[00:07] <persia> Nice job holstein!  Great coordination with all the teams.
[00:07] <holstein> yeah, it really came together there nicely :)
[00:31] <ScottL> good job holstein !  thank you much :)
[09:01] <astraljava> re: bug 622583, this is very confusing. At times there is talk about including -rt under the support of UKT, and now they're being removed completely. Huh?
[12:30] <abogani> .
[13:27] <ScottL> this may seem like a bad situation but i think this may have an advantage for us
[13:28] <ScottL> since we cannot control when the -rt kernel are available (meaning when a new one will come out)
[13:29] <ScottL> and there is pressure even from within the studio team to keep the kernel (studio vs desktop) aligned
[13:29] <ScottL> and i believe UKT hasn't really been directly support the -rt kernel, it's really been abogani
[13:29] <ScottL> it makes sense to remove it from the archives
[13:30] <ScottL> BUT that means we can host it in ppa without messing around with UKT
[13:30] <ScottL> that means we have *complete* control over and without having to interface with someone else about it :)
[13:30] <ScottL> we just have to let users know where it is
[13:30] <abogani> https://launchpad.net/~abogani/+archive/ppa
[13:31] <ScottL> like with abogani's ppa
[13:31] <ScottL> touche abogani 
[13:31] <abogani> :-)
[13:32]  * abogani sorry for have removed -rt from official archives but there isn't a better way to handle *this* situation.
[13:32]  * abogani hopes in you understanding
[13:35] <abogani> *your
[13:37] <abogani> My English is getting worse rapidly... :-(
[13:39] <abogani> ScottL: I agreed with you expect that I have preferred have -lowlatency kernel into official archives and used as default kernel in Studio. That because it is a PREEMPT (not PREEMPT-RT) kernel but is always better than -generic.
[13:39]  * ScottL was taking daughter out to school bus
[13:39] <ScottL> abogani, i absolutely understand removing -rt kernel from the archives and completely support it
[13:40] <ScottL> i believe that including it in the first place was probably a misstep given that we can't control when it would be released and the UKT reasonable constraint of aligning kernels between studio and desktop
[13:41] <ScottL> furthermore i agree with you abogani that we should probably move towards including the -lowlatency kernel in the archives as our official kernel for both i386 and amd64
[13:42] <ScottL> i've delayed (and quite honest forgotten about) it because work has been sooo busy and intense for the past couple of day, but i hope today to talk to JFo more about that later
[13:43]  * ScottL is off this Friday workday :)
[13:43] <abogani> ScottL, :-)
[13:45] <abogani> ScottL, FYI: The -lowlatency kernel maintenance is very *trivial* and *everyone* could do it but benefit are interesting.
[14:06] <ScottL> abogani, why do you say "interesting"
[14:09] <abogani> ScottL: Effort is minimal (because for very low cost of -lowlatency maintenance) but improving respect -generic is really interesting (so with a very good results from a latency/jitter technical view). The -lowlatency is a full preempatble kernel after all!
[14:09] <abogani> In short we can improve a lot with a minimal effort.
[14:11]  * abogani think that when -lowlatency will be into official archives a lot of people will start to use if. All applications seems more fast and all system is more reactive.
[14:11] <abogani> s/if/it
[14:13] <ScottL> hi quadrispro 
[14:13] <quadrispro> ciao ScottL !
[14:19] <ScottL> abogani, i thought by "interesting" you meant it had some strange or unexpected benefits
[14:20] <abogani> ScottL, ... some really good (expected) benefits.
[14:25] <ScottL> :)
[14:29] <ScottL> hi JFo , you got a minute ?
[14:29] <JFo> ScottL, sure
[14:30] <ScottL> sorry, for not getting back to you a couple of days ago
[14:30] <ScottL> but what i would like to talk about is the possibility of getting the -lowlatency kernel into the archives
[14:31] <ScottL> since the -rt kernel has been removed from the archives, this would be a very good kernel to have in a ubuntu studio installation by default
[14:32] <JFo> no problem, let me ask the team if that is possible. 
[14:32] <JFo> I think the consensus was that if there was an -rt kernel, then a -preempt one would be extra work
[14:35] <abogani> JFo, I would want let you notice that -lowlatency offers good latency/jitter performance meanwhile it have a very low maintenance costs (and It could be version aligned with -generic one).
[14:37] <ScottL> JFo, if the -lowlatency kernel was included in the archives would the UKT support it directly by creating and uploading?
[14:38] <ScottL> or would it be community (i.e. studio and abogani ) maintained?  if this is the case it would be nice to designate a point of contact for abogani for uploading
[14:38] <JFo> ScottL, I think that is a conversation that needs to happen between abogani and the team. The -rt stuff is something that is before my time here.
[14:38] <JFo> as all I have been told 
[14:39] <JFo> is that there would be duplication of effort to have a -rt and a -preempt
[14:39] <JFo> but I will ask
[14:39] <abogani> JFo, I understand. In any case please take a look of simple configuration differences between -generic and -lowlatency at http://kernel.ubuntu.com/git?p=abogani/ubuntu-lowlatency-maverick.git;a=blob;f=debian.lowlatency/README.Debian;h=102b656fb3f26e30b3094fc91705ee5f3e0ccac8;hb=refs/heads/lowlatency
[14:40] <abogani> JFo, Thanks for all.
[14:40] <JFo> abogani, no problem :)
[14:40] <ScottL> JFo, definite thanks for helping coordinate this :)
[14:41] <JFo> ScottL, my pleasure
[14:41] <JFo> I just don't know how much help I will be :)
[14:41] <JFo> lots of things flying around at the moment :)
[14:41] <ScottL> JFo, completely understandable, and this isn't something that needs to be resolved right at this moment
[14:42] <JFo> ok
[14:42] <ScottL> but i would like to find a well thought out path forward where everyone understand the expectations which functions well for our uses :)
[14:43] <JFo> ScottL, maybe it is worthwhile to get you together with some of the team to discuss
[14:43] <JFo> I'll see what I can do about that
[14:43] <JFo> looks like the people I would ask are off today
[14:43] <JFo> so may be Monday before I have anything solid
[14:47] <ScottL> JFo, that would be outstanding, i'll be off (US holiday) on monday so that looks very promising :)
[14:47] <JFo> same here
[14:47] <JFo> but I'll still see what I can do
[14:47] <JFo> so let's plan to discuss Tuesday
[14:49] <ScottL> JFo, that sound good
[14:49] <JFo> excellent
[14:49]  * JFo pencils that in :)
[15:29] <astraljava> abogani1: I see your reasoning, and understand that better now. Thanks for the explanation! :)
[15:30] <abogani1> astraljava: :-)