#title #ubuntu-meeting: Application Review Board Meeting started by ajmitch at 18:02:28 UTC. The full logs are available at http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2012/ubuntu-meeting.2012-03-30-18.02.log.html . == Meeting summary == ''LINK:'' https://wiki.ubuntu.com/AppReviewBoard/Agenda (ajmitch, 18:03:12) *Action review ''ACTION:'' ajmitch to look at bug #894582 (ajmitch, 18:14:21) *When should we open extras for precise? *Should we review existing packages for precise? *Notify developers with published Oneiric apps of process for resubmitting for Precise. ''ACTION:'' allison to send a personal email to everyone who already has an app in Oneiric. (ajmitch, 18:39:31) *State Of The Queue ''LINK:'' https://bugs.launchpad.net/developer-portal/+bug/914667 (wendar, 18:47:49) ''LINK:'' http://developer.ubuntu.com/publish/my-apps-packages/ (wendar, 18:52:06) ''LINK:'' http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=App+Review+Board+Meeting+&iso=20120330T18 (wendar, 19:06:35) ''LINK:'' http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meeting.html (wendar, 19:12:38) ''LINK:'' http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meetingtime.html?iso=20120427&p1=137&p2=179&p3=22 (wendar, 19:13:10) ''LINK:'' http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meetingdetails.html?year=2012&month=4&day=27&hour=21&min=0&sec=0&p1=137&p2=179&p3=22 (wendar, 19:18:57) Meeting ended at 19:24:25 UTC. == Votes == == Action items == * ajmitch to look at bug #894582 * allison to send a personal email to everyone who already has an app in Oneiric. == Action items, by person == * ajmitch ** ajmitch to look at bug #894582 == People present (lines said) == * wendar (119) * ajmitch (109) * stgraber (18) * highvoltage (11) * meetingology (5) * ubottu (3) == Full Log == 18:02:28 #startmeeting Application Review Board 18:02:28 Meeting started Fri Mar 30 18:02:28 2012 UTC. The chair is ajmitch. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology. 18:02:28 18:02:28 Available commands: #accept #accepted #action #agree #agreed #chair #commands #endmeeting #endvote #halp #help #idea #info #link #lurk #meetingname #meetingtopic #nick #progress #rejected #replay #restrictlogs #save #startmeeting #subtopic #topic #unchair #undo #unlurk #vote #voters #votesrequired 18:03:12 #link https://wiki.ubuntu.com/AppReviewBoard/Agenda 18:03:40 sorry, still waking up :) 18:04:59 ok, we'll begin on that action review, I'll quickly go throuh & check what's still there from last month 18:05:08 #topic Action review 18:06:32 wendar: you were going to check with doko about when python-support will be removed from the archive, I'm guessing the answer is whenever it's not used anymore? 18:06:50 yup 18:06:56 it's moved to universe for Precise 18:07:12 which is still fine for Extras dependencies 18:07:28 but, right now we're manually removing it from packages 18:07:40 so, I suggest we keep doing that in Precise 18:07:43 right, it's easier to use dh_python2 anyway 18:07:51 and expect it may be gone from P+1 18:08:02 yeah, I much prefer dh_python2 18:08:24 ok, will mark that action as done 18:09:01 * ajmitch hasn't seen any movement on bug 894582, might be getting a bit late to get it fixed for precise unless it's done this week 18:09:02 Launchpad bug 894582 in python-distutils-extra "Python templates should use dh_python2" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/894582 18:10:19 anyone else feel inspired to take that on & see if it can be fixed for release? 18:11:07 * stgraber -> ENOTIME 18:11:23 stgraber: yeah, that's what I figured :) 18:11:55 I'll add it to my todo list then, but I don't have a great amount of spare time either right now 18:12:11 how about UDS? 18:12:25 wendar: sorry? 18:12:27 as in, talk about it at UDS and see if we can get some TUITs from elsewhere? 18:12:55 ah right, I was mostly wanting it for precise release, so people who build on precise can make packages that we don't have to change too much 18:12:56 If we could get it on mvo's list for next cycle, that'd be great 18:13:45 it seems too disruptive for an FFE 18:13:50 I'll try for this week, otherwise sort it at UDS 18:13:57 yup, sounds good 18:14:21 #action ajmitch to look at bug #894582 18:14:21 * meetingology ajmitch to look at bug #894582 18:14:22 Launchpad bug 894582 in python-distutils-extra "Python templates should use dh_python2" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/894582 18:14:48 ok, now onto the developer-portal bugs 18:15:35 * highvoltage is listening, even though quiet 18:15:45 * ajmitch also hasn't seen any activity on there, and hasn't emailed david pitkin back, to nag him 18:16:13 highvoltage: it's ok, you can keep quiet & we'll assign the rest of the tasks to you :) 18:16:23 heh 18:16:38 I've already been a bad rmb member regarding my tasks already :( 18:17:08 heh 18:17:29 well, I'll see what I can do about nagging about bugs again in this case :) 18:18:03 #topic When should we open extras for precise? 18:18:13 wendar: your topic 18:18:39 I'd like to suggest opening up the extras archive for precise now. 18:18:52 instead of waiting until after the precise release 18:19:20 so we can publish a few apps ahead of time, and have them available in the software center at release 18:19:32 ok, I'm not opposed to that, as a development platform precise won't really change in the next few weeks 18:20:26 stgraber, highvoltage - what do you think of it? 18:21:32 yeah, opening now (post-beta2) should be safe 18:21:41 yeah sooner is probably better than later 18:21:54 it's very unlikely any of the submissions would be pushed to Ubuntu before release (with FFe and all the other paperwork) 18:21:58 * ajmitch doesn't feel like voting on it, so we'll take that as agreed 18:22:31 who wants to turn it on? 18:22:40 stgraber has done it in the past 18:22:51 where is that done? 18:23:06 wendar: the repository is already ready for precise, but someone probably needs to check that MyApps is too 18:23:29 stgraber: so if we published to the Extras PPA today, it would be copied over? 18:23:48 wendar: yes 18:24:31 stgraber: excellent 18:25:23 then for existing packages in the queue (of which there are many), should we switch to targetting them to precise? 18:26:08 ajmitch: that's my next question on the agenda 18:26:21 wendar: right, I'll change the topic for it :) 18:26:33 #agreed Open extras for packages before precise release 18:26:56 #topic Should we review existing packages for precise? 18:27:08 I've got a few more lenses/scopes that are specific to Oneiric, but for all other submissions, I'd like to package it for Precise instead. 18:27:36 it just seems silly to be releasing new apps on Oneiric two weeks before the Precise release. 18:27:46 I expect most people will upgrade from oneiric, so if an app builds & works on precise they should go there 18:28:16 I don't think most submissions indicate which release they're targetting 18:28:44 ajmitch: but they should, shouldn't they? 18:28:50 yeah, I guess if we find into some that only build and run on Oneiric, it's worth considering publishing them to Oneiric, instead of making the developer fix them up 18:29:19 highvoltage: we generally just dictate that they all target the current release 18:29:49 highvoltage: so, indicating any other release is just a "bug" in their submission, that we fix before shipping it 18:30:08 ok 18:30:23 like a recent submission that had maverick in debian/changelog, though it didn't build on oneiric 18:30:58 ok, I guess we're agreed that it's generally a good idea to do reviews for precise 18:31:42 #topic Notify developers with published Oneiric apps of process for resubmitting for Precise. 18:33:26 wendar: you added this one earlier today, I'm guessing we don't have a large number of applications which should be resubmitted for precise 18:33:38 Yup, a pretty small number. 18:33:49 This was mainly a follow up to the last two topics. 18:34:11 To say: I'll volunteer to send a personal email to everyone who already has an app in Oneiric. 18:34:19 yeah, cielak was asking about this process as well 18:34:24 great 18:34:28 Telling them that we've opened up the archive for submissions to Precise. 18:34:44 And, if they want to get their app in before release, they can do it now. 18:35:20 will they need to resubmit through myapps, even if it's not a new upstream release? 18:35:57 How about we say they can either submit to MyApps, or just contact us on the mailing list? 18:36:02 or in cases like harmonyseq, should we just bump the version number in the changelog for precise? 18:36:18 * ajmitch isn't sure if just copying packages in the PPA will work) 18:36:45 I don't think we even need to bump the version number in the changelog, as long as we rebuild with precise as the target in the changelog 18:37:08 I mean, bump the version number if we have to make any changes other than the release target 18:37:15 but, otherwise, it's just a rebuild 18:37:18 the debian revision needs changed at least, from ...11.10.1 to 12.04.1 18:37:19 wendar: well, then we need to bump the version 18:37:38 wendar: as you can't have two binary packages in the repository with the same version but different content 18:37:52 stgraber: yeah, true enough 18:37:59 wendar: so we either copy to the new series (and use exactly the same binary package) or we rebuild and then need to bump the version at the same time 18:38:15 simple version bump as a "rebuild for precise" 18:38:31 I'd rather rebuild than copy the binary package 18:38:44 * stgraber too 18:39:08 ok 18:39:19 so bump to .12.04 and upload for these that don't need any extra change (when told by the developer they want it in precise) 18:39:22 ajmitch: that's true, the debian revision has to change, since we have the Ubuntu release version number in the package version string 18:39:31 #action allison to send a personal email to everyone who already has an app in Oneiric. 18:39:31 * meetingology allison to send a personal email to everyone who already has an app in Oneiric. 18:40:32 anything else on that one, or do we move onto the big topic about the queue state? :) 18:40:48 onward :) 18:40:59 #topic State Of The Queue 18:41:57 so though I had good intentions a week or so ago, I haven't had time to really look at & comment on applications this week, have just casually looked at some recent submissions 18:42:27 I've been doing quick replies on the ones that need quick fixes 18:42:40 the queue length is long, I'm been meaning to work from the top down 18:42:47 so, a lot of what's left is either valid source packages (with no debian packaging) 18:42:55 * ajmitch has some spare time this weekend 18:43:03 or debian packages that need validating for ARB requirements 18:44:00 some exceptions to that are the Community Lens 18:44:01 packages like zeroballistics needs a careful rejection sent, as it looks to be a nice game, gpl source, but it depends on a non-free library 18:44:41 ah, yeah, that would be out 18:44:53 wendar: what's the state of the music lenses in the queue there? 18:45:11 I've got a patch back from the developer to fix the final problems 18:45:25 so, I just need to integrate that, test, and put them up for vote 18:45:30 ok 18:45:33 I could do that today or tomorrow 18:45:47 the community lens is for precise, so no hurry on that one 18:46:02 * ajmitch would like to be able to get rid of these 'pending qa' items from the list 18:46:15 yeah, that's one of the active bugs, isn't it? 18:46:20 yep 18:46:28 the bug is fix committed (iirc) 18:46:43 so, just waiting for release? 18:47:07 (where release is their server rollout schedule, rather than related to Ubuntu releases) 18:47:15 I assume so, stgraber may know a few more details about how these bits interact 18:47:49 https://bugs.launchpad.net/developer-portal/+bug/914667 18:47:51 Launchpad bug 914667 in Developer registration portal "Packages in the ARB process should go directly to Published without going to "Ready to Publish"" [High,Fix committed] 18:49:04 fix committed 6 weeks ago, maybe it has been rolled out & we can mark them as published :) 18:50:02 maybe check with achuni? 18:50:11 or, ask in the ticket? 18:50:27 I'll do that 18:50:36 of all the bugs, this one is probably the biggest irritant at the moment 18:50:42 cool, thanks 18:50:56 * ajmitch would probably put that on par with the needs info submissions not showing 18:51:16 any other comments on the state of the queue, apart from 'just do it'? 18:51:33 a whole bunch of them are new submissions with no packaging 18:51:49 but, we agreed a few months ago to only accept new submissions from PPAs 18:51:57 I'll check for a bug on developer-portal about requiring PPAs at submit time 18:52:05 it does now 18:52:06 http://developer.ubuntu.com/publish/my-apps-packages/ 18:52:13 or, at least the instructions are right now 18:52:37 I totally think we should do the packaging for the old apps that were submitted before we said we required PPAs 18:52:38 right, but at the point you submit, does it require a PPA be given? 18:52:47 nope, not yet 18:52:55 so, I wouldn't reject the apps with no PPA 18:52:59 ok, I'll check for that one 18:53:18 but, I'm thinking it would be a better use of my time to write a step-by-step set of instructions on how to package new apps 18:53:29 than to manually do the packaging for the new submissions 18:53:45 it can be a bit time-consuming :) 18:54:00 Aye, and it'll only get more time-consuming as we go on 18:54:05 it doesn't scale 18:54:35 but, if we could give them a really polite and helpful way to do the packaging themselves, that'd make a difference 18:54:44 and would scale better 18:54:58 the packaging guide still confuses quite a few people 18:54:58 also, I think a guide on how to make a tarball would be helpful 18:55:27 that would help, people are still submitting .jar files 18:55:30 the packaging guide is also for the main Ubuntu archives, and not for the ARB requirements 18:56:02 so, even when we do get proper debian source packages, we still have to manually edit them 18:56:09 yep 18:56:45 I figure if I condense the instructions I've already sent out individually to a bunch of devs into a few simple wiki pages, it could help us a lot 18:57:10 it'd help us as well 18:57:15 thanks for offering to do that 18:57:30 cool, I'll do that this weekend 18:57:51 and, if you're doing packaging work this weekend, focus on the older submissions, from before the PPA requirement 18:58:04 I realised I skipped the 'review updated text', but iirc that was an agenda meeting from last time which we resolved? 18:58:29 it was new... just a sec let me check what it was... 18:58:59 It might have been https://wiki.ubuntu.com/AppReviewBoard/Review 18:59:22 specifying the right URL for screenshot images 18:59:46 the agenda item was about https://wiki.ubuntu.com/AppReviewBoard/Review/Guidelines, depending on backported libraries which are new 18:59:50 Oh, no, it was backported libraries 18:59:51 yeah 19:00:24 after discussion on IRC, I added the text: 19:00:25 (We're open to considering dependencies on backported libraries, on a case-by-case basis, but only if the backport is a new library and not an updated version of an existing library.) 19:00:40 and I just wanted a quick double-check that other folks were okay with that 19:00:50 imho the text that's been added there is fine 19:01:17 stgraber, highvoltage: ^ if you have a sec :) 19:02:11 sounds good 19:02:35 ok 19:02:39 not sure we can assume everyone has -backports in their /etc/apt/sources.list, but since oneiric we do it by default so I guess it'll be fine 19:02:58 no strong feelings about it here :) 19:03:06 ok then 19:03:13 are we up to the AOB point? 19:03:51 NOB from here 19:04:26 the main thing I have is the meeting time - it's that time of year with daylight saving time messes with us 19:05:03 from next month the meeting time will end up at 6AM on a saturday morning for me, which is a little painful :) 19:05:20 that's pretty awful 19:05:43 it was hard enough getting up for a 7AM meeting this morning, I should have gone to sleep before 2 :) 19:05:47 ouch 19:06:12 do we want to sort out a new time here, or on the list so our other team members can comment? 19:06:31 probably finalize it on the list, but a first guess here could speed things up 19:06:35 http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=App+Review+Board+Meeting+&iso=20120330T18 19:06:44 ^ the link to the current meeting time 19:08:01 an hour or two later works for me 19:08:13 so 1900UTC or 2000 19:08:18 stgraber, where are you? 19:08:48 stgraber is on east coast, est time 19:09:02 highvoltage: you're in the same place, right? 19:09:05 yep 19:09:38 so a little later would probably be fine for both of you 19:09:45 I'm happy with both 1900 or 2000 UTC 19:09:49 yep 19:10:10 I think if coolbhavi is able to make it, he's indicated that a slightly later time is better 19:10:10 I'll be in Europe for our next meeting but will probably skip it anyway, so that's fine :) 19:10:18 Bhavani doesn't usually make it to the meetings, so I think it's okay not to plan them around Calcutta time 19:10:28 stgraber: skip it? how could yo? :) 19:10:52 :) 19:11:20 ok, I'll mail the list about the new suggested time & ask for feedback 19:11:22 hmmmm... ajmitch: how about flipping the meeting around to Friday afternoon your time? 19:11:30 Friday morning US time? 19:11:51 wendar: it'd need to be after work for me 19:11:55 sorry, backwards 19:12:11 so from 0500UTC onwards 19:12:19 ugh, timezones 19:12:21 yeah 19:12:25 just a sec I'll do meeting planner 19:12:38 http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meeting.html 19:12:41 I didn't think it'd work well for east coast people then 19:12:51 UTC+12 is at least easy to convert :) 19:13:10 http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meetingtime.html?iso=20120427&p1=137&p2=179&p3=22 19:13:38 ajmitch: it's actually easy enough, as long as you're not also trying to accommodate Europe 19:14:13 well, we have fagan in europe, but I haven't even seen him on irc for a couple of months 19:14:44 yeah, the meetings aren't critical, so might as well optimize the time for the people who attend 19:14:53 ajmitch: is Saturday easier than Friday for you? 19:14:57 yes 19:15:00 ajmitch: just not so early? 19:15:06 just not 6AM 19:16:06 ajmitch: like Saturday at 10/11am? 19:16:13 fine by me 19:16:40 that's pushing into Friday night for the US Eastern folks 19:16:59 maybe a bit of a drag for personal life 19:17:05 ok by me if I know about it in advance 19:17:16 9am Auckland is 5pm Eastern 19:17:28 10am Auckland is 6pm Eastern 19:18:00 that's late enough for a Saturday sleep in Auckland, but early enough to still go out in US Eastern 19:18:12 hmm, 6pm on a Friday... not sure I'll be around. 5pm is fine though 19:18:21 * ajmitch doesn't mind 7 or 8 AM 19:18:52 so that's why I was suggesting just 1900/2000 if it still suited others 19:18:57 http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meetingdetails.html?year=2012&month=4&day=27&hour=21&min=0&sec=0&p1=137&p2=179&p3=22 19:19:27 2pm ok for you? 19:19:54 yeah, 2pm is fine for me 19:19:58 (pacific time) 19:20:00 ok 19:20:04 5pm eastern 19:20:10 9am auckland 19:20:14 seems to work 19:20:26 last thing is to volunteer a chair for next month 19:21:17 it'll be about a day after the precise release, fwiw 19:22:23 so not stgraber 19:22:33 highvoltage? or I'm happy to do one 19:22:43 up to the 3 of us I think 19:22:55 yeah, I'll be in Europe and I took the post-release Friday off, so definitely not arund :) 19:23:10 ajmitch: we shouldn't make you do two in a row 19:23:20 stgraber: have a drink for us then ;) 19:23:39 put me in 19:23:47 ok, thank you 19:23:58 with that, I think we're done 19:24:13 thanks everyone :) 19:24:18 thanks! 19:24:25 #endmeeting Generated by MeetBot 0.1.5 (http://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology)