== Meeting information ==

 * #ubuntu-meeting: Weekly Main Inclusion Requests status meeting, started by cpaelzer, 09 May at 14:30 — 14:50 UTC.
 * Full logs at https://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2023/ubuntu-meeting.2023-05-09-14.30.log.html



== Meeting summary ==

=== current component mismatches ===

Discussion started by cpaelzer at 14:31.

 * ''LINK:'' https://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/component-mismatches-proposed.svg   (cpaelzer, 14:31)
 * ''LINK:'' https://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/component-mismatches.svg   (cpaelzer, 14:31)

=== New MIRs ===

Discussion started by cpaelzer at 14:38.

 * ''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   (cpaelzer, 14:38)

=== Incomplete bugs / questions ===

Discussion started by cpaelzer at 14:39.

 * ''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   (cpaelzer, 14:39)

=== Process/Documentation improvements ===

Discussion started by cpaelzer at 14:40.

 * ''LINK:'' https://github.com/canonical/ubuntu-mir/pulls   (cpaelzer, 14:40)
 * ''LINK:'' https://github.com/canonical/ubuntu-mir/issues   (cpaelzer, 14:40)

=== MIR related Security Review Queue ===

Discussion started by cpaelzer at 14:40.

 * ''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   (cpaelzer, 14:40)
 * ''LINK:'' https://warthogs.atlassian.net/jira/software/c/projects/SEC/boards/594   (cpaelzer, 14:41)

=== Any other business? ===

Discussion started by cpaelzer at 14:43.




== People present (lines said) ==

 * cpaelzer (97)
 * slyon (13)
 * eslerm (11)
 * didrocks (5)
 * dviererbe (4)
 * jbicha (4)
 * jamespage (3)
 * meetingology (2)
 * joalif (2)



== Full log ==


 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



Generated by MeetBot 0.4.0 (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology)