Linux Archive

Linux Archive (http://www.linux-archive.org/)
-   Ubuntu Server Development (http://www.linux-archive.org/ubuntu-server-development/)
-   -   Server Team 20100120 meeting minutes (http://www.linux-archive.org/ubuntu-server-development/312245-server-team-20100120-meeting-minutes.html)

Thierry Carrez 01-20-2010 03:27 PM

Server Team 20100120 meeting minutes
 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi,

Here are the minutes of the meeting. They can also be found online with
the irc logs here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MeetingLogs/Server/20100120.


==== Review ACTION points from previous meeting ====
* smoser to look at getting Karmic images refreshed: bug verifiedfixed,
image refresh coming up before end of week

Action: smoser to publish karmic cloud image refresh

* mathiaz to send out AWS Client lib RFC: done
* ttx to coordinate alpha ISO testing: done
* ttx for papercuts: discuss acceptance criteria, project publicity
plan: mail sent, more in this meeting
* mathiaz to publish papercuts & apport efforts in our blog/community
channels: done
* mathiaz to publish request for iso testing in our regular
blog/community channels: done

==== Spec quickreview ====

All alpha-3 targeted specs are on track.

To avoid useless noise, blueprint assignees are asked to refresh the
status of their specs by using the "Status:" section of the blueprint
whiteboard. It will then automagically show up in the report[1].

[1]
http://people.canonical.com/~pitti/workitems/canonical-server-lucid-alpha-3.html

Action: Everyone: update status for your specs before the meeting starts

==== Alpha3 subcycle planning ====

The final planning is still being discussed, and should be officialized
this week. No change is expected in the Prio 1 specs ("High" priority),
some priority changes might affect Prio2/3 specs, and some late specs
might be introduced as Prio2/3 specs.

==== server-lucid-papercuts ====

We discussed the papercuts acceptance criteria, as described in a recent
ubuntu-server ML post[2]. This looks fine and was approved. Final
criteria should make clear that any server-related package (in main,
universe or multiverse) is relevant, and that the fix should not
introduce a new feature (and therefore be OK to fix after
FeatureFreeze). The criteria might be further refined when we start
hitting difficult nominations.

About the project publicity plan, mathiaz already posted a blog entry
about the project on the ubuntuserver blog. This should be complemented
by an ubuntu-devel ML post, personal blog posts (ttx, zul) and brought
to the attention of the Ubuntu Weekly News team. alexm will talk about
it in his loco. The message is about nominating your favorite server
papercuts, so that we gather as many candidates as possible now.

[2] https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-server/2010-January/003648.html

Action: ttx, zul to blog about papercuts, make sure UWN gets the word

Action: ttx to send email about criteria and nomination to ubuntu-devel,
ubuntu-server

==== server-lucid-apport-hooks ====

Building on the UDS Dallas discussion about how having apport hooks in
server packages can help the quality of the bug reports we receive, the
server apport hooks effort aims at adding as many as we can before
FeatureFreeze. zul created a page at [3] with likely candidates. Anyone
interested, please sign up for your favorite package, or add your own !

[3] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam/ApportHooks

==== Weekly Updates & Questions for the QA Team ====

soren has been extending the ISO testing features, and can now at the
click of a button run ISO tests of the cartesian product of
i386/amd64,lvm/non-lvm,basic/mail/bind9/lamp/postgresql installs.
Documentation on the setup is under way, and the process should be
ultimately integrated with Marc Tardif's checkbox work. soren will lead
an UbuntuDeveloperWeek session about this next Tuesday at 2000 UTC.

==== Weekly Updates & Questions for the Kernel Team ====

Discussion concentrated on bug Bug:494565, since a decision must be
reached on the best option to follow. The -virtual kernel currently
being a subflavour of -server and -generic-pae, building support for the
block devices needed for EC2 and UEC would also affect those kernels.
The options are CONFIG_SCSI_SYM53C8XX_2, CONFIG_VIRTIO_NET and
CONFIG_VIRTIO_BLK. CONFIG_SCSI_SYM53C8XX_2=y, in particular, could have
unexpected consequences on some rare hardware. Note that building in
that SCSI support would not prevent it from being manually bypassed.
Alternatives would be to make -virtual a flavour of its own (but this
adds a lot of maintenance work for the kernel team), patch UEC so that
it works without that SCSI support (potential performance issues,
deviation from upstream), or abandon the idea of using no ramdisks for
UEC. This should be further discussed on ubuntu-devel.

Action: smoser to raise thread about the no-ramdisk / -virtual config
tradeoff

==== Assigned and to-be-assigned bugs ====

List at [4] still needs to be cleaned up to be more useful.

[4]
http://qa.ubuntu.com/reports/team-assigned/canonical-server-assigned-bug-tasks.html

Action: zul, kirkland to unassign themselves from "maybe working on one
day" bugs

==== Agree on next meeting date and time ====

Next meeting will be on Wednesday, January 27th at 14:00 UTC in
#ubuntu-meeting.

- --
Thierry Carrez
Ubuntu server team
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAktXLwMACgkQvcL1obalX0+qOgCfa9dVL03lWP iTiNOblaq84PAn
GDIAmgO3YWOUSqny0LFAb9890XoduFJh
=fWU0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
ubuntu-server mailing list
ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server
More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam

Dustin Kirkland 01-20-2010 09:07 PM

Server Team 20100120 meeting minutes
 
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 5:27 AM, Thierry Carrez
<thierry.carrez@ubuntu.com> wrote:
> List at [4] still needs to be cleaned up to be more useful.
>
> [4]
> http://qa.ubuntu.com/reports/team-assigned/canonical-server-assigned-bug-tasks.html
>
> Action: zul, kirkland to unassign themselves from "maybe working on one
> day" bugs

Two comments here ...

First to the usefulness of that list... I don't like it at all that
this list is cached data. It's always out of date. I've closed
several of these bugs today, and they're still on this list. For this
list to be useful, it needs to be more up-to-date.

Second, I actually would like to track my "maybe working on one day"
bugs. Perhaps I'll work on them in my own time, or as a community
member, or as a MOTU. For this reason, it makes sense to use the
owner field in Launchpad. Can we, perhaps, tag them somehow, and
filter on that to generate this report? Adding a "spare-time" tag, or
something like that?

:-Dustin

--
ubuntu-server mailing list
ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server
More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam

Thierry Carrez 01-21-2010 06:42 AM

Server Team 20100120 meeting minutes
 
Dustin Kirkland wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 5:27 AM, Thierry Carrez
> <thierry.carrez@ubuntu.com> wrote:
>> List at [4] still needs to be cleaned up to be more useful.
>>
>> [4]
>> http://qa.ubuntu.com/reports/team-assigned/canonical-server-assigned-bug-tasks.html
>>
>> Action: zul, kirkland to unassign themselves from "maybe working on one
>> day" bugs
>
> Two comments here ...
>
> First to the usefulness of that list... I don't like it at all that
> this list is cached data. It's always out of date. I've closed
> several of these bugs today, and they're still on this list. For this
> list to be useful, it needs to be more up-to-date.

I agree. Usually I check up stale entries just before the meeting, but
cleaning them up won't help since the report is pregenerated. I think
the reason is that it magically expands to bugs owned by the list + the
individual members of the list.

> Second, I actually would like to track my "maybe working on one day"
> bugs. Perhaps I'll work on them in my own time, or as a community
> member, or as a MOTU. For this reason, it makes sense to use the
> owner field in Launchpad. Can we, perhaps, tag them somehow, and
> filter on that to generate this report? Adding a "spare-time" tag, or
> something like that?

I also agree that using the assignee field that way prevents us from
getting a nice list of "maybe working on one day" bugs. This is a
two-edged sword though. Putting your name there usually discourages
anyone else to fix it or propose a patch for it, and that's definitely
not a desirable side-effect.

I tried to use the "subscribed to" list to get such a list myself, with
varying degrees of success. Maybe tagging those bugs
("maybe-one-day-kirkland", or something more obscure), without assigning
them to you, would allow to easily get a list of them without the
unwelcome side-effect of preventing contributions.

--
Thierry Carrez
Ubuntu Server team

--
ubuntu-server mailing list
ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server
More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:45 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.