[08:16] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: gnome-shell-extension-appindicator (artful-proposed/main) [17.10.1 => 17.10.2] (no packageset)
[08:43] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed [amd64] (trusty-proposed/main) [3.13.0-135.184] (core, kernel)
[08:45] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed [amd64] (trusty-proposed) [3.13.0-135.184]
[09:14] <oSoMoN> good morning release team
[09:15] <oSoMoN> can gdm3 3.26.1-3ubuntu3 migrate from -proposed to -updates?
[09:15] <oSoMoN> the SRU has been verified and marked as such
[09:17] <apw> oSoMoN, is that safe to release on its own ?
[09:18] <apw> oSoMoN, and as it has not yet hit its SRU minimum age, do we ahve a justification for expediting it
[09:21]  * apw notes that he believe that gdm3 and gnome-session must move together
[11:02] <didrocks> oSoMoN: apw: FYI, I just saw the first report of people upgrading and getting fallback to gnome classic (can impact some users on upgrade, which is what the gdm/gnome-session fixes are for)
[11:08] <oSoMoN> apw, sorry I somehow missed your questions earlier… gdm3 and gnome-session should move together indeed
[11:09] <sil2100> Yeah, I'm about to publish those two now
[11:09] <oSoMoN> apw, and as pointed out by Didier, this SRU addresses an upgrade path, so the sooner the better
[11:09] <oSoMoN> sil2100, excellent, thanks!
[11:10] <sil2100> apw: I'll handle it, I more-or-less approve of the skip-aging exception and I know the context
[11:13] <apw> sil2100, ack thanks
[11:14] <andreas> rbasak: hi,where is your merges report for the server team again? Somewhere in reports.qa.ubuntu.com, but I lost the link
[11:58] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted grub2 [amd64] (xenial-proposed) [2.02~beta2-36ubuntu3.14]
[11:58] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted grub2 [arm64] (xenial-proposed) [2.02~beta2-36ubuntu3.14]
[12:04] <xnox> sil2100, can you release systemd from xenial-proposed into xenial-updates?
[12:04] <sil2100> xnox: I'm in the middle of reviewing the bugs just now
[12:05] <sil2100> ;)
[12:05] <xnox> ah, thanks.
[12:05] <xnox> sil2100, although some bugs affect nplan too, systemd & nplan srus can land independent of each other.
[12:06] <sil2100> Ok, good to know, since I see 2 still unverified for the nplan one
[12:25] <rbasak> andreas: http://reqorts.qa.ubuntu.com/reports/ubuntu-server/merges.html
[12:25] <andreas> yep, thx
[12:28] <sil2100> xnox: could you take a look at the autopkgtests related to systemd on zesty?
[12:28] <sil2100> xnox: I didn't look at them yet but I see there's quite some, wonder if any are related
[12:29] <xnox> sil2100, yes, but not now. it took me a while to resolve all of tests on xenial.
[12:29] <sil2100> ACK
[12:29] <xnox> sil2100, none are related as far as i can tell, but needs hints / overrides / bugs filed. which is what i did for xenial.
[12:30] <xnox> but not yet on zesty.
[13:48] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: apturl (artful-proposed/main) [0.5.2ubuntu12 => 0.5.2ubuntu13] (ubuntu-desktop)
[13:57] <slashd> sil2100, good day, are you guys accepting patch in Artful, even if 'Bb' not totally publicly define yet ?
[14:07] <clivejo> when does the Busty Booby archive open?
[14:09] <jbicha> clivejo: it can't open without a name, and then usually it takes a few days to update the toolchain (compiler, dpkg, etc.)
[14:10] <clivejo> someone not poke Mark with a big stick?
[14:11] <LocutusOfBorg> mark stopped giving names a few releases ago IIRC
[14:12] <jbicha> I believe he still picked artful, he just didn't blog about it
[14:12] <clivejo> who picks now?
[14:13] <clivejo> he hasn't blogged in over a year
[14:13] <clivejo> is he still alive?
[14:14] <jbicha> he still picks name and he is very much still alive, he posted on twitter last week https://twitter.com/sabdfl
[14:16] <acheronuk> he was on BBC News 24 the other week
[14:18] <acheronuk> clivejo: https://youtu.be/eGj7eagbUNg
[14:21] <clivejo> could be a robot impersonating him :/
[14:22] <sil2100> slashd: that's a hard question! I'm a bit too much of a freshman in the SRU/release teams to say what's the rule here, but I'd say it's possible if the fix is important
[14:23] <slashd> sil2100, ack tks ;)
[14:23] <ogra_> clivejo, yeah, it is actualy an IoT robot running UbuntuCore, if we dont put the sabdfl costume on it, it looks like http://media.pennlive.com/food/photo/robot-1ca28a1d05691962.jpeg
[14:23] <sil2100> slashd: anyway, I'd say yes if it matches the SRU standards ;)
[14:24] <slashd> sil2100, anyway 'Bb' will be copied over artful right ?
[14:24] <slashd> so 'Bb' will have the SRU'd patch anyway if my understanding is good
[14:24] <cjwatson> ogra_: I'm pretty sure that if I walked into a store and saw that, I'd turn around and walk right out again and look for a pub instead
[14:24] <cjwatson> in order to forget
[14:24] <sil2100> Yeah, but best if you also ask someone from SRU+release with more experience
[14:24] <ogra_> lol
[14:25] <sil2100> I mean, it will have it then but I'm not sure if it's all formally acceptable
[14:25] <slashd> sil2100, sure I'll wait then, it's not critical ;)
[14:25] <slashd> thanks sil2100
[14:45] <apw> slashd, artful is open for SRUs, when BB opens it will start from whatever is in A
[14:46] <slashd> apw, sil2100 ^ thanks
[14:46] <slashd> ddstreet, ^
[14:48] <ddstreet> great!
[15:13] <LocutusOfBorg> apw, also -proposed pocket?
[15:13] <LocutusOfBorg> what happens if it gets rejected?
[15:13] <apw> -propsoed gets copied to bb-proposed too yes
[15:14] <apw> if somethign getrs rejected it might have gotten into bb, and you get to fix that too
[15:14] <apw> much as you would now if bb was open, you'd upload it there, upload a backport to aa, that would fail, you would fix bb and re-upload aa
[15:28] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: gnome-control-center (artful-proposed/main) [1:3.26.1-0ubuntu4 => 1:3.26.1-0ubuntu5] (ubuntu-desktop)
[15:31] <LocutusOfBorg> ack thanks
[16:47] <bdmurray> slangasek: Could you review my cracklib2 SRU?
[16:47] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: resolvconf (xenial-proposed/main) [1.78ubuntu4 => 1.78ubuntu5] (core)
[16:49] <slangasek> bdmurray: yep, looking
[16:52] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted cracklib2 [source] (zesty-proposed) [2.9.2-3ubuntu1]
[16:53] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted cracklib2 [source] (xenial-proposed) [2.9.2-1ubuntu1]
[16:55] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: lshw (artful-proposed/main) [02.18-0.1ubuntu3 => 02.18-0.1ubuntu4] (core)
[17:12] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: lshw (zesty-proposed/main) [02.18-0.1ubuntu3 => 02.18-0.1ubuntu3.1] (core)
[17:26] <bdmurray> slangasek: I'm seeing some upgrade failures due to unity being blacklisted - that seems like a no brainer right?
[17:38] <slangasek> bdmurray: blacklisted?
[17:38] <bdmurray> slangasek: blacklisted for removal
[17:38] <slangasek> ah
[17:39] <slangasek> unity, not unity8?
[17:39] <bdmurray> https://bazaar.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-core-dev/ubuntu-release-upgrader/trunk/view/head:/data/removal_blacklist.cfg
[17:39] <bdmurray> slangasek: yes, just unity
[17:40] <slangasek> I agree that it should no longer be in the blacklist; I am surprised that having it blacklisted is causing upgrade problems
[17:40] <bdmurray> Yeah it was fine in my testing
[17:41] <slangasek> example failure?
[17:41] <bdmurray> But is it worth digging into?
[17:41] <slangasek> it's probably worth a small amount of digging
[17:41] <bdmurray> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubuntu-release-upgrader/+bug/1726255
[17:45] <slangasek> bdmurray: looks like ubuntu-session Breaks: on old hud/unity packages is what's causing the unexpected removal; I'd suggest logging a bug against ubuntu-session for the desktop team to look at, and get their sign-off on dropping the blacklist
[19:49] <bdmurray> slangasek: bug 1681231 is v-done for zesty if you want to fast track it
[20:07] <slangasek> bdmurray: agreed, releasing, thanks
[20:45] <smoser> hey. so if i was going to upload cloud-init to x, z, a i could/should do that ?
[20:46] <smoser> and then just deal with anything about 'b' later on ?
[20:47] <nacc> smoser: in theory, if it gets into aa before bb opens, it'll get copied forward
[20:49] <slangasek> yes
[20:53] <smoser> k.
[21:17] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: cloud-init (artful-proposed/main) [17.1-18-gd4f70470-0ubuntu1 => 17.1-25-g17a15f9e-0ubuntu1~17.10.1] (edubuntu, ubuntu-cloud, ubuntu-server)
[21:17] <blackboxsw> here we go for real
[21:17] <blackboxsw> :)
[21:19] <nacc> heh
[21:25] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: cloud-init (zesty-proposed/main) [17.1-18-gd4f70470-0ubuntu1~17.04.2 => 17.1-25-g17a15f9e-0ubuntu1~17.04.1] (edubuntu, ubuntu-cloud, ubuntu-server)
[21:28] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: cloud-init (xenial-proposed/main) [17.1-18-gd4f70470-0ubuntu1~16.04.2 => 17.1-25-g17a15f9e-0ubuntu1~16.04.1] (edubuntu, ubuntu-cloud, ubuntu-server)
[22:13] <bdmurray> slangasek: durh, the unity blacklist issue is due to not having universe enabled.
[22:15] <slangasek> bdmurray: oh, wellthen
[22:16] <slangasek> bdmurray: sounds like a valid user setup and that unity should be removed in that case, no?
[22:16] <bdmurray> slangasek: Yes.
[22:20] <jbicha> personally, I think we *should* have marked unity for autoremoval, but we'll need the rest of the Desktop Team to weigh in on that
[22:27] <bdmurray> slangasek: I'm going test and upgrade w/ universe enabled and unity not blacklisted just to be safe before thinking about an SRU.