| === 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 | ||
| theunixgeek | When's the next meeting | 16:40 |
|---|---|---|
| theunixgeek | ? | 16:40 |
| pochu | @now | 16:40 |
| ubotu | Current time in Etc/UTC: December 15 2007, 16:40:29 - Next meeting: Server Team meeting in 2 days | 16:40 |
| theunixgeek | thank you | 16:41 |
| === \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 | ||
| imbrandon | @now | 21:00 |
| ubotu | Current time in Etc/UTC: December 15 2007, 21:00:21 - Next meeting: Server Team meeting in 2 days | 21:00 |
| nixternal | @later | 21:00 |
| nixternal | :p | 21:00 |
| imbrandon | DktrKranz , LaserJock , ummm | 21:00 |
| imbrandon | whoelse we need ? | 21:00 |
| imbrandon | heya nixternal | 21:01 |
| DktrKranz | themuso and jdong | 21:01 |
| nixternal | wasabi...impromptu meeting? | 21:01 |
| imbrandon | nixternal: well kinda, we dident put it on the fridge but yea | 21:01 |
| imbrandon | afk one sec, ping me when all showup | 21:02 |
| somerville32 | What meeting is this? | 21:06 |
| norsetto | the 3 of the Apocalypse | 21:07 |
| DktrKranz | wasn't is about some Sergio Leone's spaghetti western? | 21:07 |
| DktrKranz | s/is/it/ | 21:07 |
| norsetto | yes | 21:08 |
| DktrKranz | I've seen them too many times I'dont even remember | 21:08 |
| norsetto | have you been cleaning the u-u-s queue recently? Seems to be getting back to a reasonable size again | 21:09 |
| DktrKranz | A couple of bugs, yes | 21:09 |
| norsetto | tell Mario that if he requests sponsoring for another desktop/icon file I'm personally going to find him in his house and burn it down | 21:10 |
| DktrKranz | LOL, why? | 21:10 |
| norsetto | its about time he starts doing something ... hmmmm ... with more meat in it | 21:11 |
| somerville32 | Mario who? | 21:11 |
| DktrKranz | norsetto, time for him to do something more "useful" | 21:12 |
| TheMuso | Sorry I'm late guys. | 21:12 |
| DktrKranz | Not at all :) | 21:12 |
| somerville32 | lol | 21:12 |
| imbrandon | ok, TheMuso jdong DktrKranz , how does this look https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates/imbrandon | 21:13 |
| DktrKranz | we've just finished and uploaded almost everything | 21:13 |
| norsetto | well ... its not that what he did was not useful, at least it was for him, but after the 256785th one it gets on my nerves | 21:13 |
| DktrKranz | :P | 21:13 |
| imbrandon | ok shhhhh | 21:13 |
| imbrandon | please :) heh lets do the stuff at hand for the SRU team then we'll chit-chat :) | 21:13 |
| imbrandon | TheMuso: no worries :) | 21:13 |
| jdong | imbrandon: looking... | 21:13 |
| TheMuso | looking | 21:14 |
| * DktrKranz looks | 21:14 | |
| imbrandon | basicly 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 main | 21:14 |
| * norsetto sleeps | 21:14 | |
| TheMuso | imbrandon: where on the page should I look | 21:14 |
| TheMuso | ah ok | 21:15 |
| imbrandon | TheMuso: #universe | 21:15 |
| imbrandon | this 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 team | 21:15 |
| imbrandon | splitting the workload etc | 21:16 |
| TheMuso | SOunds good. | 21:16 |
| jdong | imbrandon: yeah, sounds good to me, too -- I like how closely it follows the -main procedure | 21:16 |
| TheMuso | Likewise. | 21:16 |
| DktrKranz | there's another difference | 21:17 |
| DktrKranz | it's about verification | 21:17 |
| imbrandon | yea really we just add a few more "when" clauses | 21:17 |
| DktrKranz | in main, it is done by SRU verification team, in universe by two persons | 21:17 |
| imbrandon | we can also handle the verification, they do in main also its just not updated on the page | 21:18 |
| imbrandon | basicly verification is just bug triageing | 21:19 |
| imbrandon | if you look | 21:19 |
| TheMuso | How do we indicate an ack? | 21:19 |
| TheMuso | And what gets done when theres a second ack? | 21:19 |
| DktrKranz | so, no more "two works for me" ? | 21:19 |
| somerville32 | I'd like to propose another exception | 21:19 |
| jdong | well the packages in -universe might not be as easy for team members to do as in main, IMO | 21:19 |
| jdong | i.e. we should let any ordinary Joe help with verification | 21:19 |
| jdong | but perhaps make ~motu-sru final say in whether or not we're satisfied with the verifications | 21:20 |
| imbrandon | TheMuso: just by one of us explisitly saying ACK on the bug | 21:20 |
| imbrandon | right | 21:20 |
| norsetto | tags should also be differents (motu-verification needed and motu-verification-done) ? | 21:20 |
| TheMuso | ok | 21:20 |
| DktrKranz | norsetto, indeed | 21:20 |
| DktrKranz | somerville32, which one? | 21:20 |
| somerville32 | DktrKranz, Packages containing purely documentation | 21:22 |
| geser | I 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 |
| imbrandon | that seems reasonable to me | 21:23 |
| imbrandon | geser: either | 21:23 |
| jdong | how is ~motu-sru notified of a proposal pending approval? | 21:23 |
| DktrKranz | is it a issue going for the NEW queue? | 21:23 |
| DktrKranz | (for new binaries) | 21:24 |
| jdong | does the nominate for $release functionality already ping us? | 21:24 |
| imbrandon | DktrKranz: no shouldent be a problem | 21:24 |
| imbrandon | jdong: huh? | 21:24 |
| imbrandon | no ~motu-sru is subscribed to the bug | 21:24 |
| imbrandon | e.g. email | 21:24 |
| jdong | imbrandon: ok, so the subscription is done manually by the filer. gotcha | 21:25 |
| DktrKranz | jdong, does that feature generate any bugmail? I was not aware of that | 21:25 |
| * TheMuso wonders whether we have anything else to discuss. | 21:25 | |
| jdong | DktrKranz: apparently not. It would be nice if it did, though :) | 21:25 |
| TheMuso | I need to head off for a bit soon. | 21:25 |
| somerville32 | Should I modify /imbrandon to state the doc exception? | 21:26 |
| imbrandon | ok so addition of the doc only packages, and motu specifc tags, anything else ? | 21:26 |
| imbrandon | somerville32: i got a lock on it | 21:26 |
| TheMuso | IMO if it can be as close to main as possible, thats a good thing | 21:26 |
| imbrandon | TheMuso: yup thats the goal | 21:26 |
| jdong | sounds great to me | 21:26 |
| DktrKranz | the only remaining issue is verification, then | 21:26 |
| TheMuso | somerville32: Mind explaining the doc exception? | 21:27 |
| DktrKranz | we need to diverge in some way | 21:27 |
| imbrandon | DktrKranz: verification is done by motu-sru as i said | 21:27 |
| somerville32 | TheMuso, If a package contains only documentation, it is an exception to the SRU rational | 21:27 |
| DktrKranz | and we need to include it as well | 21:27 |
| TheMuso | somerville32: How so? | 21:27 |
| imbrandon | DktrKranz: sure | 21:27 |
| somerville32 | TheMuso, ie. A package containing only documentation does not have to meet the normal rational for an SRU | 21:28 |
| imbrandon | somerville32: we need to check on that one, it might botch translations | 21:28 |
| TheMuso | somerville32: But what might need changing? | 21:28 |
| TheMuso | I'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 |
| somerville32 | TheMuso, We've already had cases where we've needed to do an SRU for docs and Pitti said he had no problem approving them | 21:29 |
| TheMuso | somerville32: What needed changing? | 21:29 |
| somerville32 | I would have to look up the changelog | 21:29 |
| imbrandon | somerville32: all we're asking is for an example | 21:29 |
| DktrKranz | somerville32, in that case, pitti uploaded packages straight to -updates? | 21:30 |
| imbrandon | i would also want to make sure it dosent botch translations to a stable release too | 21:30 |
| TheMuso | imbrandon: Agreed. | 21:30 |
| imbrandon | DktrKranz: no | 21:30 |
| somerville32 | DktrKranz, No, it went through normal testing. | 21:30 |
| imbrandon | DktrKranz: exceptions mean tey are eligable for a sru | 21:30 |
| DktrKranz | ok, thanks | 21:30 |
| imbrandon | NOTHING goes right to -updates hehe | 21:31 |
| somerville32 | Although this doesn't apply to Universe, I know that the server team wants to do an SRU for their docs | 21:31 |
| DktrKranz | imbrandon, and it's a great thing! :) | 21:31 |
| DktrKranz | I was worried :) | 21:31 |
| imbrandon | laser should be here in moments | 21:32 |
| TheMuso | ok I can't stay long though | 21:32 |
| imbrandon | anyhow i think we pretty much have it down pat | 21:32 |
| DarkSun88 | Hi all | 21:32 |
| imbrandon | just those few changes | 21:32 |
| imbrandon | agreed? tag changes and those fre exceptions | 21:32 |
| imbrandon | few* | 21:32 |
| DktrKranz | +1 | 21:32 |
| TheMuso | +1 | 21:33 |
| somerville32 | +1 | 21:33 |
| jdong | +1 :) | 21:33 |
| nixternal | -1 | 21:33 |
| nixternal | just wanted to be different, of course +1 | 21:33 |
| * somerville32 slaps nixternal with a wet noodle | 21:33 | |
| TheMuso | nixternal: lol | 21:33 |
| nixternal | hehe | 21:33 |
| imbrandon | LaserJock: 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 tags | 21:34 |
| DktrKranz | what about pending SRUs? do they follow old policy or should we take them into account? | 21:34 |
| imbrandon | its unamimous if you +1 it | 21:34 |
| DktrKranz | http://people.ubuntu.com/~ubuntu-archive/pending-sru.html | 21:34 |
| TheMuso | DktrKranz: I'd say keep them as is | 21:34 |
| DktrKranz | these --^ | 21:34 |
| imbrandon | DktrKranz: the pending sru's on that page are already uploaded, ones in the QUEUE on LP should be updated to follow this meetings decision | 21:35 |
| LaserJock | imbrandon: it seems our policy really doesn't differ from Main, do we need a separate section? | 21:35 |
| TheMuso | LaserJock: For tags and our extra exceptions. | 21:36 |
| TheMuso | IMO | 21:36 |
| imbrandon | LaserJock: no i'm gonna update the page so it looks better, and intergrate it with one policy and just NOTE: sections for universe | 21:36 |
| imbrandon | after we all agree | 21:36 |
| imbrandon | that was just how the old page did it so i quickly updated it | 21:37 |
| imbrandon | durring the meeting | 21:37 |
| LaserJock | imbrandon: do we really have extra exceptions? | 21:37 |
| imbrandon | cleanup and beuitification can be done after :) | 21:37 |
| imbrandon | LaserJock: yes | 21:37 |
| DktrKranz | Do we keep minimum aging period? I think main does not have something like that | 21:37 |
| imbrandon | DktrKranz: yes they do | 21:37 |
| LaserJock | imbrandon: doesn't look like it to me | 21:37 |
| DktrKranz | imbrandon, yes, I overlooked :) | 21:38 |
| imbrandon | LaserJock: FTBFS, cannot install, and segfault on startup ( e.g. completely un-usable ), and documentaion only packages | 21:38 |
| LaserJock | I think those are all SRUable in Main | 21:38 |
| imbrandon | not currently | 21:38 |
| imbrandon | it widens it just a tad | 21:38 |
| somerville32 | Whats written down and what actually happens is a bit different | 21:38 |
| LaserJock | ummm | 21:38 |
| imbrandon | e.g. not all FTBFS are regressions and such, so no not all those in main | 21:39 |
| LaserJock | Main only says high-impact bugs | 21:39 |
| imbrandon | right | 21:40 |
| LaserJock | FTBFS, segfault, uninstallable in general seem high-impact | 21:40 |
| imbrandon | not always in the eyes of the main sru team, this we are stateing them explisitly | 21:40 |
| imbrandon | if they do fall into some overlap no loss, we just adding some verbage | 21:40 |
| TheMuso | Ok guys, I gotta run. | 21:41 |
| imbrandon | TheMuso: cool | 21:41 |
| * TheMuso will leave this channel open and read later | 21:41 | |
| DktrKranz | should we cover bugs similar to malone 176435? it renders package unusable | 21:42 |
| ubotu | Launchpad bug 176435 in twill "python-twill missing a dependency" [Undecided,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/176435 | 21:42 |
| DktrKranz | this one is a missing dep | 21:42 |
| imbrandon | DktrKranz: that falls under uninstallable | 21:42 |
| imbrandon | correct? | 21:42 |
| LaserJock | well, I'm just worried if we have delta from Main | 21:42 |
| DktrKranz | imbrandon, it is installable, but not usable at all | 21:43 |
| imbrandon | DktrKranz: i would have to look closer but it seems like it would | 21:43 |
| LaserJock | I think we should agree on the kinds of things we think should be SRU internally | 21:43 |
| LaserJock | but I like vague language on the SRU wiki page | 21:43 |
| LaserJock | DktrKranz: that would be a regression | 21:44 |
| imbrandon | LaserJock: 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 green | 21:44 |
| imbrandon | no offense DktrKranz :) | 21:44 |
| DktrKranz | :) | 21:44 |
| imbrandon | s/og/of | 21:44 |
| * DktrKranz takes his gun and loads it with some bullets | 21:45 | |
| imbrandon | anyhow 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 ML | 21:45 |
| DktrKranz | indeed | 21:46 |
| LaserJock | I was thinking we should just s/~ubuntu-sru/~motu-sru/ | 21:46 |
| LaserJock | does that not work? | 21:46 |
| imbrandon | yes it does, but in addition to ( since universe doesnt get as much QA ) we should have these | 21:47 |
| LaserJock | have what? | 21:47 |
| imbrandon | the extra SRU canidate rules | 21:47 |
| imbrandon | the only delta | 21:47 |
| LaserJock | but they aren't | 21:47 |
| imbrandon | but they ARE | 21:47 |
| LaserJock | the Main SRU policy would cover those | 21:47 |
| LaserJock | the only actual policy there is that it must be "high impact" | 21:48 |
| LaserJock | but what that actually means is up to us | 21:48 |
| imbrandon | LaserJock: 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 overlap | 21:48 |
| LaserJock | so why not keep it that way? | 21:48 |
| imbrandon | plus there is no doc exception | 21:49 |
| LaserJock | well, my concern would be that people see that as saying that you *can't* do those types of SRUs in Main | 21:49 |
| LaserJock | which is just not true | 21:49 |
| imbrandon | no not at all, and either way its not our problem | 21:49 |
| imbrandon | main sru can choose to clarify too if they feel the need to | 21:50 |
| LaserJock | but why do we need to clarify? I guess that's my question | 21:50 |
| LaserJock | I don't really get why we need to explicitly mention those. Is it because people don't know they can? | 21:51 |
| imbrandon | ummm i explained this 3 or 4 times already , main sru team dosent ALWAYS acept those as canidates, we are explitily saying we will | 21:51 |
| LaserJock | hmm, I don't think we should *always* either | 21:51 |
| LaserJock | they should all be case-by-case | 21:51 |
| LaserJock | but in general yes, I would be all for those kinds of exceptions | 21:52 |
| LaserJock | s/exceptions/SRUs/ | 21:52 |
| imbrandon | then whats the problem i dont get your reasoning | 21:52 |
| LaserJock | that we'd be creating needless diff and confusing the issue | 21:52 |
| LaserJock | the language is intentionally vague, IMO | 21:53 |
| imbrandon | ok 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 cahnge | 21:53 |
| LaserJock | well, that's what I'm trying to get at | 21:54 |
| LaserJock | obviously people like the change, so I'm trying to understand it | 21:54 |
| LaserJock | I'm not sure how the verbage is gonna change | 21:55 |
| imbrandon | well 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 both | 21:55 |
| LaserJock | well, I'm actually saying there really isn't any diff | 21:55 |
| LaserJock | I've seen every case we're talking about as "exceptions" done in Main | 21:56 |
| imbrandon | LaserJock: there IS, in your opinion there might not be, but not everyone will interret it the way you do so its GOOD to clarify | 21:56 |
| LaserJock | ok, so what if we talked to ~ubuntu-sru about these and perhaps expand the examples? | 21:57 |
| LaserJock | those are just examples, not an exhaustive list or anything | 21:57 |
| imbrandon | what does that matter to us? | 21:57 |
| LaserJock | because we have the same issues before us | 21:57 |
| LaserJock | an SRU really shouldn't matter if it's in Main or Universe | 21:57 |
| imbrandon | ugh no we dont inhaently we have very diffrent issues | 21:58 |
| imbrandon | sure it does | 21:58 |
| * TheMuso is back. Took less time than I thought | 21:58 | |
| LaserJock | my experience is that Main does the same kinds of SRUs that Universe does | 21:58 |
| LaserJock | so why create diff where it doesn't really exist | 21:58 |
| imbrandon | ugh 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 us | 21:59 |
| LaserJock | imbrandon: right, I'm saying our policy is the same as Main's | 21:59 |
| LaserJock | but you're wanting to add some more examples | 21:59 |
| imbrandon | and i'm saying it is "alomst" and it needs to be clarified and these words added | 22:00 |
| LaserJock | which is fine, I agree with you there | 22:00 |
| LaserJock | alright, well whatever, it's not a biggie | 22:00 |
| imbrandon | and if you feel main would benifet from those changes too cool, propose them to them, but why does that stop us from doing it now | 22:00 |
| LaserJock | it doesn't | 22:00 |
| LaserJock | they're only freaking examples :-) | 22:01 |
| LaserJock | it's not policy | 22:01 |
| imbrandon | well thats the thing, this IS policy | 22:01 |
| LaserJock | well, that's what I was trying to say earlier | 22:01 |
| imbrandon | or is going to be | 22:01 |
| LaserJock | we should have internal polices of what we want to take | 22:01 |
| imbrandon | ????????? | 22:02 |
| imbrandon | i'm hearing you in circles now | 22:02 |
| LaserJock | but the SRU wiki page shouldn't have an exhaustive list of what we'll take | 22:02 |
| LaserJock | because then there's no point in having MOTU SRU | 22:02 |
| LaserJock | the whole point of having the team is that these need to be decided on a case-by-case basis | 22:02 |
| LaserJock | I'm sure there will be some high-impact bugs that we'll reject | 22:03 |
| LaserJock | because the changes are just to invasive for us to do | 22:03 |
| imbrandon | right if it falls into one of those categorys, its not an exasutive list it is a list of acceptable categorys | 22:03 |
| LaserJock | right | 22:03 |
| imbrandon | but the categorys have to be defined exastively | 22:04 |
| imbrandon | not "examples" | 22:04 |
| LaserJock | and I find that so trivial (and the same as Main) so I don't see why it justifies a diff | 22:04 |
| LaserJock | no | 22:04 |
| LaserJock | that's not true | 22:04 |
| LaserJock | those categories are examples | 22:04 |
| LaserJock | not exhaustive, even of types of SRU | 22:05 |
| LaserJock | as far as I understand | 22:05 |
| LaserJock | anyway, we can talk to Ubuntu SRU about that later | 22:05 |
| LaserJock | this is such a trivial thing we don't need to argue over it | 22:05 |
| imbrandon | i have no desire to talk to Ubuntu SRU about it, but feel free to, i'm here to solidify our policy | 22:05 |
| imbrandon | my point exactly | 22:06 |
| LaserJock | ok | 22:06 |
| LaserJock | so 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 |
| imbrandon | if it dosent fall into one of those categorys , yes i think a consensus is needed, but that my 0.2c | 22:07 |
| LaserJock | seems reasonable | 22:07 |
| LaserJock | ok, any other diff? | 22:07 |
| imbrandon | motu specific tags | 22:07 |
| imbrandon | is the only other thing | 22:08 |
| LaserJock | why do we need motu specific tags? | 22:08 |
| imbrandon | i 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 lp | 22:08 |
| LaserJock | hmm, I don't really see the point | 22:09 |
| TheMuso | imbrandon: Yes, there is the searching side of things that separates them a lot more easily. | 22:09 |
| LaserJock | seems like added confusion | 22:09 |
| imbrandon | because how else are we gonna find them LaserJock | 22:09 |
| DktrKranz | mh, that's a good point, is MOTU tags really needed? | 22:09 |
| LaserJock | you can do the same thing | 22:09 |
| LaserJock | you can search for the tag + Universe component | 22:09 |
| LaserJock | so we'd just have a tinyurl for that | 22:09 |
| LaserJock | that would do the same thing as a motu-specific tag no? | 22:09 |
| imbrandon | but is main gonna be "ok" filtering out our stuff from their searches | 22:10 |
| LaserJock | they're gonna have to be ;-) | 22:10 |
| LaserJock | this is the whole point of being able to do such searches | 22:10 |
| LaserJock | you can have a tag and then filter the specific responses you want | 22:10 |
| imbrandon | ok i have no opinion either way, either seems just as easy, so i'm +0 , yall ? | 22:11 |
| LaserJock | I seriously doubt Ubuntu SRU can claim exclusivity to "verification-needed" | 22:11 |
| imbrandon | heh | 22:11 |
| LaserJock | and really, the point is for people testing | 22:12 |
| imbrandon | yea seems eassy enough if we can also filter by component | 22:12 |
| LaserJock | and I don't see why they'd really care what component it's in | 22:12 |
| * TheMuso is not fussed either way | 22:12 | |
| DktrKranz | I have no problem using the same tags, but we should update our links | 22:12 |
| imbrandon | DktrKranz: we will | 22:12 |
| DktrKranz | and eventually ask pitti to adjust his script | 22:12 |
| DktrKranz | I think it consider universe SRUs verified by looking at verification-motu-done | 22:13 |
| LaserJock | DktrKranz: what would he have to adjust? | 22:13 |
| imbrandon | DktrKranz: thats alll tech stuff that can follow policy, policy shouldnt follow tech :) | 22:13 |
| DktrKranz | of course :) | 22:13 |
| LaserJock | ok, so ... | 22:15 |
| imbrandon | okies 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 policy | 22:15 |
| LaserJock | darn, I messed everything up | 22:15 |
| imbrandon | everyone good with that ? | 22:15 |
| TheMuso | yep | 22:15 |
| LaserJock | imbrandon: do you have text for the exceptions? | 22:15 |
| DktrKranz | sure | 22:15 |
| imbrandon | LaserJock: give me 2 seconds and i will | 22:15 |
| LaserJock | I still don't like it but hopefully Ubuntu SRU would agree to absorb the changes | 22:16 |
| imbrandon | FTBFS, cannot install, and segfault on startup ( e.g. completely un-usable ), Documentation only packages | 22:16 |
| LaserJock | right, but I was actually thinking how we were gonna word the intro to those | 22:17 |
| LaserJock | but whatever, I'll get over it ;-) | 22:17 |
| imbrandon | ahh ummm | 22:17 |
| LaserJock | cause I can't really see how "In addition, for Universe the following examples:" | 22:17 |
| LaserJock | is gonna work | 22:18 |
| LaserJock | anyway, +1 from me | 22:19 |
| imbrandon | "In Universe ... also qualifies as high-impact-bugs " or similar | 22:19 |
| imbrandon | i would think | 22:19 |
| imbrandon | ... can also qualify as ... | 22:19 |
| LaserJock | yeah | 22:20 |
| LaserJock | I don't like the high-impact part as well though for doc-only SRUs | 22:20 |
| LaserJock | usually they aren't high-impact, more low-rish | 22:20 |
| imbrandon | ok so +1 from all but jdong and afaik he is afk, seems like he is outvoted either way, we'll note him as abstaining | 22:20 |
| LaserJock | *risk | 22:20 |
| jdong | imbrandon: aaah just got back | 22:20 |
| LaserJock | heh | 22:20 |
| imbrandon | hehe | 22:21 |
| DktrKranz | just in time :) | 22:21 |
| * jdong reads scrollback | 22:21 | |
| * DktrKranz gotta go | 22:21 | |
| jdong | or does someone wanna summarize for me? | 22:21 |
| LaserJock | yeah | 22:21 |
| DktrKranz | I'll read log later | 22:21 |
| imbrandon | everyone good with that ? | 22:21 |
| imbrandon | err | 22:21 |
| imbrandon | okies 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 policy | 22:21 |
| imbrandon | jdong: ^ | 22:21 |
| DktrKranz | but, +1 for me | 22:21 |
| DktrKranz | see you | 22:22 |
| TheMuso | yeah +1 as I said | 22:22 |
| LaserJock | +1 | 22:22 |
| imbrandon | +1 | 22:22 |
| jdong | imbrandon: yeah, that sounds good to me | 22:22 |
| jdong | +1 | 22:22 |
| LaserJock | \o/ | 22:22 |
| DarkSun88 | Good job. :) | 22:22 |
| imbrandon | \0/ , okies i'll have the page updated within ~20 minutes ( spellchecked hehe ) | 22:23 |
| DarkSun88 | See you. | 22:23 |
| jdong | yay, now back to this 24oz steak.... | 22:23 |
| imbrandon | and someone is free to mail the ML if they want | 22:23 |
| imbrandon | *i dunt wanna* lol | 22:23 |
| LaserJock | oh, wondered if we wanted some sort of "goal" for turnaround | 22:23 |
| LaserJock | *I wondered | 22:23 |
| imbrandon | who and huh? | 22:23 |
| jdong | like turnaround time? | 22:23 |
| imbrandon | oh we | 22:23 |
| LaserJock | yeah | 22:24 |
| imbrandon | ummm i dont think we should try since we're all un-paid | 22:24 |
| imbrandon | imho | 22:24 |
| TheMuso | agreed | 22:24 |
| imbrandon | other than "best efforts" | 22:24 |
| LaserJock | just as a goal, so we're on the same page | 22:24 |
| jdong | I think 1 week for decision, 2-3wks for verification sounds reasonable as a GUIDELINE | 22:24 |
| jdong | but best effort otherwise | 22:24 |
| LaserJock | heh | 22:24 |
| LaserJock | I was thinking 1 day for straight approval, 2 if it takes discussion, but maybe that's unreasonable | 22:25 |
| jdong | LaserJock: wow, ambitious | 22:25 |
| LaserJock | well, there are 5 of us and it only takes 1 | 22:25 |
| LaserJock | and all we need to do is "paperwork" | 22:25 |
| imbrandon | LaserJock: yea i think thats a bit ambisious, i think "best effort" is good , we're all not persia hhehe | 22:26 |
| LaserJock | lol, true that | 22:26 |
| jdong | most approvals should be a 10-minute deal on our part.... but it's best not to rush it with a time factor IMO | 22:26 |
| imbrandon | but one week is a fair "goal" as a guideline imho | 22:26 |
| jdong | if on average an approval takes more than a week, I think that's a warning flag that ~motu-sru isn't working well | 22:26 |
| imbrandon | thats even if we're all busy | 22:26 |
| LaserJock | as long as *we* aren't bottlenecking SRUs | 22:26 |
| TheMuso | Yeah | 22:26 |
| imbrandon | right | 22:26 |
| LaserJock | ok, so what's happening to the existing SRUs? | 22:27 |
| imbrandon | if things on avg are takin more than a week we'll get the MC to step in and get us some help | 22:27 |
| jdong | sounds good | 22:27 |
| imbrandon | LaserJock: 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 policy | 22:27 |
| TheMuso | I still think best effort | 22:27 |
| TheMuso | realy, if it takes over a week, it takes over a week | 22:28 |
| imbrandon | TheMuso: yea | 22:28 |
| jdong | TheMuso: well.. yeah... not like the MC can come and put us in jail if we take too long | 22:28 |
| jdong | or suspend our paychecks :) | 22:28 |
| TheMuso | My point exactly. | 22:28 |
| jdong | but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have a guideline for how long it should acceptably take | 22:28 |
| LaserJock | TheMuso: my only real problem with that is consistency, people start getting upset when their SRU took 2 weeks and somebody else's take 2 days | 22:28 |
| TheMuso | I know that I may not be able to get to them all all the time | 22:28 |
| LaserJock | I realize we're all volunteers and best effort is as good as we can do | 22:29 |
| TheMuso | LaserJock: So what. Seriously, we are all volunteers. | 22:29 |
| jdong | TheMuso: volunteers can still measure how well they are doing thier work | 22:29 |
| TheMuso | People need to get over it if something takes shorter than someting else | 22:29 |
| LaserJock | jdong: that was more my reasoning | 22:29 |
| jdong | TheMuso: 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, etc | 22:30 |
| LaserJock | if we have a goal and we're consistently not getting there then maybe we need an adjustment | 22:30 |
| jdong | TheMuso: it's not designed to be a hard deadline to punish us | 22:30 |
| TheMuso | jdong: I know that. | 22:30 |
| LaserJock | anyway, we sounds like we should try to take no longer than a week | 22:30 |
| jdong | a week is a reasonable guideline | 22:30 |
| LaserJock | unless of course it actually takes that long to get all the info, etc. | 22:30 |
| imbrandon | okies 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 meetings | 22:31 |
| * TheMuso should be right once he has the motu-sru bugmail sorted. | 22:31 | |
| jdong | excpetions granted for less clear cases that need more time to evaluate | 22:31 |
| jdong | but at least a status update a week from ~motu-sru so that it doesn't seem like the bug's being abandoned | 22:31 |
| TheMuso | yep sounds good. | 22:31 |
| LaserJock | ok, done then? | 22:32 |
| TheMuso | yep I'd say so. | 22:32 |
| imbrandon | okies so we dont need any more special -sru meetings do we other than the normal -motu meetings ? | 22:32 |
| TheMuso | no | 22:32 |
| TheMuso | IMO | 22:32 |
| jdong | no | 22:32 |
| imbrandon | i dont think so persoanly | 22:32 |
| imbrandon | kk just makin sure we was all on the same page | 22:32 |
| LaserJock | yeah, totally | 22:33 |
| jdong | we're all regulars on IRC anyway, it's pretty easy to ad-hoc commuincate with each other if a problem arises | 22:33 |
| LaserJock | MOTU SRU should be fairly low key | 22:33 |
| TheMuso | jdong: agreed | 22:33 |
| imbrandon | okies great work everyone :) | 22:33 |
| TheMuso | thanks | 22:33 |
| imbrandon | glad we could all finaly hash something out hehe | 22:33 |
| LaserJock | thanks for the work imbrandon et al | 22:33 |
| TheMuso | imbrandon: yeah thanks heaps | 22:33 |
| imbrandon | i'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 emails | 22:34 |
| TheMuso | heh ok | 22:34 |
| imbrandon | :) | 22:34 |
| LaserJock | TheMuso: you gonna do it? | 22:34 |
| LaserJock | I can if not | 22:34 |
| TheMuso | I msut admit I'm not up to it either yet, as I need to see the updated wiki before I fully 100% understand whats happening | 22:34 |
| imbrandon | ok i'll update the wiki then ping you and LaserJock when i get back and you all can fight over who gets to email | 22:35 |
| imbrandon | hehe | 22:35 |
| LaserJock | hehe, sounds good | 22:35 |
| imbrandon | ok <detached> | 22:35 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!