== Meeting information ==
 * #ubuntu-desktop: Desktop Team Weekly Meeting - 2020-09-22, 22 Sep at 13:31 — 14:05 UTC
 * Full logs at [[http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-desktop/2020/ubuntu-desktop.2020-09-22-13.31.log.html]]



== Meeting summary ==

=== rls-bb-bug ===
The discussion about "rls-bb-bug" started at 13:32.

  * ''LINK:'' http://reqorts.qa.ubuntu.com/reports/rls-mgr/rls-bb-incoming-bug-tasks.html 
  * ''LINK:'' http://reqorts.qa.ubuntu.com/reports/rls-mgr/rls-bb-tracking-bug-tasks.html 

=== rls-ff-bug ===
The discussion about "rls-ff-bug" started at 13:36.

  * ''LINK:'' http://reqorts.qa.ubuntu.com/reports/rls-mgr/rls-ff-incoming-bug-tasks.html 
  * ''LINK:'' http://reqorts.qa.ubuntu.com/reports/rls-mgr/rls-ff-tracking-bug-tasks.html 

=== rls-gg-bug ===
The discussion about "rls-gg-bug" started at 13:38.

  * ''LINK:'' http://reqorts.qa.ubuntu.com/reports/rls-mgr/rls-gg-incoming-bug-tasks.html 
  * ''LINK:'' http://reqorts.qa.ubuntu.com/reports/rls-mgr/rls-gg-tracking-bug-tasks.html 

=== update_excuses_by_team.html#desktop-packages ===
The discussion about "update_excuses_by_team.html#desktop-packages" started at 13:39.

  * ''LINK:'' https://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/proposed-migration/update_excuses_by_team.html#desktop-packages 

=== AOB ===
The discussion about "AOB" started at 13:42.

  * ''LINK:'' https://discourse.ubuntu.com/t/scope-of-gnome-mru/18041/ 
  * ''LINK:'' https://blogs.gnome.org/sri/2020/09/16/the-gnome-extensions-rebooted-initiative/ is this in anyway helpful or related?



== Vote results ==




== Done items ==

 * (none)



== People present (lines said) ==

 * seb128 (91)
 * Trevinho (31)
 * Laney (20)
 * luna_ (7)
 * didrocks (3)
 * meetingology (3)
 * oSoMoN (2)
 * kenvandine (2)
 * ubot5 (1)
 * hellsworth (1)
 * callmepk (1)
 * marcustomlinson (1)



== Full Log ==


 13:31 <seb128> #startmeeting Desktop Team Weekly Meeting - 2020-09-22

 13:31 <meetingology> Meeting started Tue Sep 22 13:31:11 2020 UTC.  The chair is seb128. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology.

 13:31 <meetingology> 

 13:31 <meetingology> Available commands: action commands idea info link nick

 13:31 <seb128> Roll call:  didrocks, duflu, hellsworth, jamesh, jibel, kenvandine, Laney, marcustomlinson, oSoMoN, seb128 , tkamppeter, Trevinho, robert_ancell, callmepk

 13:31 <Trevinho> o/

 13:31 <oSoMoN> o/

 13:31 <marcustomlinson> \o

 13:31 <didrocks> o/

 13:31 <luna_> o/

 13:31 <callmepk> o/

 13:31 <hellsworth> \o

 13:32 <seb128> k, let's get started!

 13:32 <seb128> #topic rls-bb-bug

 13:32 <seb128> http://reqorts.qa.ubuntu.com/reports/rls-mgr/rls-bb-incoming-bug-tasks.html

 13:32 <seb128> no desktop entry

 13:32 <seb128> http://reqorts.qa.ubuntu.com/reports/rls-mgr/rls-bb-tracking-bug-tasks.html

 13:33 <seb128> bug #1801814

 13:33 <ubot5> bug 1801814 in flatpak (Ubuntu Bionic) "Environment overwrites XDG_DATA_DIRS" [Undecided,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1801814

 13:33 <luna_> seems a fix is released in Focal? can that be backported? (just a question)

 13:34 <seb128> it could probably

 13:34 <seb128> it's a flatpak/wayland session fix on bionic

 13:35 <seb128> I think it's not a priority to target for us, since it has no assign I would suggest deleting the bionic target for now

 13:35 <seb128> it doesn't stop someone to work on it if they want

 13:35 <didrocks> agreed

 13:35 <seb128> thanks Didier, deleted

 13:35 <seb128> and that's it for bionic

 13:36 <seb128> #topic rls-ff-bug

 13:36 <seb128> http://reqorts.qa.ubuntu.com/reports/rls-mgr/rls-ff-incoming-bug-tasks.html

 13:36 <seb128> the one bug there is assigned and targetted but just not untagged

 13:37 <seb128> remind me that I said I would try one day to filter those cases out of the reports, I will put that for my next hacking session

 13:37 <seb128> http://reqorts.qa.ubuntu.com/reports/rls-mgr/rls-ff-tracking-bug-tasks.html

 13:38 <seb128> Trevinho, you forgot to assign the SRU bug to yourself

 13:38 <seb128> other items are assigned or incomplete

 13:38 <Trevinho> seb128: oh

 13:38 <seb128> #topic rls-gg-bug

 13:38 <seb128> http://reqorts.qa.ubuntu.com/reports/rls-mgr/rls-gg-incoming-bug-tasks.html

 13:38 <seb128> no desktop entry

 13:38 <seb128> http://reqorts.qa.ubuntu.com/reports/rls-mgr/rls-gg-tracking-bug-tasks.html

 13:39 <seb128> nothing needed there

 13:39 <seb128> #topic update_excuses_by_team.html#desktop-packages

 13:39 <seb128> https://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/proposed-migration/update_excuses_by_team.html#desktop-packages

 13:40 <seb128> gstreamer is being hanlded

 13:40 <luna_> There is a new Firefox 81, and Thunderbird (some version) released today and yesterday if oSoMoN wants something new to package up btw :)

 13:40 <seb128> gnome-control-center should clear off when retries results are updated

 13:41 <seb128> luna_, thanks, such comments are better for the AOB part of the meeting that come next :-)

 13:41 <seb128> glib/gst-omx sounds like something that needs investigated

 13:41 <seb128> any taker?

 13:41 <Laney> I already handled it

 13:41 <seb128> great

 13:41 <seb128> gnoe-shell Binaries broken by the update: gnome-shell-extensions/3.37.91-1~fakesync/amd64

 13:42 <seb128> Trevinho, ^ you are handling that?

 13:42 <Laney> Handled

 13:42 <Trevinho> sync to be done

 13:42 <luna_> seb128: alright then i know that for next time

 13:42 <seb128> shell is what is blocking xdg portals, etc (I've a mp for the report script that would indicate that if someone wants to review it ;-)

 13:42 <seb128> k, then we are good

 13:42 <seb128> #topic AOB

 13:42 <seb128> any other topic?

 13:42 <Laney> It's not to be done, I fake synced it

 13:42 <Laney> yeah

 13:43 <Laney> the SRU team are asking about the scope of our micro release exception

 13:43 <Laney> looks like life is going to get harder for gnome shell updates, around extensions

 13:43 <seb128> I saw that on discourse

 13:43 <Laney> https://discourse.ubuntu.com/t/scope-of-gnome-mru/18041/

 13:44 <seb128> Trevinho was reprsenting us well there I think

 13:44 <Trevinho> yeah, doesn't make much sense imho, we need to figure out a way not to be blocked by them

 13:44 <seb128> I wonder if we should just remove any extension .deb from the ubuntu archive

 13:44 <Trevinho> it's very hard to check ALL them, not sure if we can avoid debian syncs for them at all

 13:44 <seb128> and tell users to just use the upstream facilities to install those

 13:44 <seb128> (I mean the ones we are not relying on and testing)

 13:44 <Trevinho> I'd agree, we can just support our ones, for the rest packages don't make any sense IMHO.

 13:44 <oSoMoN> I was going to suggest deleting extensions that are known offenders

 13:45 <Laney> If that's what the SRU team wants

 13:45 <Laney> then fine, let's kick all gnome-shell-extension-* out

 13:45 <seb128> that should maybe a suggestion someone (Trevinho?) should post about on discourse to have a public discussion ?

 13:45 <Trevinho> seb128: is it possible to avoid auto-syncs to apply tho those packages?

 13:45 <luna_> https://blogs.gnome.org/sri/2020/09/16/the-gnome-extensions-rebooted-initiative/ is this in anyway helpful or related?

 13:45 <seb128> it's possible to blacklist syncs yes

 13:45 <Trevinho> I feel alone in that discussion, so if someone joins me, at least I don't feel like I speak for myself only :D

 13:46 <didrocks> agreed that it’s the only sustainable way for us due to API instability IMHO

 13:46 <seb128> I don't know if you can do gnome-shell-extensions*

 13:46 <Laney> it's just code, it can be changed to do anything

 13:46 <Trevinho> ther's basically NO api either :)

 13:46 <Trevinho> we've a volounteer :D

 13:47 <seb128> Trevinho, can you post on discourse saying we want to remove those because of SRU requirement and upstream minor versions not being compatible

 13:47 <seb128> I will create a trello card

 13:47 <Trevinho> ok

 13:47 <seb128> and I will reply on the SRU team discussion, sorry for not doing earlier

 13:48 <seb128> I though you were handling that well so stayed out of it :-)

 13:48 <Trevinho> eheeh, no worries :)

 13:48 <Laney> Is this all because of one bug that happened once, or are there other cases?

 13:48 <Trevinho> thanks then

 13:49 <Trevinho> I've given my opinion on packages we still need the exceptions for, but maybe that list could be improved, so maybe it's better if you guys review it again and propose a final one (I'm sure Laney wanted something more)

 13:49 <seb128> Laney, I will let Trevinho comment on that, maybe a good question/answer for the discourse topic

 13:49 <seb128> Trevinho, right

 13:49 <Trevinho> Laney: not that I know, but for sure may be... there could be loads of cases where it's not working, just nobody checks

 13:49 <seb128> we can discuss that more after the meeting if needed

 13:49 <seb128> any other topic ?

 13:49 <Laney> The point for SRUs though ...

 13:49 <Laney> ok

 13:50 <Trevinho> well this is still something for all the team I imagine, so... fine to skip to later, but it should be interesting for most of us

 13:50 <seb128> Laney, sorry I though we addressed the SRU question enough, anything specific you think we should cover here?

 13:51 <seb128> Trevinho, 'this'?

 13:51 <Trevinho> SRU thingy

 13:51 <Laney> yes I was just going to say that SRUs don't care if something is working in the archive or not, it's more if something is broken *by* the SRU

 13:51 <seb128> if I understand the request we need to review the discourse post and see if the list makes sense and is complete

 13:51 <seb128> and agree on a course of actions for extensions

 13:51 <Laney> it's "OK" for things to be broken and stay broken

 13:51 <Trevinho> > In that case, I think this means that we cannot push microrelease updates of gnome-shell to stable releases because such updates are known to break packaged extensions. The microrelease exception was originally granted by the technical board on the basis that such updates are not expected to break things, and that situation has clearly changed in the case of gnome-shell.

 13:51 <Trevinho> just arrived a reply....

 13:52 <Laney> so I think the scope is about whether shell stable releases do actually break extensions or if this is just one

 13:53 <seb128> I've a feeling the SRU team is not going let us get away with a 'this is one'

 13:53 <seb128> reality is that it can happen

 13:53 <kenvandine> yeah, it can

 13:53 <seb128> so we either need to remove things from the archive to reduce our testing

 13:53 <seb128> or increase our testplan to cover what is in the archive

 13:53 <Trevinho> can we remove things from focal though?

 13:53 <seb128> or another option I'm not thinking of?

 13:53 <seb128> I don't think so

 13:54 <Trevinho> I've NOT a scientific way to check if we're breaking

 13:54 <seb128> but we shouldn't have more new tarballs for focal after that round

 13:54 <Trevinho> nor saying "I teated them all" i think would be professional

 13:54 <Trevinho> tested*

 13:54 <seb128> GNOME schedules stops at .6

 13:54 <Trevinho> yeah, but... we can still do cherry-picks

 13:54 <seb128> so I say we do an effort to test extensions from the archive for that round if that's what the SRU team requires...

 13:55 <Trevinho> and they may happen (like OEM things, for example I may do in the fingerprint lands)

 13:55 <seb128> well then we need to convince the SRU team on those cases that it's fine

 13:55 <seb128> either by explaining why the changes cherry picked are not risky

 13:55 <seb128> or by testing the extensions...

 13:55 <seb128> no?

 13:56 <Trevinho> 41 extensions, not easy task

 13:57 <Trevinho> sorry 42 in focal

 13:57 <Trevinho> let's remove the 3 we handle.... still 39 to check, impossible.

 13:57 <seb128> not impossible, but expensive to do yes

 13:58 <luna_> would it not be easier to let people download the extensions they want from: https://extensions.gnome.org/ ?

 13:58 <seb128> luna_, that's basically whar we suggested doing going forward

 13:58 <seb128> but we can't change past releases

 13:58 <luna_> ah true

 13:59 <seb128> anyway

 13:59 <seb128> I'm a bit lost at this point

 13:59 <seb128> Laney, Trevinho , did you want to get some conclusion out of the meeting?

 13:59 <seb128> or should we just wrap and keep that going here if needed?

 14:00 <Laney> it would have been nice to have had a unified position as the team

 14:00 <Laney> but it's ok, I guess that isn't going to come from a quick chat in the meeting

 14:00 <seb128> right, I think we need some data and time to process which is why I was suggesting Trevinho start a discourse topic about his proposal of removing extensions

 14:00 <Trevinho> yeah, not sure... I would like to have a statement to reply for sure

 14:00 <seb128> we can continue the discussion there

 14:01 <Trevinho> given the new one I mean

 14:01 <seb128> Trevinho, I'm going to reply

 14:01 <seb128> to the SRU post on discourse

 14:01 <Trevinho> seb128: new topic, not same on SRU exceptions, right?

 14:01 <seb128> yes

 14:01 <seb128> one specific about removing deb extensions for better shell maintainability

 14:02 <Laney> Robie asked for that conversation to be with the release team

 14:02 <seb128> they are on discourse?

 14:03 <Laney> Not sure, there's a category there but we only used it for like release schedules so far

 14:03 <seb128> k, I'm going to read the SRU post again there now

 14:03 <seb128> but no point keeping everyone in the meeting for that imho

 14:04 <seb128> so let's wrap and those interested can continue the discussion

 14:04 <kenvandine> ok

 14:05 <seb128> #endmeeting



Generated by MeetBot 0.1.5 (http://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology)