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