== Meeting information ==
 * #ubuntu-meeting-2 Meeting, 09 Dec at 17:08 — 17:39 UTC
 * Full logs at [[http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting-2/2014/ubuntu-meeting-2.2014-12-09-17.08.log.html]]



== Meeting summary ==

=== Apologies ===
The discussion about "Apologies" started at 17:08.


=== Action review ===
The discussion about "Action review" started at 17:08.


=== Mailing list archive ===
The discussion about "Mailing list archive" started at 17:09.

  * ''LINK:'' https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PatentPolicy says "While the Ubuntu project wishes to be responsive to patent infringement claims, we cannot commit to the assessment and review of claims made by anyone other than the registered rights holder. "
  * ''ACTION:'' mdeslaur to respond to freetype thread
  * ''ACTION:'' pitti to respond to MRE for KDE frameworks thread

=== Community bugs ===
The discussion about "Community bugs" started at 17:36.


=== Next chair ===
The discussion about "Next chair" started at 17:36.




== Vote results ==




== Action items, by person ==

 * mdeslaur
  * mdeslaur to respond to freetype thread
 * pitti
  * pitti to respond to MRE for KDE frameworks thread



== Done items ==

 * (none)



== People present (lines said) ==

 * pitti (49)
 * mdeslaur (42)
 * shadeslayer (28)
 * kees (8)
 * Riddell (7)
 * meetingology (5)



== Full Log ==


 17:08 <mdeslaur> #startmeeting

 17:08 <meetingology> Meeting started Tue Dec  9 17:08:45 2014 UTC.  The chair is mdeslaur. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology.

 17:08 <meetingology> 

 17:08 <meetingology> Available commands: action commands idea info link nick

 17:08 <mdeslaur> [topic] Apologies

 17:08 <mdeslaur> stgraber couldn't make it

 17:08 <mdeslaur> [topic] Action review

 17:09 <mdeslaur> infinity to review and respond to MAAS SRU thread

 17:09 <mdeslaur> hrm, don't think he did that, so carried over

 17:09 <mdeslaur> mdeslaur to gather facts on Docker versions and respond to the thread

 17:09 <mdeslaur> I did respond to the thread

 17:09 <kees> done

 17:09 <mdeslaur> that's it for actions

 17:09 <mdeslaur> [topic] Mailing list archive

 17:10 <mdeslaur> "Freetype patent problem" - https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2014-December/002047.html

 17:10 <kees> not a patent holder, so ... nothing to respond to, IIUC?

 17:10 <pitti> yeah

 17:10 <pitti> we already discussed subpixel rendering on the TB many years ago

 17:10 <mdeslaur> yep

 17:11 <pitti> and back then it was the same thing: not a patent owner, not upstream, not interested

 17:11 <mdeslaur> it's the only reasonable thing to do

 17:11 <pitti> well, I think we should respond, with pretty much that

 17:12 <pitti> I don't know whether we have our patent policy written down somewhere

 17:12 <pitti> hah, https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PatentPolicy

 17:12 <mdeslaur> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PatentPolicy says "While the Ubuntu project wishes to be responsive to patent infringement claims, we cannot commit to the assessment and review of claims made by anyone other than the registered rights holder. "

 17:12 <kees> that seems pretty clear :)

 17:13 <mdeslaur> I'm not sure what is expected of the "Developers" section at the bottom of that page though

 17:14 <pitti> I think that's "upstreams"

 17:14 <mdeslaur> ah! that would make sense

 17:15 <mdeslaur> ok, I'll respond to the thread again

 17:15 <mdeslaur> [action] mdeslaur to respond to freetype thread

 17:15 * meetingology mdeslaur to respond to freetype thread

 17:16 <mdeslaur> does anyone have anything else to add to the freetype thread?

 17:16 <mdeslaur> if not, next item:

 17:16 <mdeslaur> "MRE for KDE Frameworks" - https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2014-November/002043.html

 17:16 <pitti> I'm quite nervous about this TBH

 17:17 <kees> pitti: for what reasons?

 17:17 <pitti> if you essentially stop having a stable branch, you get all sorts of refactoring and other new bits into it, and I highly doubt that upstreams test extensively on old KDE versoins

 17:17 <pitti> usually upstreams run trunk for everything

 17:18 <mdeslaur> they are promising a stable ABI and API though

 17:18 <pitti> well yes, but that conceptually that doesn't really work

 17:18 <mdeslaur> I'm not sure how this is different from other MREs

 17:18 <shadeslayer> Thing is, exisiting API is covered by unit tests

 17:18 <pitti> (with having only one trunk)

 17:18 <shadeslayer> new API is only harmful if apps use it

 17:18 <shadeslayer> since we're not updating apps, this is not a problem

 17:19 <pitti> yes, but if you don't have stable branches, refactoring etc. will also be there

 17:19 <shadeslayer> *plus* we now have extensive QA mechanisms on Kubuntu CI

 17:19 <shadeslayer> pitti: sure, but test coverage should ensure things don't break

 17:19 <pitti> well, I think ultimately it's KDE's decision, but these are certainly not "microreleases"

 17:19 <Riddell> pitti: KF5 has unstable branches for unstable stuff

 17:19 <pitti> this is now the same class as landscape and juju

 17:19 <Riddell> it doesn't go into master until it's stable

 17:19 <shadeslayer> pitti: yes, they most certainly can't be called microreleases

 17:21 <pitti> so, I'm not really convinced that this will actually work better, but I don't veto a preliminary exception and then see how it goes with a few updates

 17:21 <pitti> as usual, if you want to do this then we should figure out a "how", not outright "no you can't"

 17:22 <shadeslayer> pitti: ofcourse, and I think all of us in the Kubuntu team are more than willing to introduce measures to make sure things don't break

 17:23 <shadeslayer> FWIW we have QA measures being taken over here : http://kci.pangea.pub/

 17:23 <pitti> shadeslayer: do you have some ideas for that?

 17:23 <shadeslayer> pitti: yes, see http://kci.pangea.pub/

 17:23 <shadeslayer> pitti: there are a couple of things we do, at its core, check for ABI breaks , file moves, and make sure packages are generally installable

 17:24 <pitti> shadeslayer: can we run app/other component's tests against an updated framework?

 17:24 <shadeslayer> ( this happens every single day btw )

 17:24 <shadeslayer> pitti: I don't see why not, we already integrate Plasma 5 against Framework 5 from git, which is the biggest consumer of KF5

 17:24 <pitti> are these the same as we already run as autopkgtest, OOI?

 17:25 <shadeslayer> no, autopkgtests can't be run unfortuantely, I'm trying to figure out how to solve those with Harald, so we'll have a solution soon, but these are basically build tests, and then installing and updating Plasma 5 from git to make sure things work

 17:25 <shadeslayer> actually, if we can get autopkgtests for PPA's that would be a big help

 17:26 <pitti> a log like https://launchpadlibrarian.net/192137245/buildlog_ubuntu-vivid-amd64.konversation_1.5.50%2Bgit20141209.0010%2B15.04-0ubuntu0_UPLOADING.txt.gz seems to be a lot like those, anyway

 17:26 <shadeslayer> otherwise, I can setup some infrastructure on our end to do this

 17:26 <pitti> shadeslayer: we'll be able to with the new cloud-based airline

 17:26 <shadeslayer> \o/

 17:27 <pitti> not with the currnet infrastructure I'm afraid; it's squeaking under the load already :(

 17:27 <pitti> anyway, separate topic

 17:27 <shadeslayer> yeah I can understand :)

 17:27 <shadeslayer> pitti: what else would you like to see btw?

 17:27 <pitti> reverse dependency testing for sure; automatic tests as we have them (that's essentially what's on that jenkins, right?)

 17:28 <shadeslayer> ( me and Harald are more or less exclusively working on this full time at the moment, so would be nice to have suggestions )

 17:28 <pitti> but also some manual testing, at least starting the desktop, checking for visual oddities, and checking that you can get up to the package updater again

 17:28 <shadeslayer> pitti: done every friday

 17:28 <pitti> i. e. we must never break the graphical package updater, so that we can clean up after a regression

 17:29 <pitti> ^ that for SRUs, I mean

 17:29 <shadeslayer> ah right ofcourse

 17:29 <pitti> (not for upstream/vivid developmetn of course)

 17:30 <pitti> shadeslayer: i. e. if we make sure that we don't completely break a desktop with an SRU (and the automatic tests don't catch it), and we always have a way out through another update, I'd be happy

 17:30 <shadeslayer> *nod*

 17:30 <shadeslayer> That's totally reasonable, and actually, what should be expected

 17:30 <pitti> shadeslayer: do you want to do this for LTS, or for the "intermediate" releases too?

 17:31 <pitti> it seems to be quite a lot of effort, and these days the non-LTSes are comparatively fairly uninteresting IMHO

 17:31 <Riddell> for now only for utopic

 17:31 <Riddell> after the next LTS we can review that but yeah it would be effort

 17:31 <pitti> Riddell: ah, conceptually, or because it's a more appropriate "test run"?

 17:31 <Riddell> pitti: because only utopic has kf5 in for now, in trusty it would be all new packages, dunno if the qt version is enough etc

 17:32 <Riddell> after the next LTS we can judge the demand I guess

 17:32 <pitti> Riddell: ah, of course; so say, we have 16.04 LTSes, would you then only do that for LTSes, or only for the latest release, or something else?

 17:32 <pitti> ok

 17:32 <shadeslayer> I'd say we would try to update Frameworks with our best effort

 17:32 <Riddell> still for the latest releases, maybe for LTS if we're feeling generous but probably not

 17:32 <pitti> ok, interesting

 17:32 <shadeslayer> and if upstream bumps Qt version, then it's a problem ofcourse

 17:32 <shadeslayer> which shouldn't really happen ..

 17:33 <pitti> I have a feeling that the vast majority of users just stay at LTS these days

 17:33 <pitti> but yes, then let's give this some test runs on utopic

 17:33 <pitti> and see how it goes, how much effort it is, etc.

 17:33 <shadeslayer> *nod*

 17:34 <mdeslaur> ok, so provisional exception?

 17:34 <pitti> ok for me, if we have some test plan to go along with it

 17:35 <mdeslaur> kees ?

 17:35 <kees> yeah, that's fine by me

 17:35 <mdeslaur> actually, I guess we just need one, so pitti can you respond to that thread?

 17:36 <pitti> "need" yes, but always good to collect opinions :)

 17:36 <pitti> mdeslaur: yes

 17:36 <mdeslaur> [action] pitti to respond to MRE for KDE frameworks thread

 17:36 * meetingology pitti to respond to MRE for KDE frameworks thread

 17:36 <mdeslaur> cool

 17:36 <shadeslayer> thx :D

 17:36 <mdeslaur> I believe that's it from the mailing list

 17:36 <mdeslaur> [topic] Community bugs

 17:36 <mdeslaur> None

 17:36 <mdeslaur> [topic] Next chair

 17:37 <mdeslaur> Looks like it's pitti

 17:37 <mdeslaur> pitti: congrats :P

 17:37 <pitti> docker in 14.04?

 17:37 <mdeslaur> they haven't responded to our questions

 17:37 <mdeslaur> we can discuss it if you'd like

 17:38 <pitti> yeah, I really don't like the "package every version"

 17:38 <pitti> but indeed, let's wait for a response, and f'up via mail

 17:38 <mdeslaur> ok

 17:39 * kees autocompletes "f'up" not to "follow up"

 17:39 <mdeslaur> Does anyone have anything else to discuss?

 17:39 <pitti> kees: oops, sorry :)

 17:39 <mdeslaur> lol

 17:39 <kees> :)

 17:39 <pitti> yes -- where to go to dinner :)

 17:39 <mdeslaur> and here I thought it was just me :)

 17:39 <pitti> (most folks already left, and urging us to leave too)

 17:39 <kees> mmm food

 17:39 <pitti> it's 19:39 here already

 17:39 <mdeslaur> pitti: have a nice dinner!

 17:39 <mdeslaur> #endmeeting



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