14:30 <cpaelzer> #startmeeting Weekly Main Inclusion Requests status 14:30 <meetingology> Meeting started at 14:30:46 UTC. The chair is cpaelzer. Information about MeetBot at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology 14:30 <meetingology> Available commands: action, commands, idea, info, link, nick 14:30 <cpaelzer> Ping for MIR meeting - didrocks joalif slyon sarnold cpaelzer jamespage ( eslerm dviererbe ) 14:30 <slyon> o/ 14:30 <cpaelzer> Not sure if everyone made it back from the sprint yet 14:31 <eslerm> good morning o/ 14:31 <dviererbe> Hello o/ 14:31 <cpaelzer> but in case you did - hello o/ 14:31 <jbicha> hi, I'll be filing the MIRs related to transmission soon 14:31 <cpaelzer> ok, good to know ahead of time jbicha 14:31 <cpaelzer> let us see if syncs brought us something already 14:31 <cpaelzer> #topic current component mismatches 14:31 <cpaelzer> Mission: Identify required actions and spread the load among the teams 14:31 <cpaelzer> #link https://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/component-mismatches-proposed.svg 14:31 <cpaelzer> #link https://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/component-mismatches.svg 14:32 <cpaelzer> transmission (as mentioned by jbicha) 14:32 <cpaelzer> jaraco.text was there last cycle and is still on openstack 14:32 <slyon> policykit-1 -> duktape seems known (didn't we resolve that in the past? 14:32 <joalif> o/ 14:32 <cpaelzer> jamespage: in case you read this now or later, what is the mantic minotaur plan for dependencies of jaraco ? 14:32 <didrocks> hello 14:32 <cpaelzer> oh, one more thing 14:32 <cpaelzer> I have went backwards on duktape IIRC 14:33 <cpaelzer> it is still seen in component mismatch proposed right now 14:33 <cpaelzer> I guess that is meant to land soo, was that ready - if not what was yet open? 14:33 <jamespage> cpaelzer: unsure - I need to sync with coreycb and the ubuntu-ceph team to figure that out 14:33 <cpaelzer> ok jamespage, do that and get back to us 14:33 <jamespage> but I'll find out and return with news... 14:33 <cpaelzer> I just want to avoid it hangs in mismatches for many more months 14:33 <jamespage> yep me too 14:34 <jbicha> cpaelzer: I believe Desktop still has a required autopkgtest TODO for duktape 14:34 <cpaelzer> yes, there were some open tasks 14:35 <cpaelzer> that very much could be one 14:35 <cpaelzer> jbicha: do you know if that task of getting it ready is on the roadmap or anyones desk? 14:35 <slyon> So I think duktape should be marked "Incomplete" to reflect that? 14:35 <cpaelzer> It was incomplete after my review 14:35 <jbicha> cpaelzer: duktape is on Desktop's roadmap to try to get done within the next few weeks 14:35 <cpaelzer> went to security 14:36 <cpaelzer> and they marked it "ok" after their ack 14:36 <cpaelzer> incomplete is indeed the right status, thanks for suggesting slyon 14:36 <cpaelzer> thanks jbicha, so in some near future Desktop will come back , call it ready, we will look again and then it can move 14:36 <cpaelzer> sounds reasonable 14:36 <jbicha> 👍 14:38 <cpaelzer> status fixed 14:38 <slyon> thx! 14:38 <cpaelzer> ok, next 14:38 <cpaelzer> #topic New MIRs 14:38 <cpaelzer> Mission: ensure to assign all incoming reviews for fast processing 14:38 <cpaelzer> #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/?field.searchtext=&orderby=-date_last_updated&field.status%3Alist=NEW&field.status%3Alist=CONFIRMED&assignee_option=none&field.assignee=&field.subscriber=ubuntu-mir 14:39 <cpaelzer> nothing there yet 14:39 <cpaelzer> next 14:39 <cpaelzer> #topic Incomplete bugs / questions 14:39 <cpaelzer> Mission: Identify required actions and spread the load among the teams 14:39 <cpaelzer> #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/?field.searchtext=&orderby=-date_last_updated&field.status%3Alist=INCOMPLETE_WITH_RESPONSE&field.status%3Alist=INCOMPLETE_WITHOUT_RESPONSE&field.subscriber=ubuntu-mir 14:39 <cpaelzer> no recent updates 14:39 <cpaelzer> the sprint and recent release made things rather easy :-) 14:40 <cpaelzer> #topic Process/Documentation improvements 14:40 <cpaelzer> Mission: Review pending process/documentation pull-requests or issues 14:40 <cpaelzer> #link https://github.com/canonical/ubuntu-mir/pulls 14:40 <cpaelzer> #link https://github.com/canonical/ubuntu-mir/issues 14:40 <cpaelzer> We have my PR, but I'd postpone that to the AOB section at the end 14:40 <cpaelzer> it is meant to trigger discussion and bikeshedding, that asks for the open-end section of the meeting 14:40 <cpaelzer> #topic MIR related Security Review Queue 14:40 <cpaelzer> Mission: Check on progress, do deadlines seem doable? 14:40 <cpaelzer> #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-security/+bugs?field.searchtext=%5BMIR%5D&assignee_option=choose&field.assignee=ubuntu-security&field.bug_reporter=&field.bug_commenter=&field.subscriber=ubuntu-mir 14:40 <cpaelzer> Internal link 14:40 <cpaelzer> - ensure your teams items are prioritized among each other as you'd expect 14:41 <cpaelzer> - ensure community requests do not get stomped by teams calling for favors too much 14:41 <cpaelzer> #link https://warthogs.atlassian.net/jira/software/c/projects/SEC/boards/594 14:41 <cpaelzer> We have discussed about them just before the sprint 14:41 <cpaelzer> a few things in there, related to cargo and heif 14:41 <slyon> (where cargo should be high priority and heif best effort) 14:41 <cpaelzer> I haven't seen sarnold or eslerm today to ask about openscap/smartcards if they got new focus 14:41 <cpaelzer> slyon: that prio isn't reflected 14:41 <cpaelzer> but we can fix it up 14:42 <eslerm> cargo discussion at the sprint was productive, unblocked our dependency concerns 14:42 <cpaelzer> libgit2 was related to cargo right? 14:42 <slyon> cpaelzer: yes, so is http-parser 14:42 <slyon> I've set those to "high" priority on the board 14:42 <eslerm> iirc, smartcards were removed a cycle or two ago since desktop was no longer owning them 14:43 <cpaelzer> I see the "high" so year, you are good 14:43 <cpaelzer> sorry for the noise 14:43 <eslerm> previously, we needed hardware for testing and at least one package needed significant work 14:43 <cpaelzer> eslerm: ok, so no comeback of them yet 14:43 <cpaelzer> thanks 14:43 <eslerm> yes, unless desktop wants them 14:43 <cpaelzer> yep 14:43 <cpaelzer> #topic Any other business? 14:43 <eslerm> it would be nice to support them 14:44 <cpaelzer> from me, get the discussion on https://github.com/canonical/ubuntu-mir/pull/17 going 14:44 <didrocks> thanks for tackling this cpaelzer! 14:44 <eslerm> ^ 14:44 <slyon> +1! 14:44 <cpaelzer> yw, it isn't perfect but a start 14:44 <cpaelzer> Question #1 I have is on preference of how to express the rules 14:45 <cpaelzer> right now I have copied the template and modified it 14:45 <cpaelzer> pro: readable 14:45 <cpaelzer> con: duplication / redundancy 14:45 <slyon> I suggested to add an asterisk (*) to the TODOs/sections that are needed for re-review 14:45 <cpaelzer> would you rather prefer to merge the "re-review" with the "review" template and flag them somehow? 14:45 <slyon> I'm afraid the templates will diverge if handled separately 14:45 <eslerm> imo, clarity justifies redundancy 14:45 <didrocks> +1 on slyon's proposal 14:46 <cpaelzer> +1 on slyon's suggestion - at least let me do that and then we can have a look 14:46 <cpaelzer> I haven't seen that yet 14:46 <slyon> the asterisk shouldn't affect clarity too much and we can give a nice explanation about the * below the template 14:46 <dviererbe> I think a copy would be fine, because the template is much more often copied that edited, but I also like the * Idea 14:46 <cpaelzer> We already filter out the RULE: sections 14:46 <eslerm> slyon: that makes sense 14:46 <cpaelzer> I think the same way we can restrict to only or without those 14:46 <cpaelzer> one question though 14:47 <cpaelzer> there are things which "ONLY" apply to re-review 14:47 <cpaelzer> would you be ok with "*** TODO: ..." for those? 14:47 <slyon> "Then potentially having a new [Re-review*] section below for stuff that's only relevant for re-reviews. And giving an explanation about the * below, too (as usual)." 14:47 <cpaelzer> oh that is nice 14:47 <didrocks> but those are the exceptions, correct? I guess a dedicated marker is fine 14:47 <cpaelzer> thanks for having better ideas on the layout 14:47 <cpaelzer> ok, I'll overhaul with that in mind for next week 14:48 <cpaelzer> dviererbe: I've seen your question as well 14:48 <cpaelzer> dviererbe: it is meant to be a continuous effort 14:48 <cpaelzer> dviererbe: but no high hopes please 14:48 <dviererbe> thanks sylon also answered that in the github isue 14:48 <cpaelzer> dviererbe: the amount we can do is <<< things in main 14:48 <cpaelzer> so it will be slow 14:49 <cpaelzer> ok, the TL;DR is 14:49 <cpaelzer> 1. you are all generally +1 as you love Ubuntu with quality as much as I do 14:49 <cpaelzer> 2. I'll integrate all your good feedback 14:49 <cpaelzer> 3. I'll reset this PR to needs review 14:49 <cpaelzer> from there we can work on GH and talk again here next week 14:49 <cpaelzer> that is ok for me for today 14:49 <slyon> sounds great, thanks! 14:50 <didrocks> sounds good :) 14:50 <joalif> sounds good :) 14:50 <eslerm> thanks cpaelzer 14:50 <dviererbe> thanks for all the work! 14:50 <cpaelzer> ok, there was nothing else 14:50 <cpaelzer> closing this .... 14:50 <cpaelzer> thank you all! 14:50 <eslerm> o/ 14:50 <cpaelzer> #endmeeting