Started logging meeting in #ubuntu-meeting
[10:00:29] <skaet_> To make the meetings be a bit more efficient, :) , would like us to follow the convention like some other teams are using ".." on separate line when you've finished typing. If someone wants to comment on the last point, please "o/", so we know to wait. Anyone object?
[10:00:50] <skaet_> Agenda for today can be found at:
[10:00:50] <skaet_>
[10:00:54] <skaet_> ..
[10:01:58] <skaet_> ok, giving folks a minute to look things up and raise hands, if they don't like the convention.
[10:02:00] <skaet_> ;)
[10:02:21] <skaet_> [TOPIC] pending action items
[10:02:56] <skaet_> any update on the pending action items?
[10:03:29] <skaet_> sconklin - will the next date for SRU on the interlock hold?
[10:03:38] <sconklin> no
[10:03:56] <cjwatson> I don't have anything specific on bug 642555. I'm due to meet up with Scott and James in person soon for some upstart planning, so will make sure it's brought up then.
[10:03:58] <sconklin> We're in a hold until the kenels are pocket copied into the -proposed pocket
[10:03:59] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 642555 in Ubuntu Lucid "Services not starting on boot in 10.04.1 LTS" [Medium,Confirmed]
[10:04:12] <sconklin> kernels
[10:04:30] <sconklin> I have a detailed report, can save it for the agenda item
[10:04:50] <skaet_> cjwatson, thanks. Will keep on agenda then.
[10:04:58] <skaet_> sconklin, sounds good.
[10:05:03] <sconklin> ..
[10:05:21] <skaet_> anyone else have any updates from the pending actions?
[10:05:25] <skaet_> ..
[10:05:49] <skaet_> [TOPIC] Feature and Bugs Summary
[10:06:21] <skaet_> just wante to point out there's now a +/- on each of the bugs, so we can start to see the trends across the releases in terms of bugs open.
[10:06:42] <skaet_> This is just a prototype, and a bit more manual than I'd like, but is a staring point.
[10:06:48] <victorp> sorry skaet_ but some of the actions should now be closed by default .. like when is the next SRU
[10:07:20] <skaet_> victorp, not necessarily, see comments from sconklin. We'll get to that later though...
[10:07:44] <skaet_> [TOPIC] Long term support plan
[10:08:00] <skaet_> s/plan/status/ sigh.
[10:08:09] <skaet_> Kernel team upate?
[10:08:28] <sconklin> no updates on the bug
[10:08:50] <sconklin> ..
[10:08:52] <skaet_> ok, thanks.
[10:09:35] <skaet_> Any update on the foundation bugs, cjwatson?
[10:09:58] <skaet_> ..
[10:10:23] <cjwatson> I'm afraid I have nothing to report on the three foundations bugs on the agenda; I'll try to harass people into doing something in time for the next meeting. Sorry about that. The only one I think is actually critical for 10.04.2 is bug 607657.
[10:10:25] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 607657 in base-installer (Ubuntu Lucid) "Lucid point release installer must support LTS backported Kernels" [High,Triaged]
[10:10:29] <cjwatson> (and I'll make sure we do something about that)
[10:10:37] <skaet_> Thanks cjwatson.
[10:10:40] <cjwatson> I do have several bugs that have seen no validation work and need it:
[10:10:45] <cjwatson> bug 544139
[10:10:47] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 544139 in consolekit (Ubuntu Lucid) "Active VT tracking can fail at startup" [High,Fix committed]
[10:10:49] <cjwatson> bug 563916
[10:10:50] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 563916 in plymouth (Ubuntu Lucid) "[] No prompt for [S]kip or [M]anual recovery on server boot (or without "splash")" [High,Fix committed]
[10:10:54] <cjwatson> bug 603854
[10:10:55] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 603854 in grub-installer (Ubuntu Lucid) "When installing onto fake raid grub still tried to install to /dev/sda" [High,Fix committed]
[10:10:59] <cjwatson> bug 569900
[10:11:03] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 569900 in partman-base (Ubuntu Lucid) "partman sometimes creates partitions such that there is ambiguity between whether the superblock is on the disk device or the partition device" [High,Fix committed]
[10:11:26] <cjwatson> (erm, actually, I'm not sure that that last one has been uploaded, I'll look at that)
[10:11:31] <skaet_> ;)
[10:11:43] <cjwatson> also, there's a questionable validation result on bug 634554 which we need to look into
[10:11:44] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 634554 in fuse (Ubuntu Lucid) "fuse mounts hang on xattr retrieval with auditd" [High,Fix committed]
[10:11:46] <cjwatson> ..
[10:12:13] <skaet_> thanks, cjwatson, will add into the agenda for next time, so we're tracking.
[10:12:22] <skaet_> anyone around for server?
[10:12:29] <zul> yeah
[10:12:32] <skaet_> :)
[10:12:53] <zul> nothing new from us...we did a bunch of SRU testing this week it should be going to proposed this week
[10:13:13] <skaet_> cool. anything on the radar for 10.04.2 that I didn't catch on the agenda?
[10:13:36] <zul> nope
[10:13:43] <skaet_> thanks zul.
[10:13:52] <skaet_> anyone around from desktop today?
[10:14:14] * skaet_ looks around
[10:14:24] <skaet_> ... moving on then
[10:14:43] <skaet_> [TOPIC] Stable Release Update
[10:15:05] <skaet_> sconklin, can you give an update as to what the outlook is?
[10:15:12] <davidm> skaet_, hello sorry I'm late
[10:15:20] <sconklin> The kernel team prepared new kernels for every supported
[10:15:20] <sconklin> Ubuntu release. For the first time while using the new
[10:15:20] <sconklin> stable release cadence, this update contains non-critical
[10:15:20] <sconklin> security fixes.
[10:15:28] <sconklin> Because the release contains security fixes, changes in the
[10:15:28] <sconklin> build process have been implemented. These changes will
[10:15:28] <sconklin> continue to be used for all stable kernel releases.
[10:15:28] <sconklin> Stable kernels are now built in a non-virtualized PPA, so
[10:15:28] <sconklin> that they can be built against the latest -security release
[10:15:29] <sconklin> and released into both the -security pocket and -updates
[10:15:29] <sconklin> pocket upon testing acceptance.
[10:15:39] <sconklin> Because of the new process, uploaded kernels no longer
[10:15:39] <sconklin> require acceptance by an Archive Admin, but once they are
[10:15:39] <sconklin> built they require manual copying to the -proposed pocket
[10:15:39] <sconklin> before the verification cycle can begin.
[10:15:39] <sconklin> This is documented on the stable release cadence page here:
[10:15:40] <sconklin> PPA and process for pocket copying
[10:15:49] <sconklin> Kernels for the current cycle were uploaded to the PPA
[10:15:49] <sconklin> and builds had completed by Friday. On Friday the archive
[10:15:49] <sconklin> admins were notified that there were kernels to be copied to
[10:15:49] <sconklin> -proposed. The new process using the non-virtualized has
[10:15:49] <sconklin> caused some discussion about the new process among
[10:15:50] <sconklin> the stable kernel team, Martin Pitt, and Kees Cook. The technical
[10:15:50] <sconklin> board has been copied on part of the thread.
[10:15:59] <sconklin> Due to this discussion, they have not been pocket
[10:15:59] <sconklin> copied to -proposed yet. Verification testing can not begin
[10:15:59] <sconklin> until they are in -proposed, and verification is allocated
[10:15:59] <sconklin> one week. Therefore, we will not have kernels ready for
[10:15:59] <sconklin> certification and regression testing available on Dec 13th as
[10:16:00] <sconklin> planned.
[10:16:06] <sconklin> ..
[10:16:35] <marjo_> sconklin: ack
[10:16:45] <victorp> ack
[10:16:57] <vanhoof> o/
[10:17:09] <skaet_> are we good for the 14th SRU releases?
[10:17:12] <sconklin> we were going to have our SRU release for the kernel on 12/16
[10:17:14] <victorp> sconklin - any thoughts on how big will be the slip (days, week??)
[10:17:20] <vanhoof> sconklin: question answered :)
[10:17:35] <sconklin> No.
[10:18:09] <sconklin> We require 7 days for verification testing, then a couple of days to respin the kernels after any reverts, then Victor starts testing
[10:18:10] <vanhoof> sconklin: realistically does the month of december still look positive?
[10:18:28] <vanhoof> (provided holidays, etc)
[10:18:44] <sconklin> It's entirely dependent on the outcome of the current discussion between pitti, us, security, and the technical board
[10:18:48] <marjo_> sconklin: ditto
[10:18:52] <victorp> lets put it that way, if it is later than the 20th we can do it
[10:19:00] <victorp> s/can/cant/
[10:19:22] <sconklin> pitti is the only Archive admin who deals with kernels in the archive, and he is not satisfied that the new process is correct (is my understanding)
[10:19:45] <sconklin> So we are in an indefinite hold until that is resolved.
[10:19:49] <sconklin> ..
[10:20:08] <victorp> ok
[10:20:16] <cjwatson> actually other archive admins do deal with them, but I haven't been following the thread and in any case would want to satisfy pitti rather than overruling him
[10:20:23] <victorp> just take into account that we are running into next year quickly
[10:20:26] <cjwatson> (though pitti does do the bulk of kernel SRUing)
[10:21:00] <skaet_> ack. ok, we probably need to take an action here.
[10:21:09] <sconklin> I'm not advocating overruling anyone, I want us all to be satisfied with the process. But the reality is that the other AAs defer to pitti to do anything having to do with the kernel
[10:21:33] <cjwatson> in general, once an admin objects we would defer to that person on the grounds that they've taken ownership
[10:21:49] <cjwatson> though I'm not sure that's written down anywhere :)
[10:21:54] <sconklin> as he is the most knowledgeable about the kernel issues
[10:22:09] <skaet_> we need to see if we can get through this blockage some how. suggestions?
[10:22:11] <victorp> I am a bit confused on where we stand , can someone summarise in 2 lines what happens next?
[10:22:18] <sconklin> ..
[10:22:51] <cjwatson> find pitti/kees and have a real-time discussion about it
[10:23:02] <cjwatson> (I'd suggest - since e-mail seems to be plodding/stalled)
[10:23:03] <sconklin> We can release 10-14 days after the kernels are copied to -proposed, depending on weekends, etc
[10:23:13] <sconklin> cjwatson: agreed!
[10:23:18] <sconklin> ..
[10:23:46] <victorp> cjwatson sounds good
[10:24:00] <skaet_> [ACTION] pitti, kees, sconklin - get together and propose adjustments process if needed, then broadcast new dates
[10:24:01] <sconklin> this may have been resolved easily if it had not occurred over a weekend
[10:24:01] <victorp> skaet - on that basis I propose to meet again this time next week
[10:24:28] <apw> skaet_, i suggest you involve yourself in the meeting to understand the issues for next time
[10:24:32] <skaet_> victorp, if we don't have an email broadcast, ok, lets meet again.
[10:24:44] <skaet_> apw, I wasn't on the thread it appears.
[10:25:09] <victorp> skaet_ we will still need to meet to understand the impact to the timing of whatever is agreed
[10:25:56] <skaet_> apw, ack, would like to be
[10:26:18] <skaet_> victorp, ok - will put this on calendar for this time next week, with this as only topic area
[10:26:34] <victorp> skaet_ ack
[10:26:39] <sconklin> I'll take the action to organize the meeting asap
[10:26:46] <skaet_> [ACTION] skaet call meeting to discussing outcome of sconklin's meeting with pitti and kees.
[10:26:54] <skaet_> thanks sconklin
[10:27:50] <skaet_> ok, I think we've got some actions, and next steps figured out, so would like to see where we are on testing infrastructure.
[10:28:05] <skaet_> victorp, any updates?
[10:28:22] <victorp> we were all set for the testing so
[10:28:42] <victorp> we are planning to work on the infrastructure during the test sprint
[10:28:48] <victorp> hapenning now
[10:28:54] <victorp> (i.e this week)
[10:29:12] <victorp> we would like to have by end of the week a test suite for both cert and regression
[10:29:24] <skaet_> cool
[10:29:24] <victorp> (marjo is sitting here with me and nodding his head)
[10:29:39] <skaet_> thanks marjo, victorp
[10:29:41] <marjo_> ack
[10:30:00] <skaet_> victorp, any chance we can use the spare slot now to do the runs on the alpha1 images and gets some summaries?
[10:30:18] <victorp> that was in the plan anyway
[10:30:24] <victorp> we might just have more time to do so
[10:30:25] * skaet_ knows its not SRU related, but doesn't like seeing those machines idle ;)
[10:30:30] <victorp> lets see what happens
[10:30:34] <skaet_> victorp, cool. thanks.
[10:31:00] <skaet_> victorp, marjo - should I add a summary of the testing sprint to the meeting next week from you both?
[10:31:14] <marjo_> skaet_ good idea
[10:31:44] <skaet_> ok, will make sure its on the reduced agenda, and you can both summarize for your areas.
[10:32:49] <skaet_> ..
[10:33:13] <skaet_> ok, lets go on to other SRU planning then for the week, in terms of what's happening on the development side.
[10:33:27] <skaet_> sconklin, any bugs/area
[10:33:40] <skaet_> you'll be focusing on for this next week, we should be aware of?
[10:34:00] <sconklin> we have been processing upstream stable updates and security CVEs, and have not had time to looking at any actual bugs that have been reported.
[10:34:06] <sconklin> There are more CVEs being opened
[10:34:17] <sconklin> So our work load will continue to be high for these
[10:34:25] <sconklin>
[10:34:39] <sconklin> So, I don't anticipate having a lot of debug time from our team.
[10:34:40] <sconklin> ..
[10:35:31] <skaet_> sconklin, ack. ok, will be looking to see if the CVE's will impact the cycle. next week then I guess.
[10:36:03] <skaet_> cjwatson, other than the bugs you highlighted above needing validation, anything else that the foundations team will be looking at?
[10:36:39] <cjwatson> enabling the kernel backport is the main one, but OEM have been asking about bug 664115 too so we'll be sorting that out
[10:36:41] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 664115 in parted (Ubuntu Maverick) "chroot loop devices stall for extremely long periods" [Medium,Triaged]
[10:37:08] <cjwatson> I don't think there's anything else terribly vital
[10:37:20] <skaet_> cjwatson, ok, thanks!
[10:37:52] <skaet_> zul, any thing to be concerned about from the server side? any progress on the aging SRU ones?
[10:38:26] <zul> skaet_: nope we still have a couple need to be verified but no big deal i think
[10:39:19] <skaet_> any progress likely on some of the very old ones? >100 days?
[10:39:37] <zul> skaet: yes there was...i think for the openvpn one is to get a better testcase
[10:39:56] <zul> which is a todo item for me this week i think
[10:40:01] <skaet_> :)
[10:40:09] <skaet_> ok, thanks for the update zul.
[10:40:27] <skaet_> any update on the SRU side from ARM team? ogra?
[10:41:28] <skaet_> any one here from the desktop team?
[10:42:42] <skaet_> davidm, do you have any SRU update issues from your team?
[10:42:46] <skaet_> ..
[10:43:18] <davidm> skaet_, no not at this time
[10:43:26] <skaet_> thanks davidm.
[10:43:56] <skaet_> vanhoof, any focus areas from the OEM side?
[10:45:10] <skaet_> hmm.. am thinking that we're winding down on issues, and folks to talk about things, so probably time to end the meeting for this week.
[10:45:22] <vanhoof> skaet_: sorry was looking elsewhere
[10:45:42] <vanhoof> skaet_: from a HWE perspective, everything we have has been commited (all maverick right now)
[10:45:42] <skaet_> lol, just in time
[10:45:49] <vanhoof> its just a matter of SRU release
[10:45:57] <vanhoof> ..
[10:46:14] <skaet_> thanks vanhoof. questions?
[10:46:40] <skaet_> [TOPIC] any other comments/concerns/etc. to raise?
[10:46:49] <vanhoof> skaet_: just need to follow up on the meetings happening regarding process
[10:46:57] <vanhoof> skaet_: so nothing right this second
[10:47:24] <skaet_> vanhoof, ack. You're not alone on that.
[10:47:28] <skaet_> any one else?
[10:47:49] <skaet_> #endmeeting
Meeting ended.