[16:00] <brendand> #startmeeting Ubuntu Friendly
[16:00] <meetingology> Meeting started Mon Jan 23 16:00:09 2012 UTC.  The chair is brendand. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/AlanBell/mootbot.
[16:00] <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
[16:00] <brendand> Hi everyone, welcome to the weekly Ubuntu Friendly meeting
[16:00] <roadmr> hey!
[16:00] <balloons> hi brendand
[16:01] <brendand> topics for today are:
[16:01] <brendand> Introduction of Ubuntu Friendly community to QA Community co-ordinator (balloons): brendand
[16:01] <brendand> Checkbox 0.12.9 SRU for Oneiric: roadmr
[16:01] <brendand> AOB
[16:01] <brendand> Let's get started
[16:02] <brendand> #topic Introduction of Ubuntu Friendly community to QA Community co-ordinator
[16:02] <brendand> I just want to take a moment to introduce balloons, who is the new Ubuntu Community QA co-ordinator
[16:03] <balloons> hello everyone!
[16:03] <brendand> Since Ubuntu Friendly is a QA community, I imagine we'll be working in close collaboration
[16:04] <brendand> For balloons benefit, Ubuntu Friendly is a hardware validation program where people can test their system and upload the results to a site which scores the system according to how well it runs Ubuntu
[16:04] <balloons> yes, I will be lurking and coming up to speed on the work everyone is doing here, then we'll see where we can collaborate
[16:04] <balloons> I was actually fortunate enough to find and use ubuntu friendly in order to buy a new laptop last month :-)
[16:04] <brendand> balloons - great!
[16:04] <balloons> so it's nice to meet everyone behind the site. It came in handy
[16:05] <brendand> We have this meeting every week, pending there being topics on the agenda: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuFriendly/Meetings
[16:05] <brendand> If there are no topics we cancel it
[16:06] <brendand> That's really it, unless balloons wants to ask questions?
[16:06] <brendand> ..
[16:06] <balloons> I'm the entire agenda :-
[16:06] <balloons> sweet!
[16:06] <brendand> balloons, not quite
[16:07] <balloons> lol..
[16:07] <balloons> yes thank you brendand. I don't have any other questions at this time
[16:08] <brendand> balloons - since you're guest of honor today, it's not a problem, but just for future everyone should put their hand up like this: o/ before talking :)
[16:08] <brendand> i should actually have put that at the beginning
[16:08] <roadmr> o/
[16:08] <brendand> roadmr - go
[16:09] <roadmr> a question! balloons, where can we find you if we need to discuss something with you?
[16:09] <roadmr> ..
[16:09] <balloons> o/
[16:09] <brendand> balloons?
[16:10] <balloons> sure you can find me on irc in different channels, but #ubuntu-testing is a great place. In addition my launchpad page has my email address, and your welcome to email me at any time
[16:10] <brendand> balloons - thanks!
[16:10] <balloons> my nick is generally always online so your welcome to leave a message as well
[16:11] <brendand> okay, moving on to the next topic..
[16:11] <brendand> #topic Checkbox 0.12.9 SRU for Oneiric
[16:11] <brendand> for which roadmr has the floor
[16:11] <roadmr> thanks!
[16:11] <roadmr> this is a quick one
[16:12] <roadmr> I noticed Daniel Holbach sent a call for sponsors to help review the packages sponsoring queue
[16:12] <roadmr> this should help get our pending 0.12.9 SRU respin through
[16:12] <roadmr> but if you know any Ubuntu sponsors and are willing to give them a nudge to help checkbox get reviewed and released that'd be great
[16:13] <roadmr> we're like 3 months away from 12.04 and we still haven't released the Oneiric SRU - if we don't get it out soon it'll be almost pointless and no Oneiric users will benefit from those fixes :(
[16:14] <roadmr> the sponsoring queue is here if you're curious: http://reqorts.qa.ubuntu.com/reports/sponsoring/
[16:14] <brendand> o/
[16:14] <roadmr> brendand: go ahead!
[16:15] <brendand> speaking as a checkbox developer, apart from being more careful and not messing up some of the patches is there anything we could have done to make this go faster?
[16:15] <brendand> ..
[16:15] <roadmr> brendand: short of directly asking someone with sponsor superpowers, I don't think so
[16:16] <roadmr> brendand: I'm not sure if we should somehow withdraw the old merge request, that *may* help things but in any case is not documented anywhere
[16:16] <roadmr> that's it really on this topic
[16:16] <brendand> ok
[16:16] <brendand> finishing off
[16:16] <brendand> #topic AOB
[16:16] <brendand> Any other business?
[16:17]  * roadmr has nothing else
[16:18]  * brendand neither
[16:18] <brendand> going
[16:18] <brendand> going
[16:18] <brendand> gone
[16:19] <brendand> #endmeeting
[16:19] <meetingology> Meeting ended Mon Jan 23 16:19:06 2012 UTC.
[16:19] <meetingology> Minutes:        http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2012/ubuntu-meeting.2012-01-23-16.00.moin.txt
[16:19] <brendand> Thanks all
[16:20] <roadmr> thanks brendand!
[18:00] <jdstrand> hi!
[18:00] <jdstrand> #startmeeting
[18:00] <meetingology> Meeting started Mon Jan 23 18:00:50 2012 UTC.  The chair is jdstrand. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/AlanBell/mootbot.
[18:00] <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
[18:01] <jdstrand> The meeting agenda can be found at:
[18:01] <jdstrand> [LINK] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SecurityTeam/Meeting
[18:01] <mdeslaur> hi!
[18:01] <jdstrand> [TOPIC] Review of any previous action items
[18:01] <Gnostus_> Morning everyone!
[18:01] <jdstrand> Happy new year and welcome to our first meeting this year :)
[18:01] <mdeslaur> \o/
[18:01] <jjohansen> \o
[18:01] <sbeattie> heya
[18:02] <jdstrand> [TOPIC] Announcements
[18:02] <tyhicks> o/
[18:02] <Gnostus_> :)
[18:02] <jdstrand> Thanks to Mahyuddin Susanto (udienz) for his help on security updates for the community supported lighttpd (LP: #906792), cacti (LP: #906773) and squid3 (LP: #907690) packges on lucid and higher over the last weeks.
[18:02] <jdstrand> Also would like to thank Ante Karamati? (ivoks) for providing a debdiff for lucid for phpmyadmin (LP: #913846)
[18:02] <jdstrand> Thank you to Harald Jenny (harald-a-little-linux-box) for providing a debdiff for hardy for openswan (LP: #917754)
[18:02] <jdstrand> All of your work is very much appreciated and will keep Ubuntu users secure. Great job! :)
[18:02] <jdstrand> [TOPIC] Weekly stand-up report
[18:03] <jdstrand> I'll go first
[18:03] <jdstrand> I should have a short week this week, with friday off
[18:03] <jdstrand> I'm on triage
[18:03] <jdstrand> I also have several pending updates that should go out today and tomorrow
[18:04] <jdstrand> I've got a bit more archive admin work to catch up on (did some this weekend, but not caught up yet)
[18:04] <jdstrand> I also have a number of MIR audits I need to process
[18:05] <jdstrand> I'll get to work items as I have time. I have an initial implementation of aa-easyprof, but need to write tests for it, upstream it and get it into the packaging
[18:05] <jdstrand> I think that is it from me
[18:05] <jdstrand> mdeslaur: you're up
[18:05] <mdeslaur> I'm in the happy place this week
[18:05] <mdeslaur> I have an embargoed security issue to test
[18:06] <mdeslaur> and I plan on working on a couple of embargoed security bugs
[18:06] <mdeslaur> and have another set of embargoed updates to test too
[18:06] <mdeslaur> and
[18:06] <mdeslaur> embargoed embargoed blah blah embargoed
[18:06] <jjohansen> :)
[18:06] <mdeslaur> that's it from me
[18:06] <mdeslaur> sbeattie: you're up
[18:06] <jdstrand> lots of embargoed stuff lately...
[18:07] <sbeattie> I'm on community this week
[18:07] <sbeattie> I have an openjdk regression update to publish
[18:07] <sbeattie> I'm also working on glibc and openssl updates
[18:08] <sbeattie> I need to poke at the maverick-proposed gdb package I built on lucid for an escalated support issue
[18:08] <jdstrand> sbeattie: that openjdk regression is the one that slangasek and doko were talking about?
[18:08] <sbeattie> Yes
[18:09] <jdstrand> sbeattie: awesome. thanks for that
[18:09]  * jdstrand hugs sbeattie 
[18:09] <Gnostus_> :)
[18:09] <sbeattie> I verified that it fixes the specific regression, I just need to generally test and publish
[18:09] <sbeattie> I also need to get back to my apparmor work items, and perhaps help jj get a 2.7.1 release out the door.
[18:10] <sbeattie> I think that's it for me.
[18:10] <sbeattie> micahg: poke
[18:11] <micahg> I have to finish testing the rapid release migration for Firefox 9 for lucid/maverick and migrate that to updates, another round of chromium upload to proposed this week, patch pilot, and hopefully make some headway on webkit before the next round of mozilla updates come
[18:12] <micahg> tyhicks: tag
[18:12] <tyhicks> I'm in the happy place this week
[18:13] <tyhicks> I hope to have a full week, but I am selected as an alternate juror, so we'll see
[18:13] <tyhicks> I have been focusing on upstream eCryptfs kernel bugs and got those patch sets out to the appropriate lists last week for comment
[18:13] <tyhicks> I've got 1 small revision that I need to do and then I want to turn my focus to my update queue
[18:14] <tyhicks> That will likely be the ruby update, first
[18:14] <tyhicks> I think that is it for me
[18:14] <tyhicks> jjohansen: you're up
[18:14] <jjohansen> I need to catch up on my USN publications from being sick at the end of last week
[18:14] <jjohansen> and then do some testing on the fix for the /proc/pid/mem issue instead of the revert that we used as the emergency fix
[18:14] <jjohansen> I need to push out the apparmor 2.7.1 release before it gets any bigger (thanks for all the bug fixes)
[18:14] <jjohansen> and I need to finish up on the mount rules for apparmor so people can test them
[18:15] <jjohansen> oh and I should poke at a couple of ecryptfs patches
[18:15] <jjohansen> that is review them
[18:15] <jjohansen> I think that is it from me
[18:16] <tyhicks> jjohansen: I've gotten some review, so don't spend a lot of time on those patches
[18:16] <tyhicks> (but a review would be great :)
[18:16] <jjohansen> tyhicks: oh nice, I haven't gotten as far as even seeing if you had review, just saw them in my in box
[18:17] <jdstrand> [TOPIC] Highlighted packages
[18:17] <jdstrand> The Ubuntu Security team will highlight some community-supported packages that might be good candidates for updating and or triaging. If you would like to help Ubuntu and not sure where to start, this is a great way to do so.
[18:17] <jdstrand> See https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SecurityTeam/UpdateProcedures for details and if you have any questions, feel free to ask in #ubuntu-security. To find out other ways of helping out, please see https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SecurityTeam/GettingInvolved.
[18:18] <jdstrand> http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-security/cve/pkg/mpack.html
[18:18] <jdstrand> http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-security/cve/pkg/torque.html
[18:18] <jdstrand> http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-security/cve/pkg/torcs.html
[18:18] <jdstrand> http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-security/cve/pkg/open-vm-tools.html
[18:18] <jdstrand> http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-security/cve/pkg/libsdp.html
[18:18] <jdstrand> [TOPIC] Miscellaneous and Questions
[18:18] <micahg> o/
[18:19] <jdstrand> As jjohansen alluded to, people are talking quite a bit about the recent /proc/<pid>/mem handling in the kernel.
[18:19] <jdstrand> We have released an emergency update today (http://www.ubuntu.com/usn/usn-1336-1/)
[18:19] <jdstrand> micahg: go ahead
[18:19] <micahg> so, dholbach is looking for speakers for UDW and I thought it might be nice if someone gave a talk on helping with security updates
[18:20] <micahg> the timeslots are 30 minutes each
[18:20] <jdstrand> micahg: when is it?
[18:20] <micahg> Jan 31 - Feb 2 IIRC
[18:20] <micahg> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDeveloperWeek/Timetable
[18:20] <jdstrand> istr someone from the team doing this once before
[18:21] <jdstrand> does someone have an already prepared presentation they could use?
[18:23] <jdstrand> well, we can discuss that later
[18:23] <jdstrand> micahg: noted
[18:23] <jdstrand> Does anyone have any other questions or items to discuss?
[18:23] <sbeattie> o/
[18:24] <jdstrand> sbeattie: go ahead
[18:24] <sbeattie> nuclearbob proposed a couple of additional tags for qrt in bug 913818 and bug 913812, and I wanted to get the team's opinions on them
[18:25] <sbeattie> one is to indicate that the packages from one test-script will conflict if installed with the packages from another test script
[18:25] <sbeattie> and the other is to indicate a specific release that a test script is deprecated, because the package has been pulled from the archive or for some other reason.
[18:26] <jdstrand> the latter seems totally fine
[18:26] <jdstrand> the former seems like a maintainence issue. I guess the idea is so that a test environment can be reused?
[18:26] <sbeattie> I guess
[18:27] <jdstrand> QRT-Isolation
[18:27] <jdstrand> hmm
[18:28] <mdeslaur> aren't qrt tests supposed to be run in a clean environment?
[18:28] <jdstrand> ideally, yes
[18:28] <mdeslaur> I don't like QRT-Isolation, but am fine with the other one
[18:28] <jdstrand> that is not enforced, just what we encourage
[18:28] <sbeattie> mdeslaur: I think the thinking is to run as many in a clean environment if they don't conflict/interfere, to reduce the cost of spinning up umpteen vms
[18:28] <micahg> do the packages conflict or the tests?  if it's the packages, we should enforce this at the package manager level if appropriate
[18:29] <mdeslaur> micahg: the packages, and it is already handled fine by the package manager
[18:29] <micahg> ok, good :)
[18:29] <jdstrand> micahg: well, I think a level higher would probably be easier for the framework to handle
[18:29] <sbeattie> micahg: I think the packages enforce it, but e.g. the install-packages script is designed around a single test script situation
[18:30] <mdeslaur> so, QRT-Isolation would just be a tag to say that test needs to be run by itself?
[18:30] <mdeslaur> ie: we don't need to specify conflicts and stuff manually with that tag?
[18:31] <sbeattie> mdeslaur: hold on, lemme look at the bzr branch he submitted
[18:31] <jdstrand> if that is the case, that seems ok
[18:31] <mdeslaur> yeah, if it's just adding the tag, then I'm fine with it
[18:31] <mdeslaur> also, does the QRT-Deprecated tag specify a release?
[18:32] <jdstrand> as an aside, I just realized I am not getting qrt bug mail. I'm guessing our team should probably be getting that. shall I set it up that way?
[18:32] <mdeslaur> jdstrand: sure
[18:33] <sbeattie> mdeslaur: hrm, his bug proposes QRT-Isolation, but the branch submitted uses QRT-Conflicts and specificies individual test scripts.
[18:33] <mdeslaur> sbeattie: yeah, that's what I don't want...as I have no way of maintaining a QRT-Conflicts tag
[18:34] <sbeattie> (branch is at https://code.launchpad.net/~nuclearbob/qa-regression-testing/max-changes ; I've already merged the bits not related to those two bugs)
[18:34] <jdstrand> QRT-Conflicts sounds messy. QRT-Isolation seems ok
[18:34] <jdstrand> my 2 cents
[18:34] <sbeattie> Okay, let's follow up in the bug report
[18:34] <sbeattie> I can take that action
[18:34] <mdeslaur> ah, he's conflicting packages
[18:34] <jdstrand> [ACTION] sbeattie to follow up on qrt bugs from QA team
[18:34] <meetingology> ACTION: sbeattie to follow up on qrt bugs from QA team
[18:34] <mdeslaur> wait a sec, that's not too bad
[18:35] <sbeattie> mdeslaur: well, that's sort of capturing redundant info from the package manager
[18:36] <mdeslaur> sbeattie: yeah
[18:36] <jdstrand> and surely different releases will have different conflicts
[18:36] <sbeattie> anyway, I think we've flogged this enough and can move on
[18:36] <mdeslaur> ok
[18:37] <jdstrand> any other questions or items to discuss?
[18:38] <mdeslaur> nope!
[18:38] <mdeslaur> :)
[18:38] <jdstrand> mdeslaur, sbeattie, micahg, tyhicks, jjohansen: thanks!
[18:38] <jdstrand> #endmeeting
[18:38] <meetingology> Meeting ended Mon Jan 23 18:38:42 2012 UTC.
[18:38] <meetingology> Minutes:        http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2012/ubuntu-meeting.2012-01-23-18.00.moin.txt
[18:38] <micahg> thanks jdstrand
[18:38] <mdeslaur> thanks jdstrand
[18:38] <tyhicks> thanks jdstrand
[18:38] <sbeattie> jdstrand: thanks!
[20:58] <cjwatson> soren: hi - you're chairing this week, right?
[21:00]  * stgraber waves
[21:01] <kees> o/
[21:03] <cjwatson> paging emergency holographic chair?
[21:03] <cjwatson> is it just the three of us this week?  I didn't see any apologies on the list
[21:04] <stgraber> just poked mdz and pitti in -devel
[21:06]  * kees should apologize for continuing to not make time for the brainstorm review. :P I'll try harder.
[21:06]  * cjwatson can hardly criticise given his performance last time
[21:06] <cjwatson> I should warn that mdz gets more sarcastic the more time passes ;-)
[21:07] <stgraber> hmm, apparently pinging them in -devel didn't help, so indeed looks like it's just the three of us
[21:07] <mdz> sorry I'm late
[21:07] <cjwatson> we apparently have no chair yet
[21:08] <cjwatson> I guess I can emergency chair
[21:08]  * kees doesn't have soren's phone # any more
[21:08] <stgraber> I can do it to, whatever you prefer
[21:08] <cjwatson> I wouldn't object - I think you're next in rotation anyway
[21:08] <kees> alpha-skip to stgraber pleases my OCD :)
[21:08] <stgraber> yep
[21:09] <stgraber> #startmeeting Ubuntu Technical Board meeting
[21:09] <meetingology> Meeting started Mon Jan 23 21:09:00 2012 UTC.  The chair is stgraber. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/AlanBell/mootbot.
[21:09] <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
[21:09] <stgraber> #topic Action review
[21:09] <stgraber> kees: so keeping "kees to perform brainstorm review" for an extra two weeks then? :)
[21:09] <kees> yes please. *sheepish*
[21:10] <stgraber> #topic Harmonizing DMB membership expiring dates (tumbleweed)
[21:10] <stgraber> tumbleweed: around?
[21:10] <tumbleweed> hi, yes
[21:10] <stgraber> hi!
[21:10] <tumbleweed> it looks like you've mostly covered this on the list
[21:10]  * stgraber looks at ML logs
[21:10] <tumbleweed> we just wanted to reduce the number of elections we need to do
[21:10] <cjwatson> Mark acked this and I don't really see a reason to object personally
[21:11] <stgraber> ok, I'll implement the change then
[21:11] <tumbleweed> thanks, that was easy :)
[21:11] <cjwatson> so just extend everything to 13 Feb
[21:11] <cjwatson> ?
[21:12] <cjwatson> (with various years)
[21:12] <tumbleweed> that'd be great
[21:12] <cjwatson> then it settles down to a nice rotation of four each year
[21:13] <tumbleweed> except that laney just extended a year, so it'll be 3 and 5
[21:13] <stgraber> #action stgraber to harmonize the DMB expiring dates  (extend bdrung to 2013-02-13 and micah, tumbleweed and then the two new members to 2014-02-13)
[21:13] <meetingology> ACTION: stgraber to harmonize the DMB expiring dates  (extend bdrung to 2013-02-13 and micah, tumbleweed and then the two new members to 2014-02-13)
[21:13] <tumbleweed> but I'm sure we'll have an early retirement or something
[21:13] <stgraber> does that sound like what we want^
[21:13] <cjwatson> that's ok by me
[21:13] <micahg> stgraber: that should be 1 new member, I still need to file a mail to the TB ML about extending laney as well
[21:14] <stgraber> micahg: oh, right
[21:15] <Laney> anyone heard anything from persia yet?
[21:15] <stgraber> ok, I quickly did it on LP: https://launchpad.net/~developer-membership-board/+members
[21:16] <cjwatson> not I
[21:17] <stgraber> haven't heard anything either. Wondering if we should deactivate his membership from the team to make things clearer, especially now that I just extended tumbleweed's term.
[21:18] <Laney> I think that would be a good thing to do: ask him to check in with the TB on his return
[21:18]  * kees nods
[21:18] <stgraber> is everyone happy with that?
[21:19] <cjwatson> it seems cognate with what we do for developers who go missing
[21:19] <micahg> not happy, but understandable
[21:19] <cjwatson> I think he will understand
[21:19] <micahg> yes, indeed
[21:19] <tumbleweed> if you could also squeeze in a decision on Laney extending his membership back to 2 years, it'd save us having to persuade him to nominate himself for re-election
[21:19] <stgraber> yeah, I'm writting a "de-activation" message on LP and will e-mail him as well
[21:19] <Laney> I thought the feeling was that it wasn't needed (as the original date was an error), but ymmv
[21:20] <cjwatson> "back to 2 years"?  did you reduce it at some point?
[21:20] <Laney> It was erroneously added as 1 year initially
[21:20] <Laney> s/It/I/
[21:20] <cjwatson> oh, fixing errors shouldn't require a TB vote surely
[21:20]  * micahg is sending the TB E-Mail momentarily for records reasons
[21:21] <tumbleweed> micahg: thanks
[21:21] <stgraber> Laney: right, that was an old mistake you asked us not to fix initialy?
[21:21] <Laney> I wanted to delay deciding due to previous events
[21:22]  * Laney wonders how long that hob has been on and unlit for
[21:22] <micahg> FTR, https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2012-January/001171.html
[21:23] <cjwatson> it's a bug if TB meetings blow up your kitchen
[21:24] <stgraber> ok, bumped Laney's "expiry" to 2013-02-13 and de-activated Emmet's membership
[21:24] <stgraber> I think that's it for the DMB?
[21:24] <tumbleweed> yes, thanks
[21:25] <stgraber> perfect
[21:25] <Laney> cheers all
[21:25] <stgraber> #topic Adjustment to backports upload policy (cjwatson)
[21:25] <cjwatson> https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2012-January/001166.html
[21:25] <cjwatson> OK, so as I noted in the mail, I *think* this is an editorial change, but broder seemed to have a different reading so I wanted to make sure I was correct
[21:26]  * cjwatson gives people a bit to read
[21:27]  * micahg doesn't think uploading to -updates or -security directly should be allowed
[21:27] <cjwatson> I don't think I was suggesting that as such
[21:28] <micahg> no, but I think it might be able to be inferred :)
[21:28] <cjwatson> ubuntu-security is currently a celebrity though and I think that ought to eventually be fixed
[21:28] <kees> Yeah, I think whitelist would be better than blacklist here. "Uploads to all pockets: ~ubuntu-core-dev for all components"
[21:28] <kees> i.e. not -updates and -security
[21:28] <cjwatson> anyway, none of this supersedes the general prohibitions on uploading to certain pockets
[21:28] <kees> just a language change, I'm fine with the intent
[21:28] <cjwatson> I can clarify that explicitly in the LP bug if needed
[21:28] <kees> right, cool.
[21:29] <mdz> I'm not sure I follow
[21:29] <mdz> are you saying that you want the policy to remain the same despite the underlying technical restrictions changing?
[21:29] <cjwatson> mostly I just wanted to make sure that the TB hadn't intended to prohibit -backporters from uploading to backports; that's what Evan writes in his report of the relevant meeting, but it contradicts my memory of my intent
[21:29] <cjwatson> no
[21:29] <cjwatson> s/my intent/our intent/
[21:30] <cjwatson> in general, I want to make it easier for ubuntu-backporters to do things that currently only ubuntu-archive / ubuntu-core-dev (variously) can do
[21:31] <cjwatson> where it pertains to the backports pocket
[21:31] <mdz> makes sense
[21:31] <stgraber> having the backport team be able to manage their pocket and upload to any component of it sounds good to me.
[21:32] <Laney> the bug is more general because AFAICT that is how the feature in LP should be. It'll be a separate decision for the TB to decide which delegations to grant.
[21:32] <cjwatson> specifically, relative to now, I want them to be able to manage queues for the backports pocket (agreed in last meeting, AFAIK uncontroversial), and upload to backports regardless of component (I thought we agreed this in the last meeting but it wasn't in the write-up, so I'm suggesting we make it explicit if everyone agrees)
[21:33] <mdz> I don't remember that discussion...at the 9 Jan meeting?
[21:33] <cjwatson> the write-up is written in terms of closing an anomaly which we believed to exist but which turned out not to exist, and therefore the write-up is confusing
[21:33] <cjwatson> at the meeting that coincided with UDS
[21:33] <mdz> oh, so October
[21:33] <mdz> I think I missed that meeting
[21:33] <mdz> which explains why I'm confused
[21:34] <mdz> I abstain
[21:34] <cjwatson> November, I think - hunting logs
[21:34] <cjwatson> http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2011/11/03/%23ubuntu-meeting.html
[21:35] <cjwatson> you were present
[21:35] <cjwatson> http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2011/11/03/%23ubuntu-meeting.html#t18:52 - ah, it was incomplete and finished next meeting
[21:36] <cjwatson> http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2011/11/17/%23ubuntu-meeting.html#t18:12
[21:36] <mdz> yes, I believe I missed 11/28
[21:36] <mdz> anyway, I don't want to hold things up
[21:36] <stgraber> so basically the question is: do we agree that members of the backport team can upload to the backport pocket, whatever the component and without any relation to their upload rights to the release pocket?
[21:37] <stgraber> anyway, that's a +1 for me
[21:37] <mdz> +0, I'll support the consensus
[21:38] <cjwatson> stgraber: yes.  I'm sorry that this seems to require set theory notation to express clearly :-)
[21:39] <stgraber> kees: ?
[21:39] <cjwatson> my position is basically that the backports team has by this point a long track record of responsibility and we should let them get on with it :)
[21:39] <cjwatson> so +1 in case that isn't obvious
[21:43] <stgraber> hmm, looks like we lost kees, quickly scanning the mailing-list for things we might have missed
[21:43] <kees> +1
[21:43] <stgraber> kees: thanks
[21:44] <stgraber> #agreed Backport team is allowed to upload to the backport pocket in any of its components whatever the person's upload rights to the main archive are
[21:44] <stgraber> #topic tmpfs for /tmp
[21:45] <stgraber> we received: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2012-January/001167.html
[21:46] <stgraber> is that something we want to discuss now or should discuss by e-mail/bug report?
[21:46] <kees> I've been against a tmpfs /tmp because it doesn't seem to really solve anything.
[21:46] <stgraber> I vaguely remember us (or maybe another distro, I said vaguely ...) mounting /tmp as tmpfs if / was full or close to being full but can't find any trace of that on my system, so maybe it disappeared (or I was just dreaming)
[21:47] <cjwatson> I am nervous about that mail because it is definitely missing some things; the installer's partitioning rules would certainly need to be adjusted.
[21:47]  * soren stubmles in
[21:47] <stgraber> as the guy who runs hundreds of containers on his machines, I'm definitely against tmpfs by default as it'd basically kill my system
[21:47] <kees> stgraber: yeah, it to try to avoid apt/dpkg pain in the face of a full fs.
[21:47] <soren> Gosh, I'm so sorry I (pretty much) missed this meeting!
[21:47] <kees> no idea where that went
[21:47] <cjwatson> stgraber: it used to exist in Ubuntu; Ian added t, I think
[21:47] <cjwatson> *it
[21:47] <cjwatson> "mountoverflowtmp" or some such?
[21:48] <cjwatson> but I think that's mostly sideways to psusi's proposal
[21:48] <stgraber> cjwatson: yeah, looks like we might have lost it with the switch to mountall?
[21:48] <stgraber> (I quickly scanned /etc and mountall's code for anything related to tmpfs and couldn't find a trace of it)
[21:49] <cjwatson> the initscripts changelog says it was replaced by an upstart job
[21:49] <stgraber> which apparently got dropped (or my grepping skills disappeared recently)
[21:49] <cjwatson> I'm kind of -0.5 on this because I don't feel the system performs well in some cases when tmpfses fill up
[21:49] <cjwatson> but I don't have a clear written-up rationale
[21:50] <cjwatson> some people with particular system use models seem to prefer it and I certainly think it should be a supported model
[21:50] <stgraber> I know some of my systems (most?) would start crashing if they were using tmpfs (obviously depending on what gets written to /tmp)
[21:50] <micahg> also, /run is already a tmpfs
[21:51] <cjwatson> but I find myself unable to support it as the default
[21:51] <stgraber> my understanding is that it's essentially a one line change in /lib/init/fstab (or through /etc/fstab) to change the fstype from "none" to "tmpfs"
[21:51] <cjwatson> micahg: right, but the bug is specifically asking for /tmp, not just for tmpfses to exist
[21:51] <micahg> right, I was just pointing out the decreasing need for such a thing as stuff is being migrated to /run
[21:52] <stgraber> micahg: yeah, so far I haven't seen a badly written piece of software fill up my /run though I definitely did for /tmp, /run is pretty new, I'm sure it'll come :)
[21:52] <cjwatson> micahg: I'm not sure I agree, but in any case I think it's moot :)
[21:52] <micahg> oh, sorry for the noise then :)(
[21:52] <cjwatson> stgraber: lines in /etc/fstab for a given mount point will override /lib/init/fstab - people shouldn't ever need to change the latter
[21:53] <cjwatson> I think this would benefit from e-mail discussion
[21:54] <stgraber> agreed, then we can update the bug based on the outcome (and get rid of a pretty old bug potentially)
[21:54] <stgraber> #topic Chair for next meeting
[21:54] <stgraber> soren: ^
[21:54] <soren> I guess that will be me :)
[21:54] <stgraber> perfect
[21:54] <stgraber> #topic AOB
[21:55] <soren> I hope I don't triggers kees's OCD too hard :)
[21:55] <kees> heheh
[21:55] <stgraber> we can just move backward through the list of that helps kees' ocd :)
[21:55] <cjwatson> odc
[21:56] <kees> no need. :)
[21:56] <stgraber> #endmeeting
[21:56] <meetingology> Meeting ended Mon Jan 23 21:56:32 2012 UTC.
[21:56] <meetingology> Minutes:        http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2012/ubuntu-meeting.2012-01-23-21.09.moin.txt
[21:56] <stgraber> thanks everyon!
[21:56] <stgraber> *everyone
[21:56] <soren> "I have CDO. It's just like OCD, but with the letters in alphabetical order, like they're supposed to be."
[21:56] <stgraber> soren: ;)
[21:57] <kees> thanks stgraber!
[21:57] <soren> stgraber: Yeah, tahnks for filling in.
[22:01] <stgraber> soren: np