[00:07] Nice job holstein! Great coordination with all the teams. [00:07] yeah, it really came together there nicely :) [00:31] good job holstein ! thank you much :) [09:01] 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? [09:01] Launchpad bug 622583 in linux-meta-rt (Ubuntu) "Remove the linux-meta-rt packages" [Low,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/622583 [12:30] . [13:27] this may seem like a bad situation but i think this may have an advantage for us [13:28] since we cannot control when the -rt kernel are available (meaning when a new one will come out) [13:29] and there is pressure even from within the studio team to keep the kernel (studio vs desktop) aligned [13:29] and i believe UKT hasn't really been directly support the -rt kernel, it's really been abogani [13:29] it makes sense to remove it from the archives [13:30] BUT that means we can host it in ppa without messing around with UKT [13:30] that means we have *complete* control over and without having to interface with someone else about it :) [13:30] we just have to let users know where it is [13:30] https://launchpad.net/~abogani/+archive/ppa [13:31] like with abogani's ppa [13:31] touche abogani [13:31] :-) [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] *your [13:37] My English is getting worse rapidly... :-( [13:39] 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] abogani, i absolutely understand removing -rt kernel from the archives and completely support it [13:40] 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] 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] 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] ScottL, :-) [13:45] ScottL, FYI: The -lowlatency kernel maintenance is very *trivial* and *everyone* could do it but benefit are interesting. [14:06] abogani, why do you say "interesting" [14:09] 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] 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] s/if/it [14:13] hi quadrispro [14:13] ciao ScottL ! [14:19] abogani, i thought by "interesting" you meant it had some strange or unexpected benefits [14:20] ScottL, ... some really good (expected) benefits. [14:25] :) [14:29] hi JFo , you got a minute ? [14:29] ScottL, sure [14:30] sorry, for not getting back to you a couple of days ago [14:30] but what i would like to talk about is the possibility of getting the -lowlatency kernel into the archives [14:31] 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] no problem, let me ask the team if that is possible. [14:32] I think the consensus was that if there was an -rt kernel, then a -preempt one would be extra work [14:35] 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] JFo, if the -lowlatency kernel was included in the archives would the UKT support it directly by creating and uploading? [14:38] 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] 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] as all I have been told [14:39] is that there would be duplication of effort to have a -rt and a -preempt [14:39] but I will ask [14:39] 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] JFo, Thanks for all. [14:40] abogani, no problem :) [14:40] JFo, definite thanks for helping coordinate this :) [14:41] ScottL, my pleasure [14:41] I just don't know how much help I will be :) [14:41] lots of things flying around at the moment :) [14:41] JFo, completely understandable, and this isn't something that needs to be resolved right at this moment [14:42] ok [14:42] 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] ScottL, maybe it is worthwhile to get you together with some of the team to discuss [14:43] I'll see what I can do about that [14:43] looks like the people I would ask are off today [14:43] so may be Monday before I have anything solid [14:47] JFo, that would be outstanding, i'll be off (US holiday) on monday so that looks very promising :) [14:47] same here [14:47] but I'll still see what I can do [14:47] so let's plan to discuss Tuesday [14:49] JFo, that sound good [14:49] excellent [14:49] * JFo pencils that in :) [15:29] abogani1: I see your reasoning, and understand that better now. Thanks for the explanation! :) [15:30] astraljava: :-)