[13:46] preping for doko cyphermox didrocks jamespage and jdstrand [13:46] since most of us missed the meeting last few times and today we have something to discuss (plus being in the week were daylight savings disagree) I thought it is worth to pre-ping :-) [13:51] cpaelzer: ahah, almost :) [13:52] :-) [14:00] but now ... [14:00] should be now [14:01] I'm actually fine if no one has objections on the email that I sent about the many mailman3 triggered MIRs [14:01] but doko correctly mentioned that it feels odd that the same person files and acks them [14:01] so we wanted to discuss how to handle at least some of these [14:01] lets give everyone some time to show up [14:03] tbh I'd prefer if you just wrote whatever you want to write, so I can pay attention but we don't need to block on anyone [14:03] cyphermox: well I wrote what I wanted to write (in the mail on Friday) [14:04] and I summarized above what doko wanted to discuss [14:05] my initial approach was: I will handle all the more trivial MIRs that I opened, and for the more complex cases (or those that I think a Nack is needed or likely) I'd pull one of you in [14:05] as mentioned doko said this morning to me that it feels odd that the same guy opens and Acks them [14:05] that is it, opinions about this? [14:05] if it's a trivial thing; no [14:06] if it feels like there might be contention, then I suppose yeah asking for help is a good plan [14:06] yeah, I always refused to be the person NEWing new packages I upload or ACKing MIR I filed [14:07] it's a little bit like a peer review, never a bad thing to have another person keeping you honest :) [14:07] * doko is late [14:07] well I'm not NEWing the packages they are in Debian/Ubuntu for quite a while, I'm just driving the MIR bugs as requestor and first level reviewer [14:07] and I already spread the creation of the MIR requests in our team [14:08] Here is a list of all the involved packages and MIR bugs https://git.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-server/+git/mailman3-MIR-party/tree/package-list.txt [14:08] I'm trying to make the biggest problems to go away by cutting the dependency to e.g. nodejs and ruby bits [14:08] therefore those have no bugs assigned to the Team yet [14:09] right, but in the past, the MIR bug submitter was the same as the MIR author [14:09] sounds like a MIR list similar the old unity time ;) [14:09] yeah didrocks, might be [14:09] a bit smaller thou I guess [14:09] cpaelzer: I can only sympathize :) [14:10] so how about letting me doing the first run on all of these - and next week same time we can dirstibute the more interesting cases that are left in the Team [14:10] sounds good to me [14:11] this would keep the majority of blunt processing from you, but get your opinions and insights on the cases where it is needed [14:11] unless you distrust me that I silently bypass something [14:11] in that case I'm very happy to -not- do all those reviews :-) [14:12] I can certainly help with stuff [14:12] cpaelzer: the only thing that jumps out to me is nose [14:12] it was previously in main [14:12] I'd be for not dropping the dep; avoiding delta, and just putting it back in main. [14:12] are the S tags complete? [14:13] we should get these done first [14:13] cyphermox: I'm ok with handling nose that way - thanks [14:13] doko: the S tags got on the security Teams list just today [14:13] more S tagged packages will come [14:13] ah, and one more thing; how about we decide right now if it's mailman3 or mailman3 + hyperkitty, whatever that is? [14:14] it is all of them mailman3-full is the package starting the dependency tree [14:14] we discussed that in the Team upfront and later in Malta [14:14] ah ok [14:15] the problem is that only core (tag C) or core+archive (tags C+H) is not what people would want to use [14:15] you want a ML with frontent or you don't want a mailing list at all [14:15] not promoting all of mailman3-full was just one of the options we evaluated in the past [14:16] thanks for the hint on nose cyphermox - I'll give that a check later on [14:16] well, it depends what the server team feels comfortable supporting I guess [14:16] but it is nose(1) not nose2 - was that in main as well? [14:17] src:nose is what I looked up in rmadison [14:18] yeah that is the right one [14:18] thanks [14:19] I'l do the paperwork and updates in regard to that [14:19] and as I said, I hope that next week by that time the list is down to those that I need your help on anyway [14:19] ok it seems that works for everyone then [14:19] doko: are you ok with distributing only those among the team next week then? [14:26] doko: can we take no answer as a yes and conclude until next weeks meeting? [14:27] * cpaelzer thinks doko is busy building two more glibc updates for Disco [14:34] cpaelzer: sorry, phone call. yes, sounds fine [14:34] ok, thanks [20:43] dang missed the metting wanted to know how do I get inxi to be inxi 3.0.32-00 (2019-02-07) to be included with 19.04? [21:07] donofrio: what's different between 3.0.32-00 and the 3.0.31-1-1 that's packaged? https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/inxi/3.0.32-1-1