[14:59] <NCommander> #startmeeting
[14:59] <meetingology> Meeting started Thu Oct  6 14:59:20 2011 UTC.  The chair is NCommander. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/AlanBell/mootbot.
[14:59] <meetingology> Available commands: #accept #accepted #action #agree #agreed #chair #commands #endmeeting #endvote #halp #help #idea #info #link #lurk #meetingname #meetingtopic #nick #progress #rejected #replay #restrictlogs #save #startmeeting #subtopic #topic #unchair #undo #unlurk #vote #voters #votesrequired
[15:00] <NCommander> [link] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ARM/Meeting/2011/20111006
[15:00] <janimo> hi
[15:01] <NCommander> [link] http://people.canonical.com/~platform/workitems/oneiric/ubuntu-arm.html
[15:02]  * davidm waves
[15:02] <ogra_> i dont think we need to look at specs for O
[15:02]  * NCommander waves back
[15:02] <NCommander> Yeah
[15:02] <ogra_> lets use the time at the end to look at ÜP specs instead
[15:02] <NCommander> [topic] ARM Server Status (NCommander, Daviey)
[15:03]  * davidm is upset that the HTC Flyer pricing was a mistake
[15:03] <NCommander> ogra_: I have nothing drafted for a meeting on it. We can do that next week
[15:04] <NCommander> server side, I have nothing new to report
[15:04] <ogra_> NCommander, we need to have the drafts registered by next week
[15:04] <NCommander> ogra_: I'm aware.
[15:04] <ogra_> so we need to discuss them today
[15:05] <ogra_> at least who adds which
[15:05] <NCommander> ogra_: then I'd appericate it if you had asked me to bring it up before the meeting or even put it on the agenda.
[15:05] <ogra_> (and i doubt we have anything beyond banshee to discuss at all anyway)
[15:05] <ogra_> NCommander, will do next time, but that doesnt change the deadline now :)
[15:06] <ogra_> and you just said you are aware
[15:06] <NCommander> ogra_: we have the P Blueprints page, and we've gone over it in this meeting before.
[15:07] <ogra_> right
[15:07] <ogra_> who registers and drafts which one then ?
[15:07] <ogra_> i assume david will not do all he has assigned
[15:08] <NCommander> I'm drafting all the ARM server ones and will assign them after UDS after discussions with the team
[15:08] <GrueMaster> sigh.  Can we stick to the agenda?  I have added Blueprints to the meeting wiki.
[15:08] <ppisati> NCommander: anything kernel related?
[15:08] <ogra_> GrueMaster, thanks !
[15:08] <NCommander> [topic] Kernel status
[15:08] <NCommander> ppisati: not to my knowledge, anything to report?
[15:09] <ogra_> yes, lets stick to the agenda, i didnt mean to start a discussion (since i thought it was clear we have to do it today)
[15:09] <ppisati> nothing new to report this week
[15:09] <janimo> no new ac100 either, I was kind of hoping upstream fixes speaker sound - ongoing
[15:09] <ppisati> NCommander: nope, that's why i was asking
[15:09] <ogra_> janimo, its fixed :)
[15:09] <ogra_> janimo, see #ac100
[15:09] <ogra_> janimo, time for a zero day SRU i'd say ;)
[15:10] <ogra_> (after some testing)
[15:10] <janimo> ogra_, well, marvin says one more patch is pening
[15:10] <janimo> pending
[15:10] <ogra_> k
[15:10] <infinity> If the patchset is small, I'd accept it today. :P
[15:10] <infinity> But 0-day works too.
[15:10] <ogra_> ppisati, xranby reported stability issues on omap4
[15:11] <ogra_> i assume GrueMaster doesnt do many heavy load tests so that went unnoticed it seems
[15:11] <janimo> indeed, would be nice to have it for release
[15:11] <ogra_> janimo, ++
[15:11] <ppisati> ogra_: i'll ping him
[15:11] <ogra_> great, there should also be a bug open already
[15:11] <GrueMaster> ogra_: I haven't been able to get past the installer on dailys.
[15:11] <ogra_> GrueMaster, yeah, thats what i mean :)
[15:11] <ppisati> omap4?
[15:11] <ogra_> yep
[15:12] <ogra_> panda
[15:12] <ppisati> uhm
[15:12] <ppisati> on cdimage i don't see any daily for omap (that is not a preinstalled one)
[15:13] <infinity> ppisati: All our images are preinstalled.
[15:13] <NCommander> except netboot
[15:13] <ppisati> btw, today i reinstalled an omap4 preinstalled and it was ok
[15:13] <GrueMaster> ppisati:The installer I am referring to is oem-config.  It is part of Ubiquity.
[15:13] <ogra_> great to hear !
[15:13] <ppisati> but yes, couldn;'t get ubiquity to start
[15:13] <GrueMaster> And is part of every preinstalled image.
[15:13] <infinity> ppisati: Couldn't get it to start?
[15:14] <ppisati> nope
[15:14] <ppisati> crash
[15:14] <infinity> ppisati: Was there a bug filed?
[15:15] <ppisati> infinity: didn't check, i thought there was something wrong on my side
[15:15] <infinity> Possibly.
[15:15] <ppisati> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubiquity
[15:16] <ppisati> but it seems there are quite a bit open
[15:16] <ppisati> bugs
[15:17] <NCommander> [topic] ARM Porting/FTBFS status (NCommander, janimo)
[15:17] <ogra_> banshee ! :)
[15:18] <ogra_> so lets make a decision ... since RC doesnt happen today we have a bit wiggle room
[15:18] <NCommander> GrueMaster: and I did some work on finding the root of the crash and some workaround attempts Allailed
[15:18] <GrueMaster> Sadly, it builds.  It even installs.
[15:18] <ogra_> NCommander, GrueMaster do you see any chance for a fix (even an SRU) in time ?
[15:18] <NCommander> ogra_: I say we ship withe banshee despite the breakge. Changing el seeds is el suidice IMHO at this point
[15:18] <ogra_> if not i'll change the seeds right after meeting
[15:19] <ogra_> NCommander, i have approval and RB was tested
[15:19] <NCommander> ogra_: I think the odds are on par with you quitting smoking:-/
[15:19] <davidm> what is the status  on banshee
[15:19] <davidm> I don't want to ship broken as it could be months for an SRU
[15:19] <ogra_> i only want to ship banshee if there are realistic chances that we can get a fix
[15:19] <GrueMaster> RB doesn't support ubuntuone from what I could tell.
[15:19] <NCommander> GrueMaster: it should
[15:20] <ogra_> davidcalle, i'll happily ship it broken if i can get a word from NCommander that there is a chance for a zero day SRU or some such
[15:20] <NCommander> RB support predated bansheesupport
[15:20] <GrueMaster> The banshee issue feels like a missing package or setting issue.
[15:20] <davidm> It does not but I don't care working player beats broken player with unknown repair
[15:20] <ogra_> if thats clearly impossible lets drop it
[15:20] <NCommander> the less dependence on a framework known to be dodgy on ARM, the happiler I am
[15:20] <ogra_> so its all based on michaels judgement
[15:21] <NCommander> ogra_: you gotapproval to ship RB. Make it happen
[15:21] <davidm> NCommander, what is the likely hood of a fix by next Thursday?
[15:21] <ogra_> and since he said that i would stop smoking before it gets fixyed ...
[15:21]  * ogra_ lights a cigarette and opens a terminal in the seeds dir :)
[15:22] <NCommander> davidm: Unlikely. Its crashing in pure mono code, and I've yet to get mdb to work properly under ARM
[15:22] <NCommander> davidm: nor has GrueMaster managed to getone going throguh MonoDevelop
[15:22] <ogra_> yeah, lets keep banshee for P :)
[15:22] <ogra_> how about ftbfs beyond banshee ?
[15:22] <GrueMaster> davidm: The fix could happen as early as today or as late as it takes.  In my opinion, it is not an easy nut to crack, even with debugging symbols.
[15:23] <davidm> OK then lets pursue RB for release, and fix banshee later if at all possible
[15:23] <ogra_> yep
[15:23] <ogra_> or concentrate on having a rock solid banshee in P
[15:23] <ogra_> and dont waste time on O
[15:23] <NCommander> [topic] ARM Image Status (ogra, NCommander)
[15:23] <ogra_> they build and work
[15:23] <ogra_> for everyone bug GrueMaster
[15:24] <GrueMaster> For most people.
[15:24] <ogra_> s/bug/but even
[15:24] <janimo> mx5 is very slow though
[15:24] <ogra_> janimo, how is mx5 ?
[15:24] <ogra_> heh, snap
[15:25] <GrueMaster> I have yet to get through oem-config without it respawning several times.
[15:25] <janimo> everyone who tested it says the same
[15:25] <ogra_> well, it installs and its a "tech preview"
[15:25] <GrueMaster> on omap4.
[15:25] <janimo> GrueMaster, for me once it respanwed was the sign the system was installed
[15:25] <janimo> but hmm, maybe not ocnsistently
[15:25] <ogra_> janimo, that doesnt help
[15:25] <janimo> I know
[15:25] <GrueMaster> I believe the mx5 issues are swap related.  I seemed to get a bit better performance once I had a working swapfile.
[15:25] <ogra_> since you still have jasper and ubiquity installed then
[15:26] <GrueMaster> And no user account some of the time.
[15:26] <janimo> GrueMaster, but it has ~800Mb of RAM no? The beagle was snappier with less RAM
[15:26] <ogra_> GrueMaster, oh, intresting
[15:26] <ogra_> that indicates that it breaks reaqlly really early
[15:26] <GrueMaster> janimo: I thought it only had 512
[15:27] <infinity> 868432
[15:27] <ogra_> bug 868432
[15:27] <infinity> ogra_: No, that was the amount of RAM on an mx53loco. :P
[15:27] <ogra_> hmm
[15:27] <ogra_> lol
[15:28] <ogra_> NCommander, move ?
[15:28] <GrueMaster> On my system, last time I tried an image it failed to load the panel and several other issues until I had a working swapfile.
[15:28] <infinity> Well, swap is back on again.
[15:28] <ogra_> well, swap should be back
[15:29] <GrueMaster> I'll test today's image in a bit.
[15:30] <NCommander> [tpic] ARM Image Status (ogra, NCommander)
[15:30] <NCommander> we
[15:30] <NCommander> [topic] QA Status (GrueMaster, mahmoh)
[15:32] <GrueMaster> I have spent most of the week tracking down the banshee issue.  I have ruled out possible SMP issues and for the most part, mono core and addons work from what I can tell by running other apps.
[15:32] <NCommander> GrueMaster: anything tobring up
[15:33] <GrueMaster> I have also been trying to get some feedback from banshee developers on the #banshee channel on irc.gnome.org.
[15:33] <GrueMaster> Will continue on those tracks today.
[15:33] <NCommander> k anything else?
[15:33] <GrueMaster> Daily image for today just booted through oem-config for me (and there was much rejoicing).
[15:34] <GrueMaster> Although there is a crash report I'll need to look at.
[15:35] <GrueMaster> Is unity-2d supposed to use the same settings as Unity for hiding the panel?  If so - fail.
[15:35] <GrueMaster> crash appears to be oem-config.  Maybe I'll have something useful to report on it.finally.
[15:35] <ogra_> i think the default is "2" in dconf-editor
[15:36] <ogra_> not sure which hide behavior that sets :P
[15:36] <ogra_> but there should be a description in the editor
[15:37] <GrueMaster> Ugh.  Can't report crash on oem-config because libgtk2.0-0 is out of date.
[15:37] <GrueMaster> There was no description in gconf-editor for that key.
[15:37] <ogra_> dconf...
[15:37] <ogra_> gconf is dead
[15:37] <GrueMaster> At least none that I saw.
[15:37] <GrueMaster> ok
[15:37] <GrueMaster> Will look later.
[15:38] <ogra_> if you still have gconf settings anywhere thats a bug
[15:38] <GrueMaster> Nothing else here.
[15:38] <infinity> Once this new apt builds, I might spin a new set of images.
[15:38] <infinity> Installer performance will seem a bit snappier.
[15:39] <infinity> For a 6 minute period or so that update-apt-xapian-index isn't killing your SD in the background. :P
[15:40] <GrueMaster> I would ask that everyone on the team with a working panda please try to do some testing with the daily desktop image.  I am seeing too many crashes for a good release.
[15:41]  * ogra_ didnt see any in the last image he tested
[15:41] <ogra_> that was a few days after beta
[15:42] <GrueMaster> Hence why I said "daily".  Beta was 2 weeks ago.
[15:42] <infinity> Oh, we need to get on ndec's case about the ti-omap-extras stuff actually existing for oneiric.
[15:43] <ogra_> GrueMaster, yes, i tested a dail
[15:43] <ogra_> y
[15:43] <ogra_> as i said
[15:43] <ogra_> a few days after ...
[15:43] <GrueMaster> today's daily.  A lot of packages have changed in the last two weeks.
[15:43] <ogra_> sure
[15:44] <ppisati> 6th Oct daily + morning dist-upgrade = ubiquity crash (at least here)
[15:44] <NCommander> [topic] Linaro Updates (rsalveti)
[15:44] <GrueMaster> Just filed bug 869284.
[15:44]  * rsalveti waves
[15:44] <ogra_> i think i saw evan talk about that issue today
[15:44] <rsalveti> not much to report from the Linaro side this week, besides the planning for the 11.10 cycle
[15:44] <rsalveti> https://launchpad.net/linaro-ubuntu/+milestone/11.10
[15:45] <rsalveti> jcrigby pushed the fix for bug 867670 and bug 867650
[15:45] <rsalveti> but as SRU
[15:45] <rsalveti> still in progress
[15:45] <ogra_> rsalveti, how is the move to oneiric going ?
[15:46] <infinity> rsalveti: I need to talk to him about that.
[15:46] <infinity> rsalveti: But the fixes he pushed looked entirely suitable for release.
[15:46] <rsalveti> ogra_: we're still blocked with bugs at the linaro-image-tools
[15:46] <ogra_> :(
[15:46] <rsalveti> infinity: is it critical enough for the releasE?
[15:46] <rsalveti> ogra_: but we expect to have working images next week
[15:47] <ogra_> we too :)
[15:47] <infinity> rsalveti: Did we not want 4460 to work with oneiric images?
[15:47] <rsalveti> I'll also make sure the unity3d packages are in place, so we can demonstrate it with oneiric + latest sgx packages
[15:47] <infinity> rsalveti: It's not like we're respinning images post-release.
[15:47]  * ogra_ hugs rsalveti 
[15:47] <ogra_> rsalveti, if you need me for PPA copying or anything, ping me
[15:48] <ogra_> (for 3D)
[15:48] <rsalveti> infinity: yeah, there's one issue for 4460 that might be important for the release
[15:48] <rsalveti> ogra_: sure, I'll let you know when I get it all working
[15:48] <infinity> rsalveti: The overheating one, at least.  But I thought I saw another.
[15:48] <rsalveti> but I should be able to have a PPA for that
[15:48] <infinity> rsalveti: Still, the installer setting your board on fire is bad enough. :P
[15:48] <rsalveti> infinity: yup :-)
[15:48] <rsalveti> infinity: let's talk about this at #ubuntu-arm then
[15:48] <ogra_> rsalveti, well, they eventually need to end up in the ti ppa
[15:49] <GrueMaster> meh.  Self-heating.
[15:49] <rsalveti> ogra_: oh, that's fine by me, thought we would like a separated ppa for that
[15:49] <ogra_> well, winter is near in the northern hemisphere ... probably the pandas know that ;)
[15:49] <rsalveti> once I have the packages all working I'll let you know, then we can make sure it lands at the proper ppa
[15:49]  * GrueMaster looks outside.  Near?
[15:49] <ogra_> rsalveti, well, whatever works, effectively panda is the only thing we can run it on atm
[15:50] <rsalveti> yeah
[15:50] <ogra_> so it makes sense to put it in the TI one i think
[15:51] <rsalveti> sure, and it's already enabled by default once you installed the sgx drivers
[15:51] <rsalveti> :-)
[15:51] <ogra_> right
[15:51] <rsalveti> that's all from my side
[15:51] <ogra_> NCommander, move
[15:52] <rsalveti> next week I should have all the planning for connect/uds in place
[15:52] <rsalveti> at least from my side
[15:52] <ogra_> NCommander, move !
[15:53] <ogra_> time is running out and we need to get the specs assigned
[15:54] <ogra_> davidm, did you see the recent additions to the spec ideas page ?
[15:54]  * ogra_ gets the feeling he talks to an empty room
[15:55]  * rsalveti is still around, but not important anymore
[15:55] <davidm> ogra_, nope have not
[15:55] <davidm> I'll have a look
[15:55] <ogra_> davidcalle, see the two smagoun buts at the bottom
[15:55] <ogra_> that looks like linaro material
[15:55] <NCommander> [topic blueprints
[15:56] <ogra_> so NCommander said he'd take all server specs and have them registered next week
[15:56] <NCommander> [chair] ogra_
[15:56] <meetingology> Current chairs: NCommander ogra_
[15:56] <ogra_> infinity, are you taking the HF spec ?
[15:56]  * infinity looks.
[15:56] <ogra_> since you do the work i guess ...
[15:56] <infinity> But I imagine I am.  Didn't know there was one. :P
[15:56] <ogra_> it just says armhf _)
[15:57] <infinity> Ahh.  Kay.
[15:57] <infinity> Yeah, I'll take that.
[15:57]  * ogra_ still doesnt know what "linaro arm boot " is supposed to mean
[15:57] <ogra_> davidm, can we skip that one until its clear what it means ?
[15:58] <ogra_> then we have "ARM ISO install for non-mmc hardware"
[15:58] <infinity> Does smagoun realize that an emulated live-build is likely to be slower than the real thing?
[15:58] <ogra_> who wants that ? i suspect its just d-i images
[15:58] <janimo> ogra_, I think that means 'arm boot speed'
[15:58] <ogra_> infinity, i think he doesnt want qemu, they used it in the past
[15:58] <ogra_> janimo, linaro arm boot ?
[15:58] <infinity> ogra_: He has to have qemu.
[15:58] <ogra_> janimo, do you want to take it ?
[15:58] <janimo> ogra_, yes. I think so
[15:59] <infinity> ogra_: His packages won't magically install on x86.
[15:59] <ogra_> and find out if thats true ?
[15:59] <janimo> ogra_, well it is a postponed one from O so I guess I'll do something related still
[15:59] <ogra_> infinity, well, qemu-arm-static ...
[15:59] <infinity> ogra_: Still qemu.
[15:59] <ogra_> janimo, a postponed one ?
[15:59] <infinity> ogra_: Anyhow, I should probably take smagoun's specs, so I can shoot them down as crack.
[15:59] <ogra_> oh, yours
[15:59] <ogra_> indeed
[15:59] <janimo> ogra_, yes
[15:59] <ogra_> infinity, well, one is clearly linaro
[16:00] <davidm> infinity, unless smagoun is going to do the work
[16:00] <ogra_> the package cross build stuff was already discussed art ubuntu-devel
[16:00] <ogra_> which he apparently doesnt read, else he could have participated :)
[16:01] <ogra_> davidm, do we expect achiang to work on the spec he proposed ?
[16:01] <ogra_> i think he is oem
[16:01] <ogra_> else one of us has to take the firefox elfhack one
[16:02] <infinity> I think our time's up.
[16:02] <ogra_> well, that doesnt go anywhere here, lets adjourn, i'll assign specs that have no owner
[16:02]  * ogra_ thinks him holding monologues to the team with only infinity participating is a waste of time
[16:02] <ogra_> #endmeeting
[16:02] <meetingology> Meeting ended Thu Oct  6 16:02:49 2011 UTC.
[16:02] <meetingology> Minutes:        http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2011/ubuntu-meeting.2011-10-06-14.59.moin.txt
[16:03] <skaet> ogra_, is bug 803752 still going to land?
[16:03] <ogra_> skaet, nope, i thought i had closed it
[16:03]  * ogra_ does so now ... preseeding is supported, just not preseed files
[16:03] <davidm> ogra_, I hope achiang will step up if not likely the task will not get scheduled
[16:04] <ogra_> k
[16:04] <skaet> ogra_ thanks.  Also,  what about ac100 tarball installer.
[16:04] <skaet> ?
[16:04] <davidm> just because there is an idea, no matter how good does not mean we do it.
[16:04] <skaet> bug 856278?
[16:04] <ogra_> skaet, ?? what about it ??
[16:05] <ogra_> skaet, ah, thats a special case
[16:05] <skaet> :)
[16:05] <ogra_> (sorry lagging here)
[16:05] <ogra_> i can release note it, the majority of people installs to internal
[16:06] <skaet> fair enough.   thanks,  just trying to get my lists pared down.  ;)
[17:58] <kees> o/
[17:58]  * stgraber waves
[17:59]  * pitti says hello
[18:01] <pitti> seems the "chair: sabdfl" is obsolete, Mark already sent his apologies and he isn't an official board member any more anyway
[18:02] <pitti> seems the brainstorm review is now done, thanks cjwatson
[18:02] <pitti> http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/ucgi/~cjwatson/blosxom/ubuntu/2011-10-06-brainstorm-review.html
[18:03] <pitti> no community bugs either
[18:03] <pitti> I didn't see anything on the ML, did I miss something?
[18:04] <wendar> ARB
[18:04] <pitti> https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2011-October/001100.html
[18:04] <pitti> is a new one
[18:04] <pitti> hey wendar
[18:04] <wendar> hi
[18:04] <pitti> #startmeeting
[18:04] <meetingology> Meeting started Thu Oct  6 18:04:34 2011 UTC.  The chair is pitti. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/AlanBell/mootbot.
[18:04] <meetingology> Available commands: #accept #accepted #action #agree #agreed #chair #commands #endmeeting #endvote #halp #help #idea #info #link #lurk #meetingname #meetingtopic #nick #progress #rejected #replay #restrictlogs #save #startmeeting #subtopic #topic #unchair #undo #unlurk #vote #voters #votesrequired
[18:04] <pitti> #topic recruiting new members for the ARB
[18:05] <pitti> I admit I haven't read it yet, shall we allow some minutes to read/digest it?
[18:05] <pitti> (release crunch, sorry0
[18:06] <ScottK> I've always found the lack of a requirement to be a developer troubling.
[18:07] <kees> ScottK: "evidence of activity" isn't really as strong as _being_ a developer
[18:08] <pitti> I find that a bit troublesome as well; being able to spot problems in these packages requires at least some packaging experience
[18:08] <wendar> we've talked about that, in the current group, and generally assume that we will make it a requirement in the future, so for this cycle we looked for applicants who are Ubuntu developers
[18:08] <pitti> hopefully this will be ensured by the voting/application process, but perhaps it could be made explicit? that an applicant should at least be a PPU?
[18:08] <ScottK> I find it particularly troubling given it's enabled in the default install.
[18:10] <stgraber> pitti: member of ~ubuntu-dev should match all PPU/MOTU/Core-dev (unless we forgot to add some members to that team)
[18:10] <wendar> the only reason we haven't already made it a requirement, is that we're unsure how to handle the fact that half the current ARB aren't Ubuntu Developers, and we're already hurting for bodies
[18:10] <pitti> aside from that the proposal seems straightforward and clear to me
[18:10] <wendar> but, we could make it a requirement now, with a transition plan
[18:11] <pitti> wendar: is that becuase these members aren't generally interested in Ubuntu packaging? do they want to become ubuntu devs?
[18:11] <wendar> I certainly do :)
[18:11] <wendar> I'm pretty sure the other ARB member does too
[18:12] <kees> how about making it policy now, but allow for existing members to be allowed with the stated intention that they are working towards dev?
[18:12] <ScottK> I'm fine with that.
[18:12] <wendar> sounds good
[18:12] <pitti> the requirements to these packages are quite a bit different to 'ordinary' packages, with /opt and all that, but one should at least be familiar with packagign basics
[18:13] <pitti> kees: that sounds good; I certainly don't intend to invalidate the current board
[18:14] <pitti> so the proposal is
[18:14] <pitti> - Ubuntu membership
[18:14] <pitti> + https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-dev membership
[18:14]  * kees nods
[18:14] <ScottK> Is Ubuntu membership required for PPU?
[18:14] <pitti> stgraber: WDYT?
[18:15] <stgraber> pitti: +1
[18:15] <ScottK> As long as Ubuntu membership is required for PPU, I think that's good.
[18:16] <pitti> ah, I'm fine with making that explicit and just have both requirements
[18:16] <pitti> ScottK: technically I think ubuntu membership is a consequence of being in ubuntu-dev
[18:16] <stgraber> also, all 3 current applicants we (as in ARB) have on our list are members of ~ubuntu-dev
[18:16] <Daviey> Hmm, i thought PPU was an avenue to get membership?
[18:16] <pitti> but I'm not entirely sure whether the DMB requires that as a prerequisite, or grants it together with PPU
[18:16] <Daviey> (via ~ubuntu-dev?)
[18:17] <stgraber> IIRC we (as in DMB this time) simply grant it by giving PPU
[18:17] <pitti> that was my impression, too
[18:17] <ScottK> Not a point worth spending a lot of time on then.
[18:17] <pitti> wendar: so, are you okay with adding ~ubuntu-dev membership as a requirement?
[18:17] <wendar> yup, reload the page
[18:17] <pitti> wendar: heh, says ~ubuntu-de
[18:18] <pitti> I'm afraid teaching everyone to speak German is a little too much effort
[18:18] <wendar> :)
[18:18] <wendar> edited again
[18:18] <pitti> thanks
[18:18] <pitti> #vote TB signoff of https://wiki.ubuntu.com/AppReviewBoard/Restaffing
[18:18] <meetingology> Please vote on: TB signoff of https://wiki.ubuntu.com/AppReviewBoard/Restaffing
[18:18] <meetingology> Public votes can be registered by saying +1, +0 or -1 in channel, (private votes don't work yet, but when they do it will be by messaging the channel followed by +1/-1/+0 to me)
[18:18] <pitti> +1
[18:18] <meetingology> +1 received from pitti
[18:18] <kees> +1
[18:18] <meetingology> +1 received from kees
[18:19] <pitti> stgraber: ?
[18:19] <stgraber> +1
[18:19] <meetingology> +1 received from stgraber
[18:20] <pitti> we only have bare minimum quorum today, but my feeling is that this is pretty unanimous
[18:20] <stgraber> (sorry, was looking through the list of ~ubuntumembers)
[18:20] <pitti> #endvote
[18:20] <meetingology> Voting ended on: TB signoff of https://wiki.ubuntu.com/AppReviewBoard/Restaffing
[18:20] <meetingology> Votes for:3 Votes against:0 Abstentions:0
[18:20] <meetingology> Motion carried
[18:20] <pitti> I'll reply on the TB list, and other TB members can then weigh in
[18:20] <pitti> wendar: thanks!
[18:21] <wendar> thanks all!
[18:22] <pitti> #topic next chair
[18:22] <pitti> we usually follow alphabetically, which would be soren
[18:22] <kees> alphabetically? yup.
[18:22] <pitti> but as he hasn't been in any meeting yet, I propose that we skip him this time
[18:22] <kees> stgraber: ready to chair the next one? :)
[18:23] <stgraber> sure
[18:23] <pitti> stgraber: do you want to chair the next one? I can guide you to what to do after the meeting
[18:23] <stgraber> pitti: that'd be great
[18:23] <kees> heh
[18:23] <pitti> oh, these hundreds of hours on the typewriter and pasting stamps
[18:23] <pitti> #topic AOB
[18:24] <pitti> nothing else from me; stgraber, kees, wendar, ScottK?
[18:24] <ScottK> Nope.
[18:24] <stgraber> nope
[18:24] <wendar> nope
[18:24] <ScottK> Not unless you want an off the cuff sru exception request
[18:24] <ScottK> I'd like to keep uploading postifx bug fixes post-release, but didn't have time to prepare anything.
[18:25] <kees> pitti: nothing from me
[18:25] <ScottK> This is the upstream that says, "We don't have a bug tracker because we don't leave known issues unfixed." and does it.
[18:25] <pitti> ScottK: is there usually something in them which goes beyond a mere aggregation of individual "we want these" fixes?
[18:26] <pitti> #topic postgres SRUs
[18:26] <pitti> erk
[18:26] <pitti> #topic postfix SRUs
[18:26] <pitti> silly autofingers :)
[18:26] <ScottK> Yes.  There's two primary upstream developers who have a strong vision for the product.
[18:26] <ScottK> Most bug reports turn into "Where in the documentation does it promise it's supposed to work that way?"
[18:27] <pitti> one thing that we need to fix there first are the eternal debconf questions on upgrade which potentially destroy your config (haven't checked, I always just say "no config")
[18:27] <ScottK> So it's very strongly spec'ed.
[18:27] <Daviey> Shouldn't lamont be in this discussion?
[18:27] <ScottK> lamont and I have discussed it.
[18:27] <ScottK> pitti: I don't recall those being an issue in a long time (I don't get the questions)
[18:27] <pitti> ScottK: so do you think the problem is that there are changes which are debatable, or that the problem is on the validation side?
[18:28] <pitti> ScottK: oh, wow; maybe I should file a bug then, I get them everytime
[18:28] <ScottK> Users have an expectation of how an MTA should work and they are often wrong.
[18:29] <ScottK> Post-release, postfix sticks to not changing functionality based on it's extensive documentation.
[18:29] <ScottK> They are very, very picky about it.
[18:29] <pitti> i. e. you want to establish a permanent microrelease exception for postfix?
[18:30] <ScottK> Yes.
[18:30] <ScottK> If they are happy with it, it is very safe for us.
[18:30] <lamont> I would support that
[18:30] <pitti> so I assume this is for not verifying all changes individually, but have a way to regression-test the entire update
[18:30] <ScottK> Upstream regression tests the upstream code before releasing.
[18:31] <pitti> kees: how much coverage does the qa-regression-test bzr have for postfix?
[18:31] <ScottK> I think we need to mostly make sure the packaging works and there's nothing major wrong.
[18:31] <kees> pitti: it's fair, let me double check
[18:31] <pitti> we still need some amount of testing the actually installed package, to guard against misbuilds, packaging errors, etc.
[18:31] <lamont> pitti: every regression I have seen in a micro-release update of postfix has been introduced by the debian/ubuntu packaging
[18:31] <ScottK> I've been backporting postfix for a long time and I've never had an issue.
[18:31] <pitti> lamont: yes, that's what I'm concerned about :)
[18:31] <lamont> ScottK: I've never had an issue with Wietse's work.  my own is the only concern
[18:32] <pitti> we had the weirdest things in SRUs, no-change uploads breakign completely, and the like
[18:32] <ScottK> That's generally obvious in the normal level of SRU testing we do.
[18:32] <lamont> pitti: fwiw, that has usually been me adding in my own other bugfixes and getting it wrong
[18:32] <lamont> when I just grab the latest upstream and stuff, it's always been beauty
[18:32] <kees> pitti: mostly it tests authentication mechanisms and basic delivery/forwarding
[18:32] <ScottK> My view is that if that works, it's 99.9% good.
[18:32] <pitti> kees: qa-regression bzr is integration testing on the actually installed .debs, right?
[18:33] <kees> pitti: correct
[18:33] <pitti> kees: is there any existing wiki documentation how to run this? or do we need a special page for postfix?
[18:33] <kees> pitti: it expects packages to be installed, but does its own configuration manipulations to attempt various auth methods and delivery methods
[18:33] <pitti> if we could just link to it on the MRE page, that'd be good
[18:34] <kees> pitti: there is no general docs on running the tests, no, but there is a pretty common methodology to it, and each test is documented on how to run it in the header comments
[18:34] <ScottK> I've never had a problem figuring them out from the comments.
[18:34] <pitti> I'm using postfix both on server as well as on my workstations, and never really had a problem with it except those annoying debconf prompts, I'm fairly convinced of its quality
[18:34] <pitti> kees: right, I mostly mean where to get it, how to run it, etc.
[18:34] <pitti> as long as the proposer of the SRU (lamont/ScottK) know how to run it, it's fine for me
[18:35] <pitti> lamont, ScottK: ^ do you?
[18:35] <lamont> I know how to tell ScottK to run it.
[18:35] <kees> http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-bugcontrol/qa-regression-testing/master/view/head:/scripts/test-postfix.py
[18:35] <ScottK> I didn't run the postfix one before, but I run the clamav one all the time.
[18:35] <ScottK> I'm sure it's not an issue.
[18:35] <pitti> my gut feeling is that an MRE is fine, provided that validation entails running the upstream regression tests (which already is done by upstream), and the existing integration tests
[18:35] <pitti> lamont: delegation FTW!
[18:36] <lamont> pitti: to be fair, my normal approach to postfix is to take the latest upstream, build it, install it, send email, and upload.  If I actually do any work, that's when I get all pedantic about testing it, ever since I broke it that one time
[18:36] <pitti> ScottK: is there a pending microrelease which we would SRU?
[18:37] <ScottK> yes.
[18:37] <ScottK> There's a backports request pending that we'd direct at -proposed instead.
[18:37] <pitti> so perhaps we could do this as a model case, see how much changes these carry, and how validation works, etc.
[18:37]  * kees nods
[18:37] <stgraber> sounds good
[18:38] <pitti> but in general I'm fine with this proposal; upstream's stable policy and regression testing is certainly appropriate for our SRU criteria
[18:38] <ScottK> It would be -proposed for natty only.
[18:38] <ScottK> Lucid/Maverick released with 2.7, so those will still go to backports.
[18:38] <pitti> ah, no 2.7.x updates any more?
[18:39] <ScottK> There are some of those I'll need to go back and look at too.
[18:39] <pitti> then I'm even less concerned
[18:39] <pitti> most postfixes which really matter certainly run on LTSes
[18:39] <ScottK> No, we can do them too, just referring to the current backport request.
[18:39] <pitti> but doing this on natty now gives us a nice trial period for precise
[18:39] <ScottK> So we'd keep 2.7 up to date in -proposed for lucid and 2.8 in backports.
[18:41] <pitti> ScottK: can we try that SRU once, and when it's done, come back to TB and discuss the general MRE when we all have more experience how that worked?
[18:41] <ScottK> OK.
[18:42] <pitti> I'm sure it will be okay, but I'm a bit uncomfortable with saying "+1" before seeing it in action
[18:42] <pitti> might just be me being a wimp, of course
[18:42] <pitti> kees, stgraber: WDYT?
[18:42] <kees> right, I prefer SRU history, then MRE
[18:43] <pitti> I'm signing up for reviewing that SRU
[18:43] <kees> but this looks to be a good trajectory
[18:43] <ScottK> I'm fine with this.
[18:43] <pitti> nice
[18:43] <stgraber> trying with one SRU osunds good
[18:44] <stgraber> *sounds
[18:44] <pitti> #topic AOB
[18:45] <pitti> going once..
[18:45] <pitti> going twice..
[18:45] <pitti> sold!
[18:45] <pitti> thanks everyone, have a good night!
[18:46] <stgraber> thanks pitti!
[18:46] <pitti> will send notes / update report. etc. now
[18:46] <pitti> #endmeeting
[18:46] <meetingology> Meeting ended Thu Oct  6 18:46:12 2011 UTC.
[18:46] <meetingology> Minutes:        http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2011/ubuntu-meeting.2011-10-06-18.04.moin.txt
[18:46] <pitti> wow, nice report
[18:47] <kees> thanks pitti!