/srv/irclogs.ubuntu.com/2022/10/06/#ubuntu-release.txt

-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: gallery-dl (jammy-backports/universe) [1.23.1-1~bpo22.04.1 => 1.23.2-1~bpo22.04.1] (no packageset)02:43
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: yt-dlp (jammy-backports/universe) [2022.09.01-1~bpo22.04.1 => 2022.10.04-1~bpo22.04.1] (no packageset)02:43
=== guiverc2 is now known as guiverc
RAOFUrgh. I mistakenly released zlib for bug# 1961427 without releasing the prerequisite htslib package. htslib is released now, but I'm thinking of overriding the phasing to 100% to ensure it's there for the new zlib as zlib gets phased.05:48
RAOFIt seems the new zlib without the new htslib is possibly (but not certainly) in a worse state than the old zlib. Anyone with thoughts?05:51
RAOFHuh.06:47
RAOFIs there a good reason that jammy has a lower version of ubuntu-advantage-desktop-daemon than focal or bionic?06:48
RAOFThere doesn't seem to be a new version in the jammy unapproved queue, either?06:49
arraybolt3RAOF: It might be related to the newer Ubuntu Pro stuff going on, though I don't know for sure.06:54
seb128RAOF, ah, sorry I didn't think about the versioning issue when I did the SRU06:56
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted ubuntu-advantage-desktop-daemon [source] (xenial-proposed) [1.10~16.04.1]06:56
seb128RAOF, the changes in 1.10 didn't have content interesting to SRU over 1.9 which we already have there06:56
seb128RAOF, thanks for the xenial review!06:57
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: gmime (kinetic-proposed/universe) [3.2.9+dfsg-1 => 3.2.13+dfsg-2] (ubuntu-budgie) (sync)06:57
RAOFI guess we need a no-change version number bump?06:57
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: dropbear (kinetic-proposed/universe) [2022.82-3ubuntu1 => 2022.82-4] (no packageset) (sync)06:58
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: ubuntu-advantage-desktop-daemon [amd64] (xenial-proposed/none) [1.10~16.04.1] (no packageset)06:58
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: ubuntu-advantage-desktop-daemon [armhf] (xenial-proposed/none) [1.10~16.04.1] (no packageset)06:58
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: ubuntu-advantage-desktop-daemon [ppc64el] (xenial-proposed/none) [1.10~16.04.1] (no packageset)06:58
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: ubuntu-advantage-desktop-daemon [arm64] (xenial-proposed/none) [1.10~16.04.1] (no packageset)06:58
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: ubuntu-advantage-desktop-daemon [s390x] (xenial-proposed/none) [1.10~16.04.1] (no packageset)06:58
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New binary: ubuntu-advantage-desktop-daemon [i386] (xenial-proposed/none) [1.10~16.04.1] (no packageset)06:58
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted dropbear [sync] (kinetic-proposed) [2022.82-4]06:59
seb128RAOF, ack, so we have https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubuntu-advantage-desktop-daemon/+bug/1990368 which is verified, do you want to maybe move it to updates and I will do a 1.10~22.04.1 follow up or do you prefer to just replace the current SRU?07:00
-ubottu:#ubuntu-release- Launchpad bug 1990368 in ubuntu-advantage-desktop-daemon (Ubuntu Jammy) "Rename Ubuntu Advantage to Ubuntu Pro" [Undecided, Fix Committed]07:00
seb128it might make sense to replace the current SRU07:00
RAOFLet's just replace the current SRU.07:03
RAOFVerification of that bug doesn't seem arduous :)07:04
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: ubuntu-advantage-desktop-daemon (jammy-proposed/main) [1.9~22.04.2 => 1.10~22.04.1] (ubuntu-desktop)07:08
seb128RAOF, ^07:08
seb128RAOF, I did a backport of the new version please check if it's ok, it basically includes a bunch of extra includes to fix the build on older series, it's the same content that was uploaded to bionic and focal07:09
seb128I've added a comment on the bug to explain that also07:09
seb128RAOF, and tomorrow is fine, it's evening for you and that upload isn't urgent07:10
RAOFIt's just past EOD for me, but thanks.07:11
RAOFI'll get to that in the morning!07:11
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: firmware-sof (kinetic-proposed/main) [2.1.1-1ubuntu1 => 2.2.2-1] (no packageset) (sync)07:12
seb128RAOF, thanks and have a nice evening!07:13
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted ubuntu-advantage-desktop-daemon [amd64] (xenial-proposed) [1.10~16.04.1]07:14
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted ubuntu-advantage-desktop-daemon [armhf] (xenial-proposed) [1.10~16.04.1]07:14
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted ubuntu-advantage-desktop-daemon [ppc64el] (xenial-proposed) [1.10~16.04.1]07:14
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted ubuntu-advantage-desktop-daemon [arm64] (xenial-proposed) [1.10~16.04.1]07:14
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted ubuntu-advantage-desktop-daemon [s390x] (xenial-proposed) [1.10~16.04.1]07:14
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- New: accepted ubuntu-advantage-desktop-daemon [i386] (xenial-proposed) [1.10~16.04.1]07:14
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: gallery-dl (focal-backports/universe) [1.23.1-1~bpo20.04.1 => 1.23.2-1~bpo20.04.1] (no packageset)07:41
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: foomatic-db (kinetic-proposed/main) [20220223-0ubuntu1 => 20221005-0ubuntu1] (desktop-core, ubuntu-server)09:15
GunnarHjHello Release Team!09:28
GunnarHjThe kinetic unapproved queue is longer than I would have expected a week before Final Freeze. Specifically gnome-user-docs is a concern of mine, but there are quite a few others. Is there a plan to attend to the queue soon?09:28
xnoxGunnarHj:  i think a few release team people are out.09:36
GunnarHjxnox: That may explain it; maybe soon...09:38
xnoxvorlon:  i think there might be a stuck lock on cdimage? i don't see jammy ubuntu desktop daily popping out and last log as keyboard interrupt inside it https://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/cd-build-logs/ubuntu/jammy/daily-live-20221004.log09:38
xnoxGunnarHj:  or maybe we have gaps, i recall in the past laney used to review them a lot. but he is not involved as much anymore. Pondering if like bdmurray could do some of them on regularish basis in the runup to the release =)09:40
xnoxbdmurray:  have you been looking at https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/kinetic/+queue?queue_state=1&queue_text= ?09:40
laneyI'll do a pass later this evening if there's still things in there :-)09:52
xnoxnoice =)10:06
ginggsGunnarHj: gnome-user-docs looks like a new upstream version, I don't see any bugs referenced in the changelog, nor is it explicitly documented that this is a bugfix-only upload10:35
xnoxmy packages got accepted so i am happy =)10:47
xnoxthank you whoever it was =)10:47
ginggsxnox: thank you for the nice changelogs :)10:50
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: golang-go.crypto (kinetic-proposed/universe) [1:0.0~git20220315.3147a52-1 => 1:0.0~git20220829.c86fa9a-1] (ubuntu-mate) (sync)10:53
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: libreoffice (kinetic-proposed/main) [1:7.4.2~rc1-0ubuntu1 => 1:7.4.2~rc2-0ubuntu1] (ubuntu-desktop)11:01
ricotzhello ubuntu-archive, please accept libreoffice waiting in kinetic/unapproved-queue :)11:09
seb128ricotz, hey, you want ubuntu-release in freeze times, you are on the right channel just pinging the wrong people :)11:28
ricotzseb128, hi, ah, correct :)11:31
ricotzhello ubuntu-release, please accept libreoffice waiting in kinetic/unapproved-queue :)11:32
GunnarHjginggs: Yes, gnome-user-docs is new upstream, and not just bugfix. My thought when uploading was "it's just docs", i.e. XML files and images to be browsed with yelp, not affecting any other part of the system. I kind of hoped that some release team member would read my mind. ;) Are you asking me to file a bug which would basically state what I just wrote?11:48
ginggsGunnarHj: nah, that ^ should be fine, thanks11:51
GunnarHjginggs: Thank *you*, and sorry for taking things for granted.11:54
ricotzginggs, hi, please reject the libreoffice (kinetic-proposed/main), there is a cosmetic issue in the upstream tarball12:41
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: neutron-fwaas (kinetic-proposed/universe) [1:16.0.0+git2022091214.965ac6bcd-0ubuntu1 => 1:17.0.0-0ubuntu1] (openstack)12:42
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected libreoffice [source] (kinetic-proposed) [1:7.4.2~rc2-0ubuntu1]12:44
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: swift (kinetic-proposed/main) [2.30.0+git2022091213.ce184edd7-0ubuntu1 => 2.30.0+git2022100608.49d35e0c3-0ubuntu1] (openstack)12:59
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: vitrage (kinetic-proposed/universe) [9.0.0+git2022091214.dba5e63e-0ubuntu1 => 9.0.0+git2022100608.43e8e5f1-0ubuntu1] (openstack)12:59
coreycbhello release-team, can murano please be rejected from the kinetic unapproved queue?13:05
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected murano [source] (kinetic-proposed) [1:14.0.0-0ubuntu1]13:09
coreycbrelease-team, I'm done uploading the final release of openstack. that should be it, pending final testing once everything is accepted into kinetic. thanks for dealing with all the uploads.13:31
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: sahara (kinetic-proposed/universe) [2:16.0.0+git2022091213.b4ea6ad2-0ubuntu1 => 2:17.0.0-0ubuntu1] (openstack)13:32
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: backport-iwlwifi-dkms (kinetic-proposed/universe) [9904-0ubuntu2 => 9904-0ubuntu3] (no packageset)13:38
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted backport-iwlwifi-dkms [source] (kinetic-proposed) [9904-0ubuntu3]13:39
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: ubuntustudio-meta (kinetic-proposed/universe) [0.275 => 0.276] (ubuntustudio)13:39
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: v4l2loopback (kinetic-proposed/universe) [0.12.7-2ubuntu1 => 0.12.7-2ubuntu2] (kernel-dkms, ubuntustudio)14:21
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: libreoffice (kinetic-proposed/main) [1:7.4.2~rc1-0ubuntu1 => 1:7.4.2~rc2-0ubuntu1] (ubuntu-desktop)14:34
ricotzginggs, thanks for rejecting, would you be available to accept libreoffice too? :)14:44
ginggsricotz: rejecting is much easier than accepting :p14:48
ricotzginggs, I agree :), while libreoffice can take ages to build and run its autopkgtests, it would be great to have it process fast :)14:49
ginggsricotz: see topic14:50
vorlonxnox: jammy ubuntu desktop is blocked by the snapd preseed hang bug14:50
xnoxvorlon:  sadness and despair!14:51
ricotzginggs, sorry?14:56
ginggsricotz: "We accept payment in..."14:59
tsimonq2ginggs: In that case, name your price in beers :P15:00
Eickmeyer[m]ginggs: I'm confused too. AIUI, the release team (partially meaning you) is supposed to be processing the unapproved queue this time of the release cycle. It hasn't budged all week.15:00
Eickmeyer[m]^ That too.15:00
vorlonnot true that it hasn't budged.15:01
vorlonwe nevertheless have two members of the release team out on PTO and I've had other fire drill demands on my time so we're definitely behind.15:02
* tsimonq2 understands people get busy and life happens, especially this time of year... especially at this point in the cycle I don't think this is unusual...15:03
* rs2009 agrees and says hi15:03
Eickmeyer[m]I understand that. However, it's a team effort. 8 on the team, 2 out. vorlon , you're not a one-man team.15:04
seb128and perhaps the team should consider adding extra people to be able to deal better with such weeks...15:06
tsimonq2I've had the conversation on stepping up... that won't be in question form publicly...15:10
seb128let's see if that works out, we have been trying to get new people to be consider for over a year without getting much traction :(15:12
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted gnome-user-docs [source] (kinetic-proposed) [43.0-1ubuntu1]15:13
Eickmeyer[m]Are there currently inactive members of the release team?15:14
tsimonq2The person I was working with closely to make that happen is no longer with us... so I'm sure you can understand it's been followed up with far and few between since then15:14
tsimonq2Eickmeyer[m]: Iain somewhat recently left Canonical and I've not seen him as active, others I can't speak for their activity (if I can even speak for Iain's...)15:15
Eickmeyer[m]tsimonq2: Right, but being a Canonical employee does not preclude one from being on the release team, and I have seen activity from Iain.15:15
tsimonq2¯\_(ツ)_/¯15:16
tsimonq2All I really have to say before I get back to $dayjob is, I wouldn't bite the hand that feeds you on this one... the more you mention how slow or fast the queue is, I've found the slower the release team actually is to process your requests... I post something here just from a Lubuntu perspective as clear release blockers, that's different than asking for activity on something today when we still have some time. If you aren't smoke15:19
tsimonq2testing your packages before you upload them, then they shouldn't be uploaded, especially at this stage in the cycle.15:19
Eickmeyer[m]I'm not, I'm just concerned from an overall perspective, not with my Studio hat on.15:19
tsimonq2The Release Team is busy, they have other $dayjob obligations as do I, patience is probably going to be your answer here15:20
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: isc-dhcp (kinetic-proposed/main) [4.4.3-2ubuntu3 => 4.4.3-2ubuntu4] (core)15:29
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted digikam [source] (kinetic-proposed) [4:8.0.0~git20221002-0ubuntu1]15:30
* laney eyes everyone15:34
* tsimonq2 slides laney a whiskey15:35
rs2009am interested in joining the release team, but wasn't sure how to apply15:42
tsimonq2Ubuntu Core Developer for a couple of years is definitely a prerequisite15:43
seb128rs2009, it's another issue, there is no process defined, which means there is no way to officially candidate nor a way to get feedback15:53
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected update-manager [source] (kinetic-proposed) [1:22.10.3]15:54
seb128and as a 'fun' stat in the past 6 years only members of the foundation team have been added...15:54
tsimonq2seb128: I asked the same thing a few years back. Adam's rationale was that it's a fairly sensitive position. The bar is set exceptionally high and candidates are considered privately because otherwise it would lower the bar.15:54
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: update-manager (kinetic-proposed/main) [1:22.10.1 => 1:22.10.3] (core)15:55
tsimonq2As for what should happen going forward, I think any changes to that need to be done with great care15:56
seb128tsimonq2, which is a position I've heard from people in the past, I do think we have people with the needed skills and I don't think an open process would mean a lowering in quality15:56
seb128the TB is also a trusted group and it has elected members15:56
* Eickmeyer[m] dons CC hat15:56
tsimonq2Let's tread carefully. I'm in agreement that there should be more of a formalized process, but the bar needs to stay extremely high.15:56
Eickmeyer[m]Per the governance process, it's a group delegated by the TB, so the TB should be doing the appointing, not the Foundations team.15:56
tsimonq2Eickmeyer: Put your hat away until you get a quorum from the CC on your opinion.15:57
Eickmeyer[m]That's per the governance process, not my opinion.15:57
Eickmeyer[m]It's written.15:57
* Eickmeyer[m] takes off CC hat15:58
Eickmeyer[m]https://discourse.ubuntu.com/t/governance/33215:59
RikMillsI don't think anyone suggested that the foundations team does the appointing. But members of that are arguably most likely to have the requisite knowledge and experience16:02
vorlonit's a group that operates under the scope of the TB's authority; I don't believe you'll find any written delegation from the TB regarding the release team and if you ask the TB to be responsible for appointing people to the release team I would expect to wind up confirming the status quo of the launchpad team which is that it's self-administered16:02
Eickmeyer[m]Odd process, but ok.16:04
vorlonas for where members of the release team come from, since the first priority is to increase team capacity rather than have a diversity of teams represented, it has been useful to us as we work through recent questions about onboarding to start by onboarding someone who works closely with the existing members day-to-day, but shortly after kinetic release we have another candidate from our public16:06
vorloncloud team that we're going to work on onboarding.  Having a small number of active (paid to do this by day) members means we also have limited capacity for onboarding people, so we are serializing right now16:06
vorlonEickmeyer[m]: you can consider it odd, but it's the default for how most teams within Ubuntu work16:06
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rtl8812au (kinetic-proposed/universe) [4.3.8.12175.20140902+dfsg-0ubuntu16 => 4.3.8.12175.20140902+dfsg-0ubuntu17] (kernel-dkms)16:09
Eickmeyer[m]Ok, true, and neither here nor there. That wasn't the point I was trying to bring up to begin with. My initial point was that I see a team that acts as a one-man show most of the time, and that's the very antithesis of "team". Two people absent from an 8-member team should not put the entire burden on one person, which is what I'm seeing here. That's not fair to that one person.16:11
vorlonnot sure what you mean by "one-man show most of the time".  That's certainly not *me* as I've taken a backseat on milestones for the past couple of years and mostly let sil2100 and bdmurray lead16:12
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted carla [source] (kinetic-proposed) [2.5.1-0ubuntu1]16:13
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rtl8821ce (kinetic-proposed/universe) [5.5.2.1-0ubuntu11 => 5.5.2.1-0ubuntu12] (kernel-dkms)16:14
Eickmeyer[m]Ok, then that makes my point even further. They're on PTO this week, and there's 5 other members of the release team besides you.16:14
Eickmeyer[m]I'm just concerned, that's all.16:15
tsimonq2That all depends on what you consider to be "active" then...16:15
Eickmeyer[m]Don't take any of this the wrong way.16:16
vorlonyou're right to be concerned, but I'm saying that the low capacity and lack of redundancy in the release team is an issue that's already been identified and worked on but that it is a necessarily slow process16:16
Eickmeyer[m]Ok. If there's anything I can do to help, let me know. I know you don't think there's much I can do, but just know, I'm willing. :)16:18
Eickmeyer[m]That's not a "volunteering to be on the release team" but just a friendly helpful "whatever I can do" thing.16:18
Eickmeyer[m]And just know that I appreciate you and the entire release team, even if under-capacity.16:20
vorlonjbicha: do you have a specific reason for syncing dvdauthor at this point? it's seeded on ubuntustudio and ubuntukylin, there are a large number of packaging changes with no clear indicator of any of these being important to the release, so at a glance it looks like churn that's all risk and no reward for the flavors16:45
Eickmeyer[m]vorlon: If I may chime in with my ubuntustudio hat on, agreed, probably not worth it until next cycle since it's just packaging changes, but on the other hand looks extremely benign, but a little late.16:50
vorlonEickmeyer[m]: ack. the thing about "benign" changes is that the closer we get to release date, the more they compete for resources with critical changes (build queues, autopkgtest queues, developer attention on -proposed, etc)16:51
Eickmeyer[m]vorlon: Right, that's what was running through my head. Not worth the resources considering.16:52
vorlonEickmeyer[m]: similar question on metacity; seeded on ubuntustudio and ubuntukylin, it does have some crash fixes from upstream, do you want this?16:54
vorlon(uploaded by mitya57 )16:54
Eickmeyer[m]vorlon: looking...16:54
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: rejected libshumate [sync] (kinetic-proposed) [1.0.1-2]16:55
Eickmeyer[m]vorlon: I'm all for fixing crashes. I'm ok with this one.16:56
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted metacity [sync] (kinetic-proposed) [1:3.46.0-1]16:58
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted gdm3 [source] (kinetic-proposed) [43.0-1ubuntu1]16:59
-queuebot:#ubuntu-release- Unapproved: accepted libshumate [sync] (kinetic-proposed) [1.0.1-2]16:59

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!