=== Yos_ is now known as Yos === nixternal_ is now known as nixternal === jarlen_ is now known as jarlen [13:20] http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2010/027/7/1/eeedebian_wmii_by_bittin.png me likes <3 [13:56] o/ [13:56] hewlo [13:57] morning zul [13:57] just a heads up; you're today's scribe :) [13:57] * stgraber waves [13:57] * mathiaz waves [13:57] o/ [13:57] morning jiboumans [13:58] hi [13:58] jiboumans: yeah weee :) [13:58] * jjohansen waves [13:58] O/ [13:58] * nijaba has a big head today [13:58] o/ [13:58] nijaba: oh crap ;) [13:59] good morning all [14:00] soren, kirkland: around? [14:00] o/ [14:00] jiboumans: yup [14:00] ok, let's get the party started [14:00] #startmeeting [14:00] Meeting started at 08:00. The chair is jiboumans. [14:00] Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE] [14:00] today's scribe is zul [14:00] [TOPIC] last week's action review [14:00] New Topic: last week's action review [14:00] Action: smoser to publish karmic cloud image refresh [14:01] o/ [14:01] done. [14:01] fwiw, the last meetings logs are here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MeetingLogs/Server/20100120 i'll be calling action points in order. please prep your answers [14:02] smoser: ta [14:02] Action: Everyone: update status for your specs before the meeting starts [14:02] looking here, a few aren't updated yet: http://macaroni.ubuntu.com/~pitti/workitems/canonical-server-lucid-alpha-3.html [14:02] jiboumans: bad link [14:02] please have them updated a few hours before this meeting at the latest, so they show up there [14:02] http://people.canonical.com/~pitti/workitems/canonical-server-lucid-alpha-3.html [14:02] LINK received: http://people.canonical.com/~pitti/workitems/canonical-server-lucid-alpha-3.html [14:02] ttx: right, it's moved.. my bad [14:03] [ACTION] everyone to update their specs status before the meeting. srsly! [14:03] ACTION received: everyone to update their specs status before the meeting. srsly! [14:03] Action: ttx, zul to blog about papercuts, make sure UWN gets the word [14:03] you still have one minute to complete before we go to spec review mode [14:03] jiboumans: done [14:03] blogged about it need to talk to the UWN people [14:03] zul: showed up in UWN already [14:03] zul: no need to pester them [14:03] excellent [14:04] ttx: ah sweet [14:04] zul++ ttx++ [14:04] Action: ttx to send email about criteria and nomination to ubuntu-devel, ubuntu-server [14:04] done [14:04] excellent; details later on in the agenda [14:04] Action: smoser to raise thread about the no-ramdisk / -virtual config tradeoff [14:04] done, and kernel configs changed [14:05] don't know if there is a build available or not, but it wen to fix-commited early this week [14:05] they will be in the next kernel upload [14:05] ok, i'd like to discuss the details later on in the kernel section [14:05] smoser++ jjohansen++ [14:05] Action: zul, kirkland to unassign themselves from "maybe working on one day" bugs [14:05] done [14:05] jiboumans: done [14:05] excellent [14:05] moving on [14:05] [TOPIC] Alpha3 subcycle planning [14:05] New Topic: Alpha3 subcycle planning [14:06] What's in the WI tracker is what we're committed to: http://people.canonical.com/~pitti/workitems/canonical-server-lucid-alpha-3.html [14:06] everything that's marked 'medium' or higher is faily sure to make it into alpha3. 'low' prio specs are targets of opportunity [14:06] we'll do our best to get as many of those done as possible [14:06] note there's not been much change on this since last week, but we expect it to be pretty much stable now, barring any external factors messing with it [14:07] any questions about the alpha3 plans? [14:07] nope [14:07] no [14:08] excellent, moving on [14:08] [TOPIC] spec quick review (ttx) [14:08] New Topic: spec quick review (ttx) [14:08] OK, general status is on the same magic page [14:08] I wanted to look into those "high" specs that are < 30 % [14:08] and team members that also are below that threshold [14:09] server-lucid-apport-hooks: 22% [14:09] will be updating it today [14:09] server-lucid-canonical-application-support: 20% [14:09] will be working on it today [14:09] I'd like to see those completed, as they are spillover from alpha2 [14:09] ok [14:09] server-lucid-seeds: 13% [14:10] ctdb needs to be worked on [14:10] mathiaz ^ [14:10] ttx: more WI showed up to figure out why packages haven't been dropped from main [14:10] is that analysis taking long ? [14:10] ttx: nope [14:10] ok, so thaey should be burnable quite fast, ok [14:10] ttx: yes [14:10] server-lucid-uec-testing: 0% [14:11] ttx: was blocked on server access - which is done now [14:11] ttx: blocked on a installer bug now [14:11] ttx: I need to sync up with kirkland [14:11] * kirkland waves at mathiaz [14:12] ttx: all the remaining WI rely on having a working UEC cloud [14:12] mathiaz: hmm, ok. Please update status to reflect the blockage [14:12] mathiaz: anything myself or ttx can do to move this along? [14:12] I don't think so - for now [14:12] or maybe refactor the WI to make it more obvious where we block [14:13] looks like this is blocking on one or more work yitems that are piori to all others [14:13] prior [14:13] but that doesn't appear in the work item for that spec [14:13] server-lucid-ec2-config: 0% [14:13] ttx: and how do you express that a WI is blocking others? [14:14] you don't, but having one INPROGRESS shows what you're working on [14:15] mathiaz: my understanding is that what you're doing (clearing out the basic infra stuff) isn't reflected in any WI currently [14:15] ttx: ah - I though INPROGRESS was equal to TODO [14:15] mathiaz: it's equal for the machine [14:15] same [14:15] the report considers it the same. But /I/ understand better what you're blocking on [14:15] server-lucid-ec2-config: i'm still working on getting all the config stuff pulled in. the cloud-config is largely functional in the released images, and more in ec2-init bzr [14:16] there are a few items left to pull in: EBS mounts, ephemeral storage RAID or mount points, runurl [14:17] ttx: ok [14:17] smoser: when do you think you can have boothooks/ec2-config completed ? [14:17] before next week. [14:17] smoser: cool, that will give us time to discuss XC2, then ;) [14:17] yeah [14:17] Moving to people under 30% [14:18] mathiaz - 10% [14:18] I think we know where its blocking [14:18] hm, everyone is under 30% [14:18] Let's burn some work items, everyone :) [14:19] jiboumans: anything you wanted to add ? [14:19] ttx: to focus on getting the specs in shape for next weeks sprint [14:19] if you have anything you need f2f time with the team, or others of the platform team, make sure your code's in a shape to get cracking straight away on monday [14:20] that is all, thank you :) [14:20] [TOPIC] server-lucid-papercuts (ttx) [14:20] New Topic: server-lucid-papercuts (ttx) [14:20] So the effort was announced, and we now have... [14:21] 4 external papercutters members [14:21] and... [14:21] 18 nominations so far [14:22] * alexm started nominating today, more to come [14:22] Please continue to blog about it, we are not overwhelmed yet :) [14:22] alexm++ [14:22] ttx: remind us, what's the next step? [14:22] Today I wanted to discuss measurable objectives, if any [14:22] Should we have a papercut-fixing target goal ? [14:23] The desktop papercutters had to fix 10bugs per week, during 10 weeks [14:23] Should we also have a plan, or just people taking up accepted bugs from that bug list when they can ? [14:23] ttx: well - it depends on how many submission we have [14:24] well we have 18 nominations so far so maybe 2 a week so far and adjust according as time goes by [14:24] ttx: have bugs already been accepted? [14:24] no. We can't commit much time to fixing them before FF anyway [14:24] ttx: I know I've already declined one bug (about mysql) [14:25] We could have a session during the meeting where we approve them [14:25] i do like hte idea of taking x bugs for y weeks (in our case the betas probably) [14:25] though that would overload the meeting [14:25] ttx: well - the list of nomination need to be approved at some point [14:26] ttx: *then* people can start working on a fix [14:26] ok, I propose that we review the papercuts proposals in next meeting... but lets make it quick, people should review them in advance [14:26] and we have a quick +1 round [14:26] agreed [14:26] we'll do it at the end of the meeting, on the remaining time [14:26] ttx: want an action of some sort? [14:27] jiboumans: yes, action me on announcing that [14:27] [ACTION] ttx to announce papercuts nominations [14:27] ACTION received: ttx to announce papercuts nominations [14:27] we want as many papercutters as we can to participate in that review [14:27] so I'll announce externally [14:28] and we'll try to do an x bugs / y weeks thing. [14:28] I'm done [14:28] excellent [14:28] [TOPIC] server-lucid-apport-hooks update (zul) [14:28] New Topic: server-lucid-apport-hooks update (zul) [14:28] same for you: what's the current status and what'st he next steps? [14:28] so php5, eucalyptus is done for the high priority ones, samba is being worked on now, and vmbuilder hasnt started yet [14:29] i havent gotten any contributions from the community yet [14:29] Doing apport hooks is easy ! and fun ! [14:29] zul, mathiaz: any suggestions where we might find interested parties? at the UDS session it seemed lots of people had input at least [14:29] yes it is! [14:30] jiboumans: i prodded some people on the security team to help out as well [14:30] ttx: too bad they're not in Perl :P [14:30] jiboumans: maybe send an email to ubuntu-server [14:30] It might be a good idea to have a blog post + link to "how to". [14:30] alexm: if you can do perl, you can do apport hooks, python is not very complex :) [14:30] :D [14:31] daviey: agreed [14:31] Daviey: we sorta have that [14:31] alexm: from one perl guy to another: think of python as the llama book and you'll be fine ;) [14:31] Daviey: zul blogged about it and the server/apporthooks wikipage has links to doc [14:32] Daviey: but yes, zul should have done a DeveloperWeek session on server apport hooks :) [14:32] ttx: Without actively searching, i can't think of a "how to write apport hooks" post or wiki page i've seen linked to [14:32] let's do another call then on the lists and point people at the blog/page [14:32] really!? /me wonders how he missed that [14:32] * Daviey hides. [14:32] [ACTION] zul to do another call to action for the apport hooks involvement [14:32] ACTION received: zul to do another call to action for the apport hooks involvement [14:32] acked [14:32] Daviey: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam/ApportHooks [14:32] zul: anything else on apport hooks? [14:32] nope [14:33] [TOPIC] PHP 5.3 for lucid (zul) [14:33] New Topic: PHP 5.3 for lucid (zul) [14:33] so alot of people have been asking about php 5.3 for lucid [14:33] mathiaz has bugged me a couple of times about it as well [14:33] and i checked with debian and they want to move to 5.3 for squeeze [14:34] my preference is to stay with 5.2 for lucid but that isnt popular [14:34] zul: Have you thought about what to do with the short tag deprecation.. AIUI PHP are now shipping with it disabled, but it will break a whole lot of websites. [14:34] the reason why to stay with 5.2 for lucid is that php 5.3 breaks applications such as mediawiki and drupal 5 doesnt support it (but we do have drupal ) [14:35] Daviey: i think debian is disabling it as well [14:35] i just want to know what poeple think [14:36] * Daviey agrees with zul that 5.2 is safer for an LTS.. However, -security might feel differently. [14:36] the discussion for php 5.3 in debian is at http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-php-maint/2010-January/006602.html [14:36] zul: so the choice is between old 5.2 or incompatible 5.3 ? [14:36] zul: do you have a list of other important webapps that break /don't support 5.3? [14:36] zul: any indication of upstream support lifetime for both versions ? [14:37] mediawiki and drupal is the one i know about right now [14:37] mathiaz: ANY code snippet using ttx: 5.3 will get security updates faster than 5.2 [14:37] Question: is it possible to ship 5.2 but to have the possibility to have 5.3 in backports? [14:37] jmdault: yes [14:37] 5.2 and 5.3 dont install nicely at the same time right now [14:37] zul: faster - how about longer? [14:38] mathiaz: no idea [14:38] Magento and Joomla seem to have issues as well [14:39] I'd follow the jmdault suggestion [14:39] i dont think it's realistic to repackage all those for php5.3 before ff [14:39] if it breaks several apps we care about [14:39] we need to think "platform" [14:39] and ship what is required upper in the stack to run [14:40] not necessarily what the developers want to use [14:40] they can use backports for that [14:40] * nijaba fully agrees [14:40] /but/ I'd throw a discussion on ubuntu-devel about it [14:40] just to take the wolves temperature. [14:41] zul: ^^ yes - I'd request for feedback on -devel and -server [14:41] if there's no other breakage other than configuration, we may have an option to ship a different default config [14:41] zul: outlining which application are *currently* not working with 5.3 [14:41] zul: how feasible is it to ship both ? (/me shows PHP ignorance) [14:41] ttx: it would be alot of work [14:42] They can't coexist. [14:42] zul: ok, it was never done before [14:42] ttx: I don't think we wanna do that - as it means one would in be universe the other in main [14:42] ttx: and then which one in main? [14:42] we're back to square one then [14:42] mathiaz: my question was about how did we handle similar transitions in the past. If there never was 2 PHPs, its not the timt to introduce that [14:42] I'd suggest we go with 5.2 in main for lucid, and ship 5.3 in -backports if there is a lot of demand [14:42] [ACTION] zul to raise php5.3 update on -server and -devel mailinglist. outline which apps are currently not working with 5.3 [14:42] ACTION received: zul to raise php5.3 update on -server and -devel mailinglist. outline which apps are currently not working with 5.3 [14:43] Two versions of PHP don't work [14:43] acked [14:43] jmdault: cool, one more reason to hate it [14:43] * Daviey seems to remember we had a similar discussion for 5.3 inclusion in karmic. [14:43] I tried that in the past for Mandriva, and hell broke loose [14:44] anything else on the php front zul? [14:44] nope [14:44] [TOPIC] Weekly Updates & Questions for the QA Team (soren) [14:44] New Topic: Weekly Updates & Questions for the QA Team (soren) [14:44] Daviey: I remember a similar discussion for PHP3 ;-) [14:44] Hm... [14:44] I don't have anything to report, I think. [14:44] Questions? [14:44] soren: we're interested in hwo the automated qa thing is going of course [14:45] jiboumans: It's going well. [14:45] soren++, yesterday's class on server automation was great [14:45] soren: yep, sounds like funny stuff :) [14:45] jiboumans: The PPA builds have been moved to a team ppa, so more people are being notified of build failures.. [14:45] I'm working on getting more of the qa-regression-testing tests run on a daily basis.. === cjohnston is now known as FFEMTcJ [14:46] and the ISO testing thing will hopefully be moved to the DC soon-ish. === FFEMTcJ is now known as cjohnston [14:46] soren: what's the ISO testing thing? [14:46] soren++ the testing phase was long overdue [14:47] soren: any progress on the server QA position ? [14:47] mathiaz: My automated ISO testing thing. I had a UDW session on it last night, if you care to read the logs. [14:47] mathiaz: I'll be demoing it next week, if not. [14:47] ttx: Yes. "Some". [14:47] :) [14:47] soren: with screenshots and the framebuffer? [14:48] mathiaz: Yup. [14:48] mathiaz: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MeetingLogs/devweek1001/AutoServerTests [14:48] Hang on, let me find a link for you.. [14:48] soren: alexm: thanks [14:48] alexm++ [14:48] http://people.canonical.com/~soren/lamplvminstall.avi [14:48] LINK received: http://people.canonical.com/~soren/lamplvminstall.avi [14:49] That's an automatic LAMP install with LVM "partitioning". [14:49] It fails in the end, but it sort of shows a bit of what's going on. [14:49] soren: great - thanks [14:50] any other questions for soren or the QA team? [14:50] ok, moving on [14:50] [TOPIC] Weekly Updates & Questions for the Kernel Team (jjohansen) [14:50] New Topic: Weekly Updates & Questions for the Kernel Team (jjohansen) [14:50] specifically: Summarize outcome of discussion about bug 494565 (smoser, jjohansen) [14:50] Launchpad bug 494565 in linux "support ramdiskless boot for relevant kvm drive interfaces in -virtual" [High,Fix committed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/494565 [14:51] jjohansen, ? [14:51] otherwise i'll just go. [14:51] we changed the suggested configs to builtin [14:51] ie. virtio, virtnet, and 1 scsi [14:51] it boots in limited testing [14:52] I have test images for any who want, or you can wait for the next kernel upload [14:52] jjohansen: eta for next kernel upload ? [14:52] there is some concern about these configs changing behavior, so we need wide testing [14:52] ttx: my guess is friday [14:53] jjohansen: can our QA setup help with this? [14:53] I don't know [14:53] soren: ^ [14:53] jjohansen: I didn't see a real conclusion to that ML thread, I guess the kernel team decided it was reasonably risk-free ? [14:53] Not really. [14:53] Well.. [14:54] well reasonably risk free [14:54] there is some concern [14:54] Some, not not anywhere near the amount of testing we'd get by just putting it out there and have people report back when things blow up. [14:54] the virt configs always present themselves === akgraner` is now known as akgraner [14:55] jjohansen: My concern is if it would blow up some fringe server hardware that always worked well, and nobody tests before release [14:55] jjohansen: i guess our real question is how do we know it's safe to put this in an LTS, and when is the latest point we need to decide? [14:56] right, there is no guarentee [14:56] I'm curious.. [14:56] we don't know of anything breaking, and don't believe anything should [14:56] What driver are people using if this one doesn't work for them? [14:56] What is the canonical replacement for it? [14:57] soren: which driver are you referring to? [14:57] virtio, virtnet, scsi? [14:57] the scsi one that seems to be the main concern. [14:57] actually I am more concerned on virt [14:57] Why? [14:58] the scsi driver has been around long enough we are reasonably confident that its bugs have been worked out [14:58] i think this dense enough to warrant a face 2 face discussion [14:58] as you'll all be at next weeks sprint, i suggest we raise the issue there [14:58] is that ok? [14:58] good idea [14:58] ok [14:58] thanks [14:58] jjohansen++ for fixing kernels [14:58] [TOPIC] Assigned and to-be-assigned bugs: http://qa.ubuntu.com/reports/team-assigned/canonical-server-assigned-bug-tasks.html (ttx) [14:58] New Topic: Assigned and to-be-assigned bugs: http://qa.ubuntu.com/reports/team-assigned/canonical-server-assigned-bug-tasks.html (ttx) [14:59] Nothing assigned to team [14:59] I noticed a ew "New" bugs there, those should probably be Confirmed or Triaged if they have an assignee [15:00] One question, about http://launchpad.net/bugs/499520 [15:00] Ubuntu bug 499520 in vm-builder "default uec-image requires at least 300 M of RAM to run - m1.small and c1.medium not needed by default" [High,New] [15:00] smoser: ^ [15:00] Do we finally know what caused the surge in RAM usage ? [15:00] I know soren asked a question about it [15:00] i gave soren some feed back. i'm not sure. [15:00] I talked to the kernel guys about it. [15:01] my suspicion is upstart, or rather loads of jobs running parrallel that previously ran serial [15:01] They seemed to think we were reading the numbers wrong. They made a convincing argument. [15:01] at least in boot that would account for balloon [15:01] soren if we're reading the numbers wrong, then so is OOM [15:01] as that is what pointed out the problem, processes dieing [15:02] ok, I'd want to know where this one is coming from, and where it can be going. Should we just switch our minds to a mode where a minimal image needs 300Mb of RAM... [15:02] another subject for the sprint? [15:02] smoser: It doesn't say anything about OOM in the bug? [15:02] nijaba: yes [15:02] jiboumans: done, next [15:02] soren, well "fails to boot" i think . but maybe its not there. [15:02] [TOPIC] Open Discussion [15:02] New Topic: Open Discussion [15:02] eh, oops [15:02] [TOPIC] Weekly SRU review: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam/KnowledgeBase#SRU%20weekly%20review (mathiaz) [15:02] New Topic: Weekly SRU review: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam/KnowledgeBase#SRU%20weekly%20review (mathiaz) [15:03] that first ;) [15:03] ttx: i'd like to think a minimal image should run in 256MB of mem [15:03] we no longer need 300Mb of RAM for boot, as swap is being enabled again. so that avoids OOM. [15:03] kirkland: yes, me too. [15:03] nothing on the nomination lists [15:03] http://qa.ubuntu.com/reports/ubuntu-server-team/fixedbugs.ubuntu-server.latest.html [15:03] LINK received: http://qa.ubuntu.com/reports/ubuntu-server-team/fixedbugs.ubuntu-server.latest.html [15:03] kirkland: that's why I talked about "mind adjustment" [15:03] anything worth SRU on the list above? [15:03] checking [15:04] ttx: yeah, i'm with you ... honestly, i never run my VM's with less than 512MB, but i think we're doing something wrong if we *require* 300MB just to boot [15:04] * soren agrees [15:04] I'm running a lot of hardy VM's on 64 MB just fine. [15:04] Hm.... with swap, though. [15:04] http://qa.ubuntu.com/reports/ubuntu-server-team/fixedbugs.ubuntu-server.latest.html [15:04] LINK received: http://qa.ubuntu.com/reports/ubuntu-server-team/fixedbugs.ubuntu-server.latest.html [15:04] anything worth SRU on the list above? [15:04] 462172, 480152, 502878, 500457 [15:05] 504897 and that one as well [15:06] bug 462172, bug 480152, bug 502878, bug 500457, bug 504897 [15:06] soren: yeah, come to think of it, I'm running hardy in my hosted VPS with 128MB (+swap) [15:06] Launchpad bug 462172 in samba "samba "Too many files are currently in use."" [Medium,Fix released] https://launchpad.net/bugs/462172 [15:06] Launchpad bug 480152 in samba "Samba service doesn't start automatically" [Medium,Fix released] https://launchpad.net/bugs/480152 [15:06] Launchpad bug 502878 in samba "Samba 3.4.0 won't let win98 clients to connect" [Medium,Fix released] https://launchpad.net/bugs/502878 [15:06] Launchpad bug 500457 in samba "Please backport fix for point&print samba support" [Wishlist,Fix released] https://launchpad.net/bugs/500457 [15:06] Launchpad bug 504897 in nut "megatec_usb problem (did not claim interface)" [Undecided,Fix released] https://launchpad.net/bugs/504897 [15:07] zul: seems like good candidates - nominate/accept them [15:07] k [15:07] anything else? [15:07] that's all for the SRU review [15:07] then [15:07] [TOPIC] Open Discussion [15:07] New Topic: Open Discussion [15:08] going once... [15:08] going wtice... [15:08] alright [15:08] BANG [15:08] [TOPIC] Agree on next meeting date and time [15:08] New Topic: Agree on next meeting date and time [15:08] next week we won't have a meeting, as the entire platform team will be at a sprnt [15:08] the next meeting will be Feb 11th, same time, same channel [15:09] thank you all for your time [15:09] #endmeeting [15:09] Meeting finished at 09:09. [15:09] thanks === davidpramana is now known as davidpramana_ [16:00] hello, meeting time [16:00] hi [16:00] barry, cjwatson, ev, tremolux, lool, doko, mvo, slangasek (anyone missing from that list?) [16:00] hiya [16:01] Hey! [16:01] howdy everyone [16:01] here [16:02] ok,lets start [16:02] #startmeeting [16:02] Meeting started at 10:02. The chair is mvo. [16:02] Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE] [16:02] the agenda is: [16:02] [LINK] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/FoundationsTeam/Meetings/2010/0127#Agenda [16:02]