[12:42] <zyga> slangasek: hey
[12:42] <zyga> slangasek: just confirming, you are the track lead for foundations, correct?
[13:52] <slangasek> zyga: yes
[13:53] <zyga> slangasek: thanks
[14:35] <zyga> slangasek: how do I as a session lead, "join" the hangout?
[14:35] <zyga> slangasek: do I use the same page as everyone else?
[14:36] <slangasek> zyga: the track lead should create the on-air hangout for you; if you're a session lead you should have been marked 'required' on the session, and then when you load the meeting page in summit you'll automatically get the onair hangout link instead of the view-only youtube link
[14:37] <zyga> slangasek: thanks
[14:37] <zyga> slangasek: "on the session" is in the blueprint? participation required in the blueprint, right?
[14:38] <slangasek> zyga: summit has its own definition of who's required or not, because attendees can't be trusted to use the 'participation essential' field accurately and it used to gum up the scheduler.
[14:38] <zyga> thanks
[14:38] <slangasek> zyga: if you're bolded on the meeting in summit, you're required
[14:39] <zyga> slangasek: meeting in the summit, which page is that?
[14:39] <zyga> slangasek: http://summit.ubuntu.com/uds-1303/meeting/21607/client-1303-new-checkbox-core-plainbox/ this one?
[14:39] <slangasek> zyga: yes
[14:40] <zyga> slangasek: the 'attendee list' does not have anyone in bold
[14:40] <zyga> slangasek: only 'attending' vs 'interested'
[14:40] <zyga> slangasek: is that it?
[14:41] <cjohnston> zyga: do you have a 'review attendees' in the subnav?
[14:41] <zyga> yes
[14:41] <cjohnston> click that
[14:41] <slangasek> zyga: the bottom of the page you were already on has your name in bold under 'Attendees', and no one else
[14:41] <zyga> ok
[14:41] <zyga> aah
[14:41] <zyga> ok I see
[14:41] <zyga> slangasek: thanks I understand now
[14:41] <cjohnston> zyga: you can only do that when you are the drafter
[14:41] <cjohnston> so on a meeting where you aren't the drafter, you would have to ask the drafter or lead
[14:41] <zyga> cjohnston: I'm the drafter
[14:42] <zyga> cjohnston: so being one, I can mark other people as automagically attending from that page?
[14:42] <cjohnston> right.. thats why you can.. I was explaining that on others, you may not be able to
[14:42] <cjohnston> you can't create an attendee from that page, but you can make an attendee require
[14:42] <cjohnston> d
[14:42] <cjohnston> if someone should be attending but isnt on the list, subscribe them to the BP
[14:43] <zyga> ok, I got this now
[14:43] <zyga> thanks a lot
[14:55] <xnox> hangout url! =)
[14:55] <xnox> please =)
[14:56]  * pitti_uds waves hello
[14:56]  * slangasek waves
[14:56] <pitti_uds> what's wrong? it's UDS and there are no cookies in my hallway!
[14:56]  * gema_uds waves
[14:56] <zyga> pitti_uds: haha
[14:56] <xnox> pitti_uds: there are cookies in bluefin kitchen =)
[14:57] <slangasek> xnox: we can't put everyone in the hangout... :)  I'll post the broadcast URL soon
[14:57] <slangasek> if there are people who specifically want to be in the hangout (fishbowl), let me know and I'll pull you in
[14:57] <xnox> slangasek: ok. I'm on duty to put it up on the projector for myself, ev, mpt.
[14:58] <slangasek> xnox: hmm, do you guys want to be in the fishbowl collectively?
[14:58]  * mainerror takes seat
[15:01] <xnox> slangasek: ev run away.
[15:02] <ev> I merely went to the kitchen for scone preparation materials
[15:02] <ev> #36 in the list of things I can't do at a physical UDS
[15:02]  * skellat gets ready to flip page on his legal pad for more note-taking
[15:03] <ev> damn, Colin won the beard competition
[15:03] <cjwatson> :-)
[15:04] <kamal> cjwatson: now that's a very fine UNIX beard my  friend!
[15:04] <cjwatson> slangasek: Ironically I only just loaded https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PlusOneMaintenanceTeam and remembered that I'm supposed to be on +1 this month *cough*
[15:06] <pitti_uds> if the RR is consistent, how would the monthly not be?
[15:06] <cjwatson> If it's being changed independently by security updates then it's not a given
[15:06] <pitti_uds> ah, only for that, ok
[15:07] <cyphermox> I'll check with my manager, but I'll be happy to help out for some future month
[15:09] <barry_> for people on RR, will they have a separate security pocket or will they get all their security fixes via the release pocket?
[15:09] <pitti_uds> how would britney help if we removed a package from RR which a previous security update was depending on?
[15:10] <pitti_uds> i. e. we would we run britney before doing the removal, I itake it?
[15:10] <pitti_uds> just as we do now with check-rdepends before removal?
[15:10] <xnox> cjwatson: slangasek: ^^^^^^ note comments.
[15:11] <pitti_uds> even now there are hundreds of things on http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/proposed-migration/update_excuses.html
[15:11] <pitti_uds> so some more manpower could certainly not hurt
[15:12] <Laney> my god all that haskell-*
[15:12] <tumbleweed> pitti_uds: yeah, that seems to have been growing continually
[15:12] <Laney> ;-)
[15:12] <slangasek> xnox: ack, will circle around in a minute
[15:12] <slangasek> you guys could short circuit this process by volunteering to step into the hangout ;)
[15:13] <pitti_uds> slangasek: sure, as long as there's room
[15:13] <xnox> Laney: can you block haskell?
[15:13] <cjwatson> barry_: TBD
[15:13] <xnox> as in, do it manually only, such that it's never broken....
[15:13] <Laney> don't understand
[15:13] <cjwatson> pitti_uds: my loose thought is that IWBNI proposed-migration took more control of removals
[15:14] <cjwatson> The LP integration there is currently unimplemented because I'm a coward
[15:14] <xnox> Laney: blacklist haskell-* from autosyncing, and sync it manually, in stages and wait for it to build properly.
[15:14] <Laney> autosyncing isn't relevant here
[15:14] <xnox> potentially even doing in a non-virt ppa, such that we can copy it into the archive in one bulk.
[15:14] <sebsebseb> hi
[15:14] <Laney> well, for this one, it might be in general
[15:14] <Laney> (this one comes from experimental)
[15:14] <pitti_uds> cjwatson, slangasek: I guess that's a matter for checkrdepends, not britney?
[15:16] <cjwatson> well, britney does have removal handling, but tomayto tomahto
[15:17] <Laney> can you invite me in?
[15:17] <Laney> perhaps there is something to say about haskell
[15:17] <Laney> or transitions in general with RR
[15:18] <xnox> pitti_uds: wins the best backdrop of this hangout =)
[15:18] <slangasek> pitti_uds, cjwatson: reminder to enable Lower Third in the Hangout Toolbox :)
[15:19]  * tumbleweed can provide mountain and sea backgdrops on demand (it's a lovely sunny day here - slightly too warm for comfort)
[15:19] <cjwatson> Oh, I thought that was for track leads
[15:19] <pgraner> cjwatson, its so folks watching the stream know who you are
[15:19] <kamal> cjwatson: I did not recognize you until you spoke!  ALL participants should use lower-third with name and irc nick!  ... just like on our UDS name badges.
[15:19] <xnox> Laney: is that flipcharts in the background?
[15:20] <pitti_uds> slangasek: figured it out
[15:20] <Laney> whiteboard
[15:20] <xnox> Laney: add a subtitle =)
[15:20] <cjwatson> kamal: I thought it was track leads only from the plenary
[15:20] <Laney> i don't know how
[15:20] <cjwatson> I think I've enabled it now
[15:21] <apw> Laney, toolbox "lower third"
[15:21] <cjwatson> (IOW I thought that track leads were supposed to enable it for the whole hangout)
[15:21] <pgraner> Laney, click on the toolbox and use lower third
[15:21] <slangasek> cjwatson: ah, I don't believe we have that capability :)
[15:21] <arges> i think my mic is broken. How does one recruit volunteers, or tell them who to get in contact with?
[15:21] <pgraner> cjohnston, they can't do that, has to be done on an individual basis
[15:21] <slangasek> I think you have to add it yourself
[15:21] <pgraner> arges, have them get in touch with me
[15:21] <arges> pgraner: cool.
[15:23] <cjwatson> (Does my lower-third look mirrored left to right for anyone else, or is that just what happens for one's own?)
[15:23] <Laney> the latter
[15:23] <pgraner> cjohnston, it will be mirrored just for you
[15:23] <cjohnston> :-(
[15:23] <pgraner> cjohnston, we see yours just fine
[15:23] <xnox> cjwatson: it looks good. just like everyone else.
[15:23] <stgraber> cjwatson: IIRC there's an option you can tick to have it un-mirrored for you, but yeah, looks fine for everyone else anyway
[15:24] <cjwatson> ok, good
[15:24] <kamal> bigger icepicks
[15:24] <slangasek> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PlusOneMaintenanceTeam
[15:24] <cjwatson> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PlusOneMaintenanceTeam
[15:24] <cjwatson> snap
[15:25] <arges> Is there a link to the new rolling release schedules showing freeze dates etc? Or is this something being worked on this week
[15:25] <cjwatson> Not set yet
[15:26]  * xnox likes +1 as well
[15:27] <barry> it's been a while since i did a +1, so i'd be up for doing another stint
[15:27] <xnox> slangasek: ^^ two more
[15:27] <stgraber> slangasek: I'd also be interested in finally doing some +1 work (been meaning to for a while but got busy with 12.04.1 and other things ;))
[15:27] <arges> I volunteer 50% of me for another month.
[15:27] <arges> pending mgr approval : )
[15:27]  * mitya57|uds didn't see any schedule, but hopes there won't be freeze in two days ;)
[15:28] <pgraner> arges, https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DraftReleaseSchedule
[15:28] <arges> pgraner: cool
[15:29] <mitya57|uds> pgraner: so there *will* be freeze? :(
[15:29] <pgraner> mitya57|uds, prior to the LTS
[15:30] <pgraner> mitya57|uds, and any point releases
[15:30] <cjwatson> the freezes on the left are from the unmodified raring schedule
[15:30] <mitya57|uds> the draft schedule you linked says "March 7th"
[15:30] <pitti_uds> cjwatson: FYI, I muted you as your typing was quite loud
[15:30] <arges> steve froze
[15:30] <mitya57|uds> cjwatson: ah, nice then
[15:30] <Laney> oh noes
[15:31] <arges> yup works now
[15:31] <slangasek> am I still frozen?
[15:31] <geofft> I'm distinctly not volunteering, but I'm curious what the requirements are
[15:31] <pitti_uds> oops, my hangout crashed
[15:31] <cjwatson> pitti_uds: ah, sorry, new laptop and I'm not used to it yet
[15:31] <jpickett> yep
[15:31] <cyphermox> yes
[15:31] <xnox> slangasek: yeah you are fine.
[15:31] <geofft> both in terms of whether you need to have upload rights to things
[15:31] <jsjgruber-uds> you are ok now, steve
[15:31] <skellat> And you all are back
[15:31] <apw> slangasek, i can hear you
[15:31] <pgraner> mitya57|uds, thats the part of the original sechedule so people can see the contrast
[15:31] <geofft> and time commitment
[15:31] <xnox> pitti_uds: rejoin =)
[15:31] <jsjgruber-uds> yes
[15:31] <retoaded> yes
[15:31] <xnox> slangasek: yes, we can.
[15:31] <pgraner> mitya57|uds, columns are labeled :)
[15:31] <apw> slangasek, we had a like a netsplit, three of you wen't pop
[15:32] <mitya57|uds> :)
[15:32] <arges> thanks again : )
[15:33] <geofft> yeah, it sounded to me like Debian RC-bug squashing, which you can do unprivileged if you have a friendly sponsor
[15:33] <geofft> would be good to mention on the wiki page
[15:33] <geofft> thanks!
[15:35] <xnox> slangasek: cjwatson: sorry what?
[15:36] <xnox> ah ok.
[15:36] <xnox> slangasek: but jenkins QA is quicker.
[15:37] <xnox> cjwatson: jenkins notices quicker than people wakeup, and QA are pinging about those.....
[15:37] <slangasek> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PlusOneMaintenanceTeam/Specs/Priorities
[15:38] <slangasek> xnox: proposed-migration notices even quicker from jenkins, and I think infinity pulls from that report
[15:38] <cjwatson> proposed-migration does not notice component mismatcehs
[15:38] <slangasek> oh
[15:38] <cjwatson> But component-mismatches does :-)
[15:38] <slangasek> I mean component-mismatches
[15:38] <slangasek> :)
[15:38] <cjwatson> jenkins notices after there's an image build
[15:38] <xnox> can we autofix them =) or block building images? (sounds like a too big of a hammer)
[15:39] <psivaa__> Do you expect any change in the way we, QA communicate to you regarding the daily smoke test failures? :)
[15:40] <rbasak> I'm good
[15:40] <rbasak> For April
[15:40] <xnox> psivaa__: I'm yet to reply to your email, btw. mostly you are right and do the right thing.
[15:40] <rbasak> pgraner: ^^
[15:40] <cjwatson> It's basically fine, it's just you shouldn't need to do so much work
[15:40] <xnox> psivaa__: the blocker is fixing things quicker on our side and/or communicating that the next image should be fine.
[15:40] <slangasek> xnox: the right answer is to not lose the overrides that were already present in -proposed when pocket-copying
[15:40] <cjwatson> Which is 90% addressed by my action to ... what slangasek said
[15:40] <psivaa__> xnox: fine then :-)
[15:40] <xnox> ok.
[15:40] <xnox> psivaa__: ;-)
[15:41] <arges> cool thanks
[15:41] <kamal> thanks +1 Maintenance Team... keep up the good work!
[15:41] <mitya57|uds> thanks!
[15:48] <xnox> stgraber: are you by any chance going to drop by http://summit.ubuntu.com/uds-1303/meeting/21606/client-1303-ubuntu-touch-porting/
[15:48] <xnox> ?
[15:49] <xnox> it's about porting ubuntu-touch quantal patches to raring which includes interesting things like resolvconf, mountall, telepathy stacks...
[15:49] <stgraber> xnox: when is that?
[15:50] <xnox> stgraber: it's next in parallel with "should we switch to rolling release"
[15:50] <xnox> Laney: that session above is also questioning maliit.
[15:50] <Laney> yeah, stupid scheduling there
[15:50]  * Laney grumps
[15:50] <seb128> everybody is going to go to the rolling release one, right?
[15:51]  * seb128 feels like the rebase on raring will be empty
[15:51] <xnox> stgraber: there is ophono questions on that etherpad as well.
[15:52] <tumbleweed> Laney: I just got that one moved to suit me, stop grumping
[15:52] <Laney> yah boo
[15:52] <Laney> seb128: The rebase one was interesting because I expect to be doing some of the work there
[15:53] <stgraber> xnox: well, kinda hard for me to attend two sessions at once...
[15:53] <Laney> but the rolling one is also obviously quite important
[15:55] <zyga-uds> seb128: hey, how can the session lead get a link to the hangout?
[15:57] <sfeole> o/
[15:58] <roadmr> hello
[15:58] <diwic> hello
[15:59] <diwic> stream hasn't started yet
[15:59] <diwic> or has it?
[15:59] <doanac_> diwic: i don't think it has
[16:00] <sfeole> offline for me here
[16:00] <zyga-uds> are we on?
[16:00] <sfeole> i dont think so
[16:00] <brendand_> no video yet
[16:01] <smagoun> +1, no video for the plainbox session yet
[16:01] <smagoun> i see video now
[16:01] <roadmr> smagoun: it should be working now
[16:01] <diwic> okay, it's on
[16:02] <zyga-uds> IF YOU WANT TO BE IN THE HANGOUT PING ME (zyga)
[16:02] <roadmr> http://summit.ubuntu.com/uds-r/meeting/21051/cert-r-checkbox-simplification/
[16:10] <roadmr> it has tests - which checkbox lacked for a large portion of the core
[16:10] <roadmr> it has documentation - which checkbox sorely lacked (high bus factor)
[16:16] <smagoun> ara_: what is the plan to add manual tests to plainbox?
[16:16] <brendand_> cwayne - it has a cli at the moment
[16:16] <ara_> smagoun, they are there, but we don't have a UI connected yet to plainbox
[16:16] <ara_> they work, but just with cli
[16:16] <smagoun> ara_: Will checkbox + plainbox be maintained in parallel until plainbox can run manual tests?
[16:16] <brendand_> cwayne - so you can run manual tests but you will get just a text prompt
[16:16] <roadmr> smagoun: did what zyga just say solve your question?
[16:16] <ara_> smagoun, of course
[16:16] <zyga-uds> plainbox.readthedocs.org
[16:16] <ara_> this is going to be an incremental development
[16:17] <brendand_> cwayne - a bit like checkbox-cli at the moment
[16:18] <cwayne> whats the difference between this and utah?
[16:18] <roadmr> cwayne: why don't you ask zyga directly in the hangout :)
[16:19] <cwayne> didnt want to interrupt :)
[16:20] <sfeole> he just answered my question
[16:21] <sfeole> pkg depends
[16:21] <roadmr> sfeole: ftw!
[16:21] <sfeole> :P
[16:23] <nuclearbob> they're tailored to different workflows based on the needs of the teams developing them :)
[16:23] <smagoun> is there a comparison of plainbox/utah someplace?
[16:23] <roadmr> nuclearbob: exactly :)
[16:23] <roadmr> smagoun: no, but it'd be good to have
[16:24] <smagoun> roadmr: +1, are you volunteering? :)
[16:24] <roadmr> nuclearbob: for instance I'm sure a lot of stuff that's done in checkbox had to be reimplemented in utah, since it's something that better fit your needs
[16:24] <nuclearbob> utah has pilfered some good stuff from checkbox, I'm hoping maybe I can help with gaps in plainbox if they match things I've already done
[16:24] <roadmr> nuclearbob: part of the goal in plainbox is to make those things more easily reusable so the next project that needs to do testing can leverage this
[16:25] <ara_> smagoun, I will create a work item
[16:25] <nuclearbob> roadmr: that was the initial goal of utah as well
[16:25] <smagoun> roadmr: nuclearbob: Are the tests themselves interchangeable between checkbox/plainbox/utah?
[16:25] <nuclearbob> smagoun: I don't think they are right now, that's an area where work is ongoing
[16:25] <roadmr> smagoun: not at the moment
[16:26] <brendand_> utah doesn't support manual tests does it?
[16:26] <nuclearbob> brendand_ that's correct
[16:27] <smagoun> I/my team want that (convergence in test case format) so that test cases can be shared across checkbox/plainbox/utah
[16:27] <cwayne> that was weird
[16:27] <nuclearbob> smagoun: I think that would be useful for a lot of teams
[16:27] <brendand_> smagoun - checkbox and plainbox are synonymous here
[16:27] <cwayne> sfeole: what did i miss?
[16:30] <smagoun> +1 for separation of the test runner and the test cases
[16:31] <nuclearbob> +1 from me as well
[16:31] <roadmr> smagoun, nuclearbob : that was an obvious improvement, tbh not sure why we didn't do it before :/ hehe
[16:32] <nuclearbob> roadmr: a lot of things seem obvious after they're already done :)
[16:39] <ara_> you guys are just trying to avoid C++ :)
[16:39] <roadmr> ara_: hey, at least it's not Java %)
[16:40] <bkerensa> =)
[16:40] <sfeole> long live CLI :P
[16:41] <brendand_> ara - no not avoiding c++, avoiding horrible uneccesary glue code :)
[16:42] <brendand_> ara - the other option would be to write plainbox in c++. how about it!?
[16:42] <roadmr> can we leverage the new qml goodies? it'd be cool to have a phone-friendly plainbox ui :D
[16:43] <brendand_> roadmr - it would definitely be worth thinking about if we do a full remastering of the ui
[16:44] <brendand_> roadmr - cr3's initial reservation about qml that there is no good widget library is made redundant by the phone SDK
[16:44] <roadmr> brendand_: yep
[16:45] <nuclearbob> I can be on the utah half of the comparison
[16:45] <roadmr> nuclearbob: thanks, signing you up :)
[16:45] <spineau> AFAIK there's no qt5 python bindings available yet
[16:46] <roadmr> plainbox.js FTW?
[16:50] <roadmr> yay, the plainbox components can be leveraged to do stuff like syntax checking, fetching lists of available jobs, quick-running a single job to test it, etc ;)
[16:52] <cwayne> i just liked being able to see the tree of test cases and be able to quickly add one roadmr :)
[16:52] <roadmr> cwayne: plainbox provides a good set of foundations to make that happen
[16:53] <cwayne> roadmr: ++
[16:53] <zyga-uds> https://plainbox.readthedocs.org/en/latest/dev/index.html
[16:53] <brendand_> cwayne - try and write down what checkbox editor does that you really use
[16:53] <cwayne> brendand_: yep, already started :)
[16:53] <brendand_> cwayne - we'll want to ask about it later on
[16:55] <roadmr> ok, where to now?
[16:55] <zyga-uds> smagoun: checkbox and plainbox use the same test case definition format
[16:55] <slangasek> zyga-uds: and broadcast ended :)
[16:56] <roadmr> slangasek: thanks for manning the a/v controls :D
[16:56] <slangasek> sure thing
[16:56] <zyga-uds> smagoun: we are talking about about a new format for 'plainbox' that has minimal changes and is totally backwards compatible (can be migrated automatically) that addresses some issues with checkbox jobs
[16:56] <zyga-uds> smagoun: if you want to know more about that have a look at http://jobbox.readthedocs.org/en/latest/jobspec.html#jobbox-job-definition
[16:57] <zyga-uds> smagoun: it's just a proposal that we're discussing and there's no support for that, in the end checkbox will keep supporting checkbox jobs, even with plainbox core, so nobody has to worry about it
[17:02] <smagoun> zyga-uds: thanks for the link. My concerns are 1) leveraging existing checkbox test cases 2) machine-readable test cases that they can be analyzed/transformed (I believe we have this already) and 3) expanding the pool of test cases available to a test runner like checkbox/utah
[18:22] <plars> is this one happening?
[18:22] <plars> ah, I see it just fell off the schedule
[18:48] <slangasek> hmm, why don't we have channel topics
[18:52] <lool> cjohnston: can you give powers to slangasek to set channel topic?  e.g. op him
[18:52] <lool> looks like udsbot isn't here
[18:52] <lool> cjohnston: Might just be missing udsbotu
[18:52] <cjohnston> lool: appears so
[18:53] <lool> cjohnston: is it in your powers to fix udsbotu or would you know who to ping?
[18:53] <cjohnston> im trying to ping
[18:59] <cjohnston> lool: its here
[18:59] <lool> cjohnston: thanks, you rock
[19:00] <lool> slangasek: topic(s) fixed
[19:00] <slangasek> lool: cheers
[19:00] <slangasek> ogasawara: hangout url is up
[19:03] <slangasek> although firefox is trying to kill my machine with swap
[19:03] <xnox> "This live event will begin in a few moments"
[19:03] <ogasawara> slangasek: you're a bit jittery on this end
[19:03] <slangasek> yep
[19:03] <apw> must ... fit ... entire ... google ... search ... db ... into slangasek swap
[19:04] <smagoun> xnox: +1, waiting on youtube too
[19:04] <cjwatson> solution: more swap
[19:04] <ara> waiting as well
[19:04] <slangasek> cjwatson: hehno
[19:04]  * xnox pondered to put thunderbird into a cgroup such that it can learn to cope with having limitted RAM
[19:04] <smagoun> slangasek: you could put your swap partition/file into a tmpfs. Should be much faster!
[19:04] <arges> and its live!
[19:04] <mlankhorst> where's the hangout?
[19:04] <smb> here
[19:04] <slangasek> cjwatson: you do know that firefox scales its cache according to how much system memory it sees?
[19:04] <smb> refresh
[19:05] <xnox> and we are live!
[19:05] <arges> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ph0V8i3sB5o&newstate=f79cf6d226e46a7e27e2874a67c67c88
[19:05] <xnox> slangasek: leanne is not here.
[19:05] <slangasek> xnox: where?
[19:05]  * mlankhorst should probably be pulled into speakers
[19:05] <xnox> slangasek: never mind, tab complete fail.
[19:05] <slangasek> mlankhorst: you are marked for it, do you not see the link for the google hangout?
[19:05] <xnox> ogasawara: heya =)
[19:05] <cjwatson> slangasek: where the scaling factor is 100%?
[19:05] <slangasek> cjwatson: roughly ;)
[19:06] <cjwatson> I'm not seeing the hangout link either; dunno if I'm supposed to
[19:06] <cjwatson> where would it be?
[19:06] <apw> cjwatson, more refreshing
[19:06] <smb> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ph0V8i3sB5o
[19:06] <apw> ogasawara, we seem to be missing 'two people' on the right
[19:06] <cjwatson> I mean hangout not youtube :)
[19:06] <cjwatson> ah, got it from Steve now
[19:07] <tjaalton> mlankhorst: so you get to install it anyway ;)
[19:07] <slangasek> yeah, I don't know where the link shows up on the page
[19:07] <xnox> People on hangout please add your subtitles =) "third from the bottom in the toolbox" or something like that.
[19:08] <apw> ogasawara, i think we should be taking whaever the current linus kernel at the time of the point release, if there are monthly 'freezes' perhaps from the previous one of those
[19:09] <apw> cjwatson, we were told we would keep people on the one you installed until 14.04, post 14.04 you might be forced forward
[19:10] <slangasek> xnox: "lower third" is the name of the tool, not its position in the menu :)
[19:10] <smagoun> apw: +1 that is my recollection
[19:10] <xnox> slangasek: =) Kylin ;-)
[19:10] <slangasek> xnox: duì
[19:11] <apw> cjwatson, i think we wanted to offer both options, for the period up to 14.04
[19:11] <cjwatson> Right
[19:11] <apw> cjwatson, so either have -quantal installed to stay, and -hwe to roll
[19:13] <pgraner> ogasawara, we felt they were flexible due on the availability of the HWE package
[19:13] <smagoun> ogasawara: Can we put in writing that we're not going to stop the point releases? That seems better than saying we haven't heard they're going to change
[19:13] <pgraner> smagoun, the point releases wouldn't change
[19:14] <pgraner> smagoun, the only thing that was up in the air was the release frequency
[19:14] <CarlRichell> Intel haswell is expected to be released around June. Are haswell chipsets and graphics support expected in 12.04.X?
[19:14] <cjwatson> I'll forward that to Rick; might as well include it in whatever we eventually document regarding rolling etc.
[19:14] <smagoun> pgraner: right, is that written someplace (besides here?). My group's partners would appreciate the confirmation
[19:14] <apw> slangasek, 'whos' upstream releases ?
[19:14] <cjwatson> smagoun: ^-
[19:14] <jmleddy> well except for i915_hsw
[19:15] <smagoun> cjwatson: thanks!
[19:15] <cjwatson> smagoun: Nothing has actually been formally announced yet anyway :)
[19:15] <slangasek> apw: well, I was referring to hardware vendors' support landing upstream
[19:15] <pgraner> smagoun, you won't get ANYTHING WRITTEN until decisions are made, we are still talking at this point
[19:15] <apw> slangasek, right but ... they arn't really all sync'd was my only point
[19:15] <slangasek> apw: primarily wrt the platforms themselves
[19:16] <bryyce> for X package naming, will we use something different than -lts-raring?
[19:16] <tjaalton> CarlRichell: is in 12.04.2 already
[19:16] <xnox> bryyce: -lts-raring.1 ? =)
[19:16] <CarlRichell> tjaalton: thanks!
[19:16] <apw> bryyce, yeah the nameing is an issue, using -quantal and -raring was probabally a mistake anyhow
[19:16] <apw> -12.04.3 ?
[19:16] <bryyce> meh
[19:17] <apw> slangasek, can we not follow the same basic plan, push something into -proposed 3m before the point release
[19:17] <cjwatson> you can upgrade to 12.04.3 without switching to the new stack, so that would be confusing
[19:17] <bryyce> apw: although to be honest I can't think of any better suggestions
[19:17] <apw> cjwatson, fair pint
[19:17] <xnox> No.
[19:18] <mlankhorst> bryyce: I was thinking of adding version, mesa-9.1 and xserver-1.14 or something
[19:18] <xnox> because we were taking a non-lts stack
[19:18] <xnox> Stabilise in precise-proposed?
[19:18] <xnox> too late?
[19:18] <mlankhorst> it should be stable before then
[19:18] <jmleddy> are we going to be basing it off of one of the monthly snapshots?
[19:18]  * apw concurs with xnox ... stabalise for some time in precise-proposed and release later
[19:19] <xnox> mlankhorst: but we can't stabilise in rolling. it should keep on going.
[19:19] <cjwatson> There's the problem that relatively few people use precise-proposed, even compared to the number who use non-LTS releases
[19:19] <cjwatson> So I guess it depends how much you're dependent on organic reports from random users as opposed to organised smoke-testing
[19:19] <mlankhorst> xnox: the thing is that for xorg / mesa we usually do big bumps, rest is stabilization
[19:19] <apw> cjwatson, yes there is that, but at least its not dumped into -updates without any testing that way
[19:19] <jmleddy> what about a 12.04.3 beta?
[19:19] <bryyce> at least for the X stack, stabilizing in RR would probably work out fine
[19:20] <apw> cjwatson, and presumably we use the normal plan of doing point release qa against -proposed
[19:20] <mlankhorst> so for mesa/xserver it's more stable by following and just postponing version bumsp until after a point release
[19:20] <xnox> cjwatson: sure, for -lts-raring we did dailies from proposed and call for testing.....
[19:20] <cjwatson> We could do a beta based on image builds from -proposed, I suppose, yes
[19:20] <tjaalton> well, the x stack will be stabilized on the rolling release already, since the upstream six month release cadence sits between our point-release cadence, and we're not aggressively pushing prerelease versions to the archive anyway
[19:20] <cjwatson> Might be necessary given reduced feedback from later series
[19:20] <bryyce> tjaalton: right
[19:20] <xnox> cjwatson: can we land it in -updates, but not flip the switch to upgrade people / not build images?
[19:20] <cjwatson> Easier to build images off -proposed, I think
[19:20] <cjwatson> Once we land it in -updates, at least some people are going to upgrade
[19:20] <apw> ogasawara, i think the unaggreed part there is whether the -next is in archive or in a PPA
[19:21] <apw> ogasawara, yes he is
[19:21] <xnox> slangasek: just type, you are breaking apart.
[19:21] <smagoun> slangasek: you're breakaing up
[19:21] <bryyce> slangasek: type it in irc
[19:21] <xnox> slangasek: reconnect, please.
[19:21] <tjaalton> the problem graphics-wise is more in the kernel drm drivers, so for our point of view, the newer the better (most of the time :)
[19:21] <bryyce> tjaalton: yeah
[19:21] <mlankhorst> tjaalton: the second newest the better
[19:21] <cjwatson> (I mean, given that we build images off -proposed for some period of time between point releases anyway)
[19:21] <mlankhorst> newest always has fallout
[19:21]  * xnox welcomes slangasek to swap death =)
[19:21] <tjaalton> mlankhorst: maybe, depends. also if someone else is using a release as a stable release..
[19:22] <tjaalton> *kernel release
[19:22] <mlankhorst> indeed
[19:22]  * mlankhorst always finds 1 or 2 bugs in pre-release kernels
[19:22] <geofft> Tangentially, how (if at all) does the rolling linux-next proposal interact with e.g. xorg-edgers?
[19:22] <jmleddy> I think we should use 3.9
[19:22] <apw> bjf, we should consider taking whatever will give us a couple of months of stabilisation
[19:22] <jmleddy> for the new Haswell support
[19:22] <apw> (if we arn't releasing 13.04)
[19:24] <apw> cjwatson, i think the normal plan was to try and ride 'all' of upstream stable for the kernel before relasing it into the point release
[19:24] <kamal> slangasek: session video is locked on ogasawara -- can you fix that?
[19:24] <arges> oh noes
[19:24] <xnox> hangout crashed
[19:24] <smb> kamal, jinx
[19:24] <smagoun> doh, lost the hangout entirely on youtube
[19:24] <smb> now it is gone completly
[19:25] <pgraner> hangout died
[19:25] <jsalisbury> hangout gone
[19:25] <bryyce> geofft: edgers will just follow upstream.  I haven't reviewed the linux-next proposal but if it's following upstream as well I'd think they'd be compatible.
[19:25] <jmleddy> what happened?
[19:25] <cjwatson> apw: I guess I'm mostly trying to establish dates
[19:25] <ppisati> ???
[19:25] <jmleddy> google--
[19:25] <xnox> I think slangasek hit the reset button, taking the hangout down.
[19:25] <apw> ahh
[19:25] <cjwatson> Some of us are still on G+
[19:25] <xnox> as he was "hosting" the show.
[19:25] <bryyce> ah
[19:25] <geofft> bryyce: Right, so does "compatible" mean "they'll just turn into the same thing"?
[19:25] <xnox> cjwatson: but it's not transmitted to the "public"
[19:26]  * xnox We'll be right back.
[19:26] <xnox> slangasek: it should take 8second to boot into desktop right?! =)
[19:26]  * smb is glad there is no elevator music
[19:26] <tjaalton> from a backporting point of view (and getting fixes from upstream), stabilizing on the kernel that is released ~2mo before the point release would be the best
[19:26] <cjwatson> I am greatly enjoying the irony of my G+ video actually working better than >0 other people's
[19:26] <cjwatson> OK, so what's the schedule for 3.9, ish?
[19:26] <utlemming> the hangout seems to have died. There is "We'll be right back" message
[19:27]  * mlankhorst has been trying very hard not to close his laptop
[19:27] <utlemming> at least the Youtube broadcast is dead
[19:27] <bjf> the merge window just closed
[19:27] <apw> cjwatson, we just hit 3.9-rc1, so 7-8 weeks
[19:27] <cjwatson> mkay
[19:27] <bryyce> geofft: the X stack and kernel are not tightly coupled, you can mix and match to a large degree.
[19:27] <cjwatson> so that's early May
[19:27] <diwic> tjaalton, for audio, I tend to agree
[19:27] <apw> bjf, when was .3 ?
[19:27] <tjaalton> because then when we're stabilizing the stack, upstream is still working on the next kernel and can't use the excuse of "upgrade your kernel" :)
[19:28] <tjaalton> also, less things have changed
[19:28] <bjf> apw, aug. 15
[19:28] <diwic> tjaalton, three months is a bit much, maybe 1 - 2 months would be better
[19:28] <diwic> the 3.9 kernel is going to be fun for audio though
[19:28] <apw> bjf, so we would expect 3.10 to drop before the point release, but not by much
[19:28] <xnox> can we start a new hangout while slangasek reconnects?
[19:28] <diwic> but that's another story
[19:28] <apw> xnox, i think he is the one who knows how the stream clicks work
[19:29] <xnox> apw: =) special training I take it.
[19:29] <geofft> bryyce: Yup. But xorg-edgers does ship an upstream-ish kernel, and also I thought HWE has as much to do with X etc. despite people just talking about the kernel for convenience
[19:29] <apw> xnox, very special, with pints of beer no doubt
[19:29] <xnox> apw: a fly-in physical sprint at google campus? =)))))
[19:29] <tjaalton> diwic: yeah, hard to find a balance.. it does take some time to shake out the worst bugs
[19:29] <apw> geofft, there are two components, for some things the kernel is enough, obviously for graphics you need both
[19:29] <xnox> delay point release, if not stable as a contingency?!
[19:30] <apw> geofft, so nominally you can have half of it if the half you want is hte kernel
[19:30] <cjwatson> engaged in SMS conversation with Steve
[19:30]  * apw would hope the lack of a 13.04 would allow us to take a view on 3.9 against 3.10 for the point release based on the h/w it supported and apparent stability
[19:30] <diwic> "The live recording you're trying to play is still being processed and will be available soon."
[19:31] <xnox> diwic: yeah, it went into archiving mode.
[19:31] <apw> but that would necessitate what ogasawara alluded to, keeping the 'next' kernel separate till we were sure we were happy with it, either in PPA or as linux-unstable
[19:31] <xnox> such that a new session / url will need to be started.
[19:31] <cjwatson> diwic: Steve's laptop has gone into swap death and apparently the stream is inextricably linked to that, so he'll need to reboot to fix it
[19:31] <smb> Happened before. Someone has to post the link to part
[19:31] <smb> 2
[19:31] <cjwatson> Software is great
[19:31]  * cjwatson goes to take up sheep-farming
[19:32] <mlankhorst> cjwatson: well this uds is making me want to do that!
[19:32] <gQuigs> maybe WebRT will be ready by the next UDS
[19:32] <kamal> video is back up
[19:32] <xnox> cjwatson: well the skills are transferable, no why not?
[19:32] <jmleddy> is there a youtube link where they are broadcasting ?
[19:32] <kamal> oh, no my mistake
[19:33] <cjwatson> jmleddy: I think you probably won't get one until Steve gets sorted
[19:33] <xnox> live is not up, just the recording of the first 25minuts.
[19:33] <xnox> jmleddy: hangout is down at the moment.
[19:33] <jmleddy> okay
[19:33] <jmleddy> so it isn't like the hangout is going on without us
[19:34] <diwic> the question is; if we package both linux-rc and linux-stable how many will follow/test each one
[19:34] <apw> right they anr't talking at all,
[19:34] <jmleddy> cool
[19:34] <xnox> diwic: one will find out from errors.ubuntu.com and submitted bug reports.
[19:34] <apw> diwic, well right now we test the -rc's early on out of the archive anyhow, so we might be doing so a little longer in this scenario
[19:34] <xnox> diwic: at least thre relative split and stability comparison.
[19:35] <jmleddy> we can also get testing help from partners if there are new enablement pieces
[19:35] <diwic> what about QA/cert work for testing the kernels today?
[19:35] <apw> diwic, i would almost prefer a PPA for -unstable (and not calling it that) because that way you can use that PPA as a depandant PPA for testing dkms package such as tseliot worried about
[19:35] <apw> diwic, the QA testing i have seen can cope with the use of overlay package at least i think
[19:36] <ara_> apw, is the youtube stream back up? what's the url?
[19:36] <apw> not that i have heard
[19:36] <ara_> ok
[19:36] <diwic> apw, right, but I mean, they currently test non-lts releases somehow, over different hardware? Will that testing just disappear, or being transferred to do before a point release?
[19:37] <apw> diwic, it would seem logical they would continue to test 'development' and the point releases as they do now
[19:37] <pgraner> diwic, that won't change
[19:37] <pgraner> diwic, we will test as usual
[19:37] <ara_> slangasek, have you restarted the streaming? in the page we only get the recorded video for the first 25 minutes
[19:37] <diwic> pgraner, could you refresh my memory about what testing is being done today?
[19:37] <slangasek> I've just launched a new hangout
[19:38] <slangasek> cjwatson, ogasawara, apw, bjf, mlankhorst : if you refresh you should have the new link now
[19:39] <plars> we currently test the new development kernels, as well as the kernel updates to supported releases (ex. 3.2 kernel updates on 12.04.1, 3.5 kernels on 12.04.2, raring kernels...)
[19:39] <kamal> slangasek: thanks -- up now:  http://summit.ubuntu.com/uds-1303/meeting/21598/foundations-1303-hwe-stack/
[19:39] <cjwatson> slangasek: refresh what, summit?
[19:39] <kamal> it is working
[19:39] <smb> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=pXTfcl4kee4
[19:39] <slangasek> cjwatson: yes
[19:39] <cjwatson> summit doesn't give me a hangout link
[19:39] <slangasek> hmm
[19:39] <jmleddy> it is working for me
[19:39] <cjwatson> (hangout != youtube)
[19:39] <diwic> plars, how wide is that testing?
[19:40] <plars> diwic: "wide"?
[19:40] <diwic> plars, like, 5 or 50 different machines?
[19:40] <pgraner> diwic, it does not include audio if thats what your getting at
[19:40] <smb> cjwatson, that was more for apw
[19:40] <slangasek> cjwatson: sorry... I haven't seen the link in summit myself, but I've been assured it's somewhere
[19:41] <xnox> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXTfcl4kee4&feature=plcp for public viewing =)
[19:41] <plars> diwic: if your asking whether we test on every piece of possible hardware, clearly the answer is no. At the least though, we do test on both amd/intel, ati/nvidia, etc
[19:41] <plars> diwic: ...and kvm/xen as well
[19:41] <ppisati> dead again
[19:41] <jjohansen> ppisati: not for me
[19:41] <xnox> ppisati: not here. are you using the new url or the archive url?
[19:42] <ppisati> refresh did it
[19:42] <xnox> ppisati: that will not help, you want new url. If you are part of hangout
[19:42] <xnox> check summit for new hangout invite.
[19:42] <ppisati> xnox: no, i'm not part
[19:42] <xnox> ppisati: for public viewing see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXTfcl4kee4&feature=plcp
[19:43] <diwic> plars, so just a few machines and not a complete hardware go-through (since it doesn't include audio), correct?
[19:44] <xnox> slangasek: what about steam and games? mir will work for them?
[19:44] <plars> diwic: that's just for the bits that I touch, cert may have some additional hw they test on as well, ara_?
[19:45] <bryyce> wish I could chime in on the hangout
[19:45] <ara_> diwic, so for certification we test point release with a range of hardware, depending on enablement
[19:46] <jmleddy> it would be nice to know that nvidia and fglrx is still working in tip
[19:46] <bryyce> slangasek: there's a lot of factors we account for when deciding about updating the xserver stack
[19:47] <bryyce> slangasek: certainly we'll take into account if we don't need anything from a newer X and are focusing on mir
[19:47] <bryyce> no, X and mesa can usually be updated independently (and we often do)
[19:47] <xnox> slangasek: can you add bryyce to the hangout?
[19:47] <tjaalton> X and mesa releases tend to have the same cadence
[19:48] <mlankhorst> bryyce: yeah but they usuall get released around the same time, so we usually ship both together :)
[19:48] <bryyce> tjaalton: yeah but not due to tight coupling, just that the maintainers often are on the same schedule
[19:48] <tjaalton> bryyce: right
[19:48] <xnox> apw: why can't one build dkms modules against linux-next and linux-general?
[19:48] <xnox> in-archive?
[19:48] <apw> xnox, you could but you are changing the pacacking potentially
[19:49] <xnox> apw: true. point taken.
[19:49] <xnox> (well dkms config file....)
[19:50] <ara_> certification will also be more difficult, we would basically need to recertify everything in every point release
[19:50] <arges> could we just have two?  a base LTS version 3.2 and then the rolling version?
[19:50] <ara_> but we could probably do a recertification in a subset of systems covering a set of components
[19:51] <xnox> cjwatson: well not the .1 (that didn't have hwe?!)
[19:51] <jjohansen> ogasawara: we reduce support burden in that its only a select set of packages for HWE, of course nothing for kernel
[19:52] <jjohansen> yeah that is how I remember it as well
[19:52] <cjwatson> xnox: I couldn't remember :)
[19:52] <diwic> If we support things for 6 months only, that's not an unusual time for pre-load machines to be in the store...
[19:53] <xnox> cjwatson: me neither to be honest, all I recall is d-i and lvm....
[19:53] <cjwatson> diwic: Right, I don't think we can withdraw support without having automatic upgrade to something that is supported
[19:53] <xnox> who is typing so loud?
[19:53] <mlankhorst> cjwatson
[19:53] <cjwatson> Oh, sorry, might've been me
[19:53] <cjwatson> Keep forgetting to mute
[19:54] <bryyce> work items?
[19:54] <arges> ogasawara: am i missing something. are we keeping for example the precise 3.2.x kernel as a supported kernel
[19:55] <mlankhorst> probably
[19:55] <bjf> arges, the support for precise is not changing
[19:55] <xnox> we could stay longer as this is the last session for the day.
[19:55] <superm1> slangasek: yes i agree with that.
[19:56] <tjaalton> fewer point-releases would mean trouble hwe-wise
[19:56] <ara_> .4 is the last one
[19:56] <arges> bjf: ok ok
[19:56] <jmleddy> 12.04.2 came out in feb, and 13.04 would have been 2 months later
[19:56] <jmleddy> so it's just the same thing one year later
[19:56] <slangasek> xnox: bryyce should be on the invite already, dunno why he's not in here. :)
[19:57] <jmleddy> that's probably a bad idea
[19:57] <jmleddy>  based on the hardware schedules
[19:57] <CarlRichell> that's the case for system76 as well
[19:57] <xnox> slangasek: ogasawara: should the .3 moved then?! and hence less work then.
[19:57] <diwic> from time to time I add dkms packages to the pre-load image to enable audio. It might be difficult for me to get things into the next point-release's distro kernel, not rolling forward would give me 12 - 18 months instead of 0 - 6 months
[19:57] <xnox> nice.
[19:58] <cjwatson> Well, .3 isn't *just* for hwe :)  We could skip hwe in it without skipping the whole pr
[19:58] <cjwatson> (General roll-up of updates and such)
[19:58] <tjaalton> so, are we talking about point-releases as always having a backport stack?
[19:59] <cjwatson> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PrecisePangolin/ReleaseNotes/ChangeSummary/12.04.2 - all changes from .1 to .2
[19:59] <diwic> jmleddy, do we have haswell in .2?
[19:59] <jmleddy> diwic: not ULT
[19:59] <cjwatson> Well, roughly all, depending on the vagaries of my half-arsed script
[19:59] <diwic> jmleddy, ULT = ?
[19:59] <tjaalton> maybe have .3 but just with an improved .2 stack
[19:59] <xnox> and maintain for updates and security.
[19:59] <CarlRichell> exception being if optimus support could make .3 release
[19:59] <jmleddy> diwic: I was going to ask you about that actually, the ULT has a new audio chipset
[19:59] <mlankhorst> CarlRichell: not going to happen
[19:59] <CarlRichell> one can wish, right?
[19:59] <jmleddy> diwic: ULT is a new chip
[20:00] <danjared> skipping 12.04.3 definitely needs to be reviewed from the server perspective
[20:00] <jmleddy> the big thing is a new audio DSP
[20:00] <jmleddy> that just went to the linux mailing lists
[20:00] <danjared> we (Dell) can talk with Canonical about this, though
[20:00] <narindergupta> most of OEM supports only LTS and point releases only.
[20:01] <jmleddy> client OEMs are not going to use .3
[20:01] <cjwatson> narindergupta: In case the audio wasn't clear, I was talking about LTS - asking about whether the delay in .2 was troublesome for anyone
[20:01] <cjwatson> danjared: Can you elaborate?
[20:02] <cjwatson> I know there are bugs outside hardware enablement that need to be addressed
[20:02] <slangasek> xnox: "what about steam and games? mir will work for them?" - in theory, running GL games on top of mir will work much better than running them on top of current unity :)
[20:02] <xnox> slangasek: ok. sounds like a good enough promise to me.
[20:02] <narindergupta> cjwatson: As more new servers are on the way and OEM expect to have those enabled in 12.04.3 with NIC options and storage controllers
[20:02] <cjwatson> Gotcha
[20:03] <rtg> danjared, that was my point about possibly needing a HWE kerenl in the point release, e.g., to support new boot essential devices.
[20:03] <superm1> i should clarify, when speaking for dell on i'm speaking from the client perspective, danjared has a server perspective, so he might have some different views on need for HWE in the point release
[20:03] <danjared> right, what superm1 said
[20:03] <narindergupta> i am talking about server prospective
[20:05] <danjared> cjwatson: -> private
[20:08] <xnox> cjwatson: slangasek  could be backport the unity-quantal for .3
[20:08] <xnox> s/be/we
[20:17] <slangasek> xnox: hmm, that'd be a tricky proposition... I'm open to us discussing, but it clearly doesn't fit our existing SRU process
[20:28] <cjwatson> It doesn't, indeed.  The net outcome might be better for 12.04 users though
[20:28] <cjwatson> (System76 brought up how much better 13.04's unity was in the rolling release session earlier)