[18:01]  * stgraber waves
[18:01] <ajmitch> hi
[18:01] <highvoltage> *swoosh*
[18:02]  * ajmitch just needs to look up the runes for meetingology 
[18:02] <ajmitch> #startmeeting Application Review Board
[18:02] <meetingology> Meeting started Fri Mar 30 18:02:28 2012 UTC.  The chair is ajmitch. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology.
[18:02] <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
[18:03] <ajmitch> #link https://wiki.ubuntu.com/AppReviewBoard/Agenda
[18:03] <ajmitch> sorry, still waking up :)
[18:04] <ajmitch> ok, we'll begin on that action review, I'll quickly go throuh & check what's still there from last month
[18:05] <ajmitch> #topic Action review
[18:06] <ajmitch> wendar: you were going to check with doko about when python-support will be removed from the archive, I'm guessing the answer is whenever it's not used anymore?
[18:06] <wendar> yup
[18:06] <wendar> it's moved to universe for Precise
[18:07] <wendar> which is still fine for Extras dependencies
[18:07] <wendar> but, right now we're manually removing it from packages
[18:07] <wendar> so, I suggest we keep doing that in Precise
[18:07] <ajmitch> right, it's easier to use dh_python2 anyway
[18:07] <wendar> and expect it may be gone from P+1
[18:08] <wendar> yeah, I much prefer dh_python2
[18:08] <ajmitch> ok, will mark that action as done
[18:09]  * ajmitch hasn't seen any movement on bug 894582, might be getting a bit late to get it fixed for precise unless it's done this week
[18:10] <ajmitch> anyone else feel inspired to take that on & see if it can be fixed for release?
[18:11]  * stgraber -> ENOTIME
[18:11] <ajmitch> stgraber: yeah, that's what I figured :)
[18:11] <ajmitch> I'll add it to my todo list then, but I don't have a great amount of spare time either right now
[18:12] <wendar> how about UDS?
[18:12] <ajmitch> wendar: sorry?
[18:12] <wendar> as in, talk about it at UDS and see if we can get some TUITs from elsewhere?
[18:12] <ajmitch> ah right, I was mostly wanting it for precise release, so people who build on precise can make packages that we don't have to change too much
[18:12] <wendar> If we could get it on mvo's list for next cycle, that'd be great
[18:13] <wendar> it seems too disruptive for an FFE
[18:13] <ajmitch> I'll try for this week, otherwise sort it at UDS
[18:13] <wendar> yup, sounds good
[18:14] <ajmitch> #action ajmitch to look at bug #894582
[18:14] <meetingology> ACTION: ajmitch to look at bug #894582
[18:14] <ajmitch> ok, now onto the developer-portal bugs
[18:15]  * highvoltage is listening, even though quiet
[18:15]  * ajmitch also hasn't seen any activity on there, and hasn't emailed david pitkin back, to nag him 
[18:16] <ajmitch> highvoltage: it's ok, you can keep quiet & we'll assign the rest of the tasks to you :)
[18:16] <wendar> heh
[18:16] <highvoltage> I've already been a bad rmb member regarding my tasks already :(
[18:17] <ajmitch> heh
[18:17] <ajmitch> well, I'll see what I can do about nagging about bugs again in this case :)
[18:18] <ajmitch> #topic When should we open extras for precise?
[18:18] <ajmitch> wendar: your topic
[18:18] <wendar> I'd like to suggest opening up the extras archive for precise now.
[18:18] <wendar> instead of waiting until after the precise release
[18:19] <wendar> so we can publish a few apps ahead of time, and have them available in the software center at release
[18:19] <ajmitch> ok, I'm not opposed to that, as a development platform precise won't really change in the next few weeks
[18:20] <ajmitch> stgraber, highvoltage - what do you think of it?
[18:21] <stgraber> yeah, opening now (post-beta2) should be safe
[18:21] <highvoltage> yeah sooner is probably better than later
[18:21] <stgraber> it's very unlikely any of the submissions would be pushed to Ubuntu before release (with FFe and all the other paperwork)
[18:21]  * ajmitch doesn't feel like voting on it, so we'll take that as agreed
[18:22] <wendar> who wants to turn it on?
[18:22] <wendar> stgraber has done it in the past
[18:22] <ajmitch> where is that done?
[18:23] <stgraber> wendar: the repository is already ready for precise, but someone probably needs to check that MyApps is too
[18:23] <wendar> stgraber: so if we published to the Extras PPA today, it would be copied over?
[18:23] <stgraber> wendar: yes
[18:24] <wendar> stgraber: excellent
[18:25] <ajmitch> then for existing packages in the queue (of which there are many), should we switch to targetting them to precise?
[18:26] <wendar> ajmitch: that's my next question on the agenda
[18:26] <ajmitch> wendar: right, I'll change the topic for it :)
[18:26] <ajmitch> #agreed Open extras for packages before precise release
[18:26] <ajmitch> #topic Should we review existing packages for precise?
[18:27] <wendar> I've got a few more lenses/scopes that are specific to Oneiric, but for all other submissions, I'd like to package it for Precise instead.
[18:27] <wendar> it just seems silly to be releasing new apps on Oneiric two weeks before the Precise release.
[18:27] <ajmitch> I expect most people will upgrade from oneiric, so if an app builds & works on precise they should go there
[18:28] <ajmitch> I don't think most submissions indicate which release they're targetting
[18:28] <highvoltage> ajmitch: but they should, shouldn't they?
[18:28] <wendar> yeah, I guess if we find into some that only build and run on Oneiric, it's worth considering publishing them to Oneiric, instead of making the developer fix them up
[18:29] <wendar> highvoltage: we generally just dictate that they all target the current release
[18:29] <wendar> highvoltage: so, indicating any other release is just a "bug" in their submission, that we fix before shipping it
[18:30] <highvoltage> ok
[18:30] <ajmitch> like a recent submission that had maverick in debian/changelog, though it didn't build on oneiric
[18:30] <ajmitch> ok, I guess we're agreed that it's generally a good idea to do reviews for precise
[18:31] <ajmitch> #topic Notify developers with published Oneiric apps of process for resubmitting for Precise.
[18:33] <ajmitch> wendar: you added this one earlier today, I'm guessing we don't have a large number of applications which should be resubmitted for precise
[18:33] <wendar> Yup, a pretty small number.
[18:33] <wendar> This was mainly a follow up to the last two topics.
[18:34] <wendar> To say: I'll volunteer to send a personal email to everyone who already has an app in Oneiric.
[18:34] <ajmitch> yeah, cielak was asking about this process as well
[18:34] <ajmitch> great
[18:34] <wendar> Telling them that we've opened up the archive for submissions to Precise.
[18:34] <wendar> And, if they want to get their app in before release, they can do it now.
[18:35] <ajmitch> will they need to resubmit through myapps, even if it's not a new upstream release?
[18:35] <wendar> How about we say they can either submit to MyApps, or just contact us on the mailing list?
[18:36] <ajmitch> or in cases like harmonyseq, should we just bump the version number in the changelog for precise?
[18:36]  * ajmitch isn't sure if just copying packages in the PPA will work)
[18:36] <wendar> I don't think we even need to bump the version number in the changelog, as long as we rebuild with precise as the target in the changelog
[18:37] <wendar> I mean, bump the version number if we have to make any changes other than the release target
[18:37] <wendar> but, otherwise, it's just a rebuild
[18:37] <ajmitch> the debian revision needs changed at least, from ...11.10.1 to 12.04.1
[18:37] <stgraber> wendar: well, then we need to bump the version
[18:37] <stgraber> wendar: as you can't have two binary packages in the repository with the same version but different content
[18:37] <wendar> stgraber: yeah, true enough
[18:37] <stgraber> wendar: so we either copy to the new series (and use exactly the same binary package) or we rebuild and then need to bump the version at the same time
[18:38] <wendar> simple version bump as a "rebuild for precise"
[18:38] <wendar> I'd rather rebuild than copy the binary package
[18:38]  * stgraber too
[18:39] <ajmitch> ok
[18:39] <stgraber> so bump to .12.04 and upload for these that don't need any extra change (when told by the developer they want it in precise)
[18:39] <wendar> ajmitch: that's true, the debian revision has to change, since we have the Ubuntu release version number in the package version string
[18:39] <ajmitch> #action allison to send a personal email to everyone who already has an app in Oneiric.
[18:39] <meetingology> ACTION: allison to send a personal email to everyone who already has an app in Oneiric.
[18:40] <ajmitch> anything else on that one, or do we move onto the big topic about the queue state? :)
[18:40] <wendar> onward :)
[18:40] <ajmitch> #topic State Of The Queue
[18:41] <ajmitch> so though I had good intentions a week or so ago, I haven't had time to really look at & comment on applications this week, have just casually looked at some recent submissions
[18:42] <wendar> I've been doing quick replies on the ones that need quick fixes
[18:42] <ajmitch> the queue length is long, I'm been meaning to work from the top down
[18:42] <wendar> so, a lot of what's left is either valid source packages (with no debian packaging)
[18:42]  * ajmitch has some spare time this weekend
[18:43] <wendar> or debian packages that need validating for ARB requirements
[18:44] <wendar> some exceptions to that are the Community Lens
[18:44] <ajmitch> packages like zeroballistics needs a careful rejection sent, as it looks to be a nice game, gpl source, but it depends on a non-free library
[18:44] <wendar> ah, yeah, that would be out
[18:44] <ajmitch> wendar: what's the state of the music lenses in the queue there?
[18:45] <wendar> I've got a patch back from the developer to fix the final problems
[18:45] <wendar> so, I just need to integrate that, test, and put them up for vote
[18:45] <ajmitch> ok
[18:45] <wendar> I could do that today or tomorrow
[18:45] <wendar> the community lens is for precise, so no hurry on that one
[18:46]  * ajmitch would like to be able to get rid of these 'pending qa' items from the list
[18:46] <wendar> yeah, that's one of the active bugs, isn't it?
[18:46] <ajmitch> yep
[18:46] <ajmitch> the bug is fix committed (iirc)
[18:46] <wendar> so, just waiting for release?
[18:47] <wendar> (where release is their server rollout schedule, rather than related to Ubuntu releases)
[18:47] <ajmitch> I assume so, stgraber may know a few more details about how these bits interact
[18:47] <wendar> https://bugs.launchpad.net/developer-portal/+bug/914667
[18:49] <ajmitch> fix committed 6 weeks ago, maybe it has been rolled out & we can mark them as published :)
[18:50] <wendar> maybe check with achuni?
[18:50] <wendar> or, ask in the ticket?
[18:50] <ajmitch> I'll do that
[18:50] <wendar> of all the bugs, this one is probably the biggest irritant at the moment
[18:50] <wendar> cool, thanks
[18:50]  * ajmitch would probably put that on par with the needs info submissions not showing
[18:51] <ajmitch> any other comments on the state of the queue, apart from 'just do it'?
[18:51] <wendar> a whole bunch of them are new submissions with no packaging
[18:51] <wendar> but, we agreed a few months ago to only accept new submissions from PPAs
[18:51] <ajmitch> I'll check for a bug on developer-portal about requiring PPAs at submit time
[18:52] <wendar> it does now
[18:52] <wendar> http://developer.ubuntu.com/publish/my-apps-packages/
[18:52] <wendar> or, at least the instructions are right now
[18:52] <wendar> I totally think we should do the packaging for the old apps that were submitted before we said we required PPAs
[18:52] <ajmitch> right, but at the point you submit, does it require a PPA be given?
[18:52] <wendar> nope, not yet
[18:52] <wendar> so, I wouldn't reject the apps with no PPA
[18:52] <ajmitch> ok, I'll check for that one
[18:53] <wendar> but, I'm thinking it would be a better use of my time to write a step-by-step set of instructions on how to package new apps
[18:53] <wendar> than to manually do the packaging for the new submissions
[18:53] <ajmitch> it can be a bit time-consuming :)
[18:54] <wendar> Aye, and it'll only get more time-consuming as we go on
[18:54] <wendar> it doesn't scale
[18:54] <wendar> but, if we could give them a really polite and helpful way to do the packaging themselves, that'd make a difference
[18:54] <wendar> and would scale better
[18:54] <ajmitch> the packaging guide still confuses quite a few people
[18:54] <wendar> also, I think a guide on how to make a tarball would be helpful
[18:55] <ajmitch> that would help, people are still submitting .jar files
[18:55] <wendar> the packaging guide is also for the main Ubuntu archives, and not for the ARB requirements
[18:56] <wendar> so, even when we do get proper debian source packages, we still have to manually edit them
[18:56] <ajmitch> yep
[18:56] <wendar> I figure if I condense the instructions I've already sent out individually to a bunch of devs into a few simple wiki pages, it could help us a lot
[18:57] <ajmitch> it'd help us as well
[18:57] <ajmitch> thanks for offering to do that
[18:57] <wendar> cool, I'll do that this weekend
[18:57] <wendar> and, if you're doing packaging work this weekend, focus on the older submissions, from before the PPA requirement
[18:58] <ajmitch> I realised I skipped the 'review updated text', but iirc that was an agenda meeting from last time which we resolved?
[18:58] <wendar> it was new... just a sec let me check what it was...
[18:58] <wendar> It might have been https://wiki.ubuntu.com/AppReviewBoard/Review
[18:59] <wendar> specifying the right URL for screenshot images
[18:59] <ajmitch> the agenda item was about https://wiki.ubuntu.com/AppReviewBoard/Review/Guidelines, depending on backported libraries which are new
[18:59] <wendar> Oh, no, it was backported libraries
[18:59] <wendar> yeah
[19:00] <wendar> after discussion on IRC, I added the text:
[19:00] <wendar> (We're open to considering dependencies on backported libraries, on a case-by-case basis, but only if the backport is a new library and not an updated version of an existing library.)
[19:00] <wendar> and I just wanted a quick double-check that other folks were okay with that
[19:00] <ajmitch> imho the text that's been added there is fine
[19:01] <ajmitch> stgraber, highvoltage: ^ if you have a sec :)
[19:02] <stgraber> sounds good
[19:02] <ajmitch> ok
[19:02] <stgraber> not sure we can assume everyone has -backports in their /etc/apt/sources.list, but since oneiric we do it by default so I guess it'll be fine
[19:02] <highvoltage> no strong feelings about it here :)
[19:03] <ajmitch> ok then
[19:03] <ajmitch> are we up to the AOB point?
[19:03] <wendar> NOB from here
[19:04] <ajmitch> the main thing I have is the meeting time - it's that time of year with daylight saving time messes with us
[19:05] <ajmitch> from next month the meeting time will end up at 6AM on a saturday morning for me, which is a little painful :)
[19:05] <wendar> that's pretty awful
[19:05] <ajmitch> it was hard enough getting up for a 7AM meeting this morning, I should have gone to sleep before 2 :)
[19:05] <highvoltage> ouch
[19:06] <ajmitch> do we want to sort out a new time here, or on the list so our other team members can comment?
[19:06] <wendar> probably finalize it on the list, but a first guess here could speed things up
[19:06] <wendar> http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=App+Review+Board+Meeting+&iso=20120330T18
[19:06] <wendar> ^ the link to the current meeting time
[19:08] <ajmitch> an hour or two later works for me
[19:08] <ajmitch> so 1900UTC or 2000
[19:08] <wendar> stgraber, where are you?
[19:08] <highvoltage> stgraber is on east coast, est time
[19:09] <ajmitch> highvoltage: you're in the same place, right?
[19:09] <highvoltage> yep
[19:09] <wendar> so a little later would probably be fine for both of you
[19:09] <stgraber> I'm happy with both 1900 or 2000 UTC
[19:09] <highvoltage> yep
[19:10] <ajmitch> I think if coolbhavi is able to make it, he's indicated that a slightly later time is better
[19:10] <stgraber> I'll be in Europe for our next meeting but will probably skip it anyway, so that's fine :)
[19:10] <wendar> Bhavani doesn't usually make it to the meetings, so I think it's okay not to plan them around Calcutta time
[19:10] <ajmitch> stgraber: skip it? how could yo? :)
[19:10] <stgraber> :)
[19:11] <ajmitch> ok, I'll mail the list about the new suggested time & ask for feedback
[19:11] <wendar> hmmmm... ajmitch: how about flipping the meeting around to Friday afternoon your time?
[19:11] <wendar> Friday morning US time?
[19:11] <ajmitch> wendar: it'd need to be after work for me
[19:11] <wendar> sorry, backwards
[19:12] <ajmitch> so from 0500UTC onwards
[19:12] <wendar> ugh, timezones
[19:12] <ajmitch> yeah
[19:12] <wendar> just a sec I'll do meeting planner
[19:12] <wendar> http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meeting.html
[19:12] <ajmitch> I didn't think it'd work well for east coast people then
[19:12] <ajmitch> UTC+12 is at least easy to convert :)
[19:13] <wendar> http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meetingtime.html?iso=20120427&p1=137&p2=179&p3=22
[19:13] <wendar> ajmitch: it's actually easy enough, as long as you're not also trying to accommodate Europe
[19:14] <ajmitch> well, we have fagan in europe, but I haven't even seen him on irc for a couple of months
[19:14] <wendar> yeah, the meetings aren't critical, so might as well optimize the time for the people who attend
[19:14] <wendar> ajmitch: is Saturday easier than Friday for you?
[19:14] <ajmitch> yes
[19:15] <wendar> ajmitch: just not so early?
[19:15] <ajmitch> just not 6AM
[19:16] <wendar> ajmitch: like Saturday at 10/11am?
[19:16] <ajmitch> fine by me
[19:16] <wendar> that's pushing into Friday night for the US Eastern folks
[19:16] <wendar> maybe a bit of a drag for personal life
[19:17] <highvoltage> ok by me if I know about it in advance
[19:17] <wendar> 9am Auckland is 5pm Eastern
[19:17] <wendar> 10am Auckland is 6pm Eastern
[19:18] <wendar> that's late enough for a Saturday sleep in Auckland, but early enough to still go out in US Eastern
[19:18] <stgraber> hmm, 6pm on a Friday... not sure I'll be around. 5pm is fine though
[19:18]  * ajmitch doesn't mind 7 or 8 AM 
[19:18] <ajmitch> so that's why I was suggesting just 1900/2000 if it still suited others
[19:18] <wendar> http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meetingdetails.html?year=2012&month=4&day=27&hour=21&min=0&sec=0&p1=137&p2=179&p3=22
[19:19] <ajmitch> 2pm ok for you?
[19:19] <wendar> yeah, 2pm is fine for me
[19:19] <wendar> (pacific time)
[19:20] <ajmitch> ok
[19:20] <wendar> 5pm eastern
[19:20] <wendar> 9am auckland
[19:20] <ajmitch> seems to work
[19:20] <ajmitch> last thing is to volunteer a chair for next month
[19:21] <ajmitch> it'll be about a day after the precise release, fwiw
[19:22] <wendar> so not stgraber
[19:22] <wendar> highvoltage? or I'm happy to do one
[19:22] <ajmitch> up to the 3 of us I think
[19:22] <stgraber> yeah, I'll be in Europe and I took the post-release Friday off, so definitely not arund :)
[19:23] <wendar> ajmitch: we shouldn't make you do two in a row
[19:23] <ajmitch> stgraber: have a drink for us then ;)
[19:23] <wendar> put me in
[19:23] <ajmitch> ok, thank you
[19:23] <ajmitch> with that, I think we're done
[19:24] <ajmitch> thanks everyone :)
[19:24] <stgraber> thanks!
[19:24] <ajmitch> #endmeeting
[19:24] <meetingology> Meeting ended Fri Mar 30 19:24:25 2012 UTC.
[19:24] <meetingology> Minutes (wiki):        http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2012/ubuntu-meeting.2012-03-30-18.02.moin.txt
[19:24] <meetingology> Minutes (html):        http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2012/ubuntu-meeting.2012-03-30-18.02.html
[19:25] <wendar> thanks ajmitch!
[19:26] <highvoltage> wendar: sorry I got distracted, yep I'm up for it
[19:26] <highvoltage> (oops you already volunteered, nm then :) )
[19:26] <highvoltage> thanks ajmitch
[19:27] <wendar> highvoltage: no worries, feel free to substitute your name on the Agenda page