[02:02] <RAOF> Oh! ubuntu-announce is different to ubuntu-devel-announce? Apparently!
[02:04] <RAOF> So that's why I saw the 20.04.3 release candidate call for testing, but no release announcement.
[02:13] <mwhudson> huh til
[02:34] <RAOF> I think the take away here may be that we have too many low-volume mailinglists with overlapping purposes :)
[02:35] <sarnold> probably the same can be said for irc channels, launchpad teams, wiki pages, etc
[02:36] <sarnold> well, okay, I've said the same about all those things :)
[08:38] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: google-osconfig-agent (hirsute-proposed/main) [20210219.00-0ubuntu1 => 20210608.1-0ubuntu1~21.04.0] (no packageset)
[08:41] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: google-osconfig-agent (focal-proposed/universe) [20210219.00-0ubuntu1~20.04.0 => 20210608.1-0ubuntu1~20.04.0] (no packageset)
[09:23] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: google-compute-engine-oslogin (bionic-proposed/universe) [20210429.00-0ubuntu1~18.04.0 => 20210728.00-0ubuntu1~18.04.0] (no packageset)
[09:32] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: google-compute-engine-oslogin (focal-proposed/universe) [20210429.00-0ubuntu1~20.04.0 => 20210728.00-0ubuntu1~20.04.0] (no packageset)
[09:39] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: google-compute-engine-oslogin (hirsute-proposed/main) [20210429.00-0ubuntu1~21.04.0 => 20210728.00-0ubuntu1~21.04.0] (core)
[10:09] <doko> sil2100, mwhudson: please ignore the glibc/i386 autopkg test failure. Nothing we can do about, as long as we try to use a non-default (gcc-10) cross compiler
[13:27] <waveform> sil2100, have you got any time to have a look at (and hopefully approve :) linux-firmware-raspi2 in the bionic queue?
[13:55] <sil2100> waveform: hey! Sure o/
[15:27] <bdmurray> sil2100, ginggs: so we are we with glibc?
[15:28] <ginggs> bdmurray: i think we just need someone to give it a force-skiptest hint
[15:29] <bdmurray> did juliank say he cleared out the rest of the queued tests?
[15:29] <juliank> bdmurray: I cleared them out, yes
[15:29] <juliank> bdmurray: queues are empty
[15:30] <bdmurray> okay, I think we should probably have a look at the failures just to be sure
[15:30] <laney> we should have an 'x' button and correponding request.cgi API to kill requests :-)
[15:35] <bdmurray> I've retried casper
[15:36] <bdmurray> and chrony
[15:41] <bdmurray> juliank, laney: do the tests get queued in alphabetical order?
[15:45] <laney> not sure tbh
[16:09] <tsimonq2> https://git.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-release/britney/+git/britney2-ubuntu/tree/britney2/policies/autopkgtest.py#n525 seems to suggest that it's a little more complex.
[16:24] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Packageset: Added dbus-broker to i386-whitelist in impish
[16:43] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted llvm-toolchain-12 [source] (hirsute-proposed) [1:12.0.0-3ubuntu1~21.04.2]
[16:44] <ginggs> bdmurray: things like deal.ii, dolfin, fenicsx-performance-tests won't pass with a retry, they need triggers on the new versions in -proposed
[16:44] <ginggs> bdmurray: push the button!
[16:44] <bdmurray> which button?
[16:44] <ginggs> the big hint button
[16:45] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted llvm-toolchain-12 [source] (focal-proposed) [1:12.0.0-3ubuntu1~20.04.4]
[17:09] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Packageset: Removed dbus-broker from i386-whitelist in impish
[17:09] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Packageset: Added llvm-toolchain-13 to i386-whitelist in impish
[17:10] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: photofilmstrip (focal-proposed/universe) [3.7.2-1 => 3.7.2-1ubuntu0.1] (no packageset)
[18:29] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: ubuntu-release-upgrader (bionic-proposed/main) [1:18.04.44 => 1:18.04.45] (core)
[18:52] <bdmurray> vorlon: do you have an opinion on letting glibc out of -proposed?
[19:16] <vorlon> bdmurray: hadn't formed one yet.  do we assume all the new red are flaky tests or things that were previously dealt with in the last upload?
[19:16] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: python-apt (bionic-proposed/main) [1.6.5ubuntu0.6 => 1.6.5ubuntu0.7] (core)
[19:17] <vorlon> I saw Michael suggesting we wanted to only run "10%" of the tests but I wasn't part of that conversation before the upload happened, I can certainly jettison remaining tests from the queue once we determine the results aren't going to matter for migration, but that doesn't help establish whether the tests run so far are sufficiently "representative"
[19:19] <bdmurray> The tests have already been cleared from the queue and we probably don't have a lot of data. That being said this is the diff https://launchpadlibrarian.net/556554620/glibc_2.34-0ubuntu1_2.34-0ubuntu2.diff.gz
[19:21] <bdmurray> so maybe we should manually kick off some specific tests?
[19:22] <vorlon> well arm64 has been slowest, and it's gotten to b
[19:22] <vorlon> so perhaps good enough? as I don't have any particular packages I think it's particularly worth testing for this
[19:25] <bdmurray> so graham suggested a force-skiptest hint - is that the way forward?
[19:30] <blackboxsw> bdmurray: falcojr found/fixed two issues that came up in cloud-init SRU -proposed verification, they affect what we have released into impish. If we want a bug-fix-only release with two cherry-picks from tip of main into impish (both for Azure datasource). Do we need a process bug related to that in the changelog?
[19:31] <blackboxsw> for impish d/changelog specifically for a new upload (this bug is not yet released to any other series)
[19:32] <bdmurray> blackboxsw: because its impish and impish isn't stable using the word SRU is confusing. If you are just uploading bug fixes for Impish then have at it - no bugs are required but you they are nice to have.
[19:32] <bdmurray> s/but you/but/
[19:34] <blackboxsw> thanks, bdmurray you (and James) are correct then. Right our SRU only affects B, F and H but we also want to perform an upload into impish for things that don't have a specific bug created. We will proceed then
[19:34] <blackboxsw> without doc bugs in this case as impish is not really released and/or stable yet
[19:35] <bdmurray> Not to confuse matters but if you have upstream cloud-init bugs in Launchpad its easy to open a task on the distro package and just reference them.
[19:37] <blackboxsw> bdmurray: right, we don't have upstream bugs created for this discovered issue during our SRU verification. just some conversations with Azure folks about potential impacts. In this particular case, I think we'd prefer to avoid detailing the platform impacts as the SRU we are undergoing will fix them before we release any updates to B, F and H before public gets ahold of images with these cloud-init   fteatures
[20:08] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: cloud-init (bionic-proposed/main) [21.3-1-g6803368d-0ubuntu1~18.04.1 => 21.3-1-g6803368d-0ubuntu1~18.04.2] (edubuntu, ubuntu-cloud, ubuntu-server)
[20:08] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: cloud-init (focal-proposed/main) [21.3-1-g6803368d-0ubuntu1~20.04.1 => 21.3-1-g6803368d-0ubuntu1~20.04.2] (core, edubuntu, ubuntu-cloud)
[20:09] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: cloud-init (hirsute-proposed/main) [21.3-1-g6803368d-0ubuntu1~21.04.1 => 21.3-1-g6803368d-0ubuntu1~21.04.2] (core, ubuntu-cloud)
[20:25] <blackboxsw> SRU vanguard or backups (wink-wink) we/azure found a couple of regressions during SRU verification and we have uploaded cloud-init bug-fix-release  with two cherry-picks to fix the regresions discovered on Azure https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/cloud-init/+bug/1940871
[20:26] <blackboxsw> we are looking for review to let in the 21.3-1-g6803368d-0ubuntu1~21.04.2  into bionic|focal|hirsute-proposed. We have also uploaded the same cherry-picks to impish
[20:26] <blackboxsw> impish-proposed
[20:27] <blackboxsw> then we can continue our SRU verification testing for cloud-init. Ive already applied the "verification-failed" tags to the bug above
[20:29] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New sync: ndpi (impish-proposed/primary) [4.0-1]
[20:55] <blackboxsw> bdmurray: or vorlon do either of you know if there is time before EOD for cloud-init re-upload to -proposed review? If not, we'll take that an ping -Łu-kasz on Monday
[20:56] <bdmurray> blackboxsw: let me have a quick look
[20:56] <blackboxsw> thanks, it'll give a chance to reverify on clouds and get Azure on testing their side
[21:00] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted cloud-init [source] (hirsute-proposed) [21.3-1-g6803368d-0ubuntu1~21.04.2]
[21:02] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted cloud-init [source] (focal-proposed) [21.3-1-g6803368d-0ubuntu1~20.04.2]
[21:03] <bdmurray> there you go
[21:03] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted cloud-init [source] (bionic-proposed) [21.3-1-g6803368d-0ubuntu1~18.04.2]
[21:03] <blackboxsw> thanks for the quick turnaround. Be putting together that Christmas list :)
[21:04] <blackboxsw> you need anything from me related to either software-properties-gtk or update-manager (ubuntu-security-status) ?
[21:04]  * blackboxsw checks those queues now in case
[21:05] <bdmurray> blackboxsw: so update-manager-core doesn't depend on ubuntu-advantage-tools and I don't think not having an dep will be an issue do you agree?
[21:06] <blackboxsw> ahh n/m looks like I'll probably put up an MP/PR next week for desktop software-properties. https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/software-properties/+bug/1920836/comments/28
[21:06] <blackboxsw> bdmurray: ubuntu-advantage-tools is in minimal images and pulled in everywhere that I'm aware of so adding deps should not be a prob on anything > trusty
[21:09] <bdmurray> yeah, okay I'll add the dep
[22:24] -queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: update-manager (focal-proposed/main) [1:20.04.10.8 => 1:20.04.10.9] (core)
[22:46] <mwhudson> so my reading of https://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/proposed-migration/update_output_notest.txt is that glibc would migrate?
[22:52] <bdmurray> I did skiptest it