This is the 7th meeting of the ServerTeam, starting at 15:00 UTC and finishing at 16:22 UTC


Please take responsibility for an item if you are adding it, thus we can turn to you when the item crops up. Smile :)

Items we will be discussing:

  • Review ACTION points from previous meeting.
  • RC iso testing - MathiasGug

  • use of backports (samba, packages, etc...) - MathiasGug

  • Review each section of the ServerTeam/Roadmap.

  • Agree on next meeting date and time.


Review previous meeting ACTION points

soren hasn't sent an email to debian-devel to discuss the MTA change. This is Hardy material anyway.

HardyIdeaPool page

dendrobates sent an email to advertise the HardyIdeaPool. The response has been good. As of now, ideas shouldn't be added to the wiki page anymore. Specification are currently created in LP and the schedule for UDS Boston is being finalized.

Ideas should be sent directly to rick clark to get them included in the UDS discussions (<rick DOT clark AT SPAMFREE ubuntu DOT com>).

ACTION: mathiaz will update the HardyIdeaPool to reflect that.

RC iso testing

mathiaz reminded that the Release Candidate of Gutsy is scheduled for Thursday. ubuntu-server isos are being prepared and need more testing. Hobbsee asked how and who should be contacted to test ubuntu-server isos. mathiaz said that the best way is through the iso tracker.

Anyone wanting to help with iso testing should register with the iso testing tracker at https://iso.qa.stgraber.org/ and subscribe to the Ubuntu Server testcases. Everytime a new build is available, tester will be notified.

Use of backport for samba

mathiaz raised the issue of using dapper-backports to provide the latest version of samba. Every now and then, bugs are filed in launchpad that ask to upgrade samba (or other packages such as mysql) to the latest version available. In the case of samba, the main issue is that dapper version doesn't support vista clients. A long discussion followed about backporting, the use of the -update pocket and the fact dapper-backport is not supported. No consensus was reached.

It boils down to which version of samba should be pushed in -updates. This issue will discussed during BarCamp in Boston as upstream samba developers will be there.

mathiaz also reported that he started to package samba 3.0.26 for dapper and may push it in dapper-backports.

Next meeting

The fridge is not up-to-date.

ACTION: mathiaz will send an email to fridge-devel to fix the calendar.

nijaba raised the question of having a meeting next week. It seems that this is not needed.

The next meeting will be hold on Tuesday, October the 23th, at 15:00 UTC in #ubuntu-meeting.


  • before its mention

Started logging meeting in #ubuntu-meeting
[16:07:34] <mathiaz> the agenda for today is short.
[16:07:36] <mathiaz> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam/Meeting
[16:07:58] <mathiaz> [TOPIC] Review ACTION points from previous meeting.
[16:08:02] <DoctorMO> we got a meeting at 2pm (NYT)?
[16:08:44] <ivoks> hi
[16:08:53] <mathiaz> previous meeting logs are here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MeetingLogs/Server/20070927
[16:09:56] <soren> Sorry, I'm here now.
[16:10:05] <mathiaz> DoctorMO: are you talking about the New-York loco team meeting ?
[16:10:30] <mathiaz> I just realized that the fridge is not up-to-date
[16:10:37] <mathiaz> the ServerTeam meeting is not there...
[16:11:01] <nealmcb> I tried to note that on #ubuntu-server, but for some reason my client doesn't want to get me there....
[16:11:24] <mathiaz> @schedule
[16:11:24] <ubotu> Schedule for Etc/UTC: 09 Oct 18:00: Community Council | 10 Oct 12:00: Forum Council | 10 Oct 16:00: QA Team | 11 Oct 15:00: Community Development Team | 16 Oct 16:00: Kernel Team | 17 Oct 16:00: QA Team
[16:11:44] <ivoks> we should speed up things then
[16:11:45] <nealmcb> But we'll be done long before 18:00 :-)
[16:11:48] <popey> mathiaz: there is a problem with recurring meetings on the fridge
[16:12:12] <Hobbsee> popey: fridge didnt integrate in with launchpad did it?
[16:12:23] <popey> Hobbsee: no its a drupal issue
[16:12:33] <Hobbsee> popey: oh good
[16:12:58] <mathiaz> popey: who should we contact to get this fixed ?
[16:13:03] <mathiaz> popey: fridge-devel ?
[16:14:00] <dendrobates> mathiaz: can we start, or is there a conflict?
[16:14:18] <mathiaz> dendrobates: well... we've already started I think.
[16:14:52] <mathiaz> dendrobates: the NYC is supposed to be 2:00 PM EST.
[16:15:32] <mathiaz> soren: what's the state of the mta change wrt debian %
[16:15:36] <mathiaz> soren: ?
[16:15:58] <soren> I haven't written to Debian yet. It's hardy material anyway.
[16:16:10] <popey> mathiaz: yes, but a bug has already been filed
[16:16:47] <mathiaz> popey: ok. Thanks.
[16:17:07] <mathiaz> dendrobates: I think you've sent the mail for the IdeaPool page for Hardy.
[16:17:30] <mathiaz> The page is located here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam/HardyIdeaPool
[16:17:43] <dendrobates> mathiaz: yes, I did, and we had a pretty good response.
[16:18:01] <dendrobates> mathiaz: the UDS scheduling has begun.
[16:18:19] <mathiaz> dendrobates: ok. That means that it's too late to add new items to this page.
[16:18:32] <mathiaz> As we're in the next phase of specification planning.
[16:18:43] <mathiaz> I'll update the wiki page to reflect that.
[16:18:59] <dendrobates> mathiaz: There are a few open slots, but I recommend emailing ideas to me at this point.
[16:19:01] <mathiaz> [ACTION] mathiaz will update the IdeaPool
[16:19:13] <dendrobates> rick@ubuntu.com
[16:19:31] <mathiaz> dendrobates: ok. I'll a note to the wiki page to mail you the ideas.
[16:20:12] <mathiaz> [TOPIC] RC iso testing.
[16:20:24] <Hobbsee> test iso's early, or i'll come hunting!
[16:20:35] <dendrobates> I am ready for sparc testing.
[16:20:44] <mathiaz> We're currently in archive freeze as we're preparing for RC on thursday.
[16:20:58] <Hobbsee> mathiaz: where do you want alerts given to to go and test?
[16:21:01] <Hobbsee> ie, who to poke?
[16:21:14] <Hobbsee> (although i'm assuming you'll be somewhat watching anyway)
[16:21:18] <mathiaz> Hobbsee: we're already on the isotesting tracker.
[16:21:40] <mathiaz> Hobbsee: there are a couple of the team members that are subscribed to test cases.
[16:21:43] <Hobbsee> ok
[16:21:54] <mathiaz> Hobbsee: so we're pinged when a new build is available.
[16:22:02] <dendrobates> we always need more sparc testers.
[16:22:02] <Hobbsee> ok
[16:22:57] <mathiaz> I'll send an email on ubuntu-server once RC is out to ask for more testing.
[16:22:58] <sommer> dendrobates: I have access to a Sunblade 100, is that too old?
[16:23:25] <dendrobates> sommer: Is that an ultrasparc iii box
[16:24:21] <dendrobates> We only officially support the t1 procs, but it doesn't hurt to test on some of the older ones as well.
[16:24:40] <mathiaz> sommer: are you register on the iso qa tracker ?
[16:25:10] <sommer> mathiaz: yep I registered a couple of weeks ago.
[16:25:18] <sommer> didn't do much testing though
[16:25:29] <mathiaz> sommer: did you subscribed to the sparc testcases ?
[16:25:41] <sommer> I think so.
[16:26:29] <sommer> dendrobates: I think this is the processor: UltraSPARC[tm]-IIe
[16:26:51] <dendrobates> sommer: it is worth trying. It should work.
[16:26:56] <sommer> I did get one of the daily builds loaded fine.
[16:27:13] <sommer> cool I'll get it ready for testing
[16:27:24] <mathiaz> sommer: hum... I don't see you subsribed to the sparc test cases.
[16:27:57] <sommer> mathiaz: I may not have gotten that far. I may have been still reading the docs on how to test ISOs
[16:28:28] <sommer> I set up the account before vacation
[16:28:46] <mathiaz> sommer: ok. If you wanna get notified about new builds, you should subscribe to test cases.
[16:28:58] <sommer> mathiaz: cool will do
[16:29:01] <mathiaz> sommer: it may not be well documented though.
[16:29:01] <stgraber> sommer: subscribe to the different testcases you want to do, that way you'll be notified by mail when a new ISO is out
[16:29:20] <mathiaz> sommer: let me know if the documentation is not good enough.
[16:29:28] <sommer> sure
[16:29:38] <sommer> will do
[16:30:01] <mathiaz> stgraber: did you find someone to help for you server tweaking ?
[16:30:57] <stgraber> mathiaz: yes, asked pitti who gave me some names. I have also moved part of the LP sync proccess to my home server.
[16:31:17] <soren> win 21
[16:31:39] <mathiaz> stgraber: great.
[16:32:08] <mathiaz> let's move on to the next topic
[16:32:32] <mathiaz> [TOPIC] use of backports for samba
[16:32:56] <mathiaz> I had a discussion with the ScottK about using -backports to publish the latest of samba
[16:33:29] <ScottK> The sanity threshold for -backports is pretty low, so it should be doable with a little effort.
[16:33:30] <mathiaz> every now and then, bugs are filed to ask to upgrade to the latest version of samba, mysql, etc... for dapper especially.
[16:33:52] <ivoks> i agree
[16:34:07] <mathiaz> so I tought we may use dapper-backports to address this issue.
[16:34:34] <mathiaz> I think it could also be used to see how LTS upgrade would work.
[16:34:58] <soren> Is there a description somewhere of how to make sure you only get a particular subset of packages from the backports repository?
[16:35:18] <soren> It's *very* likely that anyone who wants the samba packages don't want all the other crack in there.
[16:35:21] <mathiaz> soren: can pinning be used for that in the apt configuration ?
[16:35:26] <soren> mathiaz: Yes.
[16:35:37] <soren> I'm just not sure if that is described properly somewhere.
[16:35:45] <ivoks> soren: or oposite, some one who uses backports just for clamav, maybe doesn't want samba too
[16:36:11] <mathiaz> ScottK: is there some documentation about pinning and -backports ?
[16:36:18] <soren> If we advice our dapper users to switch on backports, we'll get an entirely different sort of problems. It needs to be easy to just use a certain set of packages from backports.
[16:36:42] <nealmcb> sounds like it could get complicated and lead to confusion - how many packages would be related to e.g. a samba backport?
[16:37:13] <mathiaz> nealmcb: well - all the binary packages built from the samba source package.
[16:37:27] <nealmcb> but any dependencies on others?
[16:37:34] <mathiaz> Moreover, -backport is not officialy supported.
[16:37:36] <ivoks> nothing from server world
[16:37:44] * nealmcb just hasn't used backports much....
[16:37:57] <jdstrand> along nealmcb line of thinking, what kind of testing/support will we have for libraries that might be brought and used by other packages (that may break as a result)?
[16:38:05] <ScottK> mathiaz: Not that I know. I don't recommend people leave it enabled. Just get in, get what they need, and get out.
[16:38:08] <lionel> well, we have to be prepared to some confusion. People are not aware that backports are not supported, they have no security updates, etc.
[16:38:12] <mathiaz> nealmcb: we can only use -backports if the package doesn't require new dependencies.
[16:38:17] <jdstrand> s/might be brought/might be brought in by the backport/
[16:38:42] <ScottK> mathiaz: Or we can backport the dependencies if it's reasonable. It's particularly easy if the depens are New packages so there's no integration risk.
[16:39:25] <soren> I'm thinking... What is the use case for this?
[16:39:41] <mathiaz> soren: samba doesn'T support vista client in dapper.
[16:40:00] <ivoks> imho, samba should be officialy backported (to updates) only if there is a strong reason, and for those who can live with unsupported samba, i agree that it could go to -backports
[16:40:01] <mathiaz> soren: please upgrade to 3.0.26b so my dapper server works with vista client
[16:40:02] <soren> mathiaz: That's a serious bug, wouldn't you say?
[16:40:23] <mathiaz> soren: yes. But it would be very hard to get it through an SRU
[16:40:33] <soren> mathiaz: Yes. Hard, but correct.
[16:40:34] <mathiaz> soren: as it would involved a lot of patches.
[16:40:48] <soren> mathiaz: I agree.
[16:41:19] <soren> I definitely see the problem, but the feeling that going through -backports is wrong gets stronger and stronger.
[16:41:20] <nealmcb> ahhh - do folks want 3.5 more years of hassles about that in dapper. sigh....
[16:42:43] <soren> We're considering using backports to accomplish something -updates is meant to accomplish.
[16:42:53] <mathiaz> soren: yes. that's true.
[16:43:01] <nealmcb> in 7 months we can point them to hardy, but ....
[16:43:11] <mathiaz> soren: it's also connect to the MicroReleaseException.
[16:43:15] <soren> nealmcb: We'll still be supporting Dapper, though.
[16:43:21] <nealmcb> exactly
[16:44:02] <mathiaz> soren: it seems to me that for some case (such as samba), getting through -updates can involve much more work that publishing it in -backport.
[16:44:15] <soren> mathiaz: Unfortunately, I'm not convinced Samba is as thorough w.r.t. to regression testing as we might want it to be.
[16:44:28] <nealmcb> which leads me to ask what the risks of just fixing it in dapper are. and I guess how often this will crop up in the future. damn non-standardized protocols....
[16:44:55] <ivoks> this already happend with MacOSX
[16:45:04] <ivoks> and now Vista
[16:45:10] <soren> mathiaz: I agree. I'm just trying to take a step back and look at the problem rather than focus on one proposed solution and just discuss the mechanics of that.
[16:45:27] <ivoks> it will probably happend again with Vista SP2
[16:45:37] <mathiaz> soren: yes. I see your point.
[16:46:12] <soren> It might turn out that -backports is the way to go, but I can't help but feel that the discussion has been shortcircuited at some poit.
[16:46:14] <mathiaz> it seems that there is a category of software that won't fall in the MicroReleaseException, but that still need to be updated in an LTS
[16:46:15] <soren> point.
[16:46:30] * ScottK agrees it's better to go in -updates if it can be patched.
[16:46:31] * nealmcb nods
[16:46:58] <soren> The problem is that Samba in Dapper doesn't work with a large fraction of the Windows systems out there.
[16:47:09] <jdstrand> mathiaz, soren: I just went through a review of mysql for MicroReleaseException, but there needs to be good testing and no incompatible changes
[16:47:19] * ScottK also thinks "Use backports" should never be an official recommendation. More like, well, if you really want the latest crack, it's in dapper-backports, but it's not supported.
[16:47:25] <jdstrand> I don't know if samba would meet that criteria
[16:47:29] <mathiaz> ScottK: agreed. But sometimes patching is really hard - see the mysql problem.
[16:47:35] <ScottK> Sure.
[16:48:01] <soren> This is a serious issue which any Dapper samba user is likely to want fixed at some point.
[16:48:15] <mathiaz> jdstrand: I don't know either. I think samba has a test suite. But they still tend to introduce new feature and incomptible changes.
[16:48:38] <jdstrand> soren: you are correct. But they are also going to want a *supported* samba
[16:48:56] <jdstrand> I am not sure backports is the answer cause it won't be officially supported
[16:48:57] <ivoks> mathiaz: quite often
[16:49:00] <soren> It's a slippery slope to just put it in backports and say to our users that they should stop bitching about borken samba because they can just use whatever's in -backports. -backports is unsupported, and the reason we put it in there instead of -updates is because we're not convinced it won't cause regressions.
[16:49:17] <jdstrand> soren: exactly
[16:49:31] <jdstrand> I think LTS customers in particular want supported packages
[16:49:37] <Daviey> samba being a crucial server app, really should have the option of known stable and latest (supported!) version - especially on an LTS release
[16:49:45] * jdstrand promoted LTS for that reason
[16:49:56] <ScottK> Just for reference, current Postfix is available in dapper-backports.
[16:50:28] <soren> ScottK: It provides new features, right?
[16:50:35] <ScottK> soren: Yes. Many.
[16:50:48] <soren> "Is not broken" is not a feature. :)
[16:51:01] <nealmcb> but the current postfix is less broken than samba?
[16:51:12] <ScottK> Postfix in Dapper is not broken, but it's, umm, carefully designed.
[16:51:31] <ivoks> where that came from? broken, how? :D
[16:51:36] <ScottK> It's not.
[16:51:40] <soren> ScottK: Ah, that's not what I meant.
[16:52:11] <ScottK> Postfix 2.2.10 is perfectly fine if you don't need newer features.
[16:52:12] <jdstrand> keescook: would probably slap me for saying this, but (and I am just brainstorming here) would it be possible to package the new version in 'updates', but that wouldn't be an upgrade, but rather a separate package that conflicted with samba in Dapper (obviously, a lot of packaging issues would have to be resolved, but it would give the LTS users a real choice)
[16:52:34] <ivoks> interesting idea
[16:52:39] <soren> I mean that Samba in Dapper is broken (since it doesn't support a lot of the clients it's meant to serve). -backports is for new features, and "Is not able to do what it's supposed to" is not a feature in that respect.
[16:52:47] * lamont vomits on keescook's behalf
[16:52:54] * keescook also vomits. ;)
[16:53:05] * jdstrand isn't thrilled by supported 2 sambas either
[16:53:14] <keescook> jdstrand: the -updates and -security pockets need to stay "clean", unfortunately.
[16:53:14] <jdstrand> supporting
[16:53:38] <lamont> either it's broken and needs to be fixed, or it's not sufficiently broken and it doesn't change
[16:53:46] <keescook> this is a problem that should be solved somehow, though. we run into it with clamav too.
[16:53:48] <soren> lamont: Well said.
[16:53:49] <jdstrand> I just feel that the pockets aren't serving LTS server's needs
[16:53:57] <jdstrand> existing pckets that is
[16:54:06] * jdstrand is still miffed about mysql
[16:54:14] <soren> The only reason they feel insufficient is because Samba is a scary monster.
[16:54:16] <nealmcb> the underlying problem is trying to be compatible with a moving target which many users regard as the definition of what it means for samba to be "working" vs "broken"....
[16:54:17] <ScottK> Clamav is even worse because due to API changes I can't even backport the current clamav to Dapper.
[16:54:29] <jdstrand> mysql is bad boy too
[16:54:32] <nealmcb> and they are the major use case for samba in the first place
[16:54:35] * Daviey agrees that 'backports' for core server apps need to be supported on LTS
[16:54:37] <lamont> "I want LTS and the latest $FOO" is a evidence of a conflicted mind.
[16:54:48] <keescook> ScottK: right, would be nice to have a volatile or something similar.
[16:54:56] * ScottK agrees.
[16:54:57] <jdstrand> lamont: not when you can't backport security updates
[16:55:10] <ScottK> jdstrand: Sure you can. Just someone has to do them.
[16:55:40] <jdstrand> ScottK: not with mysql developers
[16:55:43] <nealmcb> 5 minutes to CC meeting....
[16:55:46] <jdstrand> witout mysql developers
[16:55:53] <soren> lamont: True that, but I consider it a perfectly valid use case to have LTS on one's servers and something slightly newer (Vista) on one's desktops.
[16:55:54] * jdstrand hrmm
[16:55:55] <ivoks> nealmcb: that's 18:00 utc
[16:55:59] <jdstrand> s/witout/without/
[16:56:23] <lamont> jdstrand: you can always backport security updates... the question is does that mean adding the fix as a patch in the old version, shoving the new version with all that risk and possibly new features back into the release, or some combination of the two....
[16:56:38] <Daviey> lamont: conflicting how? An admin worth their salt uses an LTS server version IMO - is it unreasonable for them to want the latest stable samba to be supported and backported?
[16:56:43] <ScottK> It's a similar situation, I think, to the LTS kernel's problem with dealing with new hardware.
[16:56:47] <soren> One of the major blockers of this problem is that we don't have anyone who is familiar enough with samba code and the protocols involved to identify the bug fixes and handle the updates properly.
[16:57:06] <jdstrand> ScottK: they redesigned large protions of code in a *stable* release that cannot be backported. Unfortunely those changes were incompatible with earlier versions
[16:57:18] <jdstrand> in the stable release that is
[16:57:32] <nealmcb> ivoks: man - I have really gotten that one confused - I guess by earlier conversation about another meeting - thanks
[16:57:45] <ScottK> Right. So if you backport once from the current release, you just keep backporting newer stuff as it comes out.
[16:58:07] <jdstrand> lamont: while I agree with you in theory, that doesn't always work. You end up with a 'wont fix' situation sometimes
[16:58:44] <dendrobates> Sorry to interrupt this long thread, but I have to run, and I wanted to get a show of hands for all those coming to UDS.
[16:59:13] * mathiaz waves
[16:59:18] * nijaba waves
[16:59:18] <popey> o/ :)
[16:59:19] * ScottK says maybe.
[16:59:34] * jdstrand raises his hand
[16:59:35] * nealmcb probably
[16:59:47] * Daviey sulks
[17:00:44] <soren> o/
[17:01:15] * Hobbsee belatedly leaves hand down too
[17:01:26] <dendrobates> I'm told there will be punch and pie. :)
[17:01:33] <soren> \o/
[17:01:35] <jdstrand> mmmm... pie
[17:01:43] <tepsipakki> o/
[17:02:12] * ScottK holds out for alcohol.
[17:02:29] <dendrobates> oh, I meant spiked punch.
[17:02:49] <ivoks> o/
[17:02:50] <ScottK> OK then. That sounds good.
[17:03:15] <dendrobates> I will buy a beer for any one in the server community that shows up. :-)
[17:03:24] <ivoks> uh :D
[17:03:26] * soren makes a note of that
[17:03:26] <dendrobates> That is over 21, that is.
[17:03:35] * ScottK feels his motivation to attend rising.
[17:04:22] * Hobbsee sees a sudden influx of 14 year olds joining hte server team
[17:04:33] <nijaba> Shall we talk about next meeting date and time before parting ?
[17:04:52] <mathiaz> [TOPIC] Next meeting date and time
[17:05:05] <nealmcb> were we done? any action items re samba?
[17:05:24] <mathiaz> nealmcb: not really I think.
[17:05:43] <ivoks> downgrad to universe :/
[17:05:46] <mathiaz> nealmcb: I just wanted to raise the issue... There isn't a clear consensus about it.
[17:05:48] <soren> :p
[17:05:48] <nealmcb> lol
[17:06:26] <nijaba> 22:00 UTC seemed to be convenient for most every other tuesday. Is that ok for next week ?
[17:06:26] <mathiaz> I think -backport can always be used...
[17:06:37] <ScottK> nealmcb: mathiaz is going to fix it.
[17:06:42] <ScottK> That was the action.
[17:06:46] <mathiaz> The question is whether -updates should shipped the newest version of samba or not.
[17:07:15] <soren> mathiaz: Well, yes, -backports can be used, but we still need to handle the issues via -updates as well.
[17:07:33] <mathiaz> soren: yes.
[17:07:57] <mathiaz> I've started to build 3.0.26 for dapper and it seems to work os far.
[17:08:00] <ivoks> too bad samba team doesn't have stable releases :/
[17:08:02] <nealmcb> if we can't resolve it now, I'm just wondering what a next step would be - connect with samba team? write up a wiki page about the issue? tell users to run the latest ubuntu non-lts on their file servers??
[17:08:08] <mathiaz> I'll probably submit it to -backport.
[17:08:55] <soren> nealmcb: There will be participation by the Samba team at FOSSCamp.
[17:09:01] <nealmcb> and more testing can happen that way at least...
[17:09:06] <nealmcb> soren: nice
[17:10:06] <mathiaz> So what about the next meeting date and time ?
[17:10:22] <mathiaz> Do we need another meeting next week before the release ?
[17:12:51] <ivoks> 16th?
[17:13:02] <nealmcb> I wish we could see the blueprints submitted for uds boston, but launchpad won't let non-drivers see them until approved...
[17:13:29] <dendrobates> The server blueprints aren't done yet anyway.
[17:13:39] <dendrobates> Working as fast as I can.
[17:13:45] <nealmcb> :-)
[17:14:02] <mathiaz> ivoks: yes. Tuesday 16th.
[17:14:30] <nealmcb> 22:00 utc?
[17:15:17] <mathiaz> The question is whether we need one or not ?
[17:15:46] <ivoks> no has guts to say... :)
[17:16:15] <mathiaz> There wasn't much to say for this meeting
[17:16:17] <ivoks> it will be too late to change anything, right?
[17:16:28] <mathiaz> (I added the two items before the meeting)
[17:16:45] <soren> ivoks: It would have to be earth shatteringly important.
[17:16:48] <mathiaz> and the discussion about samba and -updates is long-standing issue.
[17:16:54] <ivoks> then, if nothing comes up, it's reasonable to not schedule it
[17:17:06] <soren> mathiaz: UDS material for sure, yes
[17:17:20] <mathiaz> soren: that could be covered in two weeks.
[17:17:26] <mathiaz> soren: once release is done.
[17:17:29] <ivoks> soren: it's more fosscamp question.. :/
[17:17:38] <soren> mathiaz: Sorry, I mean that the samba discussion is UDS material.
[17:17:42] <mathiaz> we'll probably be in the release iso testing.
[17:17:48] <soren> mathiaz: Ah, yes, FOSSCamp.
[17:17:49] <mathiaz> soren: yes. definetly.
[17:18:03] <zul> is there any xen specs for uds?
[17:18:27] <mathiaz> So I don't see a compeling reason to have a meeting next week.
[17:18:36] * nealmcb nods
[17:18:37] <mathiaz> Two weeks seems reasonable to me.
[17:18:47] <nealmcb> what time?
[17:18:54] <mathiaz> same time
[17:18:58] <mathiaz> 15:00 UTC
[17:19:17] <soren> I think that's a problem.
[17:19:18] <ivoks> is that ok for us people?
[17:19:22] <soren> There's openweek or something.
[17:19:26] * ScottK think if we need to be talking about something next week there will be plenty of panic on #ubuntu-server about it directly.
[17:19:37] <mathiaz> I'll get in touch with the fridge developper to get the meeting added to the fridge
[17:19:38] <ivoks> ScottK: right :)
[17:19:41] <mathiaz> ScottK: agreed
[17:20:11] <mathiaz> soren: how would that be a problem ?
[17:20:24] <mathiaz> soren: is #ubuntu-meeting reserved ?
[17:20:31] <soren> mathiaz: Ah, is that in a different channel?
[17:20:39] <soren> Probably is. Sorry. My mistake.
[17:20:41] <mathiaz> soren: I don't know.
[17:20:50] <nealmcb> I think so
[17:20:59] <nealmcb> different channel
[17:21:04] <mathiaz> ok. So next meeting in two weeks, same time, same place.
[17:21:05] <ivoks> ubuntu-classroom
[17:21:05] <soren> mathiaz: Yeah, #ubuntu-classroom
[17:21:37] <mathiaz> Thanks all and happy RC/release iso testing ! :)
[17:21:50] <ivoks> yay!
[17:22:16] <mathiaz> #endmeeting
Meeting ended.

CategoryScribesTeam CategoryTemplate

MeetingLogs/Server/20071009 (last edited 2008-08-06 17:01:43 by localhost)