| === davidm_ is now known as Guest27591 | ||
| === davidm_ is now known as Guest18305 | ||
| === Ursinha-afk is now known as Ursinha | ||
| === Guest14562 is now known as ogra | ||
| === bilalakhtar_ is now known as cdbs | ||
| === bilalakhtar_ is now known as cdbs | ||
| bbgolli | hey people, who should I contact if my @ubuntu email not be created in 7 days? | 11:51 |
|---|---|---|
| bbgolli | any chance? | 11:52 |
| Tm_T | bbgolli: #canonical-sysadmin might be the first stop | 11:53 |
| bbgolli | TM_T: I could never get an answer from their channel! | 11:54 |
| Tm_T | bbgolli: patience is a virtue; also follow the instructions in the channel topic | 11:54 |
| bbgolli | ok thnx | 11:55 |
| bbgolli | let me try | 11:55 |
| === davidm_ is now known as Guest99521 | ||
| === yofel_ is now known as yofel | ||
| === dholbach_ is now known as dholbach | ||
| === oubiwann is now known as oubiwann_ | ||
| === Quintasan_ is now known as Quintasan | ||
| === Ursinha is now known as Ursinha-lunch | ||
| * skaet waves sconklin | 15:56 | |
| sconklin | o/ | 15:56 |
| zul | hi | 15:57 |
| skaet | hi zul, pitti | 15:57 |
| pitti | hey skaet | 15:57 |
| pitti | skaet: FYI, I don't have that much time today, just 30 mins | 15:57 |
| * marjo waves | 15:58 | |
| skaet | pitti, thanks for letting know, will see if I can get a kernel style efficient meeting. | 15:58 |
| skaet | :) | 15:58 |
| skaet | hi marjo | 15:58 |
| skaet | https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ReleaseTeam/Meeting/2011-02-07-SR | 15:58 |
| marjo | skaet: i like the goal of "kernel style efficient meeting" | 15:58 |
| skaet | heh | 15:59 |
| skaet | to aid the efficiency, agenda is in the link I just posted. | 15:59 |
| skaet | will repreat it for the minutes, but feel free to look now ;) | 15:59 |
| skaet | okie, time to start I think | 16:00 |
| skaet | #startmeeting | 16:00 |
| MootBot | Meeting started at 10:00. The chair is skaet. | 16:00 |
| MootBot | Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE] | 16:00 |
| skaet | Agenda can be found: | 16:00 |
| skaet | [LINK]https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ReleaseTeam/Meeting/StableReleaseAgenda | 16:00 |
| MootBot | LINK received: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ReleaseTeam/Meeting/StableReleaseAgenda | 16:00 |
| skaet | Reminder, please follow the convention of using ".." on a separate line when you've finished typing. Also, If someone wants to comment on the last point, please "o/", so we know to wait. | 16:00 |
| skaet | Focus for this week is 10.04.2. | 16:00 |
| skaet | [TOPIC] 10.04.2 | 16:01 |
| MootBot | New Topic: 10.04.2 | 16:01 |
| skaet | pitti, 2 milestoned bugs left - any update on them? | 16:01 |
| pitti | skaet: I just moved the desktopcouch one which newly appeared on the 10.04.2 list to .3 | 16:02 |
| skaet | pitti, thanks. | 16:02 |
| pitti | a year after release it can't be that urgent to re-do all the cert and other validation | 16:02 |
| pitti | what's the other one? | 16:02 |
| skaet | foundations one that's been on the list a while. | 16:02 |
| skaet | see on agenda. | 16:02 |
| pitti | https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+milestone/ubuntu-10.04.2 has quite a bit more, so it's a bit hard to see | 16:03 |
| skaet | 635273:Building debs with SWIG libraries do not work | 16:03 |
| * skaet was just focusing on the high/critical | 16:03 | |
| pitti | this doesn't look like a deal-breaker for .2 at all | 16:03 |
| pitti | I think we should just move it | 16:03 |
| skaet | fair enough, will confirm with cjwatson, but lets assume that's the case. | 16:04 |
| skaet | what is the update on the language packs? which ones landed? | 16:04 |
| pitti | FTR, I'm still wrestling with langpacks, I have build take #4 running right now | 16:04 |
| pitti | skaet: we'll land all of them in -proposed, and then quick-verify the ones that are shipped on the images | 16:04 |
| pitti | on desktops, anyway (not DVDs, as they probably ship all of them) | 16:05 |
| pitti | I hope I can get them uploaded to -proposed within 2 hours now | 16:05 |
| pitti | I'll coordinate testing handover with dpm | 16:05 |
| pitti | but if anything should go wrong, we just use what we have now | 16:06 |
| skaet | pitti, sounds good. | 16:06 |
| skaet | ..? | 16:06 |
| * skaet wondering if pitti has anything else to add or is done, before moving on? | 16:08 | |
| pitti | .. | 16:08 |
| pitti | sorry | 16:08 |
| skaet | :) | 16:08 |
| skaet | np | 16:08 |
| skaet | ara, how are we looking on HW cert? | 16:08 |
| ara | * Almost all the servers and desktops are already covered. No regressions found so far. \o/ | 16:08 |
| ara | * This week the scope is testing laptops and netbooks and finishing the remaining desktops and servers. | 16:08 |
| ara | We are on track to finish on time before Thursday. | 16:08 |
| ara | .. | 16:09 |
| skaet | ara, thanks! very good news. | 16:09 |
| skaet | any questions for ara? | 16:09 |
| marjo | ara: are there specific things you're depending on, or are all your dependencies ok? | 16:10 |
| ara | marjo, everything is OK | 16:10 |
| marjo | ara: in other words, there are no blockers for hw cert, right? | 16:10 |
| ara | no :) | 16:10 |
| marjo | ara: great to hear | 16:10 |
| skaet | marjo, how are things looking from your side? | 16:11 |
| marjo | skaet: this week we're doing the kernel/security testing | 16:11 |
| marjo | and for 10.04.2, jibel has started syncing images and will do upgrade testing this week. | 16:12 |
| marjo | .. | 16:12 |
| skaet | marjo, sounds good. encourage jibel to flag early if any issues show up with the upgrade testing ;) | 16:12 |
| marjo | skaet: is there time today to discuss "tweaks to SRU kernel process"? | 16:12 |
| skaet | marjo, after 10.04.2 - we'll go on to SRU | 16:13 |
| jibel | skaet, I will :-) | 16:13 |
| skaet | thanks jibel | 16:13 |
| marjo | skaet: thx much! | 16:13 |
| skaet | pitti, final images will be cut on Friday or Monday? | 16:13 |
| pitti | can we do the final validation if we do them on Monday? | 16:13 |
| pitti | would give us a tad more time for the langpacks | 16:14 |
| pitti | but if Friday would be better, that works, too | 16:14 |
| skaet | pitti, suspect ara and jibel would prefer friday if at all possible, so less of a scramble next week. | 16:14 |
| skaet | ara, jibel - ? | 16:15 |
| ara | skaet, I don't have a preference | 16:15 |
| jibel | skaet, I'm fine with both | 16:15 |
| marjo | pitti: what happens if you don't get the "tad more time for the langpacks" what's the downside risk? | 16:15 |
| pitti | marjo: no risk involved; the less time we have, the fewer langpacks will make it to -updates, but no other harm done | 16:16 |
| skaet | ok | 16:16 |
| pitti | we don't depend on these, they would just be a "nice to have" | 16:16 |
| marjo | pitti: understood; i like plans w/ "no risk involved" :) | 16:16 |
| marjo | skaet: i would say let's go for Friday final image, ok? | 16:17 |
| pitti | ack | 16:17 |
| marjo | to avoid the scrambling | 16:17 |
| marjo | pitti: thx much! | 16:17 |
| skaet | pitti, if langpaks are looking reasonable, cut the images on Friday and broadcast widely then. If langpaks are problematic we can discuss. | 16:17 |
| pitti | bah, they just failed again; firefox translations are broken | 16:18 |
| skaet | we'll use u-release for discussions. | 16:18 |
| marjo | pitti: will the initial langpacks include the ones used for the recent Qin image? | 16:18 |
| pitti | Qin? | 16:19 |
| skaet | Qin - chinese image | 16:20 |
| skaet | marjo, wasn't that a maverick one? | 16:20 |
| marjo | skaet: oh sorry | 16:20 |
| pitti | I think so | 16:20 |
| skaet | np | 16:20 |
| skaet | any other questions about 10.04.2? | 16:20 |
| pitti | marjo: but it only takes what launchpad translations has, no other sources | 16:20 |
| marjo | pitti: then we're ok | 16:21 |
| pitti | so if the chinese edition strings are on launchpad, it will be taken from langpack-o-matic | 16:21 |
| * skaet keeps fingers crossed its only langpacks that are problematic for 10.04.2 | 16:21 | |
| skaet | ok, moving on.. | 16:21 |
| skaet | [TOPIC] SRU updates | 16:21 |
| MootBot | New Topic: SRU updates | 16:21 |
| skaet | sconklin - what's happening with the kernels? | 16:22 |
| sconklin | | | 16:22 |
| sconklin | | Latest Lucid -proposed is 2.6.32-29.57 | 16:22 |
| sconklin | | Call for verification went out on Feb 4th | 16:22 |
| sconklin | | | 16:22 |
| sconklin | | Latest Maverick -proposed is 2.6.35-26.46 | 16:22 |
| sconklin | | Call for verification went out Feb 1st | 16:22 |
| sconklin | | | 16:22 |
| sconklin | | These were both copied out to -proposed last week. | 16:22 |
| sconklin | | | 16:22 |
| sconklin | | The status page with tracking bugs is here. | 16:22 |
| sconklin | | Our tools will need changes to accomodate | 16:22 |
| sconklin | | the ARM based kernels, so ignore all the information | 16:22 |
| sconklin | | on that page for ARM kernels. | 16:22 |
| sconklin | | | 16:22 |
| sconklin | I got throttled, hold on | 16:23 |
| sconklin | | | 16:23 |
| sconklin | | https://kernel-tools.canonical.com/srus.html | 16:23 |
| sconklin | | | 16:23 |
| sconklin | .. | 16:23 |
| skaet | what are the tracking bug numbers for maverick, lucid? | 16:23 |
| sconklin | they are in the page I just linked | 16:23 |
| skaet | thanks | 16:24 |
| skaet | any questions for sconklin? | 16:24 |
| ara | o/ | 16:24 |
| skaet | go ara | 16:25 |
| ara | As we said, we were no going to be able to test SRUs this week. What is going to happen, then? | 16:25 |
| ara | a new kernel is going to be uploaded next week? | 16:25 |
| sconklin | Whatever is done will just wait in the queue until you are able to test | 16:25 |
| ara | OK | 16:26 |
| marjo | sconklin: does that mean QA team should hold off also? | 16:26 |
| sconklin | We may upload new kernels to the PPA, but they will not be copied into -proposed until the ones in -proposed are published to updates | 16:26 |
| marjo | sconklin: or keep going w/ regression testing starting today? | 16:26 |
| sconklin | I thought that you were unable to do regression testing. Whether you can test or not and when cert can test will determine what we do next. | 16:27 |
| marjo | sconklin: we can do "regression testing" this week, since alpha2 is done | 16:28 |
| sconklin | If there will be no testing in the next week, we can just roll a new version to -proposed, and you can test that after a week in verification. | 16:28 |
| sconklin | if Cert is blocked for another week, then it probably makes sense for us to publish new -proposed, and take all the existing verifications as done | 16:29 |
| marjo | jibel: any suggestions? | 16:29 |
| skaet | marjo, thinking in dallas, was that this was opportunity to catch up on hardy and karmic. | 16:29 |
| sconklin | skaet: catch up meaning what? | 16:29 |
| skaet | sconklin, run the regression testing | 16:30 |
| sconklin | extra regression testing will never hurt, even if the tested versions are superseded in -proposed and not ultimately released | 16:30 |
| skaet | sconklin, was refering to hardy & karmic | 16:31 |
| skaet | ? | 16:31 |
| sconklin | that statement applied to every series | 16:31 |
| skaet | heh | 16:31 |
| skaet | :) | 16:31 |
| sconklin | applies | 16:31 |
| sconklin | but - in particular, we are concerned about server and virt testing for hardy in this and the next release | 16:32 |
| skaet | marjo, jibel - ok to look at hardy, karmic this week? then back into the regular pattern after 10.04.2 comes out. | 16:32 |
| sconklin | (probably) for the next because there are some more rather invasive patches in the queue but they haven't been finalized | 16:32 |
| sconklin | should good to me | 16:33 |
| marjo | skaet: ok, will do | 16:33 |
| * pitti waves, need to leave | 16:33 | |
| sconklin | er . . . sounds good | 16:33 |
| * skaet thanks pitti | 16:33 | |
| skaet | sconklin, er... ? | 16:33 |
| skaet | have I misunderstood/overlooked something? | 16:34 |
| sconklin | sounds good to me to test Hardy and Karmic | 16:34 |
| sconklin | .. | 16:34 |
| skaet | ara - any updates/questions? | 16:35 |
| ara | skaet, not from me | 16:35 |
| jibel | so, on the QA side the plan is to do regression testing on Karmic and Hardy this week, then what's in -proposed for maverick and lucid after 10.04.2 is out ? | 16:35 |
| skaet | jibel, yup, that's my understanding | 16:36 |
| marjo | jibel: yup, that's my understanding | 16:36 |
| jibel | okay. thanks | 16:36 |
| ara | the certification team is not planning on testing until the week 19, as marked in: | 16:36 |
| ara | https://wiki.ubuntu.com/NattyReleaseInterlock | 16:36 |
| skaet | ara, yup. :) | 16:36 |
| sconklin | with the understanding that we may roll out a new -propsed for lucid and maverick before testing gets to it | 16:36 |
| skaet | sconklin, ack. | 16:37 |
| marjo | sconklin: ack | 16:37 |
| * skaet is doing a good snap set with marjo. ;) | 16:37 | |
| skaet | any other questions about SRU updates? | 16:37 |
| skaet | marjo did you want to talk about tweaks? | 16:38 |
| marjo | skaet: thx | 16:38 |
| marjo | hi folks | 16:38 |
| marjo | i have a few simple tweaks and suggestions for the Kernel SRU process | 16:38 |
| marjo | 1. I suggest that this be an agenda item for the SRU & LTS meeting, and make sure HW Cert team raise issues early. I've already asked Kate to include it. | 16:39 |
| marjo | 2. Ensure all critical and high importance bugs are verified in a timely manner. If not, Jean-Baptiste or his backup will perform the testing. | 16:39 |
| marjo | 3. Jean-Baptiste will specifically ask at the meeting if there are specific bugs that need verification that aren't being done by the bug reporter. If necessary, a QA team member will do the verification. If not able (e.g. lack of specific HW), will do more calls for testing and nag the bug reporter again. | 16:40 |
| marjo | 4. Set up separate SRU verification program, for big packages like eglibc, python, X. As you know, we've done that before for mesa. | 16:40 |
| marjo | .. | 16:40 |
| marjo | too bad pitti's not here... | 16:40 |
| sconklin | for 3, who will do the tracking and asking? | 16:41 |
| marjo | sconklin: by default, jibel, but we don't want to duplicate efforts already in place by pitti & sconklin | 16:41 |
| skaet | marjo, yeah, we need to take this suggestion up with with pitti off line as well. | 16:42 |
| sconklin | marjo, so are you proposing that someone from QA begin to track all the bugs requiring verification? | 16:42 |
| marjo | sconklin: i'm trying to avoid the last minute scrambling to do fix verification when bug reporters don't do them | 16:42 |
| pitti | still catching up on backscroll, but only 1/4 brain here | 16:43 |
| marjo | sconklin: no, we just want to get heads up on those that are not getting verified in a timely manner | 16:43 |
| sconklin | Has there been a problem with this? We have had almost 100% of verifications done quickly for the last few cycles | 16:43 |
| sconklin | And has that impacted QA or cert? | 16:43 |
| pitti | also, the kernel is really quite special here | 16:43 |
| pitti | we just need a large amount of testing there because it changes so much | 16:43 |
| bjf | marjo, are you trying to solve a real problem today or anticipating an issue ? | 16:43 |
| pitti | we don't allow these kind of changes in any other package (like in X.org) | 16:43 |
| marjo | bjf: i'm trying to head off the cases where bug reporter doesn't do verification, so someone (QA team) has to try | 16:44 |
| skaet | sconklin, marjo - tags of verification needed can be surveyed to figure out which are outstanding, and then look at high/critical. | 16:44 |
| marjo | and we want to know ASAP | 16:44 |
| sconklin | marjo: How often has this happened? I wasn't aware that this was happening | 16:45 |
| marjo | skaet: yes, that's one way to implement this | 16:45 |
| bjf | marjo, we have a clear policy on that, if it's not verified by the reporter, we revert the patch | 16:45 |
| skaet | sconklin, bjf - outside the kernel, there are some good fixes getting no love, since the reporter is the one that fixed it. | 16:45 |
| marjo | bjf: ok, so maybe these don't apply to kernel, because it's more well behaved | 16:46 |
| sconklin | oh, sorry. I'm in my kernel bubble | 16:46 |
| marjo | sconklin: yes, you are :) | 16:46 |
| skaet | [LINK] http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/pending-sru.html | 16:46 |
| MootBot | LINK received: http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/pending-sru.html | 16:46 |
| sconklin | well, you said that these were kernel SRU tweaks, . . . | 16:47 |
| marjo | sconklin: yes, i did .. | 16:47 |
| sconklin | Have you been having to do verification for any kernel bugs? | 16:47 |
| marjo | sconklin: would you say that this is NOT a problem for the kernel case | 16:47 |
| marjo | ? | 16:48 |
| marjo | sconklin: in general, we (QA team) try to verify fixes if the bug reporter doesn't | 16:49 |
| sconklin | it's not a problem because if people don't test their changed we revert them. I know that some people have had to scramble for testing because they lacked hardware, but I didn't know that it was falling on your team. If it is, we'll look at it | 16:49 |
| marjo | but only if we have the HW, resources, etc. | 16:49 |
| marjo | we try to help... | 16:49 |
| marjo | sconklin: thx much | 16:49 |
| skaet | marjo, sconlin, thanks. | 16:50 |
| sconklin | marjo: ok, that sounds great - and the best way to determine what needs verification is just to look at our sru status page and see what's not verified | 16:50 |
| marjo | skaet: so i think that's it from me | 16:50 |
| victorp | marjo for #1 could you give an example when hw cert have not raised an issue early? | 16:50 |
| sconklin | If you can verify fixes and save us the pain of reverting and get good fixes out, I'm all for that | 16:50 |
| marjo | victorp: remember ara had to raise the issue re: eglibc? i think you and i agree this should have been caught earlier | 16:51 |
| marjo | victorp: that's why i'm making these suggestions | 16:51 |
| marjo | so, hw cert doesn't have to scramble | 16:51 |
| marjo | sconklin: ack | 16:52 |
| victorp | yes, but couldnt possibly find it earlier because we are not involve in it | 16:52 |
| marjo | victorp: we know | 16:52 |
| victorp | basically QA has to find it earliear so it is not up to hw cert to find it | 16:52 |
| marjo | victorp: we know | 16:52 |
| marjo | victorp: we're trying to help you (HW cert) | 16:53 |
| victorp | marjo, great | 16:53 |
| marjo | victorp: thx! | 16:53 |
| victorp | in that case you may rephrase the problem statement | 16:53 |
| marjo | skaet: thx, that's it from me | 16:53 |
| skaet | okie, thanks. | 16:53 |
| victorp | and it will help every one if we get it right not just he cert | 16:53 |
| victorp | hw cert | 16:53 |
| marjo | victorp: ack | 16:53 |
| skaet | before meeting ends... any input from security, OEM, support teams? any escalations? | 16:54 |
| * skaet looks around? | 16:54 | |
| skaet | any other questions? | 16:55 |
| skaet | going once | 16:55 |
| skaet | going twice | 16:55 |
| skaet | #endmeeting | 16:55 |
| MootBot | Meeting finished at 10:55. | 16:55 |
| marjo | thx skaet! | 16:55 |
| sconklin | thanks! | 16:55 |
| skaet | thanks marjo, victorp, sconklin, bjf, ara, pitti | 16:56 |
| ara | thanks skaet! | 16:56 |
| victorp | skaet -thanks | 16:56 |
| === Ursinha-lunch is now known as Ursinha | ||
| === skaet is now known as skaet_afk | ||
| jdstrand | o/ | 18:00 |
| mdeslaur | hi! | 18:00 |
| jdstrand | let's wait a couple of minutes for sbeattie, kees and jjohansen | 18:01 |
| sbeattie | hey | 18:01 |
| jjohansen | o/ | 18:02 |
| kees | \o | 18:02 |
| jdstrand | \o/ | 18:02 |
| jdstrand | alrighty, let's get started | 18:02 |
| jdstrand | #startmeeting | 18:03 |
| MootBot | Meeting started at 12:03. The chair is jdstrand. | 18:03 |
| MootBot | Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE] | 18:03 |
| jdstrand | The meeting agenda can be found at: | 18:03 |
| jdstrand | [LINK] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SecurityTeam/Meeting | 18:03 |
| MootBot | LINK received: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SecurityTeam/Meeting | 18:03 |
| jdstrand | [TOPIC] Review of any previous action items | 18:03 |
| MootBot | New Topic: Review of any previous action items | 18:03 |
| jdstrand | so, for my actions, I: | 18:03 |
| jdstrand | wrote up meeting minutes and submitted to team for review. These can now be found in https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SecurityTeam/Meeting under 'Previous Meetings' | 18:03 |
| jdstrand | added keyring and apt tests to TODO in the QRT scripts (that was surprisingly easy ;) | 18:03 |
| jdstrand | added vm-iso work to Roadmap (that too :) | 18:04 |
| jdstrand | followed up with skaet on Dapper eol. she is aware. it is currently at 30 days prior to eol. I advised doing a 'heads-up' announcement 90 days before eol for LTS to give LTS users an easier migration path | 18:04 |
| jdstrand | she thoguht it was a good idea and is taking it to other interested parties | 18:04 |
| jdstrand | so, I think that is it for me... | 18:04 |
| jdstrand | kees: update umt to use update-maintainer. iirc you did that already, right? | 18:04 |
| kees | jdstrand: eek, no, it got lost. will do asap. | 18:05 |
| jdstrand | ah, no worries | 18:06 |
| jdstrand | kees: thanks | 18:06 |
| jdstrand | sbeattie: I have you down with 'respin ia32-libs' | 18:06 |
| sbeattie | jdstrand: no progress there. | 18:06 |
| jdstrand | ok | 18:06 |
| jdstrand | those can just carry through then | 18:06 |
| jdstrand | [TOPIC] Weekly stand-up report | 18:06 |
| MootBot | New Topic: Weekly stand-up report | 18:06 |
| jdstrand | I guess I'll go first | 18:06 |
| jdstrand | started writing aa-disable (based on aa-complain) and I should send that up later today | 18:07 |
| jdstrand | need to follow up on chromium-browser on armel | 18:07 |
| jdstrand | I published chromium-browser on saturday, but armel mysteriously restarted | 18:07 |
| jdstrand | (thanks Mr Buildd) | 18:08 |
| jdstrand | so I uploaded a no change rebuild | 18:08 |
| jdstrand | firefox is this week, so I'll be testing that | 18:08 |
| jdstrand | looking at dbus/apparmor | 18:08 |
| jdstrand | and I'm on triage | 18:08 |
| kees | (jdstrand: okay, update-maintainer done now) | 18:08 |
| jdstrand | kees: thanks | 18:09 |
| jdstrand | kees: you're up | 18:09 |
| kees | okay, I'm on community this week. | 18:09 |
| kees | last week I spent way too much time working on an embargoed issue, but the maintainer popped up on friday | 18:10 |
| kees | so now we're kind of starting over on how to fix the problem, so that'll probably burn more time this week. | 18:10 |
| jdstrand | heh | 18:10 |
| kees | hopefully I won't need to fight for my %pK patches on lkml this week, as that debate should be over | 18:10 |
| kees | but it's not in -mm yet | 18:11 |
| jdstrand | nice | 18:11 |
| kees | but they should be in natty at least. | 18:11 |
| kees | I was going to spend some time updating chroots for debian's release | 18:11 |
| kees | and report /proc DAC bypasses to lkml | 18:11 |
| kees | if by magic I have free time, I wanted to work on gcc testsuite updates for the hardening bits. the other half needs to go upstream. | 18:12 |
| kees | that's it from me. | 18:12 |
| jdstrand | mdeslaur: do you want to go next? | 18:13 |
| mdeslaur | sure | 18:13 |
| mdeslaur | so, I'm currently publishing dovecot updates | 18:14 |
| mdeslaur | last week took a lot of my time fixing the dovecot test suite | 18:14 |
| mdeslaur | I plan on working on exim4 and fuse next | 18:14 |
| mdeslaur | although I might wait until the fuse stuff in -proposed goes through first | 18:15 |
| mdeslaur | as it's aggravated by installing fuse security updates | 18:15 |
| mdeslaur | and that's it from me | 18:15 |
| mdeslaur | sbeattie: you're up | 18:16 |
| sbeattie | mdeslaur: you may need to do some pushing to get fuse through -proposed, but I haven't look at the specific issues. | 18:16 |
| mdeslaur | is lucid still frozen? | 18:16 |
| mdeslaur | when does it unfreeze? | 18:16 |
| sbeattie | yeah, lucid is still frozen, until 10.04.2 releases. | 18:16 |
| sbeattie | I *think* that's this week, but not sure (need to check the schedule) | 18:17 |
| jdstrand | I thought it released next week | 18:17 |
| jdstrand | which is why QA has time this week to QA the kernel security updates | 18:17 |
| * jdstrand is not sure | 18:17 | |
| sbeattie | not sure, either, should have read through the SRU meeting scrollback from this morning. | 18:18 |
| sbeattie | Anyway, I released openjdk and posgresql last week. | 18:18 |
| sbeattie | I was also on community last week, and uploaded twiki and drupal6 to security-proposed. | 18:19 |
| * jdstrand takes hint from sbeattie and finds "Planned Release Date: February 17, 2011" | 18:19 | |
| sbeattie | I got partway through reviewing a patch for cacti, and will finish looking at that this week. | 18:20 |
| sbeattie | (for sponsering) | 18:20 |
| mdeslaur | jdstrand: cool, thanks | 18:20 |
| sbeattie | I think that's all for me. | 18:21 |
| jdstrand | sbeattie: are you carrying over the 2.5.2 and 2.6 snapshots to this week? | 18:22 |
| jdstrand | (apparmor) | 18:22 |
| sbeattie | yes | 18:22 |
| jdstrand | cool | 18:22 |
| sbeattie | yeah, planning on doing a bit of release management there this week. | 18:22 |
| jdstrand | alright, moving on | 18:23 |
| jdstrand | [TOPIC] Miscellaneous | 18:23 |
| MootBot | New Topic: Miscellaneous | 18:23 |
| jdstrand | just a couple of things, no action items unless people get excited about one | 18:23 |
| jdstrand | I've added AppArmor profiles for totem-video-thumbnailer, gnome-thumbnail-font and telepathy backends to the Roadmap since the all could easily handle untrusted content | 18:23 |
| sbeattie | Oh cool. | 18:23 |
| jdstrand | I very quickly looked at the apparmor bp, and postponed a couple of things based on the current status. eg, I postponed the techdoc stuff. I think it may be less important now with all the other doc updates in the wiki, but we can discuss that another time | 18:24 |
| jdstrand | jjohansen: I'm curious about 'Merge in parser cleanups' and 'Reduce dfa creation memory use'. both are INPROGRESS. are these actually done (I thought they were)? | 18:25 |
| jjohansen | jdstrand: no, they are works in progress | 18:25 |
| jjohansen | jdstrand: bits and pieces of them are done | 18:25 |
| jdstrand | jjohansen: ok, then the status is correct. thanks | 18:26 |
| jdstrand | that is all I have. does anyone from the team have anything else to discuss? | 18:26 |
| jjohansen | jdstrand: there are bits and pieces I could start asking for patch reviews on but really they should come as a unit (ie a complete patch set) | 18:26 |
| jdstrand | jjohansen: that is fine. no rush, just curious :) | 18:27 |
| jjohansen | jdstrand: nor will all the cleanups get merged this cycle | 18:27 |
| jjohansen | there are lots and lots of them | 18:27 |
| jjohansen | but we will do what we can | 18:27 |
| kees | I have one: we should schedule conference times | 18:28 |
| jdstrand | jjohansen: sure. maybe we could break them up a bit, and then move the ones we know won't hit to future items? | 18:28 |
| jdstrand | kees: yes, I have it on my todo to investigate/ask about that | 18:28 |
| kees | okay, sounds good. | 18:28 |
| jdstrand | jjohansen: it doesn't have to be super detailed, but just so we have a better idea of what will hit and what won't | 18:29 |
| jjohansen | jdstrand: sure | 18:29 |
| jdstrand | jjohansen: in fact, future cleanups could be very general, and we can pull in the specific ones per cycle as work items | 18:29 |
| jdstrand | jjohansen: thanks | 18:29 |
| jdstrand | ok, moving on | 18:30 |
| jdstrand | [TOPIC] Questions | 18:30 |
| MootBot | New Topic: Questions | 18:30 |
| jdstrand | does anyone have any other questions or items to discuss? | 18:30 |
| * jdstrand might change the to Miscellaneous & Questions... | 18:30 | |
| jdstrand | alright, thanks everyone! | 18:31 |
| jdstrand | #endmeeting | 18:31 |
| MootBot | Meeting finished at 12:31. | 18:31 |
| mdeslaur | thanks! | 18:31 |
| sbeattie | jdstrand: thanks! | 18:31 |
| jdstrand | sure! :) | 18:32 |
| kees | thanks jdstrand! | 18:32 |
| === davidm_ is now known as Guest95278 | ||
| === skaet_afk is now known as skaet | ||
| Laney | account on | 19:23 |
| Laney | err you aren't bitlbee | 19:24 |
| === davidm is now known as dm_afk | ||
| === fosdemlogger is now known as austrialogger | ||
| === austrialogger is now known as apachelogger | ||
| === oubiwann_ is now known as oubiwann | ||
| === dm_afk is now known as davidm | ||
| === tumbleweed_ is now known as tumbleweed | ||
| === bjf is now known as bjf[afk] | ||
| === Craig_Dem_ is now known as Craig_Dem | ||
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!