[01:49] <cjwatson> s390x builders back up; took a bit longer than expected, but there were no builds to be delayed
[09:15] <flexiondotorg> Laney I need some education please.
[09:16] <flexiondotorg> I uploaded ubuntu-mate-artwork to Yakkety yesterday, I see it here - http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/proposed-migration/update_excuses.html
[09:16] <flexiondotorg> And the build here - https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubuntu-mate-artwork/16.10.0/+build/9765659
[09:16] <flexiondotorg> I don't understand why it is held up :-(
[09:17] <Laney> Click the "16.10.0" link
[09:18] <flexiondotorg> This one? https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubuntu-mate-artwork/16.10.0
[09:18] <Laney> Yep
[09:18] <Laney> Do you see it? :)
[09:19] <Laney> "amd64 (New)"
[09:19] <flexiondotorg> I don't.
[09:19] <Laney> You uploaded new binaries
[09:20] <Laney> https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/yakkety/+queue?queue_state=0&queue_text=ubuntu-mate-artwork
[09:20] <flexiondotorg> Ahh, for the ubuntu-mate-wallpapers-yakkety
[09:20] <flexiondotorg> Right, got it. Thanks.
[09:20] <flexiondotorg> So someone will ack that at some point and it will move along :-)
[09:20] <Laney> That's the idea
[09:20] <flexiondotorg> Thanks.
[11:09] <xnox> Trevinho, ^
[11:10] <Trevinho> xnox: great, thanks
[12:55] <LocutusOfBorg> please accept octave from new
[12:57] <LocutusOfBorg> and remove pepperflashplugin-nonfree[i386] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=824706
[13:10] <sil2100> Hello release team! I will be performing a batch copy of ubuntu-touch packages we have in the xenial-overlay PPA to yakkety
[13:10] <sil2100> We want to enable triple-landings for touch in the CI Train (yakkety+xenial-overlay+vivid-overlay) and this is the point where we want to sync the work we have held back till now
[14:04] <sil2100> Any objections for the mass binary copy from xenial-overlay PPA to yakkety for touch packages?
[15:54] <cjwatson> sil2100: https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/click/+publishinghistory implies that you didn't check whether the packages in the overlay were older than yakkety before copying
[15:54] <cjwatson> (hopefully p-m will just ignore it, but it may cause some cruft)
[15:57] <sil2100> cjwatson: hm, I did check that, a bit differently but I did
[15:57] <sil2100> I mean, this should show up after my check
[15:57] <sil2100> So the thing that I checked was if yakkety had newer versions than xenial primary archive, since I didn't want to overwrite any no-change rebuilds for transitions
[15:58] <sil2100> http://paste.ubuntu.com/16507351/ <- this was my list
[15:58] <sil2100> Didn't see click on it, sorry about that
[15:58] <sil2100> Hope it gets rejected simply in that case
[15:58]  * sil2100 proceeds with source-uploads for those that had no-change rebuilds
[16:03] <cjwatson> sil2100: ah I think the relevant change was actually in xenial too
[16:03] <cjwatson> there was some reason I had to use the overlay there
[16:04] <cjwatson> anyway, EOW, have fun
[16:11] <sil2100> Thanks, and again sorry for that
[16:33] <infinity> jibel: Do we still have automated upgrade testing running somewhere?
[16:37] <jibel> infinity, yes but they all stopped working a week ago
[16:40] <infinity> jibel: Due to upgrade bugs, or infra bugs?
[16:42] <jibel> infinity, Max told me it was a problem with the infra but he hadn't been able to trace it down yet.
[16:43] <infinity> jibel: Mmkay.
[16:46] <infinity> jibel: Would be nice to get that going again Soon(tm), so we can shake out remaining LTS->LTS upgrade bugs before 16.04.1
[16:48] <jibel> infinity, it is on his list of priorities.
[16:56] <jibel> infinity, actually he fixed it this week and lts -> lts tests are running
[17:30] <infinity> jibel: Lovely.  Have a pointer to where I can find results?
[18:28] <bdmurray> slangasek: given that you added the snapd special case, how do you feel about the description in bug 1583085?  I'd feel better if they were more verbose about the QA process.
[18:59] <sinzui> hi bdmurray juju-core is in the wily and trusty upload queues Can you help get the packages into their respective proposed pockets?
[19:00] <estan> hi. anyone feeling up for verifying https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/octave/+bug/1583128 so it can go into xenial-updates? i did some quick testing and it looks good (it's dead simple fix).
[19:00] <estan> *it's a.
[19:00] <nacc> estan: hrm? it's fix committed already?
[19:01] <nacc> and you've done the verification, afaict?
[19:03] <estan> nacc: yes, i verified it shortly after Martin made his comment there about it going into xenial-proposed.
[19:03] <estan> but Fix Commited, does that really mean it has landed in xenial-updates? (sorry, i'm a little new to all things packaging).
[19:03] <nacc> no, that would be "Fix Released"
[19:03] <estan> ah.
[19:04] <nacc> "The SRU team will evaluate the testing feedback and they will move the package into -updates after it has passed a minimum aging period of 7 days."
[19:04] <nacc> from https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates
[19:05] <estan> aha, i see. well then i guess i'm just kindly asking if someone else could test as well :) but maybe someone will just drop by.
[19:06] <estan> (since i'm the reporter, i found at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/QATeam/PerformingSRUVerification#How_to_perform_the_test that if a bug reporter does the verifying, it will be considered verified if at least two positive testimonials in the bug report.)
[19:08] <estan> it's a little wonky to test unfortunately, since you need access to octave 3.x.
[19:09] <nacc> estan: some crazy folks run with -proposed (not me)
[19:09] <estan> or well, that's the easiest way to test, i guess you could look at the HDF5 data in some other viewer to make sure it's correct.
[19:09] <estan> nacc: fair enough :)
[19:09] <nacc> estan: but hopefully someone else affected by the same bug will see it
[19:10] <bdmurray> I wouldn't worry too much about the words "two positive"
[19:10] <estan> i could always ask my collegue tomorrow :)
[19:10] <bdmurray> sinzui: where did 1.25.5-0ubuntu2~15.10.1 go?
[19:11] <nacc> estan: yeah, i don't think that's a hard and fast rule, since you did file the bug, you gave a reasonable test case (i think), you ran w/ and without the fix and can confirm the testcase is fixed, and the fix is fairly trivial
[19:12] <sinzui> bdmurray: this is a backport of https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/juju-core-1 ... the package was renamed in xenial so teh backport appears to come out of nowhere
[19:13] <bdmurray> sinzui: okay, I see the 1.25.0 vs 1.25.5 now
[19:13] <sinzui> bdmurray: bug1556981 explains ti oddness of the backport
[19:13] <sinzui> bug 1556981
[19:14] <bdmurray> sinzui: Right, I was looking at the diff and just didn't notice the change from 0 to 5
[19:16] <sinzui> bdmurray: juju has a sad history of delaying requests for backports because a stakeholder as some issue they want in the *next* release. There is optimism that the next release is just a few days away...not weeks
[19:17] <bdmurray> sinzui: fwiw the MicroReleaseException link is obsolete now
[19:19] <sinzui> :/
[19:19] <estan> nacc: yea. can't really see what could go wrong.
[19:21] <estan> btw, is there something blocking uploading it to wily-proposed now? or must it first be released in xenial?
[19:22] <nacc> estan: i think it can go into wily-proposed once it's in <devel>
[19:22] <nacc> (yakkety currently that is)
[19:22] <estan> ah okay. then it should be good to go now (yakkety already has 4.0.2).
[19:24] <nacc> estan: right, just need a sponsor to do it, i think :)
[19:24] <slangasek> bdmurray: more verbose about the qa process in the wiki page, or on the bug?
[19:24] <slangasek> bdmurray: I don't think the bug description needs to be very detailed, as long as the process it points to is appropriate and is followed
[19:25] <bdmurray> slangasek: on the bug like this juju-core one - bug 1556981
[19:28] <slangasek> bdmurray: ok. I don't feel strongly about this, but if we want there to be particular information included in the SRU bug let's communicate that to them, and ASAP as the snappy team's goal right now given their rapid dev cycle and aggressive deadlines is weekly SRUs with a 2-day publication cycle (i.e. waive the default 7-day waiting period because the testing is all coordinated so no aging is
[19:28] <slangasek> needed/wanted)
[19:29] <estan> arges: will you do the upload of LP: 9773353 to wily as well? (thanks a lot for the help btw).
[19:29] <estan> arges: err, LP: 1583128
[19:30] <arges> estan: I uploaded it yesterday actually. An sru-team member needs to do the review so it gets into proposed.
[19:31] <estan> arges: aha. i see. great.
[19:32] <arges> https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/wily/+queue?queue_state=1&queue_text=octave
[19:32] <flocculant> arges: thanks for the super quick libvirt fix :)
[19:32] <arges> flocculant: glad it fixed it for you!
[19:33] <flocculant> so was I :)