[16:55] <zul> hi
[16:57] <RoAkSoAx> o/
[16:57] <kirkland> \o\
[16:57] <kirkland>  /o/
[16:57] <sconklin> o\
[16:58] <hallyn> \o
[17:01] <hallyn> who's on bat?
[17:01] <zul> hallyn: was it you last week?
[17:01] <jamespage> o/
[17:01] <hallyn> no, two or three weeks ago
[17:01] <zul> who did last week?
[17:02] <hallyn> spamaps?
[17:02]  * hallyn checks the blog
[17:02] <RoAkSoAx> yes \
[17:02] <zul> i think its Daviey this week
[17:02] <RoAkSoAx> yeah
[17:03] <Daviey> Sorry, chaps... was on the phone... I'm back now.
[17:03]  * hallyn tips his hat
[17:03] <Daviey> two moments whilst i compose myself.
[17:04] <Daviey> #startmeeting
[17:04] <MootBot> Meeting started at 11:04. The chair is Daviey.
[17:04] <MootBot> Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
[17:04] <robbiew> *\o/*
[17:04] <Daviey> Hellow everyone, and thank you for coming.  Apologies for starting later than scheduled.
[17:04] <kirkland> pom poms, robbiew ?
[17:04] <robbiew> you know it!
[17:04] <Daviey> [TOPIC] Review ACTION points from previous meeting
[17:04] <MootBot> New Topic:  Review ACTION points from previous meeting
[17:05] <Daviey> Daviey to talk with wider docs team regarding translations (deferred, carry over)
[17:05] <Daviey> -- This is still carried over.
[17:05] <Daviey> Daviey to post another followup one euca-dhcp bug. (carry over)
[17:05] <Daviey> -- scheduled to talk with upstream today via phone.
[17:05] <Daviey> (and yesterday for that matter)
[17:05] <Daviey> SpamapS to put his version of ubuntuserver-minutes in directions for writing minutes
[17:05] <Daviey>  -- looks done
[17:06] <Daviey> [TOPIC] Natty Development
[17:06] <MootBot> New Topic:  Natty Development
[17:06] <Daviey> So, we are in Ubuntu Beta 1 hard freeze.
[17:07] <Daviey> Hopefully the ISO building is starting to stabilise, and we should have a potential candidate soon (if not now)
[17:07] <Daviey> We could do with some additional testing of these candidates..
[17:07] <kirkland> Daviey: fyi, the aubergine color got dropped from the beta1 debian-installer :-(
[17:07] <Daviey> http://people.canonical.com/~platform/workitems/natty/canonical-server-ubuntu-11.04-beta-1.html
[17:07] <MootBot> LINK received:  http://people.canonical.com/~platform/workitems/natty/canonical-server-ubuntu-11.04-beta-1.html
[17:07] <kirkland> Daviey: sort of inadvertent fallout of making it configurable
[17:08] <zul> how come?
[17:08] <Daviey> kirkland, that is a shame...
[17:08] <kirkland> Daviey: i'm trying to fix it now
[17:08] <Daviey> kirkland, So that will land after beta 1 now?
[17:08] <kirkland> Daviey: yes, pray that the fix gets accepted for beta2
[17:08] <kirkland> Daviey: cjwatson said that he's not rebuilding debian-installer for beta1 at this point (understandably)
[17:09] <Daviey> kirkland, I hope so!  I liked the aubergine love.  It was in yesterdays ISO - when was it dropped?
[17:09] <kirkland> Daviey: debian-installer rebuilt yesterday, which used the updated newt configuration, where newt's palette is configurable
[17:10] <kirkland> Daviey: and that configuration did not propagate to the debian-installer bits
[17:10] <Daviey> I see, thanks kirkland - is there a new bug / WI that is tracking this?
[17:10] <kirkland> Daviey: i'm trying desparately to get it working
[17:10] <Daviey> kirkland, rocking.
[17:10] <kirkland> Daviey: i honestly haven't had time to file a bug, focused on fixing it ASAP
[17:10] <Daviey> kirkland, ok, sounds good.
[17:10] <kirkland> Daviey: but i thought i'd mention it here, thanks
[17:10] <Daviey> Okay.. regarding our burn down chart..
[17:11] <Daviey> As we are in freeze now, any items that are in main/multiverse need to be adjusted to beta2 - or discussion if they should be dropped.
[17:12] <Daviey> Regarding release bugs... We do have a handful.. they look like they are making progress - so not sure we need to discuss them further here.
[17:12] <Daviey> Does anyone else have any comments for Natty development?
[17:12] <Daviey> moving on
[17:12] <Daviey> [TOPIC] Ubuntu Server Team Events
[17:12] <MootBot> New Topic:  Ubuntu Server Team Events
[17:13] <Daviey> Doesn't look like we have any new ones confirmed in the short term.
[17:13] <Daviey> [TOPIC] Weekly Updates & Questions for the QA Team (hggdh)
[17:13] <MootBot> New Topic:  Weekly Updates & Questions for the QA Team (hggdh)
[17:13] <RoAkSoAx> This Saturday April 2nd. Texas Linux Fest. kirkland and I are presenting
[17:13] <jamespage> Hmm well there is puppet camp at the end of next month
[17:13] <RoAkSoAx> Daviey: ^^
[17:13] <Daviey> RoAkSoAx, ah, thanks!
[17:14] <zul> Openstack Summit next month
[17:14] <Daviey> Yeah, i thought that was > short term. :)
[17:14] <zul> it is short term :)
[17:14] <Daviey> New Topic:  Weekly Updates & Questions for the QA Team (hggdh)
[17:15] <Daviey> hggdh, the floor is yours, sir
[17:15] <Daviey> hggdh, seems afk... we will come back
[17:15] <Daviey> [TOPIC] Weekly Updates & Questions for the Kernel Team (smb)
[17:15] <MootBot> New Topic:  Weekly Updates & Questions for the Kernel Team (smb)
[17:16] <Daviey> smb, Are you around?
[17:16] <smb> Yes, a bit late but  I am here
[17:16] <smoser> smb, bug 740658 and bug 741224 have popped up in the last few days.
[17:16] <smb> Mostly being trying to bring lucid-ec2 into shape
[17:16] <smoser> both with a fair amount of helpful information.
[17:17]  * Daviey looks
[17:17] <smoser> just wanted to make sure you'd read through them, one follows through to upstream thread https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/629361/
[17:18] <smb> I think I had been looking at them. But I cannot say for sure exactly how things were there
[17:18] <Daviey> smb / smoser: So the main issues with EC2 kernel is with Lucid, not Natty?
[17:18] <smb> I need to get back tehere again
[17:18] <smb> Daviey, There is one for natty afaik
[17:18] <smoser> Daviey, the issues are present in all releases.
[17:18] <smoser> :-(
[17:18] <smb> the java not being installable on t1.micro
[17:19] <smb> But other things tend to go quite a bit back
[17:19] <Daviey> smb, is java on t1.micro looking good for Natty?
[17:19] <smb> Daviey, no the other way round
[17:19] <smb> it is not looking good for natty
[17:19] <smb> but I had not yet time to look back into that
[17:20] <Daviey> smb, ok, thanks
[17:20] <Daviey> smoser, anything else for EC2?
[17:20] <smb> There is one set of patches turning up a lot which changes the way interrupts are handled
[17:20]  * hggdh is back from a phone call
[17:20] <smb> unfortunately those are not really triviall to get back to Lucid (not to mention hardy)
[17:21] <smoser> both t1.micro/java and those listed above are at least potentially bugs on all releases.  i fully trust smb, its just a matter of hours in the day, and as he suggests nothing is trivial
[17:21] <smb> But at least natty should be fine in that respect
[17:21] <Daviey> smb, I'm not sure our users would be too concerned with the fix landing in Hardy tbh.
[17:21] <smb> Daviey, there has been asking
[17:21] <smoser> there are some users who are interested in hardy fixes
[17:21] <Daviey> oh.
[17:22] <Daviey> smb, I was trying to make your life easier. :)
[17:22] <smb> Nothing is impossible for the one that not has to do it. :)
[17:22] <zul> has there been an update kernel for hardy yet?
[17:22] <smb> Anyway those may go to Lucid
[17:22] <smb> But then I still have to get that into there as well
[17:23] <Daviey> Okay... are there any pressing issues for non-ec2 kernels atm?
[17:23] <smb> zul, There has been no update to xen speciafically
[17:23] <zul> smb: cool
[17:23] <smb> I am not sure whether there has not been other changes in between though
[17:24] <smoser> kernel related.... john johansen sent a mail to ubuntu-server mailing list
[17:24] <smoser> asking for input on -virtual kernel.
[17:24] <Daviey> yes!
[17:24] <jjohansen> yep
[17:24] <smoser> please, if the -virtual kernel has affected you, please speak up there.
[17:24] <smb> zul, Actually, maybe you want to check whether you got the same amount of patches in your packatge
[17:24]  * jjohansen was waiting to pitch it
[17:24] <Daviey> https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-server/2011-March/005348.html
[17:24] <zul> smb: lets take it off line
[17:24] <smb> There may have been something needing fix for a cve but I lost a bit track of time
[17:24] <smb> ok
[17:25] <Daviey> jjohansen, Do you want to speak?
[17:25] <smb> jjohansen, go
[17:25] <smoser> zul, fyi, hggdh has info on hardy kernel updates as well.
[17:25] <jjohansen> Daviey: not really, I was just going to do a one more thing.  The kernel team is looking for kernel input, please reply to the mail, or hunt me down
[17:26] <jjohansen> I think its been covered
[17:26] <Daviey> super, thanks!
[17:26] <Daviey> It's good to see there is not much concern with the tradional kernel for natty..
[17:26]  * Daviey is happy
[17:26] <Daviey> Thanks smb and jjohansen !
[17:26] <Daviey> [TOPIC] Weekly Updates & Questions for the QA Team (hggdh)
[17:26] <MootBot> New Topic:  Weekly Updates & Questions for the QA Team (hggdh)
[17:27] <Daviey> hggdh, floor is yours, sir!
[17:27] <hggdh> thanks
[17:27] <hggdh> we are busy on ISO testing; also still working on the Euca bug
[17:27] <hggdh> no news there yet
[17:28] <hggdh> smoser: ec2 images ready for ISO testing?
[17:28] <smoser> hggdh, yes.
[17:28]  * Daviey has been working with hggdh to try and resolve the euca bug.
[17:28] <smoser> jamespage, is working on this , we're attempting to test through jenkins with the work eh's done there.
[17:29] <Daviey> jamespage, Do you want to comment on the jenkins testing?
[17:29] <jamespage> yep
[17:30] <jamespage> so I executed a full set of tests this afternoon; its thrown up a couple of minor bugs with the testing framework which I will fix ASAP.
[17:30] <jamespage> Results here -> http://jenkins.qa.ubuntu-uk.org/view/natty-ec2/ if anyone wants to take a look
[17:30] <Daviey> jamespage / smoser: Is this expected to be the primary testing, or will traditional testing still be conducted for b1?
[17:30] <hggdh> jamespage: can we consider these results as the "official beta" results?
[17:31] <hggdh> heh
[17:31] <smoser> leaning torwards this being primary
[17:31] <robbiew> +1
[17:31] <Daviey> That should be a good time saving!
[17:31] <jamespage> They are against 20110329
[17:31] <jamespage> so we will need to run again
[17:31] <hggdh> OK
[17:31] <jamespage> Suggest I fix issues
[17:31] <smoser> (not really much time saving... the other tests were all automated as well)
[17:31] <hggdh> I *think* we now have the final ISO -- the .2
[17:32] <jamespage> and they re-run once we think we have a good image for beta 1
[17:32] <Daviey> (candidate)
[17:32] <Daviey> jamespage, Are they triggered automatically?
[17:32] <hggdh> Daviey: yes indeed, the final, er, candidate
[17:32] <Daviey> heh
[17:32] <jamespage> No - thats intentional as they cost $$ to execute.
[17:33] <Daviey> ok, so smoser pings you to fire them?
[17:33] <jamespage> At the moment they have to be submitted individually (which is a bit of a pain)
[17:33] <jamespage> Yes - thats fine.
[17:33] <Daviey> groovy.
[17:33] <Daviey> Anything else for hggdh, or QA related?
[17:34] <hggdh> .. from me
[17:34] <Daviey> hggdh, super... thanks.. I think we'll be talking more this week. :)
[17:34] <Daviey> moving on...
[17:34] <smoser> well, since we're there.
[17:34] <smoser> hold on
[17:34] <Daviey> smoser, go
[17:34] <smoser> so is there anything anyone knows about that should cause respin of 20110329 uec images ?
[17:35] <smoser> (built on taht date ~ 1:00 am UTC)
[17:35] <smoser> manifest http://uec-images.ubuntu.com/server/natty/current/natty-server-uec-amd64.manifest
[17:36] <Daviey> smoser, Have you already tested those?
[17:36] <smoser> that is what jamespage ran a test on.
[17:36] <Daviey> ah
[17:37] <Daviey> nothing of interest has changed AFAIK.
[17:38] <Daviey> moving on.
[17:38] <Daviey> [TOPIC] Weekly Updates & Questions for the Documentation Team
[17:38] <MootBot> New Topic:  Weekly Updates & Questions for the Documentation Team
[17:38] <Daviey> We do have quite alot of docs to do before release.
[17:38] <Daviey> We need to review the current documentation.
[17:38] <Daviey> and some people have WI for new docs.
[17:39] <Daviey> [ACTION] Please review the current documentation.
[17:39] <MootBot> ACTION received:  Please review the current documentation.
[17:39] <RoAkSoAx> what about the inclusion of new documentation
[17:39] <Daviey> Hopefully we'll be able to touch some docs before next meeting.. if we comment next meeting what we have done, that will help.
[17:40] <Daviey> RoAkSoAx, Yes, if the current documentation is weak in an area, it needs new documentation :)
[17:40] <Daviey> [TOPIC] Weekly Updates & Questions from the Ubuntu Community
[17:40] <MootBot> New Topic:  Weekly Updates & Questions from the Ubuntu Community
[17:40] <RoAkSoAx> Daviey: I mean completely new documentation that I'd like to include
[17:41] <Daviey> RoAkSoAx, Yes, is that on one of the WI's?
[17:41] <RoAkSoAx> Daviey: I would love to include Cluster Docs
[17:41] <RoAkSoAx> Daviey: which I have made available at: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ClusterStack/Natty
[17:42] <Daviey> RoAkSoAx, That sounds like a good idea.. do you know how to submit it?
[17:42] <RoAkSoAx> Daviey: nope, that's why I was asking :)
[17:43] <Daviey> RoAkSoAx, Okay, I'll take the action of providing guidance to -server ml.
[17:43] <RoAkSoAx> cool ;)
[17:43] <Daviey> (I need to check with the docs team, anyway)
[17:43] <Daviey> [ACTION] Daviey to talk with docs team about new submissions.
[17:43] <MootBot> ACTION received:  Daviey to talk with docs team about new submissions.
[17:44] <Daviey> [TOPIC] Weekly Updates & Questions from the Ubuntu Community
[17:44] <MootBot> New Topic:  Weekly Updates & Questions from the Ubuntu Community
[17:44] <Daviey> Is there anything new here?
[17:44] <Daviey> any new contributors want to say hello? :)
[17:45] <Daviey> [TOPIC] Open Discussion
[17:45] <MootBot> New Topic:  Open Discussion
[17:45] <Daviey> Anyone have anything else to add?
[17:46] <robbiew> Daviey is the new Ubuntu Server Technical Lead
[17:46] <robbiew> whoohoo
[17:46] <robbiew> heh
[17:46] <RoAkSoAx> \o/
[17:46] <Daviey> STC. :)
[17:46] <jamespage> \o/ - congrats Daviey
[17:46]  * Daviey blushes.
[17:47] <Daviey> moving on gracefully.
[17:47] <Daviey> [TOPIC] Announce next meeting date and time
[17:47] <Daviey>     Tuesday, April 5 2011 16:00 UTC
[17:47] <MootBot> New Topic:  Announce next meeting date and time
[17:47] <raphink> congrats
[17:47]  * robbiew begins the delegations of time waisting work and meanless duties
[17:47] <robbiew> meaningless
[17:48] <Daviey> oh joy
[17:48] <Daviey> #endmeeting
[17:48] <MootBot> Meeting finished at 11:48.
[17:58] <JFo> o/
[17:58] <sconklin> \o
[17:58]  * tgardner waves
[17:58] <jjohansen> \o
[17:58] <ppisati> o/
[17:58] <sforshee> o/
[17:59]  * smb is here
[17:59]  * ogasawara waves
[18:00] <bjf> #startmeeting
[18:00] <MootBot> Meeting started at 12:00. The chair is bjf.
[18:00] <MootBot> Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
[18:00] <bjf> ##
[18:00] <bjf> ## This is the Ubuntu Kernel Team weekly status meeting.
[18:00] <bjf> ##
[18:00] <bjf> [LINK] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/KernelTeam/Meeting
[18:00] <bjf> [LINK] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/KernelTeam/ReleaseStatus/Natty
[18:00] <MootBot> LINK received:  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/KernelTeam/Meeting
[18:00] <MootBot> LINK received:  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/KernelTeam/ReleaseStatus/Natty
[18:00] <bjf> # Meeting Etiquette
[18:00] <bjf> #
[18:00] <bjf> # NOTE: '..' indicates that you are finished with your input.
[18:00] <bjf> [TOPIC] Release Metrics (JFo)
[18:00] <MootBot> New Topic:  Release Metrics (JFo)
[18:00] <JFo> Release Meeting Bugs (6 bugs, 8 Blueprints)
[18:00] <JFo> [18:00] <JFo>  * 4 linux kernel bugs (no change)
[18:00] <JFo>  * 0 linux-ti-omap bugs (no change)
[18:00] <JFo>  * 0 linux-meta-ti-omap bug (no change)
[18:00] <JFo> [18:00] <JFo>  * 22 linux kernel bugs (up 2)
[18:00] <JFo>  * 0 linux-ti-omap bugs (no change)
[18:00] <JFo>  * 0 linux-meta-ti-omap bug (no change)
[18:00] <JFo> [18:00] <JFo>  * 7 blueprints (Including HWE Blueprints)
[18:01] <JFo> [18:01] <JFo>  * 60 Linux Bugs (down 13)
[18:01] <JFo> [18:01] <JFo>  * 94 Linux Bugs (no change)
[18:01] <JFo> [18:01] <JFo>  * [[https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bugs?field.has_patch=on | Bugs with Patches]]
[18:01] <JFo>  * [[http://qa.ubuntu.com/reports/ogasawara/csv-stats/bugs-with-patches/linux/ | Breakdown by status]]
[18:01] <JFo> ..
[18:01] <bjf> [TOPIC] Blueprints: Natty Bug Handling (JFo)
[18:01] <bjf> [LINK] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/hardware-kernel-n-bug-handling
[18:01] <MootBot> New Topic:  Blueprints: Natty Bug Handling (JFo)
[18:01] <MootBot> LINK received:  https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/hardware-kernel-n-bug-handling
[18:01] <JFo> * I am reviewing the items this week (had planned to do last week, but didn't get to it)
[18:01] <JFo> to determine what, if any, items need to be postponed or require further discussion at UDS. There
[18:01] <JFo> are several items that are relatively straightforward and simply need to have the time allotted
[18:01] <JFo> for them to be completed. I'll plan and implement that schedule for myself also this week.
[18:01] <JFo> ..
[18:02] <bjf> [TOPIC] Status: General Natty (apw / ogasawara)
[18:02] <MootBot> New Topic:  Status: General Natty (apw / ogasawara)
[18:02] <ogasawara> Beta-1 is this Thursday, March 31.  Beta-1 will ship with the 2.6.38-7.39 kernel which is based on mainline v2.6.38.  Do not expect any further uploads of the kernel until after Beta.  In the mean time we've been queueing patches in the master-next branch including rebasing to the most recent 2.6.38.2 stable update.  Also keep in mind that Kernel Freeze is April 14, ~2weeks away.  After kernel freeze we will transition t
[18:02] <ogasawara> o our SRU policy when submitting and accepting patches.  See:
[18:02] <ogasawara> [LINK] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/KernelTeam/KernelUpdates and
[18:02] <ogasawara> [LINK] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Kernel/Dev/StablePatchFormat
[18:02] <MootBot> LINK received:  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/KernelTeam/KernelUpdates and
[18:02] <MootBot> LINK received:  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Kernel/Dev/StablePatchFormat
[18:02] <ogasawara> I'd like to also note that Kernel Freeze is also the same date as Beta 2.  Any uploads beyond that would likely have to be of the kitten killing nature.
[18:02] <ogasawara> ..
[18:03] <bjf> [TOPIC] Status: Stable Kernel Team (sconklin / bjf)
[18:03] <MootBot> New Topic:  Status: Stable Kernel Team (sconklin / bjf)
[18:03] <sconklin> ||
[18:03] <sconklin> || We are extending the verification phase of this kernel cycle to two weeks in order to resync with master
[18:03] <sconklin> || Natty interlock schedule.
[18:03] <sconklin> ||
[18:03] <sconklin> || Due to a shortage of testing resources and testing required for the upcoming Natty release, there will
[18:03] <sconklin> || not be a normal two-week kernel release cadence for the next few weeks. The schedule is as follows:
[18:03] <sconklin> ||
[18:03] <sconklin> || kernel  (maverick, lucid) -> proposed  3/25
[18:03] <sconklin> || verification in progress this week
[18:03] <sconklin> || hw cert/qa   - 4/1-4/7
[18:03] <sconklin> || kernel (maveric, lucid) -> update 4/7
[18:03] <sconklin> || kernel ( maverick, lucid?)-> proposed 4/22
[18:03] <sconklin> || verification 4/25-4/29
[18:03] <sconklin> || hw cert/qa - 4/29 - 5/5
[18:03] <sconklin> || kernel (maverick, lucid? ) to update 5/5
[18:03] <sconklin> ||
[18:03] <sconklin> || * We will complete verification (or revert of patches) by this Friday for the current kernels.
[18:03] <sconklin> ||
[18:03] <sconklin> || * We will have no uploads on the 8th of April, effectively skipping one of the two week
[18:03] <sconklin> ||   cycles that we have been on.
[18:03] <sconklin> ||
[18:03] <sconklin> || * We will upload Maverick and Lucid to -proposed on Friday, April 22
[18:03] <sconklin> ||
[18:03] <sconklin> || We still have not found the root cause of a build failure for the hppa architecture for the Hardy
[18:03] <sconklin> || linux-backports-modules package. This must be understood and resolved before we can release the
[18:03] <sconklin> || Hardy kernel packages, so if it is not resolved by the end of this week we will have to delay
[18:03] <sconklin> || the testing phase for Hardy until we understand it.
[18:03] <sconklin> ..
[18:04]  * tgardner is working on it...
[18:04] <bjf> [TOPIC] Security & bugfix kernels - Maverick/Lucid/Karmic/Hardy/Dapper (sconklin / bjf)
[18:04] <MootBot> New Topic:  Security & bugfix kernels - Maverick/Lucid/Karmic/Hardy/Dapper (sconklin / bjf)
[18:04] <sconklin> || Package                                    || Upd/Sec              || Proposed             ||  TiP || Verified ||
[18:04] <sconklin> ||                                            ||                      ||                      ||      ||          ||
[18:04] <sconklin> || dapper   linux-source-2.6.15               || 2.6.15-57.94         || 2.6.15-57.95         ||    0 ||        0 ||
[18:04] <sconklin> ||                                            ||                      ||                      ||      ||          ||
[18:04] <sconklin> || hardy    linux-restricted-modules-2.6.24   ||                      || 2.6.24.18-29.9       ||    0 ||        0 ||
[18:04] <sconklin> || ---      linux-ubuntu-modules-2.6.24       || 2.6.24-28.47         || 2.6.24-29.49         ||    0 ||        0 ||
[18:04] <sconklin> || ---      linux-backports-modules-2.6.24    || 2.6.24-28.37         || 2.6.24-29.39         ||    0 ||        0 ||
[18:04] <sconklin> || ---      linux-meta                        || 2.6.24.28.30         || 2.6.24.29.31         ||    0 ||        0 ||
[18:04] <sconklin> || ---      linux                             || 2.6.24-28.86         || 2.6.24-29.88         ||    3 ||        3 ||
[18:04] <sconklin> ||                                            ||                      ||                      ||      ||          ||
[18:04] <sconklin> || karmic   linux-ec2                         || 2.6.31-308.28        || 2.6.31-308.29        ||    1 ||        1 ||
[18:05] <sconklin> || ---      linux                             || 2.6.31-23.74         || 2.6.31-23.75         ||    1 ||        1 ||
[18:05] <sconklin> ||                                            ||                      ||                      ||      ||          ||
[18:05] <sconklin> || lucid    linux-ec2                         || 2.6.32-314.27        || 2.6.32-315.28        ||    5 ||        4 ||
[18:05] <sconklin> || ---      linux-ports-meta                  || 2.6.32.30.23         || 2.6.32.31.23         ||    0 ||        0 ||
[18:05] <sconklin> || ---      linux-meta-lts-backport-maverick  || 2.6.35.25.36         || 2.6.35.28.37         ||    0 ||        0 ||
[18:05] <sconklin> || ---      linux-lts-backport-maverick       || 2.6.35-25.44~lucid1  || 2.6.35-28.50~lucid1  ||   13 ||       12 ||
[18:05] <sconklin> || ---      linux-backports-modules-2.6.32    || 2.6.32-30.29         || 2.6.32-31.31         ||    0 ||        0 ||
[18:05] <sconklin> || ---      linux-firmware                    || 1.34.4               || 1.34.7               ||    1 ||        1 ||
[18:05] <sconklin> || ---      linux                             || 2.6.32-30.59         || 2.6.32-31.60         ||    5 ||        4 ||
[18:05] <sconklin> || ---      linux-meta                        || 2.6.32.30.36         || 2.6.32.31.37         ||    0 ||        0 ||
[18:05] <sconklin> || ---      linux-meta-ec2                    || 2.6.32.314.15        || 2.6.32.315.16        ||    0 ||        0 ||
[18:05] <sconklin> ||                                            ||                      ||                      ||      ||          ||
[18:05] <sconklin> || maverick linux-backports-modules-2.6.35    || 2.6.35-28.19         || 2.6.35-28.20         ||    0 ||        0 ||
[18:05] <sconklin> || ---      linux                             || 2.6.35-28.49         || 2.6.35-28.50         ||    5 ||        4 ||
[18:05] <sconklin> ||                                            ||                      ||                      ||      ||          ||
[18:05] <sconklin> http://people.canonical.com/~kernel/reports/versions.html has ner-live version information
[18:05] <MootBot> LINK received:  http://people.canonical.com/~kernel/reports/versions.html has ner-live version information
[18:05] <sconklin> ..
[18:06] <bjf> [TOPIC] Incoming Bugs: Regressions (JFo)
[18:06] <MootBot> New Topic:  Incoming Bugs: Regressions (JFo)
[18:06] <JFo> Incoming Bugs
[18:06] <JFo>  453 Natty Bugs (up 94)
[18:06] <JFo>  1238 Maverick Bugs (up 6)
[18:06] <JFo>  1053 Lucid Bugs (up 8)
[18:06] <JFo> Current regression stats (broken down by release):
[18:06] <JFo> [18:06] <JFo>   * 42 maverick bugs (no change)
[18:06] <JFo>   * 76 lucid bugs (up 1)
[18:06] <JFo>   * 7 karmic bugs (no change)
[18:06] <JFo>   * 0 hardy bugs (no change)
[18:06] <JFo> [18:06] <JFo>   * 217 natty bugs (up 55)
[18:06] <JFo>   * 239 maverick bugs (down 3)
[18:06] <JFo>   * 222 lucid bugs (up 1)
[18:06] <JFo>   * 38 karmic bugs (no change)
[18:06] <JFo>   * 2 hardy bugs (no change)
[18:06] <JFo> [18:06] <JFo>   * 10 natty bugs (up 2)
[18:06] <JFo>   * 0 maverick bugs (no change)
[18:06] <JFo>   * 0 lucid bugs (no change)
[18:06] <JFo>   * 0 karmic bug (no change)
[18:06] <JFo> ..
[18:07] <bjf> [TOPIC] Incoming Bugs: Bug day report (JFo)
[18:07] <MootBot> New Topic:  Incoming Bugs: Bug day report (JFo)
[18:07] <JFo> nothing to report on until next week.
[18:07] <JFo> ..
[18:07] <bjf> [TOPIC] Triage Status (JFo)
[18:07] <MootBot> New Topic:  Triage Status (JFo)
[18:07] <JFo> Another pretty slow week for triage.
[18:07] <JFo> ..
[18:07] <bjf> [TOPIC] Open Discussion or Questions: Raise your hand to be recognized (o/)
[18:07] <MootBot> New Topic:  Open Discussion or Questions: Raise your hand to be recognized (o/)
[18:08] <bjf> thanks everyone
[18:08] <bjf> #endmeeting
[18:08] <MootBot> Meeting finished at 12:08.
[18:08] <JFo> thanks bjf
[18:08] <sconklin> Thanks!
[18:08] <sforshee> thanks bjf
[18:56] <fagan> o/
[18:58]  * stgraber waves
[18:58] <fagan> my first meeting in a month
[19:00] <stgraber> not that we actually had many others ;)
[19:00]  * wendar waves
[19:00] <stgraber> last one we were only two attending
[19:00] <fagan> hehe
[19:00] <fagan> well I had tests
[19:00] <stgraber> I guess we might need to restaff the ARB
[19:00] <fagan> and now a job :)
[19:01] <stgraber> as pretty much everyone is busy with a lot of other things and we aren't that many on the board
[19:01] <fagan> well im good to go from here on in
[19:01] <wendar> yes, UDS should be good for that
[19:01] <fagan> well id be looking to continue on the board
[19:01] <fagan> since now I have loads of time
[19:01] <stgraber> cool !
[19:01] <stgraber> btw, I just uploaded "news"
[19:02] <fagan> nice
[19:02] <wendar> excellent!
[19:02] <stgraber> it got approved a while ago. We've been waiting for IS for a few weeks to get the screenshots uploaded
[19:02] <maco> ARB?
[19:02] <fagan> maco: yep
[19:02] <stgraber> then I noticed a few packaging mistakes that I asked to be fixed before uploading
[19:02] <maco> fagan: ENOPARSE
[19:02] <fagan> maco: ??
[19:02] <maco> oh wait i get it now
[19:03] <stgraber> there was just a really small packaging issue remaining but nothing that'd be a problem for the upload, so it should now be on extras.ubuntu.com soon enough
[19:03] <maco> application review board
[19:03] <ajmitch> maco: the meeting currently in progress :P
[19:03] <stgraber> maco: app review board
[19:03] <fagan> maco: hehe
[19:03] <wendar> maco: yes :)
[19:03]  * ajmitch is here for a short time before having to run to work
[19:03] <wendar> #startmeeting
[19:03] <MootBot> Meeting started at 13:03. The chair is wendar.
[19:03] <MootBot> Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
[19:03] <wendar> [TOPIC] Review action items
[19:03] <MootBot> New Topic:  Review action items
[19:04] <wendar> [LINK] http://wiki.ubuntu.com/AppReviewBoard/Agenda
[19:04] <MootBot> LINK received:  http://wiki.ubuntu.com/AppReviewBoard/Agenda
[19:04] <wendar> some of these we just need to clear out now
[19:05] <wendar> like, conventions for tarballs?
[19:05] <wendar> any problems with deleting it?
[19:06] <fagan> im good with that
[19:06] <wendar> will do
[19:06] <wendar> daily-journal I found out about sideways, when we started getting failure reports on it from Natty
[19:06] <ajmitch> it should go, I think
[19:06] <wendar> it was added in Maverick as the first test app for extras
[19:07] <wendar> ajmitch
[19:07] <fagan> yeah it was
[19:07] <wendar> ajmitch: agreed
[19:07] <stgraber> +1
[19:07] <fagan> +1
[19:07] <wendar> but, it was apparently copied over to Natty when the Natty archive was created
[19:07] <ajmitch> I didn't think it was meant to be used by people, I think we can delete it from the PPA?
[19:07] <wendar> so, needs to be removed from natty too
[19:07] <fagan> wendar: probably
[19:07] <ajmitch> however, we have to check on what deleting it from the PPA will do to extras.ubuntu.com
[19:08] <wendar> does someone want to take on that task?
[19:08]  * fagan wouldnt know who to ask 
[19:08] <wendar> fagan: daily-journal was already removed from maverick?
[19:08] <fagan> wendar: nope
[19:08] <wendar> okay
[19:09] <ajmitch> probably start with asking mvo, he might at least know who else to talk to
[19:09]  * wendar looks at stgraber, for expertise in removing things from archive
[19:09] <ScottK> It's probably worth a soyuz bug to now forward copy extras.ubuntu.com when a new release is created.
[19:09] <ScottK> ajmitch: I'd ask wgrant.
[19:09] <ScottK> now/not
[19:09] <wendar> ScottK: yes, definitely worth that
[19:09] <ajmitch> ScottK: right
[19:10] <fagan> so who wants to go do that
[19:10]  * ajmitch can ask him about it
[19:10] <stgraber> wendar: I'd think removing it from our PPA and waiting 24h should do the trick. It won't remove it from users' machine though
[19:10] <wendar> thanks, ajmitch!
[19:11] <wendar> stgraber: I doubt many users have it installed
[19:11] <wendar> stgraber: this guy installed it looking for something entirely different
[19:11] <stgraber> if we want to remove it, we'd need to upload an empty package or something, so I guess just removing it should be fine for now
[19:11] <fagan> well maybe removing it from 11.04 but not maverick just to be sure?
[19:12] <stgraber> hmm, I only see it for natty
[19:12] <stgraber> https://launchpad.net/~app-review-board/+archive/ppa/+packages
[19:12] <fagan> I dont think it does any harm by just sitting in the archive
[19:12] <fagan> oh then its ok if we remove it
[19:12] <stgraber> mvo: ping
[19:13] <stgraber> mvo: the package description indicates that it's there for software-center testing
[19:13] <stgraber> mvo: and will be removed before release
[19:13] <stgraber> can we consider "before release" as == "now" ?
[19:14] <fagan> I think so
[19:14] <stgraber> and maybe find another way of testing extras.ubuntu.com in the future, even if that's to send an actual app through the review process
[19:14] <ScottK> I think remote removing installed applications from user machines without a very strong reason is a very good idea.
[19:14] <ScottK> ... is not a ...
[19:14] <fagan> well I think its ok for testing in dev releases
[19:15] <ajmitch> ScottK: I don't think we want to do that
[19:15] <fagan> id say it doesnt cause any harm
[19:15] <stgraber> ScottK: agreed
[19:15] <stgraber> removing from PPA now
[19:15] <ScottK> "Canonical remote deleting apps, just like Apple" <-- slashdot.
[19:15] <ScottK> Don't need that.
[19:16] <fagan> :)
[19:16] <wendar> stgraber: thanks
[19:16] <stgraber> ScottK: yeah, the remote removal stuff was discussed at UDS for cases where there is a serious security vulnerability and upstream doesn't provide a fix in a reasonable delay (and we can't find an ARB member willing to fix it)
[19:17]  * fagan remembers that 
[19:17] <ScottK> Yep.  That's a bit different than 'oops, it shouldn't have been there and we're getting bug reports now'.
[19:17] <fagan> I dont think thats on a wiki somewhere
[19:17] <wendar> fagan: not yet
[19:17] <stgraber> fagan: it's probably on gobby, maybe on LP but probably not on the wiki ;)
[19:18] <ajmitch> stgraber: the usual breakdown in communications then
[19:18] <stgraber> yeah
[19:19] <fagan> so next?
[19:19] <wendar> the last action item from previous meetings is the submission guide on the wiki
[19:19] <wendar> which is a work in progress
[19:19] <wendar> (good place to add notes on possible actions for security flaws)
[19:19] <wendar> is it worth keeping as an action item for next time
[19:19] <wendar> ?
[19:19] <wendar> as a reminder?
[19:19] <fagan> wendar: id love to spec a meeting to get an api for app submission going
[19:19] <fagan> for the UDS
[19:20] <wendar> yes, good idea
[19:20] <wendar> we may be able to piggyback on some existing code, which would be good
[19:20] <fagan> yeah that would be cool
[19:20]  * ajmitch would like to have had reviewing going smoothly before worrying about that
[19:20] <wendar> I'll tag that as an action item
[19:20] <wendar> ajmitch: well, we had one that went like clockwork
[19:21] <wendar> then it hung for over a month waiting for screenshots
[19:21] <fagan> ajmitch: well id say it would have to be there before the LTS release
[19:21] <fagan> and the review process would be sorted by then anyway
[19:21] <wendar> so, technology is getting in the way of the process
[19:21] <fagan> yeah
[19:22] <wendar> next, proposal reviews...
[19:22] <fagan> I just think it would be good to at least talk about anyway
[19:22] <wendar> definitely
[19:24] <wendar> there's been some work on the "developer console" website that was discussed at last UDS
[19:24] <wendar> just a start, but it has potential for our use
[19:24] <fagan> I dont remember that
[19:24] <wendar> have to poke around and find the blueprint
[19:26] <wendar> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/appdevs-n-commercial-apps
[19:26] <mvo> stgraber: sorry, missed the ping. indeed, just for testing we should delete it soonish
[19:26]  * fagan has access to canonical wiki now so can actually see that
[19:26] <fagan> the wiki link I mean
[19:27] <wendar> hah, no reason it should be private
[19:27] <wendar> (and actually, the wiki is dead now anyway)
[19:27] <fagan> wendar: well the u1 team uses it a bit
[19:28] <wendar> on to proposals?
[19:28] <stgraber> mvo: ok, I removed it 10min ago
[19:29] <fagan> wendar: I havent looked into the app that im assigned to
[19:29] <fagan> :/
[19:29] <wendar> 4dtris?
[19:29] <fagan> has any one else followed up?
[19:29] <fagan> yep
[19:29] <wendar> [TOPIC] Proposal Review - 4dtris (fagan)
[19:29] <wendar> [LINK] https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu-app-review-board/+bug/644443
[19:29] <MootBot> New Topic:  Proposal Review - 4dtris (fagan)
[19:29] <MootBot> LINK received:  https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu-app-review-board/+bug/644443
[19:30] <stgraber> I only had one app assigned to me IIRC and was waiting for a new upstream release
[19:30] <fagan> Yeah I havent looked at 4dtris
[19:30] <wendar> fagan: looks like not yet
[19:30] <fagan> yeah
[19:31] <fagan> I poked the code a little but didnt get to look down enough to give a review
[19:31] <stgraber> I just marked pytask as incomplete until we get a new upstream release
[19:31] <wendar> stgraber: good
[19:32]  * ajmitch was waiting for upstream to look at the packaging changes in a branch for simple-stopwatch, and had taken a look at the code of schedio
[19:32] <stgraber> hmm, apparently we don't have auto-expiry turned on for ubuntu-app-review-board so we'll have to manually expire them :)
[19:32] <ajmitch> to be generous, schedio will take some work :)
[19:33] <fagan> stgraber: well that will only be needed if we had an API and a lot of reviews in the queue
[19:33] <wendar> stgraber: given our current speed, that's probably good
[19:33] <wendar> IIRC, SIR was ready to go, just waiting for screenshots
[19:34] <fagan> wasnt that already given the ok?
[19:34]  * fagan cant remember 
[19:34] <wendar> yes it was approved
[19:34] <stgraber> wendar: there's screenshots attached, it needs to be put in a branch and merged into the screenshot branch
[19:34] <fagan> ah thats ok
[19:34] <wendar> oh, it also needs the custom metadata fields
[19:34] <ajmitch> what sort of size limit would you put on something for code review?
[19:35] <fagan> ajmitch: I think thats subjective
[19:35] <wendar> stgraber: yes, I offered the developer to do the branch and proposal for merge, then never got to it
[19:35] <stgraber> ajmitch: I wouldn't give a size limit, if it feels too big/complex to you, then it's probably worth rejecting
[19:35] <fagan> you could have 5000 lines of really basic code or 1000 of the most complicated code
[19:35] <ajmitch> fagan: right, I'm just going for generalities, as I look at schedio
[19:36] <fagan> ajmitch: id say more than 2000 is my limit
[19:36] <fagan> id be a little bit afraid of missing something important in more than that
[19:37] <ajmitch> this one rocks in at 15k, mostly repetitive gtk+ coding, but some interesting stuff as well :)
[19:37] <fagan> ajmitch: if its 15k but repeating it could be acceptable
[19:38] <ajmitch> I'd reject it out of hand just looking at it, just don't know the polite way to do so :)
[19:38] <fagan> ajmitch: just say there is a complexity restriction
[19:38] <wendar> that it looks more appropriate to the full review process
[19:38] <fagan> that you are sorry but the application is just too bad for the app review process
[19:38] <fagan> but that they should go to the repo with it
[19:39]  * ajmitch has to leave in a couple of minutes, anyway
[19:40] <wendar> the last two are Tibetsi and harmonySEQ
[19:40] <wendar> new proposals with no shepherds yet
[19:41] <wendar> I can take one, now that news is launched
[19:41]  * fagan has one
[19:42] <wendar> will we get any more apps through the process before Natty is released?
[19:42] <fagan> I dont think we will
[19:42] <stgraber> just looking at tibesti, there seems to be quite a few alternatives in the archive doing a very similar job
[19:42] <fagan> the next meeting is the week before release
[19:43]  * ajmitch has to run now, will read log later
[19:43] <fagan> later ajmitch
[19:44] <wendar> then we should switch to reviewing for entry into Natty (after release)
[19:44] <fagan> id say so
[19:44] <fagan> I dont know really id love to talk about this at the UDS
[19:44] <wendar> yes
[19:44] <stgraber> considering how long it takes to get an app in the repository, it might be worth asking the new ones if they want to apply for 10.10 or 11.04
[19:45] <wendar> especially the fact that the current scheme has us re-reviewing all the apps each time
[19:45] <fagan> I think we should stick to the LTS release after the next LTS is released
[19:45] <wendar> now we've only got 2
[19:45] <wendar> but next cycle, we might have 10 or so
[19:45] <wendar> and the cycle after that,...
[19:45] <fagan> and hop between LTS to LTS
[19:46] <wendar> fagan: that doesn't quite fit with the idea of getting apps on "the current release"
[19:46] <wendar> or at least, it's only half the story
[19:46] <stgraber> wendar: don't they have to re-apply for that ? I'm guessing part of the apps will be in the archive or superseded by something else. So it'll definitely get worse with time, but not necessarily a lot worse.
[19:46] <fagan> wendar: well the LTS is supposed to be the target of of apps that are going to get use for a long time
[19:46] <wendar> stgraber: they do have to reapply, which means we have to re-review
[19:46] <fagan> and id say that app developers would like to have their app in the repo for the longest time
[19:47] <wendar> stgraber: it should be easier than the first review, if there were no changes, though
[19:47] <stgraber> wendar: reviewing a new version is just a matter of checking the delta, so it should go a lot faster at least.
[19:47] <fagan> so if it goes to the LTS release and then gets mirrored to the normal releases (where possible) it would work
[19:48] <wendar> fagan: well, the idea was that ARB apps wouldn't be used for a long time... but, probably something to talk about at UDS
[19:48] <fagan> yeah
[19:48] <fagan> too bad im not traveling again
[19:48] <wendar> in general, UDS seems like a good time to take stock of what we've done so far
[19:49] <wendar> fagan: we'll get you in on IRC
[19:49] <fagan> wendar: yeah id love if I could go on mumble or something instead
[19:49] <fagan> but I suppose IRC would be ok
[19:49] <wendar> fagan: yeah, I think they had that set up last time too
[19:50] <stgraber> we can quite easily arrange using skype/mumble if listening to the stream + IRC isn't working well enough
[19:50] <wendar> but, we should talk on the mailing list ahead of time too
[19:50] <fagan> yeah well I can get stuff across by talking a lot easier than IRC
[19:51] <fagan> and its sometimes easy to miss stuff on IRC when talking in the room
[19:51] <fagan> anyway any more reviews?
[19:52] <wendar> that's all
[19:52] <fagan> cool
[19:52] <fagan> good meeting
[19:52] <wendar> who wants to chair next time?
[19:52] <fagan> I can do it
[19:52] <wendar> great, thanks!
[19:53] <wendar> #endmeeting
[19:53] <MootBot> Meeting finished at 13:53.
[19:53] <fagan> oh the mootbot got an update
[19:53]  * fagan hasnt seenthat
[19:53] <fagan> *seen that
[19:59] <soren> How can you tell?
[19:59] <soren> fagan: ^
[19:59] <fagan> soren: the time the meeting finished on
[19:59] <fagan> I havent seen the MootBot in so long
[19:59] <fagan> :)
[19:59] <soren> It's the same isn't it? UTC-5?
[20:00] <soren> A remarkably useless default, by the way.
[20:00] <stgraber> yeah, US central time seems quite weird ;) I'd have been fine with US eastern or UTC ...
[20:01] <fagan> UTC would be the most useful
[20:01] <soren> Yeah. I think I filed a bug about that years ago..
[20:01] <fagan> years ago?
[20:01] <soren> Indeed.
[20:01] <soren> https://bugs.launchpad.net/mootbot/+bug/138905
[20:02] <fagan> I didnt even think the bot did that so it doing that for years is pretty funny
[20:02] <soren> 3½ years ago.
[20:03] <fagan> soren: how did you get the half there
[20:03]  * fagan doesnt have that on his keyboard
[20:03] <micahg> ha ha, I always thought it was local to the user, then again, I'm in its timezone
[20:03] <soren> Get a new keyboard.
[20:03] <fagan> lol
[20:03] <fagan> €©™§¡¡¦§≠–ºª§€©™¦ßþ¥úíóíúı¨ı´‚ó“‘
[20:03] <fagan> crap
[20:04] <fagan> didnt mean to spam :)
[20:04] <highvoltage> yes you did I can see it on your face!
[20:05] <fagan> highvoltage: your behind me arent you :P
[20:07] <stgraber> fagan: Nope, I'm behind him and he only has his laptop in front of him :)
[20:08] <fagan> stgraber: hehe
[20:08] <highvoltage> omg he is really
[20:10] <stgraber> ;)
[20:11] <fagan> :)
[20:12]  * ajmitch wonders what odd meeting this is :P
[20:12] <fagan> ajmitch: yeah but nice
[20:18] <vish> Canadian Cabal!
[20:19] <fagan> Eh?
[20:19] <vish> highvoltage and stgraber
[20:20] <fagan> vish: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCypAqZI9Yc
[20:20] <fagan> I meant eh as in canada eh
[20:36] <highvoltage> hi vish
[20:37] <vish> hey