20090115

January 15th, 2009, 12:00 UTC in #ubuntu-meeting.

Agenda

Action Items from Jan 8th, 2008

  • persia to review/assign all open specifications
  • persia to send reminders about specifications
  • ogra to finish touchscreen spec
  • lool to bring up DVD with bfiller and others and see whether it's a firm need

Current Items

  • Transition to a Roadmap-based method of tracking progress in meetings

  • Any Other Business

Action items from this weeks meeting

  • ogra to finish touchscreen spec
  • lool to finish specs
  • persia to verify all specs are assigned

Meeting Log

=== ubottu changed the topic of #ubuntu-meeting to: Current meeting: Ubuntu Mobile Team Calendar: http://fridge.ubuntu.com/event | Logs: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MeetingLogs/ | 15 Jan 13:00: Desktop Team | 15 Jan 14:00: Ubuntu Java | 19 Jan 22:00: IRC Council
[11:55] <lool> Ubuntu Mobile Meeting in 5 minutes
[11:55]  * ogra rushes to make some quick coffee
[11:59]  * lool finishes his tiramisu
[12:00] <NCommander> whats tiramisu?
[12:00] <ogra> yummy
[12:00] <ogra> now i'm hungry
[12:00]  * lool throws Google on NCommander 
[12:01]  * NCommander has flashes of hummus and chips
[12:01] <davidm> #startmeeting
[12:02] <StevenK> ENOMOOTBOT
[12:02] <Hobbsee> always a promising start.
[12:02] <StevenK> Haha
[12:02] <davidm> Yea, great.
=== StevenK is now known as MootBot
[12:02] <persia> MootBot, #startmeeting
=== MootBot is now known as StevenK
[12:03] <Hobbsee> are you going to play the part of mootbot too?
[12:03] <davidm> OK the meeting is started no mootbot so the fun commences.
[12:03] <StevenK> The nick is registered, I didn't want to get killed
[12:03] <davidm> OK lets get started
[12:03] <davidm> persia you did the agenda for today so....
[12:04] <persia> OK.  Agenda at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MobileTeam/Meeting/2009/20090115
[12:04] <persia> First up: action items from the last meeting:
[12:04] <persia> I reviewed and assigned the open specifications.
[12:04] <persia> I also sent reminders to everyone I thought would be good to do stuff, and got corrections.
[12:05] <persia> ogra was to finish the touchscreen spec
[12:05] <ogra> working on it
[12:05] <ogra> i had so much other stuff, but i'm happy to report that evtouch isnt ftbfs anymore and in jaunty :)
[12:05]  * lool still didn't finish specs; I'm really late on this as these are to be completed and reviewed by tomorrow
[12:05] <davidm> persia, so all spec's are assigned now?
[12:06] <persia> davidm, I believe so: I'll triple-check
[12:06] <ogra> so we have at least the old touchscreen stuff back in (which didnt look like it would be possible, not even our X team could help here)
[12:06] <persia> [ACTION] persia to verify all specs are assigned
[12:06] <StevenK> I think I can mark one of my specs as Implemented, but I can go through that later
[12:06] <StevenK> ogra: I still need to re-seed it, that will happen post-alpha-3
[12:07] <persia> Getting back to the agenda...
[12:07] <davidm> OK is anyone going to have all of their assigned specs complete tomorrow?
[12:07] <ogra> right, it also has the return of the "missing cursor" bug in the calibration tool
[12:07] <ogra> but thats minor and i have a fix
[12:07] <StevenK> davidm: Complete in what sense?
[12:07] <ogra> implemented :P
[12:07] <ogra> indeed
[12:07] <StevenK> Haha
[12:08] <StevenK> I have one of those, so nyah
[12:08] <davidm> as in done writing and ready to approve
[12:08] <davidm> I'd love implemented but some how I doubt that will happen
[12:08] <davidm> persia, where are you on your spec's?
[12:09] <lool> davidm: Implemented isn't due tomorrow fortunately  ;-)
[12:09] <persia> I need a little help with mid-jaunty-launcher, and will be chasing StevenK tomorrow, but otherwise in reasonable shape.
[12:09] <lool> I'll do my best to complete writing my specs up to approvable, perhaps over the week-end if I have no other choice
[12:09] <davidm> Very true
[12:09] <StevenK> persia: I'd like your help to proof-read my specs, I think some need a little belting and polishing
[12:10] <davidm> lool,  if at all possible we are a week behind now.
[12:10] <persia> StevenK, Sure.  Let's touch base in the morning.
[12:10] <StevenK> persia: *nod*
[12:10] <persia> So, let's get back to the agenda, shall we :)
[12:10] <persia> lool was to bring up DVD with bfiller and others and see whether it's a firm need.
[12:10] <lool> Concerning the UNR DVD: I brought it up during a call on UNR; I think they want an ISO and a way to install from USB, but they don't really care about it size
[12:10] <lool> So they don't target what's in the current Ubuntu desktop DVD
[12:10] <lool> Instead they target having an useful image with an identified set of langpacks
[12:11] <lool> Exact requirements to be confirmed over the UNR jaunty integration
[12:11] <ogra> well, the current iso is 1G big
[12:11] <ogra> its already beyond any CD size
[12:11] <lool> ogra: The current DVD ISO?
[12:11] <StevenK> The current .img
[12:11] <StevenK> It's close to 1GB
[12:11] <ogra> the currnet ubuntu-netbook-remix,img
[12:11] <ogra> s/\,/\./
[12:12] <persia> So let's declare that to be a DVD-type image?
[12:12] <ogra> well, an USB img :)
[12:12] <davidm> That can work, it would fit on a DVD blank, just not use it all
[12:12] <lool> Ok, let me bring back context here: people were frightened about the word "DVD" last week because the Ubuntu desktop DVD .iso is relatively large and hence painful to test
[12:12] <ogra> yeah
[12:12] <StevenK> The code will declare it oversize if it's >1GB, currently
[12:12] <ogra> its 4.something gig
[12:12] <StevenK> I can live with that, personally
[12:12] <lool> The UNR folks don't care about what's in the Ubuntu desktop DVD, they just want a good image; I don't think they target a CD sized ISO either
[12:13] <ogra> 1G is handleable ...
[12:13] <lool> So 1 GB is fine, 500 MB is fine; what matters is that we end up with a good UNR image
[12:13] <ogra> yeah
[12:13] <mcasadevall> yay for system crashes
[12:13] <lool> And right, I agree that testing a 1 GB or a 700 MB image doesn't make a big difference
=== mcasadevall is now known as NCommander
[12:13] <persia> So this can just be merged into unr-handling-jaunty, or does it need additional actions?
[12:13] <lool> Now we will see how big the image ends up being with the requirements of the UNR jaunty integration
[12:13] <ogra> the -mid image is intresting huge as well though ... is that through langpacks ?
[12:13] <lool> If we want all langpacks and extra apps, it can take a bit of space
[12:14] <davidm> merged into unr-handling-jaunty I think persia
[12:14] <lool> Yeah
[12:14] <StevenK> Keep in mind both images now have pools
[12:14] <StevenK> And pools are large ... :-P
[12:14]  * lool dives in
[12:14] <ogra> but we only install langpacks, not lang-support, right ?
[12:14] <ogra> -support is overkill and not needed
[12:14] <persia> Right.  Let's move on then.
[12:14] <persia> Current items:
[12:15] <persia> First up: I'd like to propose a transition to tracking progress through a roadmap.
[12:15] <persia> Quick review of the status of any specs or bugs that need discussion, to make sure things don't get missed.
[12:15] <davidm> works for me
[12:16] <persia> So, to support that, I've drafted https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MobileTeam/Roadmap as a list of things for quick discussion.
[12:16] <lool> I'm fine with listing spec status, but what do you mean to transition to it?  Would you remove anything from the current meeting?
[12:16] <lool> What bugs qualify for the Bugs section?
[12:16] <persia> Yep.  Drop the going around to several people and asking about them, but rather focusing on the work needing done.
[12:16] <persia> Anything you've been chasing, or you want to discuss.
[12:17] <ogra> well, we should do a quick rundown on the statuses
[12:17] <persia> OK.  Going through them then:
[12:17] <ogra> spcename: current status
[12:17] <ogra> in each meeting until implemented imho
[12:17] <ogra> *spec
[12:17] <persia> ogra, That's the idea.
[12:17] <StevenK> I think the roadmap should contain the driver for the spec
[12:17] <ogra> we all only have three or four, should be fast
[12:18] <lool> Ok; I don't quite see how that qualifies as a roadmap if we elect bugs there ourselves, but I don't really care about the name; I guess we want a) a list of specs to review on all meeting b) an entry in the recurring agenda to look at specs status
[12:18] <ogra> StevenK, ++
[12:18] <persia> Happy to add that.
[12:18] <StevenK> lool: So we call a roadmap. Shrug
[12:18] <persia> I just picked "Roadmap" because other teams had roadmaps.  I could call it something else.
[12:18] <lool> That's not what I call a roadmap
[12:18]  * ogra calls it Gladys
[12:18] <lool> Let's call it JauntySpecs?
[12:19] <persia> Except I don't expect it to be specs the entire cycle.
[12:19] <mcasadevall> sorry about that.
[12:19] <persia> I expect we'll have more bugs as we get closer to release.
[12:19] <lool> For me a roadmap would typically encompass vaguer things than specs and cover more than just this cycle
[12:19] <ogra> well, we will probably have specs that arent implemented by FF either
[12:19] <lool> persia: What's wrong with pushing them in the agenda simply?
[12:19] <ogra> and fall over into the next cycle
[12:20] <lool> Or do you want to have all milestoned bug reviewed at all meetings?
[12:20] <davidm> JauntyStatusReview??
[12:20] <persia> lool, Yes, I'd like to review stuff at each meeting, just to make sure we're not missing things.
[12:21] <lool> persia: I can't say it's a bad idea, it's exactly what we do during release team meetings, but it's going to take a while
[12:21] <lool> I would find the output useful for sure
[12:21] <persia> Right.  Let's go hrough them quick-like then.
[12:21] <StevenK> Or we could update each spec with one line before the meeting
[12:21] <StevenK> And then just ask if there is any questions, or cries for help
[12:22] <persia> StevenK, That works for me.
[12:22] <davidm> StevenK, +1 on that
[12:22] <persia> OK.  Let's get them updated with oneliners for the next meeting, and proceed from there.  Everyone good with that?
[12:22] <ogra> +1
[12:22] <lool> Hmpf
[12:22] <davidm> But since we did not do that this time can we just have a quick statement on each?
[12:22] <StevenK> Right
[12:22] <StevenK> I was about to say that
[12:22] <persia> lool, You'd rather quick discussion in the meeting?
=== mcasadevall is now known as NCommander
[12:23] <ogra> only if there are issues i'D say
[12:23] <lool> persia: I have nothing better to propose to what was proposed here
[12:24] <persia> OK.  Let's go through them this time, and we'll look at updating the list with drivers and oneliners for next time.
[12:24]  * StevenK likes one-liners
[12:24] <lool> I wonder whether it would make sense to list spec status in AR instead, probably equal pain
[12:24] <ogra> both
[12:24] <ogra> i mean we should do both
[12:24] <persia> mid-screen-rotation: I still need to review the status of Aberto's work.
[12:24] <lool> I knew saying this someone would say both
[12:24]  * StevenK silences lool and ogra
[12:24] <persia> mid-jaunty-launcher: StevenK and I will chat tomorrow.
[12:25] <StevenK> Sounds omnious
[12:25] <persia> mobile-applications: Someone needs to volunteer to review an email reader
[12:25] <NCommander> persia, I did
[12:25] <NCommander> email and IM was assigned to me last meeting
[12:25] <persia> NCommander, Sorry.  Missed that.  I'l update the spec
[12:25] <NCommander> NP
[12:26] <persia> mid-ship-seed-for-mobile-images : ?
[12:26] <StevenK> Implemented
[12:26] <StevenK> The spec needs some polish, but it's done
[12:26] <lool> Link is broken
[12:27] <persia> mid-application-switcher: not even drafted, but I ought get to that this weekend
[12:27] <persia> mobile-team-seed-management ?
[12:27] <lool> Drafter is you
[12:28] <persia> heh.  I think StevenK already implemented about half of it, but I'll get it drafted so we can tell tomorrow then.
[12:28] <persia> unr-handling-jaunty
[12:28] <StevenK> Processing
[12:28] <StevenK> Er
[12:28] <StevenK> *Preceeding*
[12:28] <persia> Proceeding?
[12:28] <davidm> persia, yes
[12:28] <persia> recovery-partition
[12:29] <lool> recovery-partition: needs drafting
[12:29] <StevenK> persia: As in, work is on-going
[12:29] <lool> poulsbo-packaging: needs more complete drafting, implementation in progress AIUI
[12:29] <StevenK> It is
[12:29]  * NCommander thought recovery-parition was drafted
[12:29] <NCommander> I looked at that spec
[12:29] <persia> offline-installer: I've nearly completed the script to automate the testing, but need to write the spec
[12:29] <ogra> offline-installer: looks like ready for review, persia drafted fine :) no coding work started yet
[12:30] <lool> NCommander: Well the current spec is very vague and doesn't include UDS discussion
[12:30] <StevenK> I'm being bad and working on specs before they're approved
[12:30] <persia> ogra, Right.  I seem to have confied that with something else :)
[12:30] <ogra> persia, erm, i'm the assinee :)
[12:30] <persia> s/confined/confused/
[12:30] <ogra> yeah
[12:30] <persia> touchscreen?
[12:31] <ogra> not sure that will fully make it, but we should have a GUI for the build tools in any case
[12:31] <ogra> eneral-resolution-for-touchscreen-handling: drafting, needs to get in shape, tech info missing yet, BOF info there. looked into evdev code
[12:31] <ogra> +g
[12:31] <ogra> selection-of-arm-images: drafting, though there shouldnt be anything to do for the selection case, the BOF session covered everything, images were selected, needs enablement on the build servers once d-i is ready
[12:31] <ogra> afaik NCommander looked at d-i and will go on there once we're ready
[12:31] <lool> (It's not in the current 'Roadmap' page)
[12:32] <ogra> right, its not really a spec
[12:32] <ogra> since we did the selection
[12:32] <NCommander> d-i is dep-wait on the kernel udebs
[12:32] <NCommander> WHich aren't very happy ATM
[12:32] <ogra> but we should keep it to see how far we got on the build servers
[12:32] <ogra> or the general image status... or some such
[12:32] <StevenK> ogra: And there is no image buildd for armel yet
[12:33] <ogra> StevenK, how could teher be, we have no d-i and no livefs buildd :)
[12:33] <ogra> and no initramfs possibilities
[12:33] <lool> persia: I don't think mid-display-manager warrants being listed, but perhaps the bug relater to startx / CK should be?
[12:33] <ogra> live cant hapen unless there is initramfs support
[12:33] <StevenK> ogra: When I say image buildd, I mean livefs buildd
[12:34] <lool> squashfs-initrds: we need to kill that spec; I should just copy notes from UDS and #ubuntu-devel and close this
[12:34] <ogra> yeah, but there are other showstoppers anyway that need solving first
[12:34] <persia> lool, Yes, I'd think so.  What's the bug number?  Do you want to cover it?
[12:34] <ogra> no kernel, no initrd -> no live image
[12:34] <lool> I don't have it off hand unfortunately
[12:34] <persia> lool, When you find it, just remove the spec, and add the bug.
[12:35] <persia> Anyway, I think I have a solution for bug #291670, but I'm still trying to figure out how the testsuite needs to be written.  Should be done in a couple days.
[12:35] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 291670 in base-installer "LPIA installer missing kernel" [Medium,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/291670
[12:35] <lool> So, we've spent > 10 minutes on spec status
[12:35] <lool> But this only covers our "mobile" specs
[12:35] <ogra> because we werent prepared
[12:36] <persia> Well, this is the mobile meeting, no?
[12:36] <lool> I have a problem with covering only MID and "mobile" specs progress in this meeting and not at all the other ones
[12:36] <lool> persia: But we have no ARM meeting
[12:36] <ogra> yeah, it should cover the team specs
[12:36] <lool> And we spend more time on ARM stuff than on MID/mobile stuff
[12:36] <ogra> which will hopefully change again :)
[12:36] <ogra> once ARM is ready
[12:37] <persia> lool, It's not really important how you spend your time: this set of specs is interesting to determine what needs doing, and how it's going for the Mobile flavours.
[12:37] <ogra> during arch enablement/portin we should keep that status here as well imho
[12:37] <ogra> it will vanish as soon as we get automated images and the archive is complete
[12:37] <NCommander> There are a few outstanding ARM spec/issues that need discussion.
[12:38] <lool> persia: I don't think it's fair to list half of the specs we work on and take action on that etc. every week and not cover the other half
[12:38] <ogra> thats why i proposed to have an ARM section in this meeting :)
[12:38] <persia> But this is the Mobile Meeting.
[12:38] <lool> So as awful as it sounds, I'm tempted to propose that we have a mobile team meeting where mobile team is not the Ubuntu Mobile project's team, but something like the desktop and foundation and kernel and server teams
[12:38] <ogra> and most of the mobile team works on AMR atm
[12:38] <persia> Just because you're working also on something else, doesn't make this the only meeting.
[12:38] <ogra> *ARM
[12:39] <persia> Anyway, we're getting off-topic.  Let's go back to the agenda.
[12:39] <persia> Any Other Business ?
[12:39] <davidm> persia, we come back to my concern, I don't want to schedule another meeting
[12:39] <persia> (related to the mobile flavours)
[12:40] <davidm> persia, I propose we make the mobile meeting 1/2 hour and have a team projects meeting 1/2 hour
[12:40] <ogra> ++
[12:40] <NCommander> ++
[12:41] <ogra> thats what i suggested from the beginning ... though i'd have said 1/3 for projects
[12:41] <ogra> 1/3 for spec stauses
[12:41] <ogra> 1/3 for general mobile stuff
[12:41] <ogra> not in that order though
[12:42] <davidm> OK 2/3 mobile meeting 1/3 hour other projects
[12:42] <ogra> right
[12:42] <lool> This meeting is supposedly about Ubuntu Mobile; there's nobody covering Ubuntu Mobile work outside of the team; I propose we hold a public team meeting where we discuss Ubuntu Mobile along other of the team's activity
[12:43] <davidm> Lets face it we are enabling the entire main and most of universe so that includes mobile stuff
[12:43] <lool> If we reach the point where we have enough Ubutnu Mobile topics to warrant a full meeting like the one we had until now, then we can reinstatee it
[12:43] <ogra> lool, thats what davidm's setup above covers
[12:44] <lool> Right, I'm insisting on the way we shuffle the names and official contents of this and the new meeting
[12:45] <lool> Now this is not to say that contributions are not welcome, but it's a bit hard to bend ourselves so much right now
[12:46] <ogra> the topic calls this "Ubuntu Mobile Team" so i dont see a prob here, we're discussion what the ubuntu mobile team works on
[12:47] <ogra> (and note it doesnt say *canonical* mobile team ... *ubuntu* includes the community ... i dont understand the naming prob)
[12:47] <lool> There's confusion between the Ubuntu Mobile project which is not related to arm and the mobile team, currenlty manned mostly by Canonical employees which work on ARM
[12:47] <ogra> because we make that confusion up
[12:47] <ogra> the channel topic has a clear name
[12:48] <lool> I don't think so
[12:48] <lool> We've put a process up for joining the ubuntu-mobile launchpad team which is aimed at MID/Netbook, not ARM
[12:49] <ogra> so you would send people away that have worked with us on ARM stuff and want to discuss it in this meeting because they can grab us at the same time in a single place ?
[12:49] <persia> Yes!
[12:50] <persia> I'd suggest they go to the Desktop or Sever or Foundation meeting, and discuss it there.
[12:50] <ogra> or would refuse them from entering the ubuntu-mobile LP team just because their MID interest is in n800 only ?
[12:50] <persia> No reason not to discuss MID-on-arm here, or n800.
[12:50] <NCommander> my issue with sending them to another team is the Mobile ARM guys our here, and not usually at the Desktop/Server/Foundations meeting
[12:52] <davidm> Any we are all not going to be at the  Desktop/Server/Foundations meeting so this is the only place to catch all of us
[12:53] <lool> How can we take community input on what would be best for Ubuntu MID/UMPC/UNR on one side, and Ubuntu ARM enablement on the other?
[12:53] <Hobbsee> ask community people at the meeting?
[12:53] <persia> Hobbsee ++
[12:53] <ogra> by donating a part of the meeting time to ARM ... invite other teams to participate and tell the commnity about it
[12:54] <lool> We don't have an Ubuntu ARM enablement meeting (for reasons described earlier); it's hard to cover these people
[12:54] <ogra> and draw a clear line between the two sections
[12:54] <Hobbsee> the other option is to make a LP poll, and stick it in the topic of #ubuntu-arm or something.
[12:54] <Hobbsee> if you want to specifically target arm people.
[12:54] <lool> Are some people who would quality as community people around?  Could you share your opinion?
[12:54] <lool> *qualify
[12:55] <Hobbsee> I don't have an opinion either way, sorry.  I don't follow anywhere near closely enough
[12:55] <lool> Hobbsee: Would you mind replacing this meeting with one where half of it would be ARM and the other half MID/Netbook?
[12:55] <ogra> 1/3
[12:56] <ogra> 20min ...
[12:56] <Hobbsee> Splitting the meeting into multiple sections means that the first one couldn't run overtime, which may be a problem.
[12:56] <Hobbsee> lool: depends which was first, but I really don't mind either way.
[12:56] <ogra> and it would need annoucement in the channels and MLs
[12:57]  * ogra would see the "cant run over time" a good thing actually :)
[12:57] <davidm> We are out of time folks
[12:57] <lool> My feeling is that we've been designing this for easy access to the Ubuntu Mobile/MID/UMPC/Netbook community from the start, but didn't attract a lot of community so far and might have been optimizing the wrong way
[12:57] <Hobbsee> The other general concern is if you start late due to technical difficulties (or lack of coffee), your first meeting could be forced very short (and presumably you can't overflow to -mobile, as others will be participating in the arm discussion)
[12:58] <lool> Hobbsee: That's a good point
[12:58] <davidm> 2 minutes left
[12:58] <lool> I guess it's unlikely we come to any conclusion today
[12:58] <StevenK> I like how "lack of coffee" is a reason for a late start
[12:58]  * StevenK glances at davidm 
[12:58] <Hobbsee> you'd probably do better to have 2 meetings @ the same time, on different days
[12:58] <Hobbsee> StevenK: *grin*
[12:58] <ogra> Hobbsee, thats what we want to avoid
[12:58] <davidm> Hobbsee, that is a lot of meetings
[12:59] <Hobbsee> davidm: this is true.  But presumably they should be short and sweet, and various people would only need to attend one or the other?
[12:59] <lool> Unfortunately, it reaches a threshold on number of meetings and number of days where people have to wake up very early or stay up very late   :-/
[12:59] <NCommander> Hobbsee, as a general rule of thumb, I think both myself and davidm would be very cranky to get up very early on another day
[12:59] <Hobbsee> NCommander: may you never come to australia.
[12:59] <davidm> If they are short and sweet then bundeling should be fin
[12:59] <Hobbsee> lool: this is true.
[12:59]  * lool :-)
=== ubottu changed the topic of #ubuntu-meeting to: Current meeting: Desktop Team Calendar: http://fridge.ubuntu.com/event | Logs: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MeetingLogs/ | 15 Jan 14:00: Ubuntu Java | 19 Jan 22:00: IRC Council
[13:00] <davidm> OK meeting closed
[13:00] <lool> Ok folks, we have to leave the floor


Go back to MobileAndEmbedded.
CategoryUME

ARM/Meeting/2009/20090115 (last edited 2011-07-28 17:58:49 by davidm)