[11:51] <bbgolli> hey people, who should I contact if my @ubuntu email not be created in 7 days?
[11:52] <bbgolli> any chance?
[11:53] <Tm_T> bbgolli: #canonical-sysadmin might be the first stop
[11:54] <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
[11:55] <bbgolli> ok thnx
[11:55] <bbgolli> let me try
[15:56]  * skaet waves sconklin
[15:56] <sconklin> o/
[15:57] <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
[15:58]  * 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"
[15:59] <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 ;)
[16:00] <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.
[16:01] <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?
[16:02] <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.
[16:03] <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
[16:04] <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
[16:05] <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
[16:06] <pitti> but if anything should go wrong, we just use what we have now
[16:06] <skaet> pitti,  sounds good.
[16:06] <skaet> ..?
[16:08]  * 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.
[16:09] <ara> ..
[16:09] <skaet> ara,  thanks!  very good news.
[16:09] <skaet> any questions for ara?
[16:10] <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
[16:11] <skaet> marjo, how are things looking from your side?
[16:11] <marjo> skaet: this week we're doing the kernel/security testing
[16:12] <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"?
[16:13] <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?
[16:14] <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.
[16:15] <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?
[16:16] <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" :)
[16:17] <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.
[16:18] <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?
[16:19] <pitti> Qin?
[16:20] <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
[16:21] <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
[16:22] <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> |
[16:23] <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
[16:24] <skaet> thanks
[16:24] <skaet> any questions for sconklin?
[16:24] <ara> o/
[16:25] <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
[16:26] <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?
[16:27] <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.
[16:28] <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.
[16:29] <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?
[16:30] <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
[16:31] <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
[16:32] <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
[16:33] <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... ?
[16:34] <skaet> have I misunderstood/overlooked something?
[16:34] <sconklin> sounds good to me to test Hardy and Karmic
[16:34] <sconklin> ..
[16:35] <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 ?
[16:36] <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
[16:37] <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?
[16:38] <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
[16:39] <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.
[16:40] <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...
[16:41] <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
[16:42] <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
[16:43] <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)
[16:44] <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
[16:45] <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.
[16:46] <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
[16:47] <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
[16:48] <marjo> ?
[16:49] <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
[16:50] <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
[16:51] <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
[16:52] <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
[16:53] <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
[16:54] <skaet> before meeting ends... any input from security,  OEM,  support teams?   any escalations?
[16:54]  * skaet looks around?
[16:55] <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!
[16:56] <skaet> thanks marjo, victorp, sconklin, bjf, ara, pitti
[16:56] <ara> thanks skaet!
[16:56] <victorp> skaet -thanks
[18:00] <jdstrand> o/
[18:00] <mdeslaur> hi!
[18:01] <jdstrand> let's wait a couple of minutes for sbeattie, kees and jjohansen
[18:01] <sbeattie> hey
[18:02] <jjohansen> o/
[18:02] <kees> \o
[18:02] <jdstrand> \o/
[18:02] <jdstrand> alrighty, let's get started
[18:03] <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 ;)
[18:04] <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?
[18:05] <kees> jdstrand: eek, no, it got lost. will do asap.
[18:06] <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
[18:07] <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
[18:08] <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)
[18:09] <jdstrand> kees: thanks
[18:09] <jdstrand> kees: you're up
[18:09] <kees> okay, I'm on community this week.
[18:10] <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
[18:11] <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
[18:12] <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.
[18:13] <jdstrand> mdeslaur: do you want to go next?
[18:13] <mdeslaur> sure
[18:14] <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
[18:15] <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
[18:16] <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.
[18:17] <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
[18:18] <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.
[18:19] <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"
[18:20] <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
[18:21] <sbeattie> I think that's all for me.
[18:22] <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.
[18:23] <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.
[18:24] <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
[18:25] <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
[18:26] <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)
[18:27] <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
[18:28] <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.
[18:29] <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
[18:30] <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...
[18:31] <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!
[18:32] <jdstrand> sure! :)
[18:32] <kees> thanks jdstrand!
[19:23] <Laney> account on
[19:24] <Laney> err you aren't bitlbee