[15:59] For the doc tream meeting, please go to #ubuntu-doc. [16:00] \o [16:00] o/ [16:00] o/ [16:01] * slangasek waves [16:01] o/ [16:01] infinity: so, your turn today? [16:01] Yep. [16:01] Just waiting for more hands to go up. :P [16:02] i. e. stgraber's? [16:02] We'll live without him, I guess. [16:02] #startmeeting [16:02] Meeting started Tue Sep 1 16:02:50 2015 UTC. The chair is infinity. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology. [16:02] Available commands: action commands idea info link nick [16:03] [TOPIC] Action review [16:03] slangasek: Looks like you had two. [16:03] ACTION: slangasek to forward complaint to Canonical legal [16:03] ACTION: slangasek to document maas, juju, docker exceptions on https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates#Special_Cases [16:04] infinity: both carried over [16:04] pitti: ACTION: pitti to propose amendment to general SRU policy for new features in LTS [16:05] yay! done [16:05] (after some 4 times bouncing) [16:05] https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2015-September/thread.html [16:05] \o/ [16:05] \o/ [16:05] I also used the opportunity to propose and clean up the SRU policy at large [16:05] the actual "new features" amendment is rather small [16:06] but admittedly I only sent this an hour or so ago, so I don't expect anyone to have read it yet and thought about it [16:06] so maybe replies on the list? [16:06] * stgraber waves [16:06] ça va stgraber ! [16:06] I skimmed it, but haven't thought it through yet [16:06] Right, let's take that to the list, and if we don't get anywhere, discuss it at the next meeting. [16:07] [ACTION] Everyone to review pitti's SRU policy ammendments and +1/-1 on-list. [16:07] ACTION: Everyone to review pitti's SRU policy ammendments and +1/-1 on-list. [16:07] pitti: très bien, merci! Sorry for being a bit late, was changing location. [16:07] pitti: this basically removes the need to get an explicit tech-board ack for SRU microreleases, right? [16:07] hadn't seen the mail until just now [16:08] Do we need to tackle jcastro's driver update stuff in the meeting, or is the healthy list debate working for everyone. [16:08] ? [16:08] mdeslaur: that's the intention -- as we basically always ask the same question etc. [16:08] pitti: ok, was just making sure I parsed it correctly [16:08] so I'd rather generalize the principles, and stop this (IMHO rather unmaintainable) list [16:08] infinity: I think jcastro was ok with the discussion [16:08] Alberto had some followup with some new points (short-lived drivers) [16:09] but I'm still firmly opposed to enabling random PPAs with some driver GUI [16:09] Ditto. [16:09] yup [16:09] I had some rather strong opinions off-list about that. [16:09] yeah, I'd rather see more driver updates in the actual archive [16:10] full agreement [16:10] short-lived test drivers can go to a PPA. Production-ready drivers can go in as SRUs. [16:10] Alright, let's keep this discussion on-list, since there's plenty there already, and it's nice to keep the discussion in the same spot. [16:10] and said PPA would have to be manually added by any user/tester of said driver [16:10] yeah, nothing wrong with having PPAs, just don't use them as SRU bypasses [16:10] yes the plan is for us to iterate in the PPA, and then people can steal that into distro as necessary [16:10] I have no objection to perhaps making the SRU waiting period shorter in the future if we're trying to get day-one drivers for specific games in though [16:11] just in case people missed my email withdrawing the PPA proposal [16:11] mdeslaur: Given past quality of those updates, I object to that until there's a better history. [16:11] I do belive that we have stalled SRU/NEW queues, but enabling PPAs by default doesn't sound like the answer [16:11] mdeslaur: They introduce packaging regressions often. [16:11] pitti: agree 100% [16:11] infinity: yes, I agree. hence the "in the future" [16:11] I didn't get a chance to point this out on the list yet, but one factor in NEW being slow for SRUs is that it's a different queue [16:12] I think for jcastro's use case the packages should be continuous SRUs of a single source package, to avoid this [16:12] yeah, hardly ever looked at [16:12] (technical details etc) [16:12] or at least we need to plant the "look at NEW" idea into ~ubuntu-sru's habits [16:12] I'm training a couple of new AAs to try to help the queue depth issue, but it might help to get formal about driver updates, much like I did for kernel SRUs when they were having issues a few years ago. [16:12] right, that'd also mean getting potentially reviewable diffs instead of the unreviewable monstrosity we get today [16:12] pitti: planting in habits won't change the problem of multiple queues + queue starvation, really [16:13] TBH, the nvidia driver is comparatively hard to source-NEW, as it's such a complex package (both license-wise and packaging-wise) [16:13] anyway, the TB doesn't need to micromanage this part I think, sorry for bringing it up :) [16:13] Heh. [16:13] [TOPIC] Mailing list archives [16:14] nothing new aside from the driver thingies that I can see [16:14] Anything else interesting that we've been missing? [16:14] * pitti pats his mutt filters marking TB email green [16:15] [TOPIC] Community bugs [16:15] Nada. [16:15] [TOPIC] Next chair [16:15] next time: me, then slangasek ? [16:15] The wiki claims pitti, which is oddy out of order if today was me. [16:15] But sure, pitti, then slangasek. [16:16] infinity: was yours a catch-up? [16:16] hm, can't remember the history; we might have swapped due to non-attendance or whatnot [16:16] anyway [16:16] slangasek: Might have been. [16:16] [TOPIC] AOB [16:16] Anybody have any OB? [16:16] nothign from me [16:17] nope [16:17] nope [16:17] no [16:17] Alright, off to edit the wiki. [16:17] #endmeeting [16:17] Meeting ended Tue Sep 1 16:17:23 2015 UTC. [16:17] Minutes: http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting-2/2015/ubuntu-meeting-2.2015-09-01-16.02.moin.txt [16:17] thanks everyone! [16:17] thanks infinity [16:17] thanks folks [16:17] thanks! [16:18] thanks all