[00:16] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: ubuntu-release-upgrader (artful-proposed/main) [1:17.10.7 => 1:17.10.8] (core)
[00:59] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: apport (artful-proposed/main) [2.20.7-0ubuntu3 => 2.20.7-0ubuntu3.2] (core)
[06:09] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: postfix (xenial-proposed/main) [3.1.0-3ubuntu0.1 => 3.1.0-3ubuntu0.2] (core)
[06:13] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: golang-1.7 (zesty-proposed/main) [1.7.4-2ubuntu1 => 1.7.4-2ubuntu1.1] (kubuntu, ubuntu-desktop, ubuntu-server)
[07:55] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: makedumpfile (xenial-proposed/main) [1:1.5.9-5ubuntu0.5 => 1:1.5.9-5ubuntu0.6] (core)
[09:29] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: google-cloud-sdk (artful-proposed/partner) [169.0.0-0ubuntu1 => 176.0.0-0ubuntu1] (no packageset)
[09:30] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: google-cloud-sdk (zesty-proposed/partner) [169.0.0-0ubuntu1~17.04.0 => 176.0.0-0ubuntu1~17.04.0] (no packageset)
[10:00] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: google-cloud-sdk (xenial-proposed/partner) [169.0.0-0ubuntu1~16.04.0 => 176.0.0-0ubuntu1~16.04.0] (no packageset)
[10:01] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: google-cloud-sdk (trusty-proposed/partner) [169.0.0-0ubuntu1~14.04.0 => 176.0.0-0ubuntu1~14.04.0] (no packageset)
[10:03] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: valgrind (artful-proposed/main) [1:3.13.0-1ubuntu2 => 1:3.13.0-1ubuntu3] (ubuntu-desktop)
[10:31] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: linux-signed-oem [amd64] (xenial-proposed/universe) [4.13.0-1007.8] (no packageset)
[10:32] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted linux-signed-oem [amd64] (xenial-proposed) [4.13.0-1007.8]
[14:08] <cpaelzer> Hi - can I still upload Artful SRU fixes today incrementing ubuntu1, ubuntu2, ubuntu3 - or is BB close enough (or ongoing in background) already that it has to be ubuntu1.1 ?
[14:12] <apw> cpaelzer, i don't think it is uber immenent, i am sure there will be a warning, and things blocked for the copy up
[14:14] <cpaelzer> ok, gogin on as usual for now then
[14:32] <rbasak> I know uploading to the release pocket for an SRU automatically redirects to the proposed pocket. Is this true also for -updates? Asking for sponsorship - OK to accept and upload a debdiff targetting -updates?
[14:38] <Laney> No, they'll go to -updates straight away if accepted (AFAIK)
[14:39] <rbasak> OK I'll modify before uploading, thanks.
[14:42] <xnox> rbasak, imho everyone should just target "release" without any suffixes, as that goes into the right queue, always, both during devel-time and SRU-time
[14:42] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: freeplane (artful-proposed/universe) [1.6.6-1build1 => 1.6.6-1ubuntu1] (no packageset)
[14:42] <rbasak> I agree
[14:42] <acheronuk> bionic beaver! O_O
[14:43]  * clivejo giggles
[14:43] <clivejo> so rude
[14:43] <rbasak> But I want to be a little more liberal in what I accept, particularly for new contributors, because in the past a much wider range of things was acceptable in general. But I would like all sponsors to be consistent in what they recommend in order to make life easier for newcomers.
[14:43] <acheronuk> sounds like a sex toy
[14:43] <apw> you owuld never upload to -updates ... that is always a -proposed first scenario, as is -release in devel
[14:43] <rbasak> ^ I sponsored freeplane so cannot accept the SRU. If someone else is around, it's trivial.
[14:43] <apw> i concur with xnox that just uploading to "artful" is the right thing
[14:43] <apw> and works in a PPA too
[14:44] <rbasak> My idea is that the git ubuntu lint tool will always recommend one thing only.
[14:44] <rbasak> And I'd like to get contributors to use it locally as well as have a CI bot for MPs.
[14:44] <rbasak> But we're not quite there yet :)
[14:44] <apw> well it should be either foo, or foo-proposed at all times, i prefer the former
[14:44] <rbasak> I prefer the former also.
[14:45] <rbasak> Otherwise it's "wrong" as soon as it lands.
[14:46] <apw> its not wrong per-see, it is where it was uploaded to
[14:46] <rbasak> I know; hence the quotes :)
[14:50] <cpaelzer> acheronuk: from now on it will all be beavers until we hit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zombeavers
[14:57] <clivejo> rbasak: are the plans for that git thingie fixed, or can we ask for features?
[14:58] <nacc> clivejo: you can ask :)
[14:58] <nacc> clivejo: what kind of features are you looking for?
[14:59] <rbasak> He wants dput wrapping :)
[14:59] <nacc> oh ok
[14:59] <nacc> i need a spec on the changes file implementation you and cjwatson want and then we can do that :)
[14:59] <nacc> well, sort of can
[15:00] <rbasak> clivejo: I'm quite interested in making sure that our design accomodates stuff that we could add in the future. IOW, that we don't rule out the implementation of particular desired features in the future.
[15:00] <rbasak> I won't want to add anything more to our plans for a 1.0 though.
[15:00] <rbasak> But you can try and convince us :)
[15:00] <clivejo> also wondering if there is flexiblity on source code hosted elsewhere, ie KDE
[15:01] <rbasak> I think that may conflict with our goals depending on exactly what you mean.
[15:01] <rbasak> I think it's important that drive-by contributors (or newcomers to any Ubuntu development team) get a consistent view.
[15:01] <nacc> rbasak: depending on where we land with upload tags, we can probably ship a wrapper script in the snap for 1.0
[15:02] <rbasak> Hosting elsewhere and with a different scheme for branches and tags and the working tree layout (eg. debian/ only) would contradict that goal I think.
[15:03] <rbasak> However we absolutely don't preclude a team from maintaining a primary git tree elsewhere with a different layout.
[15:04] <rbasak> A drive-by contributor wouldn't be forced to use that repo; that's all.
[15:04] <clivejo> we want/need drive-bys
[15:04] <rbasak> Then you don't want to be forcing them to use a git layout that's different from other packages.
[15:04] <clivejo> is there no way to rope them, or deploy a stinger?
[15:04] <rbasak> IHO
[15:04] <rbasak> IMHO
[15:05] <rbasak> I'm not saying the answer is simple.
[15:05] <rbasak> There are teams that use debian/ only for good reason.
[15:05] <rbasak> But it does mean that it makes sense to consider these cases out of scope for now.
[15:06] <clivejo> well that is why I wanted to talk to you about it
[15:06] <clivejo> it has some nice pro's and some con's
[15:07] <nacc> our scope is very specific, IMO: if you want to find the current source for any package in ubuntu, you can, and you can get the full publishinng history, as presented by LP, for it
[15:07] <nacc> it does not reflect development methodologies, necessarily, external sources of information, necessarily, etc.
[15:09] <bdmurray> sil2100: Could you review my artful SRUs? apport and ubuntu-release-upgrader
[15:09] <sil2100> bdmurray: sure
[15:09] <nacc> clivejo: probably the easiest thing to do is file a bug, so we can track similar requests
[15:10] <clivejo> Kubuntu is a large packageset, and like a oil tanker to maneuver, so we have to plan in advance.  But the prospect of a dput wrapper is very appealing.
[15:13] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted ubuntu-release-upgrader [source] (artful-proposed) [1:17.10.8]
[15:14] <sil2100> bdmurray: hm, something's fishy with the apport one, I think you were missing a -v when building the package
[15:15] <sil2100> bdmurray: since the changes file only includes 2.20.7-0ubuntu3.2 while there's .1 as well
[15:15] <sil2100> bdmurray: could you change that? I'll reject the current one
[15:15] <sil2100> Will re-review it once we're back from the dentist visit
[15:17] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected apport [source] (artful-proposed) [2.20.7-0ubuntu3.2]
[15:17] <bdmurray> sil2100: Ah, my bad the 3.1 upload was rejected. Thanks for catching that.
[15:20] <nacc> clivejo: good to know, I suppose what would be best is what all you'd want in a dput wrapper for Kubuntu development https://bugs.launchpad.net/usd-importer/+filebug
[15:24] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: apport (artful-proposed/main) [2.20.7-0ubuntu3 => 2.20.7-0ubuntu3.1] (core)
[15:31] <smoser> RAOF: if you're still around, and could look at an sru upload in queue for cloud-init i'd appreciate it.
[15:31] <smoser> or if bdmurray wanted to do that... not significant changes since the one that is in -proposed.
[15:32] <smoser> only 2 bug fixes and test related chagnes.
[15:44] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected gnome-control-center [source] (artful-proposed) [1:3.26.1-0ubuntu5]
[15:45] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: gnome-control-center (artful-proposed/main) [1:3.26.1-0ubuntu4 => 1:3.26.1-0ubuntu5] (ubuntu-desktop)
[16:04] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: sane-backends (artful-proposed/main) [1.0.27-1~experimental2ubuntu2 => 1.0.27-1~experimental2ubuntu3] (desktop-core, ubuntu-server)
[16:13] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: libvirt (artful-proposed/main) [3.6.0-1ubuntu5 => 3.6.0-1ubuntu6] (ubuntu-server, virt)
[16:19] <bdmurray> infinity: Could I get queue permissions for artful?
[16:21] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: apport (artful-proposed/main) [2.20.7-0ubuntu3 => 2.20.7-0ubuntu3.1] (core)
[16:21]  * rbasak has just been asked for a review of libvirt (^) so will want queue permissions too
[16:22] <apw> rbasak, in the short term feel free to use my fingers
[16:23] <rbasak> Thanks. I'll report shortly following review.
[16:27]  * rbasak is called away for dinner; will finish review later.
[16:31] <tsimonq2> cjwatson: Bionic Beaver, can has graph update? ;)
[16:35] <cjwatson> tsimonq2: done
[16:35] <tsimonq2> cjwatson: Thanks!
[17:06] <blackboxsw> bdmurray: I saw your comments on the bug https://bugs.launchpad.net/apport/+bug/1722564. I just posted a comment and updated branch that I'm going to test now
[17:06] <blackboxsw> thanks
[17:09] <rbasak> apw: +1 for libvirt in artful unapproved; please accept.
[17:09] <rbasak> cpaelzer: ^.
[17:10] <rbasak> cpaelzer: and thank you for comprehensively documenting everything; that made it easy to review even though it was three bugs.
[17:11] <rbasak> cpaelzer: (~ubuntu-sru haven't been handed the ACL bits for artful yet it seems)
[17:11]  * tumbleweed will do distro-info-data for bionic. I see a Release Schedule targetting the 26th. I guess that's plausible? https://wiki.ubuntu.com/BionicBeaver/ReleaseSchedule
[17:12] <bdmurray> blackboxsw: Okay, thanks!
[17:24] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted google-cloud-sdk [source] (artful-proposed) [176.0.0-0ubuntu1]
[17:36] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted google-cloud-sdk [source] (zesty-proposed) [176.0.0-0ubuntu1~17.04.0]
[17:38] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted google-cloud-sdk [source] (xenial-proposed) [176.0.0-0ubuntu1~16.04.0]
[17:47] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted google-cloud-sdk [source] (trusty-proposed) [176.0.0-0ubuntu1~14.04.0]
[18:44] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted libvirt [source] (artful-proposed) [3.6.0-1ubuntu6]
[18:44] <bdmurray> slangasek: Could you review artful-proposed's apport upload? I made a goof.
[18:47] <slangasek> bdmurray: queue shows two uploads; review newer, reject older?
[18:47] <bdmurray> slangasek: Yeah, I would have rejected the older but I can't yet.
[18:47] <slangasek> k, done
[18:48] <slangasek> infinity: ^^ I guess you're driving the archive opening; want any help?
[18:48] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected apport [source] (artful-proposed) [2.20.7-0ubuntu3.1]
[18:48] <slangasek> (no idea where we are in the checklist currently)
[18:49] <bdmurray> Actually, the apport change is on the ReleaseProcess checklist. I wonder if Martin was pinged. ;-)
[18:49] <slangasek> sil2100: ^^ ?
[18:51] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted apport [source] (artful-proposed) [2.20.7-0ubuntu3.1]
[19:34] <bdmurray> slangasek: the apport SRU has been verified if you want to release it quickly
[20:31] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: distro-info-data (artful-proposed/main) [0.36 => 0.36ubuntu0.1] (core)
[20:31] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: distro-info-data (zesty-proposed/main) [0.33ubuntu0.1 => 0.33ubuntu0.2] (core)
[20:32] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: distro-info-data (trusty-proposed/main) [0.18ubuntu0.7 => 0.18ubuntu0.8] (core)
[20:32] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: distro-info-data (xenial-proposed/main) [0.28ubuntu0.3 => 0.28ubuntu0.4] (core)
[20:42] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: distro-info-data (precise-proposed/main) [0.8ubuntu0.12 => 0.8ubuntu0.13] (ubuntu-server)
[21:12] <blackboxsw> RAOF: I may have missed the response, there is an SRU upload in queue for cloud-init if there is a chance to look at that today it'd be awesome
[21:15] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: juju-core (xenial-proposed/main) [2.2.4-0ubuntu0.16.04.1 => 2.2.4-0ubuntu0.16.04.2] (ubuntu-server)
[21:15] <blackboxsw> we added 3  fixes referenced here https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/cloud-init/+bug/1721847/comments/25, one of those fixes a potential regression in our previous SRU attempt
[21:15] <LocutusOfBorg> please accept distro-info-data!
[21:22] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: juju-core (zesty-proposed/main) [2.2.4-0ubuntu0.17.04.1 => 2.2.4-0ubuntu0.17.04.2] (ubuntu-server)
[21:25] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: ubuntu-meta (artful-proposed/main) [1.404 => 1.405] (core)
[21:35] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted distro-info-data [source] (artful-proposed) [0.36ubuntu0.1]
[21:40] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted distro-info-data [source] (zesty-proposed) [0.33ubuntu0.2]
[21:52] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New sync: ocaml (bionic-proposed/primary) [4.05.0-10ubuntu1]
[22:04] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted distro-info-data [source] (xenial-proposed) [0.28ubuntu0.4]
[22:06] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted distro-info-data [source] (trusty-proposed) [0.18ubuntu0.8]
[22:34] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Packageset: 6673 entries have been added or removed
[23:23] <sil2100>  /quit
[23:23] <sil2100> eh
[23:24] <RAOF> blackboxsw: The cloud-init upload is meant to supercede an upload already in -proposed, I take it?
[23:25] <RAOF> blackboxsw: It needs to include the previous changelog entry in the .changes file in that case.
[23:34] <jbicha> RAOF: do I need to re-upload sane-backends then?
[23:35] <slangasek> Laney: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/NewReleaseCycleProcess line 46, seed-new-release expects autopkgtest.db to be on the host; this command was previously run on wendigo, but autopkgtest.db no longer exists there.  And the unit that does have autopkgtest.db doesn't have the module deps
[23:36] <slangasek> Laney: I think I'm safe to copy autopkgtest.db back to wendigo and just run it there, in line with the documentation; but I wonder if you want to do something different for next cycle
[23:37] <RAOF> jbicha: If it supercedes an upload that never made it out of -proposed, yes.
[23:37] <RAOF> The changes file should list *all* changes since the package in -updates (or release, if there are no previous updates).
[23:41] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: sane-backends (artful-proposed/main) [1.0.27-1~experimental2ubuntu2 => 1.0.27-1~experimental2ubuntu3] (desktop-core, ubuntu-server)
[23:54] <infinity> jbicha: Would versioning the Provides not work just as well?