[16:01] <mdeslaur> \o
[16:01] <pitti> kees, mdeslaur, slangasek: infinity sent his apologies; waiting for stgraber (he's supposed to chair today)
[16:01] <pitti> not that we'd have much of an agenda, except the dragged MAAS MRE
[16:02] <mdeslaur> yep
[16:02] <kees> cool
[16:05]  * stgraber waves
[16:06] <kees> hola
[16:06] <mdeslaur> hi stgraber
[16:06] <pitti> ça va stgraber
[16:06] <mdeslaur> stgraber: and here we thought you were trying to skip out on your chairing duties :)
[16:06] <stgraber> nah, just came back from the shop :)
[16:07] <stgraber> #startmeeting Technical Board meeting
[16:07] <meetingology> Meeting started Tue Sep 30 16:07:08 2014 UTC.  The chair is stgraber. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology.
[16:07] <meetingology> Available commands: action commands idea info link nick
[16:07] <stgraber> #topic Action review
[16:07] <stgraber> infinity to review and respond to MAAS SRU thread
[16:07] <stgraber> well, infinity isn't around so I guess we'll just carry that one over
[16:08] <stgraber> #topic Scan the mailing list archive for anything we missed (standing item)
[16:08] <pitti> mdeslaur got a response to the MAAS thread
[16:08] <pitti> or two in fact
[16:08] <mdeslaur> do we really need to wait for infinity on that one?
[16:08] <pitti> but at this point I feel like we don't get any more useful answers
[16:09] <pitti> I still don't have the feeling that I know how they ensure backwards compatibility, but I could just be overly paranoid
[16:10] <pitti> mdeslaur: "legally" we don't, a single +1 is enough for an MRE, but some consensus is certainly prudent
[16:10] <mdeslaur> they claim the API with the nodes will be stable, but don't mention how they plan on making sure of that
[16:10] <mdeslaur> actually, I think I'll ask that as a follow up question
[16:11] <stgraber> ok, so back to the ML for that one
[16:11] <stgraber> that's the only thing I see in the ML history for September so I guess we didn't miss anything :)
[16:11] <stgraber> #topic Check up on community bugs (standing item)
[16:11] <stgraber> still nothing
[16:11] <stgraber> #topic Select a chair for the next meeting (next from https://launchpad.net/~techboard/+members)
[16:12] <stgraber> that'd be infinity
[16:12] <stgraber> #topic AOB
[16:12] <stgraber> anything anyone?
[16:12] <kees> nothing from me.
[16:12] <pitti> nothing from me either
[16:13] <mdeslaur> nope
[16:14] <ScottK> Re MAAS, they are currently pushing for invasive changes in psycopg.
[16:14] <ScottK> It makes me wonder how they expect to support trusty.
[16:15] <pitti> well, if they only make that to trunk, not to the stable branches, that'd be ok?
[16:15] <mdeslaur> ScottK: oh? do you know what changes those are, or where they've been discussed?
[16:15] <pitti> I'm not sure whether we are still talking about microreleases only, or new major releases; but I expect the latter (yay terminology)
[16:15] <ScottK> Looking for the bug.
[16:16] <pitti> indeed, sorry, it explicitly said "new releases"
[16:16]  * pitti confused, sorry
[16:16] <pitti> anyway, there's precedent; newer python modules could be bundled into the new release
[16:16] <pitti> (which is fairly simple with python)
[16:17] <ScottK> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/psycopg2/+bug/1366104
[16:17] <mdeslaur> thanks ScottK
[16:18] <mdeslaur> hrm, interesting
[16:19] <stgraber> pitti: though psycopg2 contains a C extension module, so still possible but not nearly as clean :)
[16:19] <mdeslaur> but it uses a libpq 9.3 only api
[16:20] <pitti> I'm not sure how much pressure there is to also put new maas releases to 12.04
[16:20] <pitti> the effort/gain ratio seems too big for me (but that's just gut feeling)
[16:20] <ScottK> Which is why it's a much more invasive change than the sloc count indicates.
[16:21] <ScottK> I'm assuming they decided not to care about 12.04 anymore.
[16:22] <mdeslaur> their request to the tech board was for "latest LTSes"
[16:22] <ScottK> Upstream pretty much said "you're on your own" re backport the change.
[16:23] <ScottK> Then at least the libpq is there.
[16:23] <pitti> latest LTS seems reasonable
[16:23] <ScottK> Agreed.
[16:23] <mdeslaur> if you want changes in other packages, that's up to the SRU to decide whether they are acceptable or not
[16:23] <mdeslaur> s/you/they/
[16:23] <pitti> yeah, fixes are certainly okay
[16:23] <ScottK> In this case I'll say not.
[16:24] <mdeslaur> if they can't get the fixes they require, then it's up to them to work around them
[16:24] <pitti> like, fixing psycopg to get along with large files smells like a bug fix worth having in an LTS
[16:24] <ScottK> The psycopg2 change is way more than a fix.
[16:24] <pitti> I didn't look into it in detail, just the description and some comments
[16:25] <pitti> but https://github.com/psycopg/psycopg2/pull/259/files looks reasonable at first sight
[16:25] <ScottK> I'd say changing the libpq API you're using post-release is crazy.
[16:25] <pitti> (not sure if that's an ABI break due to teh changed types)
[16:25] <mdeslaur> well, the code is condition and checks the version
[16:25] <mdeslaur> conditional
[16:26] <ScottK> Who knows what latent bugs exist in the new api.
[16:26] <pitti> anyway, putting that detail aside, if changes to other packages are not applicable as an SRU, there's always the bundling option, or working around it in another way
[16:26] <mdeslaur> right
[16:26] <ScottK> We'd get the new api on 14.04 since we'd build against 9.3.
[16:27] <pitti> right, and 14.04 is all we talk about, isn't it?
[16:27] <ScottK> Yes.
[16:27] <ScottK> Which is why backporting that patch concerns me.
[16:28] <ScottK> 'Works with MAAS' doesn't really help.
[16:28] <ScottK> It's everyone else I worry about.
[16:29] <pitti> yes, that's what I mean -- if that change is too intrusive for an SRU, there's other ways to get this for maas
[16:29] <pitti> (I didn't claim that the psycopg fix was fine for an SRU, just that it looks reasonable at first sight)
[16:29] <mdeslaur> if the change gets NACKed by the SRU team, it's up to them to work around it somehow
[16:29] <ScottK> So it'd be nice to consider the possibility they have to bundle stuff in any MRE approval.
[16:30] <pitti> yes, I think for some bits that's quite unavoidable
[16:30] <ScottK> To bring us back to the topic.
[16:30] <pitti> e. g. if there's a new dependency which is in trusty universe we don't want to promote it post-release
[16:30] <pitti> (or binNEW it, etc.)
[16:31] <pitti> at least then both the effort and the impact of bundled stuff is restricted to maas itself and its devs
[16:31] <ScottK> (or add a patch that's not SRU suitable)
[16:31] <pitti> and the latter will make sure that it doesn't happen too often
[16:31] <ScottK> Yes.
[16:31] <pitti> ScottK: yeah, obviously
[16:33] <pitti> so, are we done for today then?
[16:33]  * pitti smells dinner, yummy :)
[16:33]  * kees waves
[16:34] <mdeslaur> I think we are
[16:34]  * pitti waves good bye then, see you!
[16:34] <pitti> stgraber: *nudge*
[16:34]  * ScottK waves. 
[16:34] <mdeslaur> thanks!
[16:40] <stgraber> oops :)
[16:40] <stgraber> #endmeeting
[16:40] <meetingology> Meeting ended Tue Sep 30 16:40:28 2014 UTC.
[16:40] <meetingology> Minutes:        http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting-2/2014/ubuntu-meeting-2.2014-09-30-16.07.moin.txt