20:01 <pitti> #startmeeting
20:01 <meetingology> Meeting started Mon Jul 22 20:01:39 2013 UTC.  The chair is pitti. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology.
20:01 <meetingology> 
20:01 <meetingology> 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
20:01 <soren> o/
20:01 <pitti> hey soren
20:02 <pitti> #topic action review
20:02 <pitti> kees to review outstanding provisional MREs -- as he doesn't seem to be here, I guess we defer this?
20:02 <pitti> I don't see anything else, did I miss something?
20:03 <pitti> #topic development series alias name
20:03 <kees> hi! here now
20:03 <pitti> apparently this was being discussed last time, with: current proposals are "rolling" (preferred by Rick) and "next' (preferred by the TB).
20:03 <kees> still looking at mres
20:03 <pitti> oh, hey kees!
20:03 <pitti> kees: ok, so carrying over is ok?
20:04 <kees> yeah, thanks
20:04 <pitti> OOI, does "preferred by the TB" mean that everyone else on the TB likes "next" better, or was it "just" a majority?
20:05 <kees> everyone preferred "next"
20:05 <pitti> "rolling" seems to be more of a goal/promise still, while we might need to change "next" again in the future which would make the change pointless
20:05 <ScottK> Since the last meeting I sent in a request for extending the KDE MRE, does that get covered in kees' action or discussed separately?
20:05 <pitti> ScottK: I think it's a separate discussion, kees' was only for the existing provisional MREs
20:05 <mdz> pitti, it was unanimous among the TB
20:05 <pitti> ScottK: I replied on-list
20:05 <kees> ScottK: separate, I was reviewing existing for their update histories
20:05 <mdz> but we wanted rickspencer3 to have a chance to weigh in
20:05 <rickspencer3> is it time to discuss "rolling" vs. "next"? or was that a pre-amble?
20:05 <ScottK> OK.
20:05 <pitti> rickspencer3: yes, please go
20:05 <rickspencer3> ok
20:05 <mdz> rickspencer3, it is time
20:06 <cjwatson> might need to change> could you elaborate?
20:06 <pitti> mdz: (two more of your "no more re-election for me" mails on tb@, FYI; but I got the original alreadY)
20:06 <pitti> cjwatson: I mean at a time when we actually drop the non-LTS releases
20:06 <pitti> and have an actual rolling release
20:06 <pitti> AFAIUI, this was merely deferred, not entirely rejected by sabdfl?
20:07 <cjwatson> I am mostly neutral, i.e. mostly just want the discussion to be done
20:07 <pitti> but "rolling" at this time is aiming a bit high indeed, although we do better than I initially feared
20:07 <kees> that will be a sad day (dropping non-LTS)
20:07 <mdz> pitti, still zero on https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2013-July/thread.html
20:07 <pitti> with 9 months of support it's not that much of a release anyway
20:07 <cjwatson> I had a very slight preference for next I suppose
20:07 <rickspencer3> kees, well, naturally I beg to differ
20:07 <kees> rickspencer3: :)
20:07 <rickspencer3> :)
20:08 <pitti> I don't have a strong opinion, but I slightly prefer "rolling" as that's what the effect is for the user
20:08 <kees> i prefer the short stable to long stable
20:08 <rickspencer3> is this the time when I should make my case?
20:08 <cjwatson> yes
20:08 <pitti> rickspencer3: please, just speak up
20:08 <rickspencer3> ok, first, thanks for inviting me
20:08 <kees> the 6 month cadance, is to me, what makes ubuntu so great.
20:08 <pitti> rickspencer3: (we don't have a formal "you have the mike" usually)
20:08 <kees> (if I could spell)
20:08 <rickspencer3> so, I think that "rolling" is much better than "next"
20:08 <rickspencer3> the "development" release is really usable every day, and has been since 12.04
20:09 <rickspencer3> this sym link will provide the experience of a rolling release, you are always on the tip, and it flips over when we release
20:09 <rickspencer3> I think "rolling" describes the experience quite well, and "next" does not describe this experience
20:09 <rickspencer3> I also think the notion of "next" is a result of thinking about Ubuntu development the way we used to do it
20:10 <mdz> "rolling" to me implies a continuous flow, rather than stepwise upgrades
20:10 <rickspencer3> calling it "next" suggests that it will only be useful in the future
20:10 <cjwatson> one of my concerns is that we still have DIF, and that there seems to be pressure against changing rust
20:10 <rickspencer3> mdz well, I think that's exactly what the sym link will provide
20:10 <cjwatson> that
20:10 <kees> it's not a release, and I want there to be no confusion. "usable" does not mean "stable" which is what a release means to me.
20:10 <rickspencer3> kees, well, that's fine
20:10 <pitti> mdz: and that's what it is, isn't it?
20:10 <rickspencer3> I'm not sure how to express it then
20:11 <kees> "next" is what it is. it's unfinished
20:11 <kees> and seems nicer than calling the symlink "usable" :)
20:11 <rickspencer3> kees, but that suggests that you are using something that will reach some point of completeness later
20:11 <pitti> I find "next" a little unspecific -- the next what?
20:11 <mdz> pitti, not to me. "rolling" is more like debian unstable or testing, with only incremental updates
20:11 <mdz> what we're talking about here is a big batch of updates every 6 months
20:12 <mdz> no?
20:12 <pitti> err, do we?
20:12 <rickspencer3> mdz no
20:12 <kees> next ubuntu release is what it is. you're always running what's next.
20:12 <mdz> ok, I'm confused then
20:12 <rickspencer3> what it would mean is that you were using what we would essentially call the "development version"
20:12 <pitti> I thought right now {next,rolling} == saucy, and it would be t as soon as we release saucy
20:12 <mdz> it's been a month and I hardly remember the discussion
20:12 <pitti> i. e. "always the devel release"
20:12 <rickspencer3> then the day that version releases, the sym link gets moved to the next version
20:12 <kees> mdz: it's an alias like "sid" or "unstable"
20:12 <cjwatson> we don't in practice roll for the last three months or so
20:12 <mdz> ok
20:12 <pitti> right, it sometimes flies and sometimes crawls
20:13 <mdz> I don't really mind what it's called then
20:13 <rickspencer3> cjwatson, actually, I think we d
20:13 <rickspencer3> o
20:13 <cjwatson> we so font
20:13 <cjwatson> don't
20:13 <mdz> all I remember is that hackles went up when "rolling release" was mentioned
20:13 <cjwatson> gah swype
20:13 <pitti> I'd prefer devel > rolling > next, but no strong opinion to argue about it for a long time
20:13 <rickspencer3> cjwatson, maybe I don't know what you mean
20:14 <rickspencer3> but it seems to me that I get lots of changes at the end of the cycle, sometimes big ones
20:14 * ScottK raises hands for hackles over rolling.  It seems inaccurate.
20:14 <kees> right. it's not a release and "rolling" is already too associated with that concept.
20:14 <cjwatson> we stop taking new upstreams routinely
20:14 <rickspencer3> cjwatson, true
20:14 <cjwatson> that is what people expect from rolling
20:14 <rickspencer3> it slows down, but we take many big changes
20:14 <cjwatson> from Canonical
20:14 <rickspencer3> we take a kernel, no?
20:14 <ScottK> The big changes at the end are because people can't keep a schedule, not because it's supposed to be that way.
20:15 <cjwatson> not really from elsewhere
20:15 <kees> kernel is frozen almost before  anything else
20:15 <cjwatson> a bit, but I really do not think that is what people expect
20:15 <rickspencer3> ok
20:15 <cjwatson> they want us to just keep going and not freeze
20:15 <rickspencer3> to me, the essence of "rolling" is really that you just subscribe to the sym link
20:15 <rickspencer3> you expect your desktop always works
20:16 <rickspencer3> and you get changes as fast as Ubuntu puts them in
20:16 <cjwatson> I honestly don't think that's what everyone else means
20:16 <rickspencer3> and there never is a "release"
20:16 <cjwatson> I am happy to make the symlink work and would like to
20:16 <cjwatson> but it's not rolling
20:16 <kees> rickspencer3: i have no problem with the idea of the symlink. we all agreed that was great. just the name was the issue.
20:17 <rickspencer3> kees, sure, it;s fine
20:17 <pitti> we don't have a good precedent for rolling to compare it against really
20:17 <rickspencer3> I was asked to come and explain why I liked "rolling"
20:17 <rickspencer3> I appreciate the opportunity
20:17 <pitti> even sid isn't truly rolling in that sense, it had been frozen for over a year
20:17 <rickspencer3> I don't really like "next" at all
20:17 <rickspencer3> but, I am not on the TB
20:18 <pitti> FWIW, I don't like "next" either, it doesn't tell me anything; I'd rather have "devel" then, as that's what it actually is -- the current development series
20:18 <kees> rickspencer3: we reviewed the suggested list from uds. if rolling is bad and next is bad, we need a new list, i think
20:18 <rickspencer3> I think I would prefer for the TB to make a decision
20:18 <rickspencer3> If it's arbitrary, then I would ask that you pick "rolling"
20:19 <rickspencer3> but if it's not, I really would support whatever
20:19 <rickspencer3> kees, does that make sense?
20:19 <mdz> this is basically invisible to users, right?
20:19 <mdz> who is the name important to?
20:19 <kees> sure
20:19 <ScottK> Except they'll have to opt in to it somehow
20:19 <ScottK> They'll be opting in to a name.
20:19 <mdz> they will?
20:19 <kees> i don't want any mistake made about it being a release. that's my criteria
20:19 <rickspencer3> mdz yes
20:19 <mdz> seems like we would have the opportunity to describe in prose what they're getting
20:19 <pitti> it somehow needs to be exposed in software-properties
20:19 <mdz> rather than just giving them a word
20:20 <rickspencer3> but we could describe the feature in the GUI however we wanted
20:20 <rickspencer3> so, you make a good point
20:20 <rickspencer3> it's doubly arbitrary
20:20 <mdz> and yet it seems important to you and ScottK
20:20 <pitti> kees: in that regard, terminology is already flawed; neither "rolling" nor "devel" are actual releases
20:20 <pitti> they are precisely the series which are *not* released, after all :)
20:21 <cjwatson> we were also going to let developers upload to it
20:21 <kees> "rolling" has alreadt been publically associated with being a release
20:21 <ScottK> If it wasn't already a package name, I'd suggest horizon, since no matter how long you go towards it, you never get there.
20:21 <kees> "devel" is accurate, but so many things are called devel
20:21 <pitti> but how is "rolling" a release, in any sense of the word?
20:21 <cjwatson> so it's not arbitrary,it will influence developer behaviour
20:21 <cjwatson> and I'm
20:21 <ScottK> pitti: It's not and that was part of the problem with the proposal.  We ought not mix this up with that.
20:22 <cjwatson> concerned that it's incompatible with our current freeze processes
20:22 <kees> pitti: it is not pitti it wouldn't be in reality, but existing persepctions will confuse it
20:22 <mdz> how about we agree to delegate to http://www.dotomator.com/web20.html
20:22 <rickspencer3> mdz fine "Voope" it is
20:22 <mdz> I like "zoomdog"
20:22 <pitti> "Thoughtpath"
20:22 <cjwatson> ha
20:23 <kees> zoomdog. winnar
20:23 * ScottK got "Gabify".
20:23 <ScottK> I think that's what's going on right now.
20:24 <mdz> I want to cry when I think of all the brain power that has already been absorbed by this question
20:24 <pitti> so, as this is a rather classic bikeshedding argument and we could be here all night, how about we just vote on the existing proposals and get it done? or rickspencer3, would you like to discuss more?
20:24 <kees> rickspencer3: you don't like "next" but would be okay with it since it's not very visible?
20:24 <rickspencer3> pitti, I've said all I can say, I think
20:24 <mdz> pitti, +1 on drawing to a quick conclusion
20:24 <rickspencer3> kees, I don't like "next", but I don't think me being "okay with it" is terribly apropos
20:25 <rickspencer3> I think this is a TB decision
20:25 <rickspencer3> and I won't quit Ubuntu if I don't get my way
20:25 <rickspencer3> ;)
20:25 <pitti> so, our options are "next" and "rolling", or were there any others?
20:25 <kees> rickspencer3: well, I'd prefer something you're happy with
20:25 <pitti> has "devel" even been on the table from the UDS discussin?
20:25 <mdz> all things considered, we can't possibly consider all things
20:25 <kees> pitti: the list we looked at was from uds,but I can't find the url
20:25 <rickspencer3> kees, I don't see how we will get past this
20:26 <rickspencer3> in a way that makes everyone totally happy
20:26 <kees> devel was on it.
20:26 <rickspencer3> and it is such a small small thing in the scheme of things
20:26 <cjwatson> I would prefer tofind something everyone likes, but that doesn't seem possible
20:26 <pitti> kees: ah, ok; so in between rolling, next, and devel?
20:26 <rickspencer3> rolling it is!
20:26 <rickspencer3> good choice
20:26 <rickspencer3> next topic?
20:26 <kees> and things like head, master, tip, etc
20:27 <cjwatson> I'm not vehemently against rolling, but I see definite problems with it
20:27 <pitti> for counting I propose three separate votes, one for each name; multiple +1 allowed, the one with the most votes wins; ok?
20:27 <mdz> sure
20:27 <pitti> (I can't figure out CC at this time of the night)
20:28 <mdz> but risks a tie
20:28 <kees> that's probably best
20:28 * rickspencer3 braces
20:28 <mdz> at least it's fast
20:28 <pitti> #vote series name for "always at development series" is: "rolling"
20:28 <meetingology> Please vote on: series name for "always at development series" is: "rolling"
20:28 <meetingology> Public votes can be registered by saying +1, +0 or -1 in channel, (private votes don't work yet, but when they do it will be by messaging the channel followed by +1/-1/+0 to me)
20:28 <pitti> +1
20:28 <meetingology> +1 received from pitti
20:28 <kees> -1
20:28 <meetingology> -1 received from kees
20:28 <mdz> +0
20:28 <meetingology> +0 received from mdz
20:28 <stgraber> -1
20:28 <meetingology> -1 received from stgraber
20:28 <cjwatson> +0
20:28 <meetingology> +0 received from cjwatson
20:28 <soren> -1 (zoomdog ftw1)
20:28 <meetingology> -1 (zoomdog ftw1) received from soren
20:28 <pitti> #endvote
20:28 <meetingology> Voting ended on: series name for "always at development series" is: "rolling"
20:28 <meetingology> Votes for:1 Votes against:3 Abstentions:2
20:28 <meetingology> Motion denied
20:28 <pitti> #vote series name for "always at development series" is: "next"
20:28 <meetingology> Please vote on: series name for "always at development series" is: "next"
20:28 <meetingology> Public votes can be registered by saying +1, +0 or -1 in channel, (private votes don't work yet, but when they do it will be by messaging the channel followed by +1/-1/+0 to me)
20:28 <mdz> +0
20:28 <meetingology> +0 received from mdz
20:28 <pitti> -1
20:28 <meetingology> -1 received from pitti
20:28 <kees> +1
20:28 <meetingology> +1 received from kees
20:29 <soren> +1
20:29 <meetingology> +1 received from soren
20:29 <cjwatson> +1
20:29 <meetingology> +1 received from cjwatson
20:29 <stgraber> +1
20:29 <meetingology> +1 received from stgraber
20:29 <pitti> #endvote
20:29 <meetingology> Voting ended on: series name for "always at development series" is: "next"
20:29 <meetingology> Votes for:4 Votes against:1 Abstentions:1
20:29 <meetingology> Motion carried
20:29 <pitti> #vote series name for "always at development series" is: "devel"
20:29 <meetingology> Please vote on: series name for "always at development series" is: "devel"
20:29 <meetingology> Public votes can be registered by saying +1, +0 or -1 in channel, (private votes don't work yet, but when they do it will be by messaging the channel followed by +1/-1/+0 to me)
20:29 <pitti> +1
20:29 <meetingology> +1 received from pitti
20:29 <cjwatson> +1
20:29 <meetingology> +1 received from cjwatson
20:29 <kees> +0
20:29 <meetingology> +0 received from kees
20:29 <soren> +1
20:29 <meetingology> +1 received from soren
20:29 <stgraber> +1
20:29 <meetingology> +1 received from stgraber
20:29 <mdz> +1
20:29 <meetingology> +1 received from mdz
20:29 <pitti> #endvote
20:29 <meetingology> Voting ended on: series name for "always at development series" is: "devel"
20:29 <meetingology> Votes for:5 Votes against:0 Abstentions:1
20:29 <meetingology> Motion carried
20:29 <soren> Wow. Unexpected.
20:29 <pitti> wow
20:30 <mdz> I demand a recount with condorcet voting
20:30 <pitti> so we name the developmetn series ... "devel"?
20:30 <kees> lol
20:30 <rickspencer3> devel
20:30 <pitti> mdz: if you know the procedure, please do
20:30 <soren> So we spend weeks debating about "next" vs "rolling" and end up choosing "devel". I love it.
20:30 <mdz> pitti, kidding
20:30 <rickspencer3> ?
20:30 <ScottK> It's possible there was some strategic voting there.
20:30 <soren> It's no zoomdog, but hey.
20:30 <rickspencer3> Interestingly I just bought a condo in a small condo building. There is no storage, so no where to store my bike. So, in a couple of weeks I need to start a literal discussion about a bike shed.
20:30 <kees> red!
20:31 <cjwatson> ScottK:not from me
20:31 <beuno> rickspencer3, surely it will be names rolling? :)
20:31 <pitti> ScottK: order shouldn't have mattered?
20:31 * ScottK was kidding (mostly)
20:31 <kees> i voted how I felt. devel over rolling, but not really FOR it
20:31 <rickspencer3> it's funny that we have so much trouble naming this "thing"
20:31 <pitti> so, anyone who wants to propose something new, please start a new thread and try to convince people that it's really a lot better :)
20:32 <ScottK> The bikeshed is painted now.  that's the main thing.
20:32 <pitti> *phew*
20:32 <pitti> rickspencer3: thanks for being at the meeting
20:32 <pitti> #topic Discussion and vote on OpenSSL as a system library. Follow-up fro mthe last couple of meetings and ML discussion.
20:32 * ScottK thought that was voted on last time.
20:32 <pitti> I thought this had already been concluded at the last meeting, according to mdz's summary?
20:32 <kees> that's settled
20:32 <mdz> yes, I thought so too
20:32 <mdz> I didn't get to updating the wiki
20:32 <pitti> ack, thanks
20:32 <mdz> I barely got the minutes out
20:33 <pitti> #topic Xen MRE for upstream stable releases (Stefan Bader)
20:33 <smb> \o
20:33 <kees> if there have been good srus, I' for a provisional. it sounds like it gets good testing
20:33 <pitti> I didn't reply because even from my years-long SRU time I can't remember a xen SRU
20:33 <smb> kees, not sure what exactly you mean by some good srus
20:34 <kees> smb	have there been xen SRUs already?
20:34 <smb> pitti, Usually only cves
20:34 <pitti> it seems a bit surprising that maintenance suddenly has gone up, but if it did, I'm fine with a provisional MRE as well
20:34 <kees> that didn't have regressions?
20:34 <smb> But since a while there is also upstream stable releases
20:34 <smb> (and probably none yet really looked there)
20:34 <pitti> smb: right, but these aren't subject to SRU restrictions anyway
20:34 <smb> No, I started to think about it as
20:35 <smb> a) it is a bit like we already do with the kernel
20:35 <smb> b) security patches are based on the latest stable series
20:35 <smb> And the upstream stable releases go through reviews and afaik through regression testing
20:36 <smb> So it just seems a sensible approach to keep the version maintained even after release without too much more work
20:36 <pitti> smb: what kind of testing do, or can we do, on proposed xen updates? like, running various existing test suites on various ubuntu releases under xen ?
20:37 <pitti> smb: and what magnitude of changes do we talk about here? like, the occasional bug fix, or lots of reegineering?
20:37 <pitti> (the latter would actually surprise me)
20:37 <smb> pitti, I am not sure there is really anything going on testing wise beyond the tests I do
20:38 <smb> and those are more manual by putting the updated hypervisor on two testboxes (amd and intel) and then fire up thy dom0 and pvm and hvm guest
20:38 <smb> pitti, And for magnitude, the number of check-ins may seem large but it is restricted to bugfixes and small contain improvements not re-engenieering
20:38 <pitti> ah, reading the proposed diffs now, it's quite a list
20:39 <smb> pitti, mostly because I took the commit from git
20:39 <pitti> so yeah, not quite possible to verify them all, we need some good regression testing there
20:39 <smb> I mean the short version oof commit ids
20:40 <smb> pitti, because we don't trust upstream?
20:40 <kees> i think we're better off with the fixes than without, so I'd likea provisional mre. if things stay smooth, it should get full mre quickly
20:41 <pitti> smb: well, with that magnitude of changes it's not about trust, but about throwing more eyes on it, plus testing it in the ubuntu specific environment/binary build etc, which upstream can't do
20:41 <pitti> smb: i. e. a newer xen package on precise might behave differently than what upstream tested on a different kernel?
20:42 <smb> pitti, I would always keep with the same minor version (so precise is xen 4.1.x and remains on that stream)
20:42 <smb> For raring it would be 4.2.x
20:42 <pitti> smb: I think if we can define some regression testing, like "boot the last N releases/LTS default install and verify some list of things (networking, file system test suite, etc.)", we have some standard process which we can even automate
20:42 <pitti> smb: right
20:43 <smb> pitti, Ah well ok. Though in some way I do those things but the question is how to document and have a tickoff list
20:43 <pitti> so a comment like "Would like to see this as upgrading to 13.04/xen 4.2.1 broke pci-e passthrough for me but is fixed in 4.2.2." suggests that upstream microreleases are good to get in, but also that xen is not completely regression proof (which is certainly understandable between major releases)
20:43 <pitti> smb: right, hence my question how we currently test them
20:43 <pitti> smb: doing these manually sounds cumbersome
20:44 <pitti> I agree to kees' "pro provisional MRE", we can discuss some verification strategy with the SRU team in these "update to x.y.z" bugs
20:45 <pitti> cjwatson, soren, mdz, stgraber, any objections? ^
20:45 <mdz> yes
20:45 <pitti> mdz: please go ahead
20:45 <stgraber> I'm fine with a provisional MRE
20:45 <mdz> oh, sorry, I meant no
20:45 <pitti> ah :)
20:45 <cjwatson> no objections
20:45 <mdz> yes I support a provisional MRE
20:46 <pitti> great, that's settled; smb, thanks for joining
20:46 <smb> thanks
20:46 * smb goes back melting
20:46 <pitti> #agreed provisional MRE for Xen, with defining more formal testing on the first SRU with the SRU team
20:46 <pitti> #topic extending KDE MRE (ScottK)
20:47 <pitti> I'm mostly +1 on this (as I said on the ML), with the exception of lightdm-kde where I would like to know first what kind of changes goes into it
20:48 * ScottK is researching that now
20:48 <stgraber> When was that sent tl the ML?
20:48 <cjwatson> link would be good
20:48 <pitti> my gut feeling is that we should be rather careful with this, and while it's certainly ok to update to new upstream microreleases, the individual changes ought to be reviewed more carefully than for the apps
20:48 <ScottK> stgraber: Wed Jul 17 15:37:22 2013
20:49 <pitti> https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2013-July/001666.html was ScottK's mail
20:49 <pitti> hm, my response hasn't gotten to the archive yet
20:49 <ScottK> I got it though.
20:49 <pitti> other than what I said above, I just said "I experienced several of those during my active ~ubuntu-sru time and
20:49 <pitti> can confirm this."
20:49 <pitti> those == KDE SRUs
20:49 <stgraber> hmm, must have missed this... and no access to email at the moment
20:50 <ScottK> We just finished doing 4.10.5 last week.
20:50 <pitti> ScottK: yeah, the magic of CC: :)
20:51 <stgraber> list looks reasonable to me
20:51 * stgraber looks some more
20:52 <pitti> to me as well, with the only "paranoia" bit that jumps out being lightdm-kde
20:52 <pitti> although I guess that's mostly the chrome, not the plumbings
20:52 <ScottK> We don't have an immediate need for that as raring has the current release.
20:52 <ScottK> Yes, it should be just the front end bits.
20:54 <stgraber> lightdm-kde is a separate frontend for lightdm, so if it's maintained by the kubntu folks with the same process as other kde packages, I'm fine with it
20:54 <kees> yeah, I agree with pitti. looks good with questions about lightdm-kde. :)
20:54 <pitti> and to be fair, I would have counted all of these as "KDE" as per https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates/MicroReleaseExceptions anyway ..
20:55 <ScottK> OK.  We've been pretty strict about limiting it to the core KDE.
20:55 <pitti> ok, so it seems no further questions/objections?
20:56 <pitti> ScottK: so, seems we have a winner!
20:56 <ScottK> Great.
20:56 <pitti> ScottK: do you want to keep lightdm-kde in the list, or rather put it back to reviewing individual changes?
20:57 <pitti> TBH I don't have a really good idea how sensitive it would be to different hw/acceleration and the like
20:57 <ScottK> Let's wait until there's an update and then I'll bring it back with a concrete example in hand.
20:57 <pitti> ack
20:57 <pitti> #topic Scan the mailing list archive for anything we missed
20:58 <pitti> nothing else that I can see
20:58 <ScottK> If the archive was up to date, there would be something.
20:58 <pitti> my mailbox also doesn't have anything else
20:58 <pitti> and mutt makes them stand out in green for me :)
20:58 <ScottK> Not that we expect the TB to act on it today, but Laney, on behalf of the TB, sent out a proposal on modifying PPU.
20:59 <ScottK> Message-ID: <20130722200701.GC22297@iota>
20:59 <pitti> oh, in fact I just got it
20:59 <ScottK> (I got a copy via the TB list)
20:59 <pitti> but it's longish, perhaps we could give us some time to digest
20:59 <ScottK> This is something to review and consider.
20:59 <mdz> ah, hadn't seen that as I was looking at the archive
20:59 <mdz> reading now
20:59 <mdz> ah, yes, we're out of time anyway
20:59 <pitti> I propose to carry?
20:59 <ScottK> Yes.  I wanted to bring it to your attention to reivew.
20:59 <pitti> thanks
20:59 <ScottK> Yes
20:59 <pitti> #topic beer
20:59 <pitti> err, I meant
20:59 <pitti> #endmeeting