz looks21:14
imbrandonbasicly the changes i made were to 1) wipe out the old universe update proceedure and 2) make 2 amendments for universe , otherwise its exactly the same as main21:14
* norsetto sleeps21:14
TheMusoimbrandon: where on the page should I look21:14
TheMusoah ok21:15
imbrandonTheMuso: #universe21:15
imbrandonthis way we can stay as close to main sru policy as possible, i realy dont see much of a reason to diverge, only we do the work vs the main sru team21:15
imbrandonsplitting the workload etc21:16
TheMusoSOunds good.21:16
jdongimbrandon: yeah, sounds good to me, too -- I like how closely it follows the -main procedure21:16
DktrKranzthere's another difference21:17
DktrKranzit's about verification21:17
imbrandonyea really we just add a few more "when" clauses21:17
DktrKranzin main, it is done by SRU verification team, in universe by two persons21:17
imbrandonwe can also handle the verification, they do in main also its just not updated on the page21:18
imbrandonbasicly verification is just bug triageing21:19
imbrandonif you look21:19
TheMusoHow do we indicate an ack?21:19
TheMusoAnd what gets done when theres a second ack?21:19
DktrKranzso, no more "two works for me" ?21:19
somerville32I'd like to propose another exception21:19
jdongwell the packages in -universe might not be as easy for team members to do as in main, IMO21:19
jdongi.e. we should let any ordinary Joe help with verification21:19
jdongbut perhaps make ~motu-sru final say in whether or not we're satisfied with the verifications21:20
imbrandonTheMuso: just by one of us explisitly saying ACK on the bug21:20
norsettotags should also be differents (motu-verification needed and motu-verification-done) ?21:20
DktrKranznorsetto, indeed21:20
DktrKranzsomerville32, which one?21:20
somerville32DktrKranz, Packages containing purely documentation21:22
geserI see that a reason for an SRU is also FTBFS. Does it only apply when old binaries exist or also when the packages FTBFS from the beginning?21:23
imbrandonthat seems reasonable to me21:23
imbrandongeser: either21:23
jdonghow is ~motu-sru notified of a proposal pending approval?21:23
DktrKranzis it a issue going for the NEW queue?21:23
DktrKranz(for new binaries)21:24
jdongdoes the nominate for $release functionality already ping us?21:24
imbrandonDktrKranz: no shouldent be a problem21:24
imbrandonjdong: huh?21:24
imbrandonno ~motu-sru is subscribed to the bug21:24
imbrandone.g. email21:24
jdongimbrandon: ok, so the subscription is done manually by the filer. gotcha21:25
DktrKranzjdong, does that feature generate any bugmail? I was not aware of that21:25
* TheMuso wonders whether we have anything else to discuss.21:25
jdongDktrKranz: apparently not. It would be nice if it did, though :)21:25
TheMusoI need to head off for a bit soon.21:25
somerville32Should I modify /imbrandon to state the doc exception?21:26
imbrandonok so addition of the doc only packages, and motu specifc tags, anything else ?21:26
imbrandonsomerville32: i got a lock on it21:26
TheMusoIMO if it can be as close to main as possible, thats a good thing21:26
imbrandonTheMuso: yup thats the goal21:26
jdongsounds great to me21:26
DktrKranzthe only remaining issue is verification, then21:26
TheMusosomerville32: Mind explaining the doc exception?21:27
DktrKranzwe need to diverge in some way21:27
imbrandonDktrKranz: verification is done by motu-sru as i said21:27
somerville32TheMuso, If a package contains only documentation, it is an exception to the SRU rational21:27
DktrKranzand we need to include it as well21:27
TheMusosomerville32: How so?21:27
imbrandonDktrKranz: sure21:27
somerville32TheMuso, ie. A package containing only documentation does not have to meet the normal rational for an SRU21:28
imbrandonsomerville32: we need to check on that one, it might botch translations21:28
TheMusosomerville32: But what might need changing?21:28
TheMusoI'm not saying I don't agree, I'd just like some good reasoning as to why we should make it an exception.21:28
somerville32TheMuso, We've already had cases where we've needed to do an SRU for docs and Pitti said he had no problem approving them21:29
TheMusosomerville32: What needed changing?21:29
somerville32I would have to look up the changelog21:29
imbrandonsomerville32: all we're asking is for an example21:29
DktrKranzsomerville32, in that case, pitti uploaded packages straight to -updates?21:30
imbrandoni would also want to make sure it dosent botch translations to a stable release too21:30
TheMusoimbrandon: Agreed.21:30
imbrandonDktrKranz: no21:30
somerville32DktrKranz, No, it went through normal testing.21:30
imbrandonDktrKranz: exceptions mean tey are eligable for a sru21:30
DktrKranzok, thanks21:30
imbrandonNOTHING goes right to -updates hehe21:31
somerville32Although this doesn't apply to Universe, I know that the server team wants to do an SRU for their docs21:31
DktrKranzimbrandon, and it's a great thing! :)21:31
DktrKranzI was worried :)21:31
imbrandonlaser should be here in moments21:32
TheMusook I can't stay long though21:32
imbrandonanyhow i think we pretty much have it down pat21:32
DarkSun88Hi all21:32
imbrandonjust those few changes21:32
imbrandonagreed? tag changes and those fre exceptions21:32
jdong+1 :)21:33
nixternaljust wanted to be different, of course +121:33
* somerville32 slaps nixternal with a wet noodle21:33
TheMusonixternal: lol21:33
imbrandonLaserJock: just to recap, i have a working doc at wiki/SRU/imbrandon , basic changes are throw out any old universe sru policy and go with mains with only 2 exceptions, more SRU worthy updates ( noted on wiki ) and motu specific tags21:34
DktrKranzwhat about pending SRUs? do they follow old policy or should we take them into account?21:34
imbrandonits unamimous if you +1 it21:34
TheMusoDktrKranz: I'd say keep them as is21:34
DktrKranzthese --^21:34
imbrandonDktrKranz: the pending sru's on that page are already uploaded, ones in the QUEUE on LP should be updated to follow this meetings decision21:35
LaserJockimbrandon: it seems our policy really doesn't differ from Main, do we need a separate section?21:35
TheMusoLaserJock: For tags and our extra exceptions.21:36
imbrandonLaserJock: no i'm gonna update the page so it looks better, and intergrate it with one policy and just NOTE: sections for universe21:36
imbrandonafter we all agree21:36
imbrandonthat was just how the old page did it so i quickly updated it21:37
imbrandondurring the meeting21:37
LaserJockimbrandon: do we really have extra exceptions?21:37
imbrandoncleanup and beuitification can be done after :)21:37
imbrandonLaserJock: yes21:37
DktrKranzDo we keep minimum aging period? I think main does not have something like that21:37
imbrandonDktrKranz: yes they do21:37
LaserJockimbrandon: doesn't look like it to me21:37
DktrKranzimbrandon, yes, I overlooked :)21:38
imbrandonLaserJock: FTBFS, cannot install, and segfault on startup ( e.g. completely un-usable ), and documentaion only packages21:38
LaserJockI think those are all SRUable in Main21:38
imbrandonnot currently21:38
imbrandonit widens it just a tad21:38
somerville32Whats written down and what actually happens is a bit different21:38
imbrandone.g. not all FTBFS are regressions and such, so no not all those in main21:39
LaserJockMain only says high-impact bugs21:39
LaserJockFTBFS, segfault, uninstallable in general seem high-impact21:40
imbrandonnot always in the eyes of the main sru team, this we are stateing them explisitly21:40
imbrandonif they do fall into some overlap no loss, we just adding some verbage21:40
TheMusoOk guys, I gotta run.21:41
imbrandonTheMuso: cool21:41
* TheMuso will leave this channel open and read later21:41
DktrKranzshould we cover bugs similar to malone 176435? it renders package unusable21:42
ubotuLaunchpad bug 176435 in twill "python-twill missing a dependency" [Undecided,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/17643521:42
DktrKranzthis one is a missing dep21:42
imbrandonDktrKranz: that falls under uninstallable21:42
LaserJockwell, I'm just worried if we have delta from Main21:42
DktrKranzimbrandon, it is installable, but not usable at all21:43
imbrandonDktrKranz: i would have to look closer but it seems like it would21:43
LaserJockI think we should agree on the kinds of things we think should be SRU internally21:43
LaserJockbut I like vague language on the SRU wiki page21:43
LaserJockDktrKranz: that would be a regression21:44
imbrandonLaserJock: umm yea thats what the doc and meeting is about hehe, it seems we are all on the same page but imho DktrKranz needs a bit og hand holding as he is very green21:44
imbrandonno offense DktrKranz :)21:44
* DktrKranz takes his gun and loads it with some bullets21:45
imbrandonanyhow LaserJock yes there would be a delta from main but pitti has already signed off on it as "ok" and the other sru team members, i dont think the delta is that large, infatc it is very very very small compared to even what pitti proposed on the ML21:45
LaserJockI was thinking we should just s/~ubuntu-sru/~motu-sru/21:46
LaserJockdoes that not work?21:46
imbrandonyes it does, but in addition to ( since universe doesnt get as much QA ) we should have these21:47
LaserJockhave what?21:47
imbrandonthe extra SRU canidate rules21:47
imbrandonthe only delta21:47
LaserJockbut they aren't21:47
imbrandonbut they ARE21:47
LaserJockthe Main SRU policy would cover those21:47
LaserJockthe only actual policy there is that it must be "high impact"21:48
LaserJockbut what that actually means is up to us21:48
imbrandonLaserJock: not in the main sru teams eyes they arent, and not all of them are, we are hurting nothing by explisitly stating them if you think they overlap21:48
LaserJockso why not keep it that way?21:48
imbrandonplus there is no doc exception21:49
LaserJockwell, my concern would be that people see that as saying that you *can't* do those types of SRUs in Main21:49
LaserJockwhich is just not true21:49
imbrandonno not at all, and either way its not our problem21:49
imbrandonmain sru can choose to clarify too if they feel the need to21:50
LaserJockbut why do we need to clarify? I guess that's my question21:50
LaserJockI don't really get why we need to explicitly mention those. Is it because people don't know they can?21:51
imbrandonummm i explained this 3 or 4 times already , main sru team dosent ALWAYS acept those as canidates, we are explitily saying we will21:51
LaserJockhmm, I don't think we should *always* either21:51
LaserJockthey should all be case-by-case21:51
LaserJockbut in general yes, I would be all for those kinds of exceptions21:52
imbrandonthen whats the problem i dont get your reasoning21:52
LaserJockthat we'd be creating needless diff and confusing the issue21:52
LaserJockthe language is intentionally vague, IMO21:53
imbrandonok then all i can say at this point is its been +1'd by all , propose your only changing the team name and see what everyone thinks, i personaly think this is a important verbage cahnge21:53
LaserJockwell, that's what I'm trying to get at21:54
LaserJockobviously people like the change, so I'm trying to understand it21:54
LaserJockI'm not sure how the verbage is gonna change21:55
imbrandonwell they like it because it does clairify the diffrence, your looking at it from a no diff, diff is "OK" if its minimal and servers seomthing, in htis case its both21:55
LaserJockwell, I'm actually saying there really isn't any diff21:55
LaserJockI've seen every case we're talking about as "exceptions" done in Main21:56
imbrandonLaserJock: there IS, in your opinion there might not be, but not everyone will interret it the way you do so its GOOD to clarify21:56
LaserJockok, so what if we talked to ~ubuntu-sru about these and perhaps expand the examples?21:57
LaserJockthose are just examples, not an exhaustive list or anything21:57
imbrandonwhat does that matter to us?21:57
LaserJockbecause we have the same issues before us21:57
LaserJockan SRU really shouldn't matter if it's in Main or Universe21:57
imbrandonugh no we dont inhaently we have very diffrent issues21:58
imbrandonsure it does21:58
* TheMuso is back. Took less time than I thought21:58
LaserJockmy experience is that Main does the same kinds of SRUs that Universe does21:58
LaserJockso why create diff where it doesn't really exist21:58
imbrandonugh LaserJock ok my point here is we need to decide on a policy, if later someone wants to do the legwork and see if "upstream would like to merge" sweet , i'm all for it, but it should NOT be a blocker for us21:59
LaserJockimbrandon: right, I'm saying our policy is the same as Main's21:59
LaserJockbut you're wanting to add some more examples21:59
imbrandonand i'm saying it is "alomst" and it needs to be clarified and these words added22:00
LaserJockwhich is fine, I agree with you there22:00
LaserJockalright, well whatever, it's not a biggie22:00
imbrandonand if you feel main would benifet from those changes too cool, propose them to them, but why does that stop us from doing it now22:00
LaserJockit doesn't22:00
LaserJockthey're only freaking examples :-)22:01
LaserJockit's not policy22:01
imbrandonwell thats the thing, this IS policy22:01
LaserJockwell, that's what I was trying to say earlier22:01
imbrandonor is going to be22:01
LaserJockwe should have internal polices of what we want to take22:01
imbrandoni'm hearing you in circles now22:02
LaserJockbut the SRU wiki page shouldn't have an exhaustive list of what we'll take22:02
LaserJockbecause then there's no point in having MOTU SRU22:02
LaserJockthe whole point of having the team is that these need to be decided on a case-by-case basis22:02
LaserJockI'm sure there will be some high-impact bugs that we'll reject22:03
LaserJockbecause the changes are just to invasive for us to do22:03
imbrandonright if it falls into one of those categorys, its not an exasutive list it is a list of acceptable categorys22:03
imbrandonbut the categorys have to be defined exastively22:04
imbrandonnot "examples"22:04
LaserJockand I find that so trivial (and the same as Main) so I don't see why it justifies a diff22:04
LaserJockthat's not true22:04
LaserJockthose categories are examples22:04
LaserJocknot exhaustive, even of types of SRU22:05
LaserJockas far as I understand22:05
LaserJockanyway, we can talk to Ubuntu SRU about that later22:05
LaserJockthis is such a trivial thing we don't need to argue over it22:05
imbrandoni have no desire to talk to Ubuntu SRU about it, but feel free to, i'm here to solidify our policy22:05
imbrandonmy point exactly22:06
LaserJockso my question would be, are we gonna take SRUs that would not fall in those categories or do we want to talk them over?22:06
imbrandonif it dosent fall into one of those categorys , yes i think a consensus is needed, but that my 0.2c22:07
LaserJockseems reasonable22:07
LaserJockok, any other diff?22:07
imbrandonmotu specific tags22:07
imbrandonis the only other thing22:08
LaserJockwhy do we need motu specific tags?22:08
imbrandoni dident think so but the rest of the team did so i went with it, cant hurt, only makes it easier to seperate them on lp22:08
LaserJockhmm, I don't really see the point22:09
TheMusoimbrandon: Yes, there is the searching side of things that separates them a lot more easily.22:09
LaserJockseems like added confusion22:09
imbrandonbecause how else are we gonna find them LaserJock22:09
DktrKranzmh, that's a good point, is MOTU tags really needed?22:09
LaserJockyou can do the same thing22:09
LaserJockyou can search for the tag + Universe component22:09
LaserJockso we'd just have a tinyurl for that22:09
LaserJockthat would do the same thing as a motu-specific tag no?22:09
imbrandonbut is main gonna be "ok" filtering out our stuff from their searches22:10
LaserJockthey're gonna have to be ;-)22:10
LaserJockthis is the whole point of being able to do such searches22:10
LaserJockyou can have a tag and then filter the specific responses you want22:10
imbrandonok i have no opinion either way, either seems just as easy, so i'm +0 , yall ?22:11
LaserJockI seriously doubt Ubuntu SRU can claim exclusivity to "verification-needed"22:11
LaserJockand really, the point is for people testing22:12
imbrandonyea seems eassy enough if we can also filter by component22:12
LaserJockand I don't see why they'd really care what component it's in22:12
* TheMuso is not fussed either way22:12
DktrKranzI have no problem using the same tags, but we should update our links22:12
imbrandonDktrKranz: we will22:12
DktrKranzand eventually ask pitti to adjust his script22:12
DktrKranzI think it consider universe SRUs verified by looking at verification-motu-done22:13
LaserJockDktrKranz: what would he have to adjust?22:13
imbrandonDktrKranz: thats alll tech stuff that can follow policy, policy shouldnt follow tech :)22:13
DktrKranzof course :)22:13
LaserJockok, so ...22:15
imbrandonokies we 're going just over an hoour here, i think we're all on the same page, we just add a few exmples ( and LaserJock can poke the main sru if they want them also ) and s/ubuntu-sru/motu-sru , other than that we stuck with main policy22:15
LaserJockdarn, I messed everything up22:15
imbrandoneveryone good with that ?22:15
LaserJockimbrandon: do you have text for the exceptions?22:15
imbrandonLaserJock: give me 2 seconds and i will22:15
LaserJockI still don't like it but hopefully Ubuntu SRU would agree to absorb the changes22:16
imbrandonFTBFS, cannot install, and segfault on startup ( e.g. completely un-usable ), Documentation only packages22:16
LaserJockright, but I was actually thinking how we were gonna word the intro to those22:17
LaserJockbut whatever, I'll get over it ;-)22:17
imbrandonahh ummm22:17
LaserJockcause I can't really see how "In addition, for Universe the following examples:"22:17
LaserJockis gonna work22:18
LaserJockanyway, +1 from me22:19
imbrandon"In Universe ... also qualifies as high-impact-bugs " or similar22:19
imbrandoni would think22:19
imbrandon... can also qualify as ...22:19
LaserJockI don't like the high-impact part as well though for doc-only SRUs22:20
LaserJockusually they aren't high-impact, more low-rish22:20
imbrandonok so +1 from all but jdong and afaik he is afk, seems like he is outvoted either way, we'll note him as abstaining22:20
jdongimbrandon: aaah just got back22:20
DktrKranzjust in time :)22:21
* jdong reads scrollback22:21
* DktrKranz gotta go22:21
jdongor does someone wanna summarize for me?22:21
DktrKranzI'll read log later22:21
imbrandoneveryone good with that ?22:21
imbrandonokies we 're going just over an hoour here, i think we're all on the same page, we just add a few exmples ( and LaserJock can poke the main sru if they want them also ) and s/ubuntu-sru/motu-sru , other than that we stuck with main policy22:21
imbrandonjdong: ^22:21
DktrKranzbut, +1 for me22:21
DktrKranzsee you22:22
TheMusoyeah +1 as I said22:22
jdongimbrandon: yeah, that sounds good to me22:22
DarkSun88Good job. :)22:22
imbrandon\0/ , okies i'll have the page updated within ~20 minutes ( spellchecked hehe )22:23
DarkSun88See you.22:23
jdongyay, now back to this 24oz steak....22:23
imbrandonand someone is free to mail the ML if they want22:23
imbrandon*i dunt wanna* lol22:23
LaserJockoh, wondered if we wanted some sort of "goal" for turnaround22:23
LaserJock*I wondered22:23
imbrandonwho and huh?22:23
jdonglike turnaround time?22:23
imbrandonoh we22:23
imbrandonummm i dont think we should try since we're all un-paid22:24
imbrandonother than "best efforts"22:24
LaserJockjust as a goal, so we're on the same page22:24
jdongI think 1 week for decision, 2-3wks for verification sounds reasonable as a GUIDELINE22:24
jdongbut best effort otherwise22:24
LaserJockI was thinking 1 day for straight approval, 2 if it takes discussion, but maybe that's unreasonable22:25
jdongLaserJock: wow, ambitious22:25
LaserJockwell, there are 5 of us and it only takes 122:25
LaserJockand all we need to do is "paperwork"22:25
imbrandonLaserJock: yea i think thats a bit ambisious, i think "best effort" is good , we're all not persia hhehe22:26
LaserJocklol, true that22:26
jdongmost approvals should be a 10-minute deal on our part.... but it's best not to rush it with a time factor IMO22:26
imbrandonbut one week is a fair "goal" as a guideline imho22:26
jdongif on average an approval takes more than a week, I think that's a warning flag that ~motu-sru isn't working well22:26
imbrandonthats even if we're all busy22:26
LaserJockas long as *we* aren't bottlenecking SRUs22:26
LaserJockok, so what's happening to the existing SRUs?22:27
imbrandonif things on avg are takin more than a week we'll get the MC to step in and get us some help22:27
jdongsounds good22:27
imbrandonLaserJock: well we agreed i think earlier that ones already with an uplaod will follow the old way, ones in the queue now on LP should be updated to the new policy22:27
TheMusoI still think best effort22:27
TheMusorealy, if it takes over a week, it takes over a week22:28
imbrandonTheMuso: yea22:28
jdongTheMuso: well.. yeah... not like the MC can come and put us in jail if we take too long22:28
jdongor suspend our paychecks :)22:28
TheMusoMy point exactly.22:28
jdongbut that doesn't mean we shouldn't have a guideline for how long it should acceptably take22:28
LaserJockTheMuso: my only real problem with that is consistency, people start getting upset when their SRU took 2 weeks and somebody else's take 2 days22:28
TheMusoI know that I may not be able to get to them all all the time22:28
LaserJockI realize we're all volunteers and best effort is as good as we can do22:29
TheMusoLaserJock: So what. Seriously, we are all volunteers.22:29
jdongTheMuso: volunteers can still measure how well they are doing thier work22:29
TheMusoPeople need to get over it if something takes shorter than someting else22:29
LaserJockjdong: that was more my reasoning22:29
jdongTheMuso: the guideline will strictly be a way we can assess how well the team is working, and if we need to change the process or recruit, etc22:30
LaserJockif we have a goal and we're consistently not getting there then maybe we need an adjustment22:30
jdongTheMuso: it's not designed to be a hard deadline to punish us22:30
TheMusojdong: I know that.22:30
LaserJockanyway, we sounds like we should try to take no longer than a week22:30
jdonga week is a reasonable guideline22:30
LaserJockunless of course it actually takes that long to get all the info, etc.22:30
imbrandonokies i got to run for ~30 minutes and then i'll update the wiki, i think we can officialy adjourn, no need for more special meetings do we other than regualr -motu meetings22:31
* TheMuso should be right once he has the motu-sru bugmail sorted.22:31
jdongexcpetions granted for less clear cases that need more time to evaluate22:31
jdongbut at least a status update a week from ~motu-sru so that it doesn't seem like the bug's being abandoned22:31
TheMusoyep sounds good.22:31
LaserJockok, done then?22:32
TheMusoyep I'd say so.22:32
imbrandonokies so we dont need any more special -sru meetings do we other than the normal -motu meetings ?22:32
imbrandoni dont think so persoanly22:32
imbrandonkk just makin sure we was all on the same page22:32
LaserJockyeah, totally22:33
jdongwe're all regulars on IRC anyway, it's pretty easy to ad-hoc commuincate with each other if a problem arises22:33
LaserJockMOTU SRU should be fairly low key22:33
TheMusojdong: agreed22:33
imbrandonokies great work everyone :)22:33
imbrandonglad we could all finaly hash something out hehe22:33
LaserJockthanks for the work imbrandon et al22:33
TheMusoimbrandon: yeah thanks heaps22:33
imbrandoni'm going afk for ~30-45 minutes, i'll grab the wiki update after that, but i would rather not compose a email to the list if one of you could it would rock, i hate writing emails22:34
TheMusoheh ok22:34
LaserJockTheMuso: you gonna do it?22:34
LaserJockI can if not22:34
TheMusoI msut admit I'm not up to it either yet, as I need to see the updated wiki before I fully 100% understand whats happening22:34
imbrandonok i'll update the wiki then ping you and LaserJock when i get back and you all can fight over who gets to email22:35
LaserJockhehe, sounds good22:35
imbrandonok <detached>22:35

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!