16:30 #startmeeting Ubuntu Backports Team 16:30 Meeting started at 16:30:26 UTC. The chair is ddstreet. Information about MeetBot at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology 16:30 Available commands: action, commands, idea, info, link, nick 16:30 I'll apologize in advance, last month I was kind of distracted, I basically forgot all of my tasks until.. today :( 16:30 lol, no problem, i don't think i did much either :) 16:30 #topic previous action items 16:31 #subtopic ddstreet update tooling, requestbackport, backportpackage (carried over) 16:31 did not get to this 16:31 #action ddstreet update tooling, requestbackport, backportpackage (carried over) 16:31 * meetingology ddstreet update tooling, requestbackport, backportpackage (carried over) 16:31 and of course if either of you get to this, feel free to update the tooling 16:31 ahah 16:31 #subtopic mapreri upload (more of) all the tools (carried over, in progress) 16:32 #action mapreri upload (more of) all the tools (carried over, in progress) 16:32 * meetingology mapreri upload (more of) all the tools (carried over, in progress) 16:32 i assume carry over :) 16:32 #subtopic mapreri fix lintian to not complain about ~bpo suffix (https://bugs.debian.org/1001399) (carried over) 16:32 Debian bug 1001399 in lintian "lintian: adjust backports-upload-has-incorrect-version-number for ubuntu" [Normal, Open] 16:32 carry over? 16:32 this is kind of stuck also because the lintian maintainer is in a... awkward situation rihgt now 16:32 -.- 16:32 but well 16:32 yes 16:32 #action mapreri fix lintian to not complain about ~bpo suffix (https://bugs.debian.org/1001399) (carried over) 16:32 * meetingology mapreri fix lintian to not complain about ~bpo suffix (https://bugs.debian.org/1001399) (carried over) 16:33 I wonder if I should just include it in the ubuntu delta 16:33 one day 16:33 that's certainly a possibility 16:33 #subtopic mapreri review wiki page to see how we can highlight that backport requestors need to do the backport work and find a sponsor 16:33 let's carry it over for now :( 16:34 i think the wiki has actually been totally broken (for writes) for the last month, so i assume this hasn't been done ;-) 16:34 #action mapreri review wiki page to see how we can highlight that backport requestors need to do the backport work and find a sponsor 16:34 * meetingology mapreri review wiki page to see how we can highlight that backport requestors need to do the backport work and find a sponsor 16:34 #subtopic mapreri handle approval for backports of memtest86+ and freeipmi 16:34 i think you commented on one of these? but still in progress? 16:34 yeah, I was complaining about this 2 days ago and again few minutes ago in a diferent channel… 16:34 I did really 16:34 mh 16:35 do we need to keep the action or just let it get handled in the bugs? 16:35 indeed didn't write on the freeipmi but that's fine (We didn't nack that before) 16:35 drop the action, the bugs are enough 16:35 ack 16:35 I'll follow the upload, since he hangs on in the italian channel 16:35 #subtopic mapreri handle debhelper backport including revert dep on debugedit for focal-backports 16:35 although I think he also needs a sponsor :\ 16:36 yeah, pending too, apologizes 16:36 drop this action too, since there is still the bug open? 16:36 mhh, keep it pls 16:36 ack 16:36 #action mapreri handle debhelper backport including revert dep on debugedit for focal-backports 16:36 * meetingology mapreri handle debhelper backport including revert dep on debugedit for focal-backports 16:36 perhaps it'll keep my mind more on it, who knows 16:36 :) 16:37 #subtopic (unassigned) get DEB_VENDOR=ubuntu dch --bpo to DTRT pls (carried over) 16:37 i assume we're carrying this and the other unassigned one 16:37 #action (unassigned) get DEB_VENDOR=ubuntu dch --bpo to DTRT pls (carried over) 16:37 * meetingology (unassigned) get DEB_VENDOR=ubuntu dch --bpo to DTRT pls (carried over) 16:37 #subtopic (unassigned) look at reviewer tooling such as 'queue' or other tools for reviewing/accepting/rejecting uploads, and closing the corresponding bugs (carried over) 16:37 #action (unassigned) look at reviewer tooling such as 'queue' or other tools for reviewing/accepting/rejecting uploads, and closing the corresponding bugs (carried over) 16:37 * meetingology (unassigned) look at reviewer tooling such as 'queue' or other tools for reviewing/accepting/rejecting uploads, and closing the corresponding bugs (carried over) 16:37 ok that's all the previous action items 16:38 moving on to open ML threads 16:38 #topic clarification on specific wording for no-bug-required backport exceptions 16:38 well i guess that's the subtopic, ugh, i'm a bad chair 16:38 #topic open ML threads 16:38 I think they are all stuck regardless :\ 16:38 #subtopic clarification on specific wording for no-bug-required backport exceptions 16:39 yeah, let's all try to follow up on at least one of the ML threads before the next meeting :) 16:39 that's a great proposal \o/ 16:39 I cheer to that! 16:39 :) 16:39 #action clarification on specific wording for no-bug-required backport exceptions 16:39 * meetingology clarification on specific wording for no-bug-required backport exceptions 16:39 #subtopic TB ML thread for charter 16:40 let's leave this for now...still basically waiting on feedback 16:40 I also have a whole week at the end of May in a debian event, so I'll likely also focus more on FOSS in general... let's be hopeful! 16:40 i do think we should have some kind of 'end date' for when we just assume the charter is the rules we use for the team 16:40 awesome! 16:40 #action TB ML thread for charter 16:40 * meetingology TB ML thread for charter 16:41 do we need to discuss either of those ML threads now or are there other ML threads we should discuss? 16:41 I don't think we need to 16:41 perfect, next is open bugs 16:41 #topic open bugs 16:42 any in particular we should discuss? 16:42 nope 16:42 but I think there are too many open bugs already u.u 16:42 lol well there are a few 16:43 but i dont think there's any uploads that need reviewing, besides freeipmi/memtest86+, so it's not technically our responsibility to sponsor the open bugs 16:43 we should probably focus on screaming them out 16:43 right but 16:43 what should we do with things that are stuck in sponsorship? 16:43 it's a good question 16:44 I'd propose to remove the subscription and tell them to re-subscribe the team once it's done 16:44 I think there is a precedent somewhere (i don't think it's sru thought) 16:44 yep that's totally fine with me 16:44 we should keep the 'bug reporter needs to find a sponsor' requirement, it'll be too much for us to sponsor everything 16:45 ddstreet: do we have a policy set where we close bugs that don't get sponsors after a certain period? 16:45 if we let these bugs pile up it'll lead to the problem that led to backports being defunct to begin with ;) 16:46 likely we should do that too 16:46 but those stuck in sponsorship should just get out of our view 16:46 teward: tbh, those bugs stuck at questions (like memtest, etc) would be set to "incomplete" and naturally expire in 60 days 16:46 I noticed it today that I had 4 more days before expiration 16:47 so I don't think we need that, just remember ourself to move to "incomplete" when things are stuck, maybe? 16:48 since we expect bug reporters to 'own' the backport if it needs updates/fixes later, it's probably a good thing to use 'incomplete', since if the reporter can't be bothered to respond to questions they most likely won't follow up to 'own' the backport later, right? 16:49 maybe we should put bugs without a sponsor in 'incomplete' too? 16:50 perhaps, yes 16:50 let's do that 16:50 but then maybe we should define a proper meaning for all bug status, we haven't done that yet 16:50 besides invalid/released, that's obvious. but new/confirmed(triaged?)/incomplete is not well defined yet 16:51 should we do that now, or let's not? 16:51 or maybe, action somebody (me? :P) to send a mail with a proper proposal to add to the wiki a list of status and meanings? 16:51 should we do it on the ML? whatever we decide should most likely write up the specifics on our policies wiki page 16:52 or we could add it to the process page 16:52 yeah let's move it to the list 16:52 do #action ? 16:53 #action mapreri start thread on ML about how to use bug status to define meaing in process 16:53 * meetingology mapreri start thread on ML about how to use bug status to define meaing in process 16:53 ok let's hope we find time for ML threads before the next mtg :) 16:54 any other open bugs to discuss? or bug meta-discussion? 16:54 none for me 16:54 ok let's move to aob 16:54 #topic AOB 16:54 any other business to discuss? 16:54 nope 16:55 if not, i'll sched the next meeting in another month? or do we think we can go longer, 2 months? 16:55 1m imho 16:55 sounds good 16:55 we are already stalling, 2m would be worse 16:56 yeah, if we are able to handle ML threads better, maybe we can increase the mtg interval then 16:56 #action ddstreet schedule next meeting in 1 month 16:56 * meetingology ddstreet schedule next meeting in 1 month 16:56 ok any last item before we close? 16:56 teward: anything? :) 16:56 nope 16:56 #endmeeting