== Meeting information == * #ubuntu-meeting: Ubuntu Technical Board meeting, 24 Jun at 20:10 — 20:55 UTC * Full logs at [[http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2013/ubuntu-meeting.2013-06-24-20.10.log.html]] == Meeting summary == === Action review === The discussion about "Action review" started at 20:10. === ColinWatson (puppeting for RickSpencer): "rolling" alias for development series === The discussion about "ColinWatson (puppeting for RickSpencer): "rolling" alias for development series" started at 20:10. * ''LINK:'' http://paste.ubuntu.com/5796585/ === Scan the mailing list archive for anything we missed (standing item) === The discussion about "Scan the mailing list archive for anything we missed (standing item)" started at 20:45. === Check up on community bugs (standing item) === The discussion about "Check up on community bugs (standing item)" started at 20:52. === Select a chair for the next meeting === The discussion about "Select a chair for the next meeting" started at 20:52. === AOB === The discussion about "AOB" started at 20:53. == Vote results == == Action items == * (none) == People present (lines said) == * cjwatson (60) * kees (59) * stgraber (28) * mdz (9) * Daviey (5) * slangasek (4) * meetingology (3) * soren (1) == Full Log == 20:10 #startmeeting Ubuntu Technical Board meeting 20:10 Meeting started Mon Jun 24 20:10:09 2013 UTC. The chair is stgraber. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology. 20:10 20:10 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 20:10 #topic Action review 20:10 none listed on the wiki page 20:10 #topic ColinWatson (puppeting for RickSpencer): "rolling" alias for development series 20:11 everything last week got taken care of before I updated the agenda, so we're clean there 20:11 hi 20:11 heya mdz 20:11 sorry I'm late 20:11 no worries, we just got started 20:11 Ah, good 20:12 hey mdz. No worries. I'll mark your as chair for the next meeting if that's alright (you were supposed to chair this one) 20:12 *you 20:13 eek, sorry about that 20:13 So this (topic) is a leftover from UDS, which we assigned to Rick to come back to us with a name for approval: the name is to be used as an alias for whatever the current development series is, both for the publisher (so that people can choose to just stick with the alias rather than remembering to change every six months) and for uploads (so that people targeting "whatever's current" can just keep uploading to the ... 20:13 ... current alias without having to remember to change processes every six months) 20:13 After a WHOLE bunch of back-and-forth, Rick has come back with "rolling" 20:14 Hands up if you're surprised :) 20:14 He's on holiday this week, so I said I'd puppet 20:14 for uploading, this means the release in the changelog? 20:14 From my point of view, as long as the name doesn't clash with anything else significant, I consider it a bikeshed and am prepared to go with basically anything reasonable 20:14 Right 20:14 (Or the sftp target, for those who use that) 20:15 well sftp already has the "ubuntu" target. 20:15 It's actually a bit more than that :) 20:15 It's just not well known 20:15 (Anyway, that's a fine detail) 20:16 for changelog, i'm less happy... this means there isn't really a sourceful hint as to the target release. hm 20:16 Hasn't hurt Debian 20:16 but I guess it doesn't matter in practice. 20:16 I personally wasn't going to use it for regular Ubuntu uploads 20:16 But it would be available 20:16 things going into -proposed will still need a release name dash proposed... 20:16 Not true 20:17 Magic aliasing :) 20:17 well, okay, not NEED 20:17 I haven't uploaded anything explicitly to -proposed for about six months 20:17 ok, I'm over my mental disruption about chnagelog now :) 20:17 Direct uploads to the release pocket are redirected to -proposed automatically, so there's been no need 20:18 I haven't started the implementation yet, but it wouldn't surprise me if the rolling -> aliasing would happen most naturally after -proposed is stripped off, anyway 20:18 yeah, and nothing should use the changelog for that.. it should use actual pkg and version details 20:18 Right, especially given widespread copies in modern Ubuntu 20:19 (thinking about the security workflow, for example) 20:19 Yeah, I would be surprised if security didn't want to continue just using the true suite names; they don't have an awful lot of "oh, just use whatever's current" mindset 20:19 okay, I'm cool with what a rolling release would mean for the technical bits. 20:20 now, name. "rolling" is fine, but it'd be nice to have something snappier 20:20 My only personal caveat about the name is that it sort of socially engineers us into coming closer to an *actual* rolling release, but arguably, we're gradually heading that way anyway and as long as we don't do it precipitously (which I don't think is going to happen) ... 20:21 So I'm cool with it 20:21 what were the other suggested names, and why were they not used? 20:22 * kees suggests "icarus" 20:22 Honestly, I don't have a full list, we delegated the naming to Rick and this is what he came back with 20:22 or "babel" 20:22 "ubuntu" was suggested; I said "argh, category conflict and hideous confusion" 20:22 haha, yeah, no 20:22 So I'd be -1 on that one, but mentioning it for the record :) 20:23 i don't like "rolling" for similar reasons "rolling release confusion" 20:23 If you want a full "why weren't other things used" then we'll have to wait for Rick to get back from holidays 20:24 how about "current"? 20:24 That and "next" were my preferred names, but I ran out of energy for bikeshedding and decided I wasn't too bothered. I think "current" has the problem that people ask "well, isn't the LTS current?" 20:25 "current" would be sufficiently different from "stable" and "devel" 20:25 Which I'd acknowledge - in fact it's similar to part of the problem with "ubuntu" 20:25 i like "next" a lot 20:25 http://paste.ubuntu.com/5796585/ 20:25 "next" appeals to git people but not sure it's broad enough, and I think there was some concern about confusion with unity next 20:25 that's the list of names we came up during the vUDS session ^ 20:26 "next" WFM also 20:27 i don't like "tip" "head" or "trunk" because they're too tied to vcs imho. i don't have a vcs association with "next" as strongly. 20:27 i think "devel" is too overloaded already 20:28 (oh and "master" is too vcs-y for me too) 20:29 I personally like "next" and dislike "rolling" for the same reason kees mentioned earlier. 20:29 it sounds like "next" is best from that list? using a declarative instead of a proper noun also avoids release name confusion 20:29 next and rolling are the same part of speech :-) 20:29 Well, ish 20:30 i meant "rolling" being confused with "rolling release" 20:30 * slangasek gets summoned 20:30 kees: I guess my question is, how inaccurate would that really be 20:30 and I prefer "next" because it isn't an animal 20:31 kees: Oh, certainly we should stay away from anything that could fit into the category this is aliasing 20:31 cjwatson: inaccurate? well, it's not a release, and to switch from "next" to "rolling" for an _actual_ rolling release would take non-zero work 20:31 so I'm not sure I can offer any more concrete justifications for one name or another, but it would be nice if this could be decided since it's been carried over several times now (through no fault of the TB) 20:32 We (collectively) nacked the notion of moving straight to a rolling release in one step; but I think we are kind of heading in that direction in a variety of ways 20:32 So I suppose it's kind of an aspirational name 20:32 if there's not a consensus for "rolling", should this maybe go to the next meeting, when rickspencer3 can be available? 20:32 I agree that "rolling" and "release" (the latter in the traditional Ubuntu sense anyway) are kind of oxymoronic in combination 20:32 right, so I'd like to discourage a rolling release by not naming this alias "rolling" 20:33 I can start the work either way if the TB doesn't object to the fundamental concept, and slot in the name at the end, so it doesn't necessarily delay us a lot to wait 20:33 slangasek: how about we go with "next" and if it has to be renamed, do that at a separate TB meeting. that way you're unblocked 20:33 (The name would likely be a database entry anyway) 20:34 +1: alias for whatever is currently devel 20:34 +1: naming it "next" 20:34 cjwatson: does that unblock you? 20:34 I'd hoped not to have to go round again, but it does look like "next" is the rough consensus here 20:34 what happens when there is no devel release? (right after stable cuts?) 20:35 The interval there is minutes 20:35 heh, ok 20:35 Well, maybe an hour or two at most 20:35 I will try to make it not actually explode LP in that interval :) 20:35 well, i guess it appears, but can be frozen. nm 20:36 slangasek: For now, yes 20:36 having this alias will make several of my tools much happier :) 20:38 Do we need to explicitly vote here, or do we have clear consensus? 20:38 sorry, was re-watching some of the vUDS discussion. So sounds like we all agree on having the alias (I thought we did that already at an earlier meeting but it's good nobody changed their mind) and that we tend to prefer "next" 20:39 Do we want to vote on the name and have this set in stone or do we feel like we should give Rick a chance to convince us to use "rolling" instead? 20:39 i didn't see if soren had thoughts 20:39 i would like it actively not be "rolling" :P 20:40 "rolling" seems misleading but apparently there are some political considerations here 20:40 kees: I didn't have a strong enough opinion to speak up :) 20:40 soren: heh :) 20:40 same here, I plan on -1 any vote to get "rolling" as that name, doesn't mean there can't be enough +1 to balance that out :) 20:41 Well, at least for now, that would clearly require more votes than are present, so let's assume we wouldn't 20:41 It sounds like if Rick wants to press for rolling then he needs to argue that case directly rather than by inadequate proxy :) 20:41 let's go with "next" and if it needs additional bikeshedding it can happen later 20:42 I'll suggest that either he make the next meeting or he argue by e-mail 20:42 regardless, it sounds like you're unblocked and the dev work to support "next" can start 20:43 it's just going to be a pain to change after this goes live, so I'd suggest we let cjwatson do the actual implementation but just wait until after the next TB meeting to flip the switch 20:43 * kees nods 20:43 so Rick (or anyone else for that matter) will have until then to argue for another name or we'll go with "next" 20:44 +1 20:44 This certainly encourages me to put the name in the DB rather than hardcoding it, which is probably a good idea 20:44 ok, 30 minutes on this topic. time to move on? :-) 20:44 Not that I was massively inclined towards the latter, but still 20:44 Sure 20:45 Thanks 20:45 alright, moving on 20:45 #topic Scan the mailing list archive for anything we missed (standing item) 20:45 openss 20:45 l 20:46 right and a Micro release exception for Xen 20:46 Oh, god. I haven't really processed kees' reply on openssl yet. Sorry ... 20:46 Discussion on OpenSSL as a system library seems to be wedged. 20:46 what's the update history on xen? do we have good testing for it? 20:47 I don't think I'm persuaded by kees' position but I still need to reply properly 20:47 cjwatson: yeah, i figure openssl should continue a bit longer on the list, but we will need a vote at some point. slangasek promised a rebuttal too 20:47 Daviey: Is mongodb upstream's promise to add an exception still proceeding? 20:48 cjwatson: yes, but MUCH slower than we hoped. 20:48 cjwatson: (but this is also related to the squid issue aswell.) 20:48 i didn't suspect you would be, since i can see the key elements where we have a separate conclusion on the same details :0 20:48 er, :P 20:49 i will follow up on the list with mre questions for xen. 20:50 btw, we have several standing "provisional" mres still. bdmurray pointed this out to me. do we want to set a specific time to review them? 20:50 I'm not comfortable speaking on behalf of the kernel team regarding xen, but my feeling as a server rep is that it isn't that good. That said, I am supportive of this - providing a good level of QA is performed. 20:50 right, so we need to continue both the openssl discussion and the Xen MRE discussion on the mailing-list. I meant to ask some questions wrt testing to Stefan but apparently got distracted and forgot about it... 20:50 * kees nods 20:50 kees: we can add that to the agenda of our next meeting 20:51 agreeds 20:51 and I'll add an official vote for the openssl thing, just to have it done. 20:51 ok 20:51 Daviey: Hm, I thought it was a lot better from precise on 20:52 Is that not the case? 20:52 cjwatson: Oh, it is MUCH better from precise. But I do not know how good our regression testing is. 20:52 me too, but I haven't actually paid close attention 20:52 Fair enough 20:52 cool 20:52 #topic Check up on community bugs (standing item) 20:52 count is still 0, moving on 20:52 empty! 20:52 #topic Select a chair for the next meeting 20:53 that'll be mdz 20:53 ack 20:53 #topic AOB 20:53 anything? 20:53 nothing from me. 20:53 nope 20:54 Not I 20:55 ok then, thanks everyone! 20:55 thanks stgraber! 20:55 #endmeeting Generated by MeetBot 0.1.5 (http://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology)