* stgraber waves17:01
* mdeslaur waves to Schrödinger's tech board17:01
pittithere's some interesting discussion on u-devel@ about archive reorg episode VII17:03
pittiotherwise I don't see much of an agenda17:03
mdeslaurI like the proposal17:04
pittiTBH it sounds to me like trading in some short-term convenience for piling even more on top of our ever-growing tech debt long-term17:05
pitti"I can't build ubuntu touch because of that half-done Haskell transition"17:05
pittiand the like17:05
pittibut oh well, if people want that pain, so be it17:06
mdeslaurpitti: hrm, I don't quite understand that example17:07
pittibut the thing that'll be an absolute disaster is to enable universe for image builds and (try to) disable it again at release17:07
pittithis will sooo not work17:07
mdeslaurpitti: oh, that part will never work, yeah17:07
pittimdeslaur: well, half of the time the Haskell stack or other bits are uninstallable because of half-done transitions17:07
pittimdeslaur: if we now start build-depending on that for a lot of crucial packages, we'll suddenly find ourselves in a position where we have to fix the entire <censored> Haskell transition (which happen like every month) before -proposed becomes installable again17:08
pittimdeslaur: just look at http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/component-mismatches.svg17:08
pittiand imagine -- one uninstallable package in that mess will ruin your day17:08
pittiright now it ruins some universe packages, but *shrug*, they'll just stay in -proposed until someone cares, or get kicked out17:09
mdeslaurah, I see what you mean...we now have to care about all the universe packages17:09
pittibecause all of a sudden there is no boundary to what we call "supported" officially17:09
mdeslaurwhich kind of defeats the purpose of trying to care less17:10
pittithat's the kind of long-term trade-off that I mean17:10
pittiit might *seem* easier, but in half a year we might find it's a complete loss17:10
pittiI believe that the MIR process *has* to be painful and long17:10
pittiwe already have way too much crap in main  which people never get rid of17:10
pittithus blowing up our images, security support, etc.17:10
mdeslauryeah, I now see the issue17:11
pittii. e. if you want to pull in a new toolchain to build your package, I think the onus should be on *you* to reconsider if you don't rather use the ubuntu "standard" technology/API17:11
pittiinstead of "someone in the release team will figure it out two days before release"17:11
pittiso that kind of barrier is not a bug IMHO, it's a feature17:11
pittiand if anything they aren't high enough :)17:12
pitti</rant>, sorry17:12
pittididn't mean to turn this meeting into a soapbox17:12
mdeslaurno, I think that makes sense, and it's something I had not thought about17:12
mdeslaurtrying to get rid of a 5-year support commitment by opening up universe then makes universe something we have to support at least until release17:12
pittiwell, if we don't want to support universe, we'd have to use less of it, not more..17:13
pittianway, no quorum, no official board, I suppose we skip the official meeting?17:15
mdeslaurso what we really need to something between main and universe, a buildmain or something17:15
mdeslauryeah, I think we can skip17:15
pittiright, I proposed a main-build-deps component in the middle17:15
mdeslaurkees: did you have anything?17:15
pittibut that was rejected17:15
pittistgraber: anything from your side?17:18
pitti(sorry, we actually do have quorum!)17:18
stgraberI did read the proposal back when it was still a WIP, haven't had time to follow much of the discussion since though17:20
pittiI'll follow up on the ML again wrt. the main-build-deps component17:21
keesmdeslaur: nothing from me17:21
stgrabertbh, for a while now the biggest pain with main promotions has been the multi-month delay for security reviews17:22
stgraberto the point where we've had to promote things basically on release week because it took so long to review, that resulted in a bunch of breakage in wily which we've had to deal with through SRUs17:22
pittibut that's not going to go away for things where a security review is actually relevant and requested17:22
stgraberthat's also not something I'd expect to change with that bit of archive reorg17:22
pittimulti-month is certainly the issue which needs to be addressed17:23
pittitwo weeks or so would be fine, but of course if there's too much demand for new stuff that should increase the pressure to maybe take a step back and ask "do I really need that" :)17:23
stgraberwe could workaround the issue by having the security review be non-blocking. That is the MIR team requests the review by filing a separate critical bug on the package, but let the promotion go ahead regardless.17:24
pittithat sounds workable17:28
pittiif the MIR gets a new point "contingency plan if security review outcome is negative"17:28
pittii. e. how the feature can be pulled without disrupting half of ubuntu17:28
pittiI just followed up to the ML wrt. the intermediate component17:29
pittistgraber: want to follow up about the "speed up MIR reviews" proposal?17:29
stgraberoverly busy right now but I may look into that next time I'm stuck on security review and get frustrated :)17:30
pittiok, I think we're done here?17:36
* pitti waves good night17:37
stgrabersounds like it17:37
mdeslaurthanks everyone17:38

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!