[18:02] <wendar> o/
[18:03] <coolbhavi> hey wendar
[18:03] <wendar> hi
[18:03] <ajmitch> hello
[18:03] <wendar> pinging the others
[18:03] <coolbhavi> hi ajmitch
[18:05] <wendar> okay, I've pinged all
[18:06] <wendar> let's go ahead and start (3 is a quorum, in case we need to vote on any proposals)
[18:06] <wendar> #startmeeting
[18:06] <meetingology> Meeting started Fri Oct 28 18:06:28 2011 UTC.  The chair is wendar. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/AlanBell/mootbot.
[18:06] <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
[18:06] <wendar> [TOPIC] Review action items
[18:06] <wendar> [LINK] http://wiki.ubuntu.com/AppReviewBoard/Agenda
[18:06]  * ajmitch has not found any that are really ready to be voted on yet
[18:07] <wendar> We notified all old applications of the Oneiric update, so we can mark that done.
[18:08]  * coolbhavi is a bit new to this so getting into grips with it now
[18:08] <wendar> IIRC, the notice about old archive contents being copied over was taken care of, but stgraber was going to double-check on the longer-term implications
[18:09] <wendar> that is, right now, our process is that we don't put anything into the archive of the development release, so it's always empty when the new archive for the next development release is created
[18:10] <ajmitch> which is why there's no precise directory on extras.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/
[18:11] <coolbhavi> hmm
[18:12] <ajmitch> so we've got a lot of new submissions for oneiric now, not all of them are great
[18:12] <wendar> yes
[18:13] <wendar> you've done some scanning this week
[18:13] <ajmitch> do we want to run through the list here, or just talk about general problems with them?
[18:13] <wendar> if we have any ready to go (I think not?) we can review here
[18:14] <wendar> but, general problems is probably more useful now
[18:14] <wendar> I noted a few of them in the reviewer instruction documents
[18:14] <wendar> source tarballs that can't be built
[18:15] <wendar> and binary packages instead of source packages
[18:15] <ajmitch> closest that I have ready to go are the askubuntu-lens again, blocked on a SRU which was uploaded to -proposed this week, and maybe harmonySEQ if the permission problems with it can be sorted (/dev/snd/seq)
[18:15] <ajmitch> the common problem with java submissions is submitting a tarball full of .jar files
[18:16] <ajmitch> one of those which I saw is even in a PPA like that, where the source package has multiple .jar files & debian/install to copy them into place
[18:16] <wendar> yeah
[18:16] <wendar> the short term solution is to individually guide developers to what we're looking for
[18:17] <wendar> but, longer term, we need documentation on these pieces
[18:17] <ajmitch> that problem is solvable, but they bundle a *lot* of upstream .jar files with differing licenses, not all of which are compatible
[18:17] <wendar> so, the developers can reach what we need independently
[18:17] <coolbhavi> I have a small input here
[18:17] <ajmitch> educating developers on license compatibility is probably trickier than some technical documentation
[18:17] <wendar> coolbhavi: yes, that's great, go ahead
[18:18] <wendar> coolbhavi: new ideas are much needed and greatly appreciated :)
[18:19] <coolbhavi> yes how about a elaborate explanation of dfsg and free licenses on a wiki page such that devs understand in a simple language?
[18:19] <wendar> it'd be useful to have something like that on developer.ubuntu.com
[18:20] <wendar> we have longer explanations in the Ubuntu and Debian documentation
[18:20] <wendar> but, if we can find a way to teach it more simply, that'd be great
[18:20] <ajmitch> you'd probably want to link to something like http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html
[18:21] <coolbhavi> yes might be too trivial but I guess covering main parts of licenses so that it gets in a simplified language to help devs
[18:21] <wendar> http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html
[18:22] <wendar> http://opensource.org/docs/osd
[18:22] <coolbhavi> would be hepful... something similar or a link on developer.ubuntu.com might help
[18:22] <wendar> I think a combination of a clear and short explanation, with links to "more reading" at the bottom might be good
[18:22] <coolbhavi> +1 here
[18:22] <ajmitch> that reminds me of the point I added on the arb blueprint - looking over developer.ubuntu.com & making sure that documentation is clear, and that it matches the processes
[18:23] <wendar> coolbhavi: you'll be here at UDS next week?
[18:23] <coolbhavi> yes m flying tomorrow
[18:23] <coolbhavi> ll be there :)
[18:23] <wendar> coolbhavi: great, I can connect you with David Planella, this is something we could get done this cycle
[18:24] <coolbhavi> sure wendar
[18:24] <wendar> ajmitch: yes, an overall review of developer.ubuntu.com is needed
[18:24] <wendar> ajmitch: I've found a few spots (like the description of the ARB) that need some updates
[18:24] <wendar> ajmitch: not huge updates, but bits and pieces
[18:25] <ajmitch> yeah, things like app submission assuming that everything should have a price
[18:25] <wendar> yup
[18:26] <ajmitch> we'll need to sort out, probably in a dicussion at UDSm how much hand-holding & work we're going to do
[18:26] <wendar> I'll add those two as action items, and as topics for the session next week
[18:26] <wendar> yes, that too
[18:27] <coolbhavi> Or why not make a check in the portal itself if its a free license or not ... If not the portal shouldnt allow someone to submit apps
[18:27] <ajmitch> coolbhavi: I think it already does that
[18:27] <wendar> it checks whether they say it's a free license
[18:28] <ajmitch> because the reviewing process is used for both commercial/proprietary & ARB apps
[18:28] <wendar> the ARB doesn't even look at it unless it's marked as a free software license
[18:28] <wendar> but, developers don't always understand what's needed
[18:28] <wendar> or, may have license problems internally
[18:28] <wendar> (that they didn't realize they had)
[18:28] <coolbhavi> Oh okay I still do  not have proper access to the portal so I havent checked
[18:28] <ajmitch> right, they can put a copy of the GPL in their tarball, but not submit source along with it
[18:29] <ajmitch> nor do I, I'm just going from the public parts that I can see :)
[18:29] <wendar> coolbhavi: yes, we'll get access set up next week
[18:29] <wendar> the new ARB queue is set up now
[18:29] <coolbhavi> great
[18:29] <wendar> it has nothing in it now
[18:29] <ajmitch> will they still be copied into LP bugs?
[18:29] <wendar> but, we'll start moving things into it
[18:30] <wendar> ajmitch: we should be able to stop copying to LP bugs now
[18:30] <wendar> ajmitch: which will help a lot :)
[18:30] <ajmitch> ok, then is there a way that I could get a list of the queue withouth screenscraping developer.ubuntu.com? :)
[18:30] <wendar> but, I haven't run an app all the way through the new process yet
[18:31] <wendar> ajmitch: a list of the queue?
[18:31]  * ajmitch is using lplib at the moment to pull the list of bugs & make sure that there are notes locally or at least an entry about them on my local system
[18:31] <ajmitch> just something I hacked up very quickly to make sure that I can keep on top of them
[18:31] <coolbhavi> ajmitch, something like sponsors queue?
[18:31] <wendar> what MyApps has now is a first approximation of our process
[18:32] <wendar> so, we'll need to try it out, and let the developers know if/where we need changes
[18:32] <ajmitch> wendar: right, I've subscribed to the developerportal bugs, I'll file them there
[18:32] <wendar> ajmitch: ah, cool, sounds like a useful tool
[18:33] <ajmitch> just looking at the list, there are a couple there that were up for review on the debian-mentors list, but didn't get anywhere
[18:33] <wendar> ajmitch: so, I'm sitting in a session right now on how we get good reports on how the queues are doing, and keep on top of them
[18:33] <ajmitch> wendar: ok :)
[18:33] <coolbhavi> :)
[18:34] <wendar> ajmitch: so, it's very llikely we can get what you need from that tool built into the web interface
[18:34] <ajmitch> that would be nice
[18:35] <wendar> ajmitch: yeah, I want to make sure we don't fall back into REVU, where submissions sit for months or years without progress :(
[18:35] <wendar> it's a real risk, we're already falling behind the rate of submission :(
[18:36] <ajmitch> wendar: the one I'm looking at, openssn, even has packaging in the debian pkg-games repository which is closer to what we need than what was submitted to the ARB
[18:36] <wendar> interesting
[18:36] <ajmitch> I wonder if we should try & work with some of these to get them into debian
[18:36] <wendar> so, maybe the best recommendation is to help him get it into debian?
[18:36] <wendar> aye
[18:36] <wendar> I think that's quite valuable
[18:37] <wendar> help them find contacts or sponsors in Debian
[18:37] <ajmitch> grub-customizer fails the 'no system apps' part of the checklist, was also on REVU & on mentors.debian.net
[18:37] <wendar> also, I'm a DM and lfaraone is a DD
[18:37]  * ajmitch is a DD, not sure about the others
[18:38] <wendar> ajmitch: yeah, it modifies a pretty fundamental part of the system
[18:38] <wendar> we can ask cjwatson about it, and see if it's likely to have any chance in Debian
[18:38] <ajmitch> apart from that, it'd be nice to get in, get it synced to precise & then into -backports
[18:39] <wendar> yeah, if the code is good, I can see it being a valuable tool
[18:39] <wendar> it needs a grub-knowledgable sponsor
[18:39] <ajmitch> we also had listed somewherewe had listed somewhere a general guideline for size of applications, is that still around?
[18:39] <wendar> it's not a hard rule
[18:40] <ajmitch> sorry if I'm a bit all over the place this morning :)
[18:40] <wendar> but ~10,000 lines
[18:40] <wendar> ajmitch: np, that's what the IRC sessions are for, gathering "other business"
[18:40] <ajmitch> rstudio will need to go into the distro then, sloccount said it was about 100k
[18:41] <ajmitch> it's a mix of C++ & java, currently has no packaging
[18:41] <wendar> ah, that would be too bad, it's one of the best apps we've gotten :(
[18:41] <ajmitch> yeah
[18:41] <ajmitch> I was just surprised at the size of it
[18:41] <wendar> if it's clean code, and non risky, it could still be fine
[18:42] <wendar> (like, it's not modifying core systems, making network connections, etc)
[18:42] <ajmitch> it could be, but someone would need to step up & do the packaging - the java part is for a GWT web frontend
[18:42] <wendar> yeah, I'm surprized
[18:43] <wendar> iamfuzz said he'd be willing to do the packaging for it
[18:43] <ajmitch> great
[18:44] <ajmitch> though I still feel that something of that size & quality may be a better fit for the distro, rather than something to copy over every 6 months :)
[18:45] <wendar> yeah, it seems like the kind of thing we should mentor to move up into Debian
[18:45] <wendar> I think the developer would be open to that
[18:45] <wendar> but, getting it into extras for Oneiric is a good easy introduction
[18:45] <ajmitch> rstudio was the one where the submitter asked about building against newer versions of boost & qt - both of which aren't available yet in the distro
[18:46] <wendar> ah, I hadn't read the follow-up on that one
[18:46] <wendar> so, the versions in Oneiric weren't sufficient?
[18:46] <wendar> (I asked, didn't see the answer yet)
[18:46] <ajmitch> they're sufficiant for now
[18:47] <ajmitch> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-app-review-board/+bug/881515/comments/4
[18:47] <wendar> looking at his README, it looked like the versions in Oneiric were what he needed
[18:47] <wendar> ah, got it
[18:47] <wendar> so, the answer to that is "no, it's not possible"
[18:47] <ajmitch> I would not want to ever allow apps to bundle newer versions of libraries like that
[18:48] <wendar> so, we'd have to hold off updating in the distribution until the library is updated
[18:48] <wendar> ajmitch: want me to take that one?
[18:48] <ajmitch> sure
[18:50] <wendar> will do
[18:50] <ajmitch> it's going to be hard to keep track of who's looking at what if we split them up between us
[18:50] <wendar> the shepherd idea we used before helped with that
[18:50] <wendar> but, it also meant some submissions got no attention
[18:50] <wendar> if the shepherd ran out of time
[18:50] <wendar> something to talk about next week
[18:51] <wendar> (and, I'm not sure how that'll work out in the new interface)
[18:51] <wendar> I had a thought this week
[18:51] <ajmitch> depending on when the uds session is, I may not be able to attend remotely
[18:51] <wendar> do you know how the patch pilot's program works?
[18:52] <ajmitch> a roster of people who look at the sponsoring queue & pick items off it
[18:52] <wendar> instead of assigning responsibility by submission, we do it by time
[18:52] <wendar> yeah
[18:52] <wendar> a person agrees to a particular 4-hour period once a month
[18:52] <wendar> and, in that time they're available to answer questions
[18:52] <ajmitch> we'd probably want to track when something was last touched
[18:52] <wendar> and work through as much of the queue as possible
[18:53] <wendar> yup, we'd have to make sure there was available info on what had been done
[18:53] <wendar> so, the next pilot could pick it up
[18:53] <ajmitch> with LP we can set bugs to incomplete if we're waiting for info, and it lists the last changed on the overview page
[18:53] <coolbhavi> why dont have a wiki page with all the TODO's and updates and ownerships to be updated every week maybe and the responsibility of updation is owned up by someone so we can have a spoc maintainability of tracker?
[18:53] <wendar> ajmitch: the new system has that too
[18:53] <ajmitch> wendar: great, was about to ask that
[18:53] <wendar> it gets hidden from the list needing review
[18:54] <wendar> until the developer responds
[18:54] <wendar> coolbhavi: that's a good idea, especially the interface we get isn't quite good enough to start with
[18:54] <ajmitch> coolbhavi: it may work, just depends on how awkward it is to keep in sync with new submissions
[18:55] <ajmitch> we've obviously seen quite a few new submissions since the new site went up
[18:55] <wendar> coolbhavi: it can be a pain to manually update, so hopefully we can automate that quickly
[18:55] <wendar> ideally, it'd be a report page in the interface, with no manual maintenance work
[18:55] <ajmitch> the simple tool that I hacked up is dead simple it just reads the statuses & bug links out of a .yaml file :)
[18:56] <wendar> ajmitch: cool
[18:56] <ajmitch> yaml just because it's close to freeform text
[18:56] <coolbhavi> yes thats another part as we get more active, submissions will increase I guess. Agreed.
[18:56] <wendar> I haven't been updating statuses
[18:56] <wendar> (I have that on our list to talk about next week too, although we might not need it if we're switching away from LP)
[18:56] <ajmitch> I've mostly just been keepign my own statuses, such as ones I haven't looked at, those that need packaging done, etc
[18:56] <wendar> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/community-p-app-review-board
[18:57] <wendar> ajmitch: it'd be nice to get that somewhere we share it
[18:57] <wendar> ajmitch: is it crontab-able?
[18:57] <ajmitch> wendar: not particularly, I'll need to spend more than 30 minutes on it
[18:58] <wendar> I do feel the pain, I totally missed a response from one of the developers on a package I was shepherding :(
[18:59] <ajmitch> all I wanted initially was for something to try & make sure I wrote notes about every submission
[18:59] <ajmitch> I can work on it some more if you think it'll be useful
[18:59] <wendar> ajmitch makes sense
[18:59] <wendar> it'd be cool to take a look at it
[19:00] <wendar> I don't know, if we can get the features in the web interface quickly, I don't want to suck up your time
[19:00] <wendar> I guess we'll see
[19:00] <ajmitch> I'll probably still use something like it for my private notes :)
[19:00] <wendar> yup, makes sense
[19:00] <wendar> if you do keep working on it, share what's useful
[19:00] <ajmitch> some of them aren't really publishable once I got to the 3rd or 4th submission with .jar files & license violations
[19:01] <wendar> heh :)
[19:01] <wendar> curse silently, teach kindly :)
[19:01] <ajmitch> right :)
[19:01] <coolbhavi> alright guys I am sorry that I have to leave in the middle as its way past midnight n m very sleepy now ... See you at the UDS next week :)
[19:01] <ajmitch> coolbhavi: thanks for stopping in, see you round :)
[19:02] <wendar> coolbhavi: we're pretty much ready to wrap up
[19:02] <ajmitch> OK, I guess we've got some points that can be discussed at UDS anyway
[19:02] <wendar> take a look at the blueprint and let me know if you want to add anything
[19:02] <wendar> one final thing, chair for next meeting
[19:02] <wendar> ajmitch: do you want to take the next rotation?
[19:02] <ajmitch> sure
[19:03] <wendar> cool
[19:03] <coolbhavi> :)
[19:03] <wendar> I'll take the minutes and distribute them
[19:03] <ajmitch> thanks
[19:03] <wendar> and update the agenda for next time
[19:03] <wendar> thanks all!
[19:03] <coolbhavi> thanks so much
[19:03] <coolbhavi> see you at UDS
[19:03] <coolbhavi> :)
[19:03] <wendar> see you there :)
[19:03] <wendar> #endmeeting
[19:04] <meetingology> Meeting ended Fri Oct 28 19:03:59 2011 UTC.
[19:04] <meetingology> Minutes:        http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2011/ubuntu-meeting.2011-10-28-18.06.moin.txt