15:12:42 <MoC> #startmeeting
15:12:42 <MeetBot> Meeting started Wed Jan 14 15:12:42 2015 UTC.  The chair is MoC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
15:12:42 <MeetBot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
15:12:46 <MoC> hi h01ger
15:12:49 <MoC> #chair intrigeri
15:12:49 <MeetBot> Current chairs: MoC intrigeri
15:12:52 <MoC> #chair MoC
15:12:52 <MeetBot> Current chairs: MoC intrigeri
15:13:01 <MoC> #topic user stories
15:13:03 <h01ger> hola
15:13:16 <MoC> intrigeri: let's start?
15:14:03 <intrigeri> yay
15:14:16 <MoC> https://wiki.debian.org/AppArmor/Progress#User_Stories
15:14:52 <intrigeri> s/Ship AppArmor profile/Ship an existing AppArmor profile in the same Debian package as the confined software/
15:14:55 <intrigeri> s/,$//
15:15:00 <intrigeri> 1st user story:
15:15:00 <intrigeri> "this profile exists upstream or in the apparmor-profiles-extra package"
15:15:00 <intrigeri> should be a "Given" (before "When I want"), not a "If"
15:15:13 <intrigeri> "Given" defines the pre-existing context.
15:15:19 <intrigeri> in Gherkin, I mean.
15:15:48 <MoC> ok
15:16:00 <MoC> ok
15:16:08 <intrigeri> I'm dumping suggestions, for now.
15:16:36 <intrigeri> s/to be told/to be taught/
15:17:11 <intrigeri> that's all for the 1st user story. anything to discuss based on my suggestions, or are they 100% consensual?
15:17:22 <MoC> i ack 100% :)
15:17:39 <MoC> i had not completely figured out gherkin's if/given :)
15:17:42 <intrigeri> s/PakageMaintainers/PackageMaintainers/
15:18:06 <intrigeri> given = pre-existing context; when = action taken; then = expected outcome
15:18:28 <intrigeri> "and" = same magic introduction word as the previous line
15:18:35 <intrigeri> Gherkin 101 :)
15:19:30 <intrigeri> s/for "my" package/for package P/
15:19:38 <MoC> ok
15:19:51 <intrigeri> (let's include both P's maintainers, and users who want to help them get AppArmor stuff, OK?)
15:20:08 <MoC> yes
15:20:22 <intrigeri> I would replace "Then I need to be told how to ask for review of that profile"
15:20:23 <intrigeri> with
15:20:36 <intrigeri> "Then I need to be taught how to test that profile
15:20:46 <intrigeri> And I need to be taught to ask for a review of that profile"
15:21:05 <MoC> ok
15:21:12 <MoC> i will start applying the modifications now
15:21:33 <intrigeri> now, the "test that profile" only applies for the "found" situation, but I say we can keep the two subcases in this single user story.
15:21:44 * intrigeri refraining from over-engineering stuff too much.
15:22:52 <MoC> :))
15:24:00 <intrigeri> I'm OK with the proposed doc+tools solutions for the 2 first user stories, ftr.
15:24:24 <intrigeri> btw, these user stories will be super useful whenever we review the entire doc in terms of navigation.
15:24:26 <intrigeri> :)
15:24:37 <intrigeri> good thing we have a web expert on board :)
15:25:45 <intrigeri> I think that "Update or Patch AppArmor profile" tries to cover too much ground, and is confusing as a result.
15:25:55 <intrigeri> I propose to split into:
15:26:12 <MoC> hehe
15:26:15 <MoC> ok
15:26:22 <intrigeri> * Update an AppArmor profile to include upstream improvements
15:26:25 <MoC> i corrected the 1st two stories
15:26:50 <intrigeri> * Modify an already shipped AppArmor profile
15:27:16 <intrigeri> * Upstream Debian changes made on an AppArmor profile we ship
15:27:44 <intrigeri> These really are pretty different use cases, with different solutions.
15:28:18 <intrigeri> (e.g. using a single "merge-request" usertag both for merging Debian->upstream and upstream->Debian seems confusing)
15:28:27 <intrigeri> what do you think?
15:28:40 <MoC> ack
15:29:07 <intrigeri> I say todo++ this idea and work on it later.
15:29:20 <MoC> ok
15:29:48 <intrigeri> s/Who ships an AppArmor profile in "my" package,/Given I ship an AppArmor profile in package P I am maintaining/
15:30:30 <intrigeri> "Then I want to:" + 2 bullet points should become "Then I want to be taught how to diagnose whether AppArmor is involved
15:30:55 <intrigeri> And if that is the case, I want to be taught how to put the problem under the pkg-apparmor team's radar"
15:30:56 <intrigeri> or similar.
15:30:59 <intrigeri> anyway. no big deal.
15:31:21 <MoC> ok
15:31:42 <intrigeri> and ack "help-needed". and maybe "buggy-profile" instead of "broken-profile"?
15:31:54 <MoC> ok
15:31:55 <MoC> ack
15:31:56 <MoC> :D
15:31:59 <intrigeri> 2 stories left.
15:32:13 <intrigeri> (I've got other urgent matters to attend once we're done)
15:32:45 <MoC> ok sure
15:32:55 <MoC> we can also look at the 2 other stories later if you prefer
15:32:58 <intrigeri> s/Test AppArmor profile/Testing AppArmor confinement before uploading a new version of a package/
15:33:14 <intrigeri> s/Who ships/Given [...]/ you got the idea :)
15:33:18 <MoC> ok
15:33:47 <intrigeri> maybe "When I prepare an upload for a new upstream release" should be more generic, as the proposed feature title above.
15:34:02 <MoC> ok
15:34:05 <intrigeri> e.g. debian/patches/* can break compatibility with AppArmor. ditto for debian/* actually.
15:34:33 <intrigeri> I kind of disagree with "→ Usertag "test-needed", to request help for testing".
15:35:03 <intrigeri> If a maintainer is not ready to deal with the testing part, then I'm not sure they should ship profiles.
15:35:28 <intrigeri> Fixing/updating/improving profiles is a different matter, of course, and IMO that's why we (pkg-apparmor team) are here to help.
15:35:43 <intrigeri> But really, I doubt we can realistically help maintainers test their stuff before every upload.
15:36:03 <intrigeri> Maybe we can reconsider in a year, and see what's the status of our team once we're there.
15:36:18 <intrigeri> Right now, I don't think we have enough time/energy/motivation to commit to do that.
15:37:00 <MoC> ok, i agree for the testing "If a maintainer is not ready to deal with the testing part, then I'm not sure they should ship profiles."
15:37:03 <intrigeri> "Other AppArmor related problems" is quite vague, but well, it's a catchall.
15:37:11 <MoC> ok
15:37:14 <MoC> so wait a second
15:37:21 <intrigeri> apparmor-notify should be dropped from the list, since we're maintaining it.
15:37:24 <intrigeri> Yep.
15:37:43 <MoC> ok
15:38:10 <intrigeri> maybe replace apparmor-notify with the name of my preferred init system that shall not be named.
15:38:19 <MoC> so does that mean no usertag for the "   1 Feature: Test AppArmor profile" ?
15:38:30 <intrigeri> I would say so.
15:38:33 <MoC> or should I simply delete this user story?
15:38:42 <MoC> it's simply about documentation then, ok
15:38:46 <MoC> ok and last one
15:38:58 <MoC> ok for the last comments!
15:39:01 <MoC> thanks!
15:39:03 <intrigeri> oh no, it's useful I think. or maybe merge it with the 1st user story.
15:39:21 <intrigeri> since it's really a follow-up of "I'm including a profile in my pkg".
15:39:28 <intrigeri> or not.
15:39:41 <intrigeri> in case one takes over maintainance of a pkg that already ships AppArmor bits.
15:39:42 <MoC> hm, ok that is quite close, but maybe 2 stories keep track of 2 different things..
15:39:45 <intrigeri> keep it separate.
15:39:46 <MoC> :)
15:39:48 <MoC> ok
15:39:51 <intrigeri> yay
15:40:04 <MoC> #todo MoC apply modifications to documentation
15:40:14 <MoC> intrigeri: once i have done this, i will ping you again?
15:40:20 <MoC> tomorrow?
15:40:25 <intrigeri> I've used "platform" usertag for http://bugs.debian.org/775331
15:40:30 <MoC> ok
15:40:31 <MoC> great
15:40:35 <intrigeri> MoC: tomorrow i'll be mostly afk, but email works.
15:40:39 <MoC> ok
15:40:41 <MoC> sounds good!
15:40:54 <intrigeri> regarding user tags for the last catchall story, we'll refine as we go, I think.
15:40:59 <intrigeri> woohoo
15:41:04 <MoC> woooohooo!!!
15:41:04 <intrigeri> all this is exciting
15:41:07 <intrigeri> congrats! :()
15:41:08 <intrigeri> oops
15:41:09 <MoC> thanks :D
15:41:11 <intrigeri> I meant :)
15:41:18 <intrigeri> back to Tails work.
15:41:32 <intrigeri> if I manage to escape the confinement in this channel.
15:41:36 <MoC> #endmeeting