=== emma_ is now known as emma === andregondim_ is now known as Andre_Gondim === randa_ is now known as randa-afk [09:50] * randa-afk is away: Gone away for now === randa-afk is now known as randa_ [09:50] * randa_ is back. === lukjad007 is now known as lukjad86 === njpatel_ is now known as njpatel === dholbach_ is now known as dholbach === edson_ is now known as ecanto [15:55] * slangasek waves [15:56] slangasek: happy it's friday :) [15:57] Right. It's about that time. [15:57] hmm, is it? wonder where Thursday went... [15:58] No idea. I was up until 2:30 local do data analysis on a $WORK project and then back up before 8. [15:58] * ScottK recalls he needs more coffee. [15:59] I have you beat, it's still not 8 here ;) [15:59] o/ [15:59] * slangasek waves [16:00] * asac waves [16:00] * marjo waves [16:00] #startmeeting [16:00] Meeting started at 10:00. The chair is slangasek. [16:00] Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE] [16:01] o/ [16:01] [LINK] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ReleaseTeam/Meeting/2010-04-09 [16:01] LINK received: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ReleaseTeam/Meeting/2010-04-09 [16:01] [TOPIC] actions from previous meetings [16:01] New Topic: actions from previous meetings [16:01] * rickspencer to ask designers about new Edubuntu logo [16:01] * slangasek, asac to discuss omap plans for 10.04 (DONE, discussed with davidm) [16:01] * doko to grep the archive for codecs.open in python code, to find other packages broken by http://bugs.python.org/issue691291 [16:01] * ScottK, slangasek to review python sync/merge candidates (INPROGRESS) [16:01] slangasek: from what i understood you discussed high level bits on omap with david ... more detailed bits are now in RC bug section. [16:01] * slangasek to document bug #528155 for beta2 errata (DONE) [16:01] Launchpad bug 528155 in linux "needs a breaks: clause for lvm2 versions in hardy" [High,Fix committed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/528155 [16:02] * rickspencer3 to figure out what package needs changed for bug #357673 (DONE) [16:02] Launchpad bug 357673 in linux "No notification when sliding audio volume, muting volume on ThinkPad X23, X24, X31, X32, X41, X60, T22, T40, T42, T60, R50e, R51, R52" [High,Fix released] https://launchpad.net/bugs/357673 [16:02] ack [16:02] pitti: no rickspencer? [16:02] he's on vacation today [16:02] pitti: ok [16:03] asac: right; my immediate concern was "what are the deliverables and the support expectations", which hadn't been discussed up until now, but I have those answers now [16:03] slangasek: anyway, I looked at the bug, too, and triaged it [16:03] doko confirmed to me that codecs.open is on his todo list, but that he was waiting for IS [16:04] doko: ^^ what is it you needed installed on people.c.c to do this grep? is there an RT ticket I can +1? :) [16:05] [TOPIC] QA Team [16:05] New Topic: QA Team [16:05] slangasek: i have a few items today [16:05] * Hardware testing [16:05] Automated Tests [16:05] http://people.canonical.com/~fader/hw-testing/current.html [16:05] Netbooks: [16:05] passed: 13 (93%) failed: 0 ( 0%) untested: 1 ( 7%) [16:05] Laptops: [16:05] LINK received: http://people.canonical.com/~fader/hw-testing/current.html [16:05] passed: 44 (94%) failed: 0 ( 0%) untested: 3 ( 6%) [16:05] Servers: [16:05] passed: 65 (94%) failed: 0 ( 0%) untested: 4 ( 6%) [16:05] Desktops: [16:05] passed: 12 (100%) failed: 0 ( 0%) untested: 0 ( 0%) [16:05] Manual Tests [16:05] http://people.canonical.com/~fader/milestones/lucid/beta1.html [16:05] LINK received: http://people.canonical.com/~fader/milestones/lucid/beta1.html [16:05] Passed: 19 (31%) Failed: 12 (20%) Untested: 30 (49%) [16:06] marjo: beta1.html ? [16:06] those are stale test results though, yes? [16:06] (the beta1) [16:06] why stale? [16:06] slangasek: alexmoldovan has been plowing through those since beta 1 came out, but he is only available in the lab 3 days per week [16:06] slangasek: oh yes, because we had already started those [16:07] slangasek: it is installed, the ticket is closed [16:07] slangasek: per the conversation we had at alpha 3, you asked that we stick with one image rather than test the daily builds [16:07] marjo: stale because it says "beta1", and we would want confirmation with beta2 [16:07] slangasek: understood [16:07] fader_: how does "beta1" differ from "current", then? [16:08] slangasek: Not sure I understand... these are manual tests executed on the hardware on the beta 1 image rather than the current [16:08] ah, right [16:08] At alpha 3 time we were doing the daily images for each day, but you had asked that we stick to one consistent image [16:08] Lucid Beta 2 Test Report [16:08] 9th April 2010 [16:08] = Summary = [16:08] == Test Coverage == [16:08] Image Coverage: 100% [16:08] Mandatory Testcase Coverage: 207/207 = 100.00 [16:08] Optional Testcase Coverage: 9/18 = 50.00 [16:08] === Test Failure Analysis === [16:08] 25 Test Failures [16:08] Failure Rate 25/216 = 11.57 [16:08] == Serious bugs found in ISO testing status == [16:09] http://people.canonical.com/~marjomercado/isotestingbugs.html [16:09] LINK received: http://people.canonical.com/~marjomercado/isotestingbugs.html [16:09] thx to everyone who helped us achieve such nice test coverage on beta 2! [16:09] fader_: yes, because we were getting test failures due to known transient problems in the dailies; now we seem to be having the opposite problem, in that half these failures are annotated as known-fixed in newer builds :) [16:10] anyway, assuming these will be re-tested soon with beta2, that's ok [16:10] slangasek: Yeah, the majority of the bugs we found are fixed in the dailies at this point. We are figuring this out and trying to hit a happy medium... it's all new process :) [16:10] (and alexmoldovan has been awesome about testing and re-testing on dailies :) ) [16:10] == Bugs summary == [16:10] === Summary of Unfixed Issues === [16:10] 60 bugs unfixed [16:10] Critical - 1 [16:10] High - 14 [16:10] Medium - 7 [16:10] Low - 3 [16:11] Undecided - 35 [16:11] === Summary of Fixed Issues === [16:11] 12 bugs fixed [16:11] High - 7 [16:11] Medium - 1 [16:11] Undecided - 4 [16:11] marjo: I'm concerned about the low "optional testcase" coverage - from my end, the intent of optional testcases is to identify tests we need to make sure are run against *some* image as part of a release, but don't need to be run for *every* image where they apply [16:12] slangasek: understood; as you know priority is always to get 100% on mandatory, then go for optional [16:12] is there a list of the optional testcases that weren't covered, and does the QA team have time to follow those through this week so we cover our blind spots? [16:12] this week->next week [16:12] but will work with testing team to see how to get higher coverage on all [16:12] slangasek: yes, will do retrospective [16:13] I don't mean retrospective, I mean that those missing test cases should still get tested before RC is upon us [16:13] slangasek: ok, i misunderstood [16:13] yes, will see what can be done [16:14] [ACTION] marjo to make sure the outstanding optional testcases for beta2 get tested this week [16:14] ACTION received: marjo to make sure the outstanding optional testcases for beta2 get tested this week [16:14] Lucid Quality Status Report [16:14] 20 days left and 315 bug tasks to fix. [16:14] Barring no new work we need to fix 16 bug tasks a day now. [16:14] The focus of bug fixing should be on the following tasks: [16:14] The 6 Critical bug tasks. [16:14] The 30 bug tasks that might cause a regression in Lucid. [16:14] The 113 High bug tasks. [16:14] The Canonical Desktop Team needs to deal with 18 bug tasks. [16:14] Martin Pitt is the most overtasked with 9 bug tasks. [16:14] Martin Pitt is rockin' with 76 bug tasks fixed! [16:14] Yesterday's hero was Michael Vogt with 4 bug tasks fixed! [16:15] not so bad [16:15] Spec Status [16:15] http://people.canonical.com/~pitti/workitems/canonical-platform-qa-ubuntu-10.04-beta-2.html [16:15] All completed except: [16:15] Identify and implement improvements for finding bugs that affect hardware [16:15] 1. Write up a nice README to document existing HWDB scripts we have, what they do, and how to use them: TODO [16:15] LINK received: http://people.canonical.com/~pitti/workitems/canonical-platform-qa-ubuntu-10.04-beta-2.html [16:15] 2. Send an email to the platform team ml for anyone who may be interested: TODO [16:15] Will retarget to end of release. [16:15] hm, given that the "need to fix #n bugs per day" keeps rising, we should perhaps take off some and move them to SRUs [16:15] we won't be able to keep up at this pace [16:15] slangasek:yes, must keep the focus up [16:15] there are a number of bugs currently milestoned for final that I'm sure are not going to make it; we need to be explicitly deferring some of those and focusing on the others [16:15] in particular, the current kernel bug load is completely unrealistic [16:15] slangasek: agree [16:16] slangasek: but as you know, jfo and team have been quite busy resolving bugs [16:16] marjo: hm, I have 9 RC bug tasks assigned? I'm not aware of that.. [16:16] pitti: the "bugs per day" was actually stable all last week; then we had Easter + freeze :) [16:17] https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/~pitti/+assignedbugs?orderby=status has 4 lucid-targetted tasks.. [16:17] pitti: will double check & modify report [16:18] marjo: those are lucid-targetted bugs only? or RC bugs? (lucid and high/critical)? [16:18] pitti: yes, lucid only [16:18] marjo: I'm just curious what these numbers refer to [16:18] marjo: ah, thanks [16:18] pitti:otherwise, too much noise [16:18] marjo: LP helpfully duplicates lucid-targetted bugs in lists .. [16:18] need to focus on lucid [16:18] pitti: shouldn't RC be "lucid and targeted to ubuntu-10.04" ? [16:19] ttx: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/RCBugTargetting says targetting and >= high [16:19] pitti: ok thx [16:19] but targetting the ones to ubuntu-10.04 which we want to fix by final makes sense, too [16:20] if you intend to fix a bug for 10.04 final, please make sure the milestone is set too [16:20] slangasek: that's all from QA team [16:20] ttx: the un-milestoned ones automatically become SRU targets [16:20] marjo: right, thanks! [16:20] [TOPIC] Server Team [16:20] New Topic: Server Team [16:20] ttx: hi [16:20] hey [16:20] Updated status @ https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam/ReleaseStatus [16:20] [LINK] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam/ReleaseStatus [16:20] LINK received: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam/ReleaseStatus [16:21] 3 lucid bugs targeted to ubuntu-10.04: [16:21] bug 551544 [16:21] Launchpad bug 551544 in puppet "puppet in lucid does not support upstart status " [High,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/551544 [16:21] bug 556343 [16:21] Launchpad bug 556343 in bind9 "upgrade error on 8.04 -> 10.04 " [High,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/556343 [16:21] bug 556996 [16:21] Launchpad bug 556996 in samba "winbind pam-config potentially breaks stacking with modules of lower priority in common-passwd" [Low,Fix released] https://launchpad.net/bugs/556996 [16:21] (just fixed) [16:21] all assigned and being worked on [16:21] See report for the other lucid-targeted bugs, most of them have now been assigned [16:22] We expect a surge in bug reports, as server users usually don't test before the last beta [16:22] so the list is expected to change [16:22] ttx: bug #551544> possibly simpler to just get this fixed in upstart for release; can you make sure mathiaz talks with Keybuk about this? [16:22] Launchpad bug 551544 in puppet "puppet in lucid does not support upstart status " [High,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/551544 [16:22] (bug #552786 is the corresponding upstart bug) [16:22] Launchpad bug 552786 in upstart "initctl: lacks proper exit codes" [Medium,Invalid] https://launchpad.net/bugs/552786 [16:22] slangasek: yes [16:23] We have one team member assigned to triage of new server bugs every day, so that we don't lose the important RC one [16:23] Other questions on the bugs side ? [16:23] Moving on to Specs... [16:23] Beta2 postmortem: [16:24] Some wo'rk items were postponed: [16:24] server-lucid-apt-mirror-ec2: 1 WI still blocked on IS delivery, but imminent [16:24] server-lucid-puppet-uec-ec2-integration: testsuite enablement, documentation [16:24] server-lucid-uec-testing: multinetwork testing automation still work in progress [16:24] server-lucid-id-mgmt-reference-env: deferred (was Low priority) [16:24] That leaves us with a few work items for final, mostly unaffected by FinalFreeze [16:25] http://people.canonical.com/~pitti/workitems/canonical-server-ubuntu-10.04.html [16:25] LINK received: http://people.canonical.com/~pitti/workitems/canonical-server-ubuntu-10.04.html [16:25] ^ see above url for details [16:25] Bugs affecting server in other teams: [16:25] The only one I could find is one reported in ISO testing about RAID/ext3 [16:25] bug 557429 [16:25] Launchpad bug 557429 in mdadm "booting out of sync RAID1 array fails with ext3 (comes up as already in sync)" [High,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/557429 [16:26] Other issues affecting release: [16:26] Two lucid bugs would probably need FFes to get fixed: bug 392759 and bug 533029 [16:26] Launchpad bug 392759 in apache2 "[FFE] apache2 DoS attack using slowloris" [Unknown,Fix released] https://launchpad.net/bugs/392759 [16:26] Launchpad bug 533029 in autofs5 "autofs5-ldap doesn't work immediately after bootup" [High,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/533029 [16:26] Expect some noise from there if not already done [16:26] That's all for us [16:27] questions ? [16:28] ogasawara: bug #557429 is marked as a kernel bug; and it's a potential data loss bug *caused* by RAID1, so should be fixed for final if at all possible - what further triaging is needed there? [16:28] Launchpad bug 557429 in mdadm "booting out of sync RAID1 array fails with ext3 (comes up as already in sync)" [High,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/557429 [16:29] slangasek: I'll take a look and get it into shape if needed [16:29] [ACTION] ogasawara to triage bug #557429 for final [16:29] ACTION received: ogasawara to triage bug #557429 for final [16:29] thanks [16:29] no other questions here, anyone else? [16:29] [TOPIC] Mobile Team [16:29] New Topic: Mobile Team [16:29] ttx: thanks [16:29] asac: hi [16:29] hi [16:29] [LINK] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MobileTeam/ReleaseStatus/Lucid [16:29] LINK received: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MobileTeam/ReleaseStatus/Lucid [16:30] so webservice office took a bit, but we now have the copyright/trademark issues sorted for artwork [16:30] webservice email is in the archive too ... MIR is coming ... [16:30] two main things are now troubling us: [16:30] * omap kernel and initial enablement [16:31] -> making progress, but we didnt get to flashing out all the user space issues in the image yet [16:31] * openoffice build regression [16:31] -> really, sad, but ooo now fails to build after recent updates [16:31] we are currently investigating to find the cause for this [16:31] i made a omap section for rc bugs on the status page [16:31] so you get the issues we know about in one place [16:32] so besides kernel we expect to touch flash-kernel and partman-uboot to teach it omap [16:32] imx51 and dove images are in good shape though ... so no headaches on that front ;) [16:32] asac: I noticed the other day from http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/testing/lucid_outdate.html that there's an armel-specific build failure in main that I thought was on the porting bug list but apparently isn't - libtunepimp? [16:33] yes, thats one of the 3? ftbfs we have on our list for this week [16:33] cant tell more about it. i dont think its thumb2 related -- otherwise it would have been on our list [16:34] also we will do a mass give back on universe one more time to pick up a few things that probably build now [16:35] when you say it's "on your list" - it's not on the release status list, and it's not targeted/milestoned for 10.04? [16:35] I'd like visibility into whatever list it's actually on, please :) [16:35] yes, that should get a bug [16:35] sorry [16:35] * asac goes and files [16:37] ok done [16:37] 559338 [16:37] thanks [16:38] anything else? [16:38] not from my side [16:38] i'll need to touch some installer bits for omap next week (but they are covered as bugs) [16:38] just to warn :) [16:38] ogra: more than those we have on the page? [16:38] ;) [16:38] i hope not [16:39] ok [16:39] but not having an image that gets to a full installation yet makes it hard to predict [16:39] right. i mentioned that above [16:39] i might hit issues that arent on the list yet [16:39] asac: I saw plars had just retargeted bug #542662 to final; in a previous meeting I got the impression that this was not critical-path for omap, is that correct? [16:39] Launchpad bug 542662 in ubuntu "[needs-packaging] x-loader for omap needs to be packaged to build beagleboard images" [High,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/542662 [16:39] drop it please [16:40] slangasek: yes. we are ok to not have that [16:40] ok [16:40] * asac does that [16:40] we want it in the archive but we dont use it in 10.04 [16:40] done [16:40] it just enables users of such HW to reflash their nand with a package from us [16:41] ack. ok. any other questions? [16:42] asac: last question, what needs to happen to get these thumb2 porting bugs sorted? Is there anything people outside Mobile can do to help? The bug descriptions are all very brief and the page they link to doesn't provide much more information, so I wasn't able to get any traction on the one I looked at [16:42] slangasek: hmmm [16:42] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ARM/Thumb2PackageReviewList has quite detailed info [16:42] also [16:42] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ARM/Thumb2PortingHowto [16:43] * ogra thought those links were in the bugs by default [16:43] slangasek: for main we just have xine-lib left ... which i am reviewing/working on now [16:43] ogra: not sure if we linked the portinghowto [16:43] but its linked from the reviewlist page [16:43] ah [16:43] slangasek: which package are you interested in? [16:43] maybe I was having a bad reading day when I tried to look [16:44] asac: I'm not interested in any package, I'm interested in having the bugs resolved since they seem to be dragging on :) [16:44] slangasek: yeah. one left now ;) [16:44] didn't you just mark xine-lib as wontfix? [16:44] upx-ucl is still open, though [16:45] slangasek: sorry mixed those [16:45] ok [16:45] upx-ucl is what i am looking at ;) [16:45] then I guess they're in progress, so I don't need to stick my nose in [16:45] yep [16:45] any other questions for Mobile? [16:45] [TOPIC] Kernel Team [16:45] New Topic: Kernel Team [16:45] asac: thanks [16:45] ogasawara: hi [16:45] * apw is here [16:46] thanks [16:46] apw: hi [16:46] Overall Kernel Team status is summarised at the first URL below, including the items called out in the agenda. The burndown chart for Release is at the third URL, and our burndown chart is at the fourth. There are a couple of items outstanding in Beta-2 which either need closing or pushing out, none release critical: [16:46] [LINK] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/KernelTeam/ReleaseStatus/Lucid [16:46] [LINK] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/KernelTeam/ReleaseStatus/Lucid#Milestone%20ubuntu-10.04 [16:46] [LINK] http://people.canonical.com/~pitti/workitems/canonical-kernel-team-ubuntu-10.04.html [16:46] LINK received: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/KernelTeam/ReleaseStatus/Lucid [16:46] LINK received: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/KernelTeam/ReleaseStatus/Lucid#Milestone%20ubuntu-10.04 [16:46] LINK received: http://people.canonical.com/~pitti/workitems/canonical-kernel-team-ubuntu-10.04.html [16:46] [LINK] http://people.canonical.com/~pitti/workitems/canonical-kernel-team.svg [16:46] LINK received: http://people.canonical.com/~pitti/workitems/canonical-kernel-team.svg [16:46] On the items pulled out on the agenda: the work remaining on AppArmor is upstreaming and not release criticical; the configuration review waits on the configuration report which is also not release critical. Of the bugs a number have fixes in testing, the remainder are progressing. [16:46] We are planning a kernel upload for the main distro kernel today, this will carry some debian installer changes for XEN netboot images which need uploading to test completely. This upload will also carry a stable update. We likely will have one final upload early next week carrying a few stray fixes. [16:46] [16:47] apw: and next week's upload is the last before final? [16:47] slangasek, yes thats the plan [16:47] want you to have the longest run possible to the tape [16:48] apw: bug #542660 seems unlikely to make it - should that one be marked as deferred to SRU? [16:48] Launchpad bug 542660 in xserver-xorg-driver-ati "New Apple iMac (Core i5) fails to boot" [Unknown,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/542660 [16:48] yes i think we are likely in that position on that one, its looking like a large change [16:48] also bug #543617 looks risky for a last-minute change [16:48] Launchpad bug 543617 in linux "very slow filesystem I/O" [High,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/543617 [16:49] slangasek, i am told the change is very simple, so we may do it [16:49] essentially 'sync; umount' works [16:49] hmm, ok [16:49] and umount on its own does not ... so if we can simulate that it may be ok [16:49] else we'll have to wait for upstream to think more on why its not working as is [16:50] that bug is evil [16:51] yeah has had us thinking hard for some time at that [16:51] slangasek, to move something to sru i assume the approved milestone is lucid-updates [16:51] apw: yes [16:51] thanks [16:51] no other kernel questions here; anyone else? [16:52] [TOPIC] Desktop Team [16:52] New Topic: Desktop Team [16:52] apw: thanks [16:52] pitti: ohai [16:52] [LINK] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DesktopTeam/ReleaseStatus [16:52] LINK received: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DesktopTeam/ReleaseStatus [16:52] ork items: Beta-2 items all done; just three WIs left for final, of which two do not affect the distro (Launchpad bug filing page update, design review of simple-scan), and the third is to disable the "File a bug" menu entry, which is prepared, but should happen only before the release candidate. [16:53] * pitti tosses a 'W' to the beginning [16:53] RC bugs: they keep comin', and we now also explicitly added the UbuntuOne bugs (which the U1 team is working on), but we had a good turnover this week and fixed 9, and further 5 are "fix committed". Details are on the wiki page [16:53] 2 RC bugs that we have serious trouble with: bug 507062 (investigation started, hoping that upstream will give some hints), and bug 447431 (was believed to be fixed for some time, but confirmed again recently; Chris will continue to investigate, now that his RC bug list has dropped dramatically) [16:53] Launchpad bug 507062 in libx11 "synaptic assert failure: synaptic: ../../src/xcb_io.c:385: _XAllocID: Assertion `ret != inval_id' failed." [High,Incomplete] https://launchpad.net/bugs/507062 [16:53] Launchpad bug 447431 in gnome-desktop "gnome-settings-daemon dies with BadMatch" [Medium,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/447431 [16:53] desktop-lucid-openoffice: 3.2.1 was not released in time for Lucid final, but 3.2.0 is considered "good enough"; we'll provide 3.2.1 as an SRU [16:55] pitti: bug #527138 - AIUI thunderbird is /not/ done, the latest comment on the bug as of this morning was that the thunderbird-dev package is still missing a piece needed to allow packages to build against it? [16:55] Launchpad bug 527138 in enigmail "enigmail is uninstallable in lucid, needs update to 1.0 - blocked by missing thunderbird-config" [Medium,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/527138 [16:55] slangasek: oh, hmm; I'll have a look at this and reopen then [16:56] OOo 3.2.1 as an SRU - that's going to fit in the normal SRU policy, or are we stretching the definition to make that work? [16:56] slangasek: that remains to be seen, as it's not released yet [16:56] but I guess it'll involve some stretching [16:56] :/ [16:56] perhaps s/we'll provide/we'll look at/ [16:57] that would be nice :) [16:57] once it's released and we know what things changed, we have to review that in detail [16:57] slangasek: related to that, due to GNOME's slightly chagned release cycle, we can't put 2.30.1 into lucid final [16:57] so we'll do some git snapshots early next week for the most important packages [16:58] in hardy we had a SRU policy extension for GNOME point releases [16:58] I think we should discuss applying that to lucid as well [16:58] * ScottK would like to do that for KDE too. [16:58] agreed [16:58] (in general, but particularly for Lucid) [16:58] i. e. we'll still review the changes, of course, but we might allow things like updated translations or harmless build system changes, etc. [16:58] should that be discussed at UDS? [16:58] * doko would like to see this for OpenJDK too [16:58] so ideally 10.04.1 would have GNOME 2.30.2 or .3, and the new OO.o [16:59] doko: yes [16:59] slangasek: makes sense [16:59] pitti: can you get it on the UDS agenda? [16:59] we have traditionally put much more effort into SRUs for LTSes [16:59] slangasek: yes, will do [16:59] [ACTION] pitti to get discussion of SRU extension for GNOME, KDE, OOo, OpenJDK point releases on UDS agenda [16:59] ACTION received: pitti to get discussion of SRU extension for GNOME, KDE, OOo, OpenJDK point releases on UDS agenda [16:59] seb128: want to do the thawing topic, or shall I? [17:00] I wanted to raise again queue flushing on friday after freezes [17:00] I say again because I think it was discussed before [17:00] is there anything we can do to avoid having ton of updates landing to late to be tested before weekend? [17:01] seb128: was that the case this time that things landed too late to be tested? [17:01] ie the half a day delay between beta2 and queue review there bring us in having updates landing on friday evening [17:01] rather than on start of day [17:01] yes [17:01] I would prefer not having to review anything in the queue, and be able to just flush it [17:01] if they had been flushed yesterday we would have got updates this morning european time [17:01] and the day to catch issues [17:01] unfortunately, some people have been uploading things to the freeze queue in lieu of getting FFe approval [17:01] which means the queue has to be sifted before accepting [17:02] who are those people and can we teach them to not do that? [17:02] at least main upload should know better... [17:02] seb128: I don't think so, I think it's just a lot of stuff in the queue. [17:02] I meant to include a note about this in the beta 2 freeze announcement to make it clear where the responsibility lies, but I failed to remember [17:02] uploaders [17:02] I mean those same people can upload directly after unfreeze [17:02] why would they upload things during freezes which are not good to go after unfreeze? [17:02] seb128: well, it's *exclusively* main uploaders, as unseeded packages aren't frozen for beta [17:02] it doesn't make sense to me [17:03] no, it doesn't make sense, it shouldn't be the practice, we should fix it - I just failed to send out the announcement beforehand and I saw several packages in the queue that this affected [17:03] hum ok, still seems weird to me that we have people doing non lucid suitable upload to lucid queue during a freeze [17:03] if we message this more clearly next time, then there should be no problem with flushing immediately after beta [17:03] Also I reviewed and accepted enough stuff to keep most of the builders busy most of the night. I don't think it delayed much. [17:04] seb128: it's quite a common workflow for SRUs, but right, it sholdn't be for the devel release [17:04] pitti, right but you don't unflush queues for sru [17:04] the milestones freezes are supposed to end and things to go in [17:04] ok, so in summary I think we know where the problem is and have to fix it on a social level then [17:04] right [17:05] * ScottK hands seb128 a stick. [17:05] learning every day [17:05] I wouldn't have though some people uploaded cracks to lucid queue during freezes [17:05] thanks [17:06] no Kubuntu status update today, sorry; apparently Jonathan is on holiday [17:06] I can give one [17:06] please [17:06] Beta 2 went pretty well for Kubuntu. === Tonio__ is now known as Tonio_ [17:06] seb128: btw, the first packages left in the freeze queue, that I accepted yesterday before going to bed, were metacity and compiz which ended up in a build-dep loop, so compiz didn't build all night anyway :/ [17:06] It also looks like yesterday's ia64 build for qt4-x11 may succeed (well past where it failed). [17:07] We even have powerpc live CD ISO's that aren't oversized. [17:07] slangasek, yeah, I noticed that today, unfortunate [17:08] slangasek: Were there any Kubuntu questions I can answer? [17:08] ScottK: powerpc> wow - nice diet! [17:08] ScottK: we seem to still be struggling to get Kubuntu all the way there on the installer side; things that I thought had been tested and working with earlier milestones failed again with beta2 - do we know why this is? [17:08] I'm standing by to unseed OOo from KNR armel if it doesn't get sorted. [17:09]