19:00:15 #startmeeting 19:00:15 Meeting started Wed Jun 28 19:00:15 2017 UTC. The chair is nthykier. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 19:00:15 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. 19:00:18 o/ 19:01:09 adsb: if checks can run for so long, could this be made async maybe? 19:01:26 #chair jmw 19:01:26 Current chairs: jmw nthykier 19:01:28 put big '???' instead in the meanwhile, but let q-v get to other things? 19:01:38 #greetings everyone 19:01:41 KiBi: not particularly easily in the current architecture 19:01:53 it's something I've pondered every so often 19:01:59 hm, I hate it when nthykier makes it sound like I know stuff 19:02:04 oh, I have been naught and forgot to update the agenda 19:02:05 o/ 19:02:07 adsb: ack for lack of easy, what about desirability? 19:02:21 jmw: you are here to ensure the meeting goes on if I lose connection :P 19:02:24 nthykier: well I've removed the obviously redundant things from last time, at least :) 19:02:28 maybe 19:02:39 #admin 19:02:40 it's not /that/ common an occurence, at least it hasn't been in the psat 19:02:52 #info We released \o/ 19:03:00 \o/ 19:03:11 \o/ 19:03:12 * jmw has his life back! wait, the other thing 19:03:22 jmw, pochu and I all had action items related to that, which are now (obviously) complete 19:03:24 nah, $dayjob just stole it back 19:03:35 tru dat. 19:03:52 (I should probably put my serious hat on now) 19:04:04 #topic transitions 19:04:23 well, they started 19:04:28 They did 19:04:35 and it appears I have forgotten everything about them since last touching them >6mo ago 19:04:43 A common problem :) 19:04:47 poor pochu 19:05:21 I think we have a perl 5.26 transition coming up soon, otherwise I am not aware of anything 19:05:38 jmw: pochu: Have you seen anything or want to mention anything here? 19:05:39 I don't think there's much to write home about yet. everything set up so far has gone alarmingly smoothly 19:05:59 it's possibly time for a nthykier how-to-be-nice-to-us-over-transitions d-d-a mail 19:06:21 you know, new cycle, new nagging 19:06:33 s/nthykier/jmw/ and you got a deal! ;) 19:06:39 pfft 19:06:53 #info Transitions have started in earnest, so far so good 19:07:15 Is our tooling still up to speed with the workflow? 19:07:31 python3 is about ready to start (fyi - didn't write the request yet). 19:08:26 seems fine as far as I'm aware 19:08:30 ScottK: thanks :) 19:08:44 jmw: Thanks :) 19:08:50 I guess this was it for transitions then 19:08:52 although I would like to make ben use tracker and not qa for links 19:08:58 but niggle 19:09:08 jmw: nag mehdi 19:09:15 he is our ben-fixer 19:10:10 it's not a big deal 19:10:13 ok 19:10:24 Lets move then :) 19:10:41 #topic stretch feedback 19:10:55 jmw: you just added this one, so you get to present it! :) 19:11:03 it's your thing :p 19:11:16 #info Feedback from the stretch cycle is collected in gobby 19:11:21 :D 19:11:28 oh that :) 19:11:34 should we try to get feedback from the project as well as introspecting? 19:12:22 True, that might be good too 19:12:50 Mostly I was looking for actionable items or things to use for planning the buster freeze 19:13:26 yeh 19:13:38 adsb: do we still have that "feedback@r.d.o" alias? 19:14:47 we do. it's full of spam in character sets I don't understand 19:15:09 guess I should subscribe and then do a call for feedback 19:15:29 #action nthykier to do a project wide request for feedback 19:15:32 I'd suggest working it into a bits mail 19:15:53 it would be nice to get positive feedback too, of course 19:15:53 true, I'd have to subscribe before said bits mail though 19:16:41 jmw: what's next? 19:17:37 #topic Publish britney remarks to tracker? 19:17:55 (ping pochu, you got an item coming up assuming you are around) 19:17:56 previous minutes don't claim we talked about this, so it must be new 19:18:05 ok 19:18:31 it's the question of whether britney remarks, which were originally for internal notes, should be published by britney so maintainers can use them as feedback too 19:18:49 possibly taking one cycle out of the unblock feedback loop 19:19:47 I am fine with exposing the fact that there is a remark (and possibly what it is), but I don't think it should replace our primary communication with the maintainer (which would be unblock requests) 19:19:59 no, totally 19:20:57 Any one else have a comment or should we just expose them? 19:21:05 (FTR, they are public already now) 19:21:27 #info remarks are in fact already public, just not particularly easy to find 19:21:39 I only discovered this accidentally a few weeks ago :) 19:22:56 #action nthykier file a bug against britney about making her include remark hints in the excuses page 19:23:25 sounds like there were no objections, and if there are, we can still take them up on the bug report :) 19:24:09 shall we skip line 12? 19:24:23 jmw: ack, until pochu appears 19:24:31 #topic Buster planning 19:24:53 so, we should decide on some high-level target dates so that we can talk about them incessantly on d-d-a until they stick 19:25:23 My opening gambit, stretch dates +2years 19:25:37 maybe tweak the transition deadline 19:25:51 but yes, we should 19:26:12 sounds a good start. two years between freezes seems to work quite well, although the releases are gradually working along the year a bit 19:26:43 nthykier: were you thinking transition freeze earlier or later? 19:26:48 yeah, the progressive slide isn't too good looking 19:26:57 later, but I remember a suggestion for a toolchain freeze 19:27:33 jmw: KiBi: actually, if we subtract the deliberate delay of 2 months in stretch, then we had a shorter freeze then jessie (counting "hard freeze") 19:27:34 fwiw I'm fairly sure advice from previous RMs was "they don't really help" 19:28:00 nthykier: june is later than may 19:28:03 jessie was released in May, Stretch in June - June -2 months would be April 19:28:08 may is later than istr february 19:28:44 so if we could manage to avoid sliding a bit more, that'd be best. 19:29:52 I'm all for trying to take a month off the freeze, if we can do it 19:30:01 We did 19:30:06 another :) 19:30:15 that is going to be hard though 19:30:15 again! again! 19:30:17 (sorry) 19:30:29 about mid may was when it felt like we lost momentum 19:30:50 (though that did coincide with lots of $life, so my perspective may be skewed) 19:31:20 fundamentally, we have way too many issues left when the freeze starts - Feb. was one month of "incoming RC bugs = fixed RC bugs" 19:31:49 anyway, I think we are digressing 19:32:17 this basically wants an action item for starting the planning, if I am not mistaken 19:32:34 do we want to try and line up with an LTS kernel again? 19:32:55 ack, that is what Ben requested 19:33:06 #info We will try to line up with an LTS kernel again 19:33:09 (as I understood him when he asked us to move the stretch dates) 19:33:29 hm that should probably be #agree, if there aren't objections 19:34:01 wfm 19:34:09 #undo 19:34:09 Removing item from minutes: 19:34:13 #agree We will try to line up with an LTS kernel again 19:34:44 in which case, kicking off the process in autumn/winter 2018 is probably as specific as we need to be right now, and we should plan in more detail offline 19:35:06 true 19:35:15 can you put an action on me for getting the ball rolling on that 19:35:16 ? 19:35:33 #action nthykier to start getting a timetable together 19:36:23 thanks 19:36:30 of course I am assuming you and pochu are both happy to RM buster 19:37:20 nthykier: how about leaving the arch qual items to next month? they're not urgent 19:37:50 actually, I would like to open the i386 item if we have time 19:38:09 fine by me 19:38:19 #topic Retracting the i386 porter waiver 19:38:48 So, we have been approached about this several times during the stretch cycle and we punted it 19:39:35 basically we have been asked to retract the i386 porter waiver, since some people feel that i386 is not maintained as well any longer as it used to without explicit action 19:39:45 erh, explicit porters* 19:40:17 I believe pochu item about "Packages requiring instructions not present in an architecture's baseline" is an artefact of this 19:40:24 (at least partly) 19:42:22 I have not quite figured out how we would go about it, but it probably wants to be sooner rather than later 19:43:06 any comments/proposals? 19:43:07 if we remove the waiver, are we realistically going to decide it's not high enough quality and drop it? 19:43:13 feels unlikely to me 19:43:17 there is that 19:43:56 or are you expecting it to get more attention if it isn't automatically staying? 19:44:34 I dont know what to expect, but we did drop powerpc because we were fearing where it was headed rather than were it was 19:44:43 where* 19:45:33 i386 decline is probably in a completely different ballpark, but ... 19:45:38 I don't really have strong feelings 19:46:22 ok, thanks for the remarks :) 19:46:44 we still see i386 uploads 19:46:50 not sure there were so many powerpc ones 19:47:38 I would argue it is bad thing and every one should be source-only uploads! :P 19:48:25 “jessie”, so no. 19:48:25 but yes, perhaps we should have taken this with the rest of the arch-qualification 19:48:45 pfft, those bloody SRMs - always 2-3 years behind the game! ;) 19:48:47 let's do that, and hopefully have pochu next time as well 19:49:26 AOB? 19:50:05 #topic AOB 19:50:09 8.9/9.1 are treated outside the meeting I assume? 19:50:21 #undo 19:50:21 Removing item from minutes: 19:50:58 KiBi: Topic? 19:51:18 8.9/9.1 planning? 19:51:25 for example 19:51:31 #topic 8.9/9.1 planning 19:51:41 Dates are floating already, not sure if there's anything specific planned for 9.1 though 19:52:00 8.9 is likely going to be business as usual, but maybe 9.1 needs special care for some reason? 19:52:27 Plenty of live-related fixes on cdimage for one thing; not sure whether there's anything else on the -release thing, that's why I was wondering 19:52:41 adsb: ? 19:52:56 not that I'm particularly aware of 19:53:15 from our point of view I don't think there's anything of note 19:53:32 just the usual didn't-test-my-package-enough mopping up 19:54:07 ok, sorry for the noise then 19:54:32 np :) 19:54:38 #topic AOB 19:55:22 any AOB? 19:55:36 doesn't sound like it 19:56:34 jmw: I can see we don't agree on the next meeting date:) 19:57:03 nthykier: well you do not agree with your own calendar then :p 19:57:15 oh wait we do - I just misread and was looking at the tech-ctte meeeting :P 19:57:20 #topic Next meeting 19:57:28 Next meeting is 26th of July at 19:00 UTC (import into your calendar via https://release.debian.org/release-calendar.ics) 19:57:35 Thanks for attending :) 19:57:38 wait 19:57:39 #endmeeting