20091125

Agenda

Items we will be discussing:

Minutes

Review ACTION from previous meeting

ACTION: ttx to review status of bugs 455625, 460085 and 461156 for any missing info ACTION: mathiaz to compile a list of easy merges for publication

Check blueprint status and progress for the week (mdz)

mdz reminded that the list of blueprints is used to track plans for Lucid. The focus is now on drafting the specifications after last week discussions at UDS. Work items should also be added to the blueprint whiteboard so that a burn down chart can be generated during the cycle. Once the wiki page is written and the work items have been defined the status of the blueprint should be set to Review.

All of the blueprints should be ready for review first thing Monday morning.

Assigned and to-be-assigned bugs: http://qa.ubuntu.com/reports/team-assigned/canonical-server-assigned-bug-tasks.html (mdz)

Nothing was assigned to the team. Most of the bugs seemed to be SRU-related.

Work items tracking (mdz)

mathiaz asked how to handle work items that can't be defined up-front as they depends on completion of existing work items. mdz suggested to create work items for each of the proposed changes. If some of them can be skipped, it's easy to skip them later, but we don't want to forget any. The most important thing is that the list is at approximately the right level of granularity, so that we make steady progress through the list. Work items need to fit into a 1-2 day chunk of work.

Weekly SRU review (mathiaz)

Only the hardy nomination list had one bug to be reviewed. The last two weeks of fixed bugs have also been reviewed for potential SRUs.

Spamassassin update

ScottK asked about the status of Spamassassin in Lucid. mathiaz replied that Daviey had been investigating the situation with upstream. He also suggested to define work items in the associated blueprint even if the drafter doesn't plan to do the work. Documenting what needs to be done may help in getting things moved forward by other people.

Agree on next meeting date and time

kirkland to discuss a new time slot with maria.

Next meeting will be on Wednesday, December 2nd at 14:00 UTC in #ubuntu-meeting.

Log

[14:02] <mdz> #startmeeting
[14:02] <MootBot> Meeting started at 08:02. The chair is mdz.
[14:02] <MootBot> Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
[14:02] <mdz> kirkland, smoser, ping
[14:04] <mdz> Dustin said he would be here
[14:04] <mdz> I think smoser may be on holiday
[14:05]  * nijaba waves
[14:05] <mdz> let's get started
[14:05] <mdz> [topic] Review ACTION points from previous meeting (ttx)
[14:05] <MootBot> New Topic:  Review ACTION points from previous meeting (ttx)
[14:05]  * ttx scrambles the list
[14:05] <ttx> kirkland to add a recipe covering virsh to https://help.ubuntu.com/community/KVM/VirtManager: Done
[14:05] <mdz> I wasn't able to attend the previous meeting
[14:06] <ttx> hm
[14:06]  * ttx tries again
[14:06] <ttx> ACTION: nurmi to help investigate/validate/fix bugs 455625, 460085 and 461156
[14:06] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 455625 in eucalyptus "Eucalyptus Loses Public IP Address" [Medium,Incomplete] https://launchpad.net/bugs/455625
[14:06] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 460085 in eucalyptus "memory leak; rampart_context not freed (memory leaked per connection)" [High,Fix committed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/460085
[14:06] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 461156 in euca2ools "User data is not parsed correctly by Eucalyptus in some cases" [High,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/461156
[14:06] <ttx> nurmi is not around
[14:06] <ttx> I didn't have time to check progress on those bugs yet
[14:06] <mdz> 455625 has been marked invalid upstream
[14:07] <mdz> 461156 is Fix Committed upstream
[14:07] <mdz> 460085 is Fix Committed in Ubuntu
[14:07] <ttx> 460085 still needs a fix on eucalyptus side
[14:07] <mdz> so it looks like they have all been dealt with upstream
[14:07] <mdz> hmm, ok
[14:07] <mdz> I didn't look at that one
[14:08] <ttx> I'll look into that last one before tomorrow
[14:08]  * stgraber waves
[14:08] <jmdault> o/
[14:08] <ttx> to be sure to communicate to Eucalyptus anything we might be missing.
[14:08] <ttx> [ACTION] ttx to review status of bugs  455625, 460085 and 461156 for any missing info
[14:08] <mathiaz> ttx: does that mean we're preparing another SRU for UEC in karmic?
[14:09] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 455625 in eucalyptus "Eucalyptus Loses Public IP Address" [Medium,Incomplete] https://launchpad.net/bugs/455625
[14:09] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 460085 in eucalyptus "memory leak; rampart_context not freed (memory leaked per connection)" [High,Fix committed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/460085
[14:09] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 461156 in euca2ools "User data is not parsed correctly by Eucalyptus in some cases" [High,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/461156
[14:09] <ttx> beh, can't action :)
[14:09] <mdz> [ACTION] ttx to review status of bugs  455625, 460085 and 461156 for any missing info
[14:09] <MootBot> ACTION received:  ttx to review status of bugs  455625, 460085 and 461156 for any missing info
[14:09] <ttx> mathiaz: yes. The memory leak and the userdata are still on the list
[14:09] <mdz> mathiaz, we can discuss that on tomorrow's conf call
[14:09] <mdz> any other actions from last time?
[14:09] <ttx> yes
[14:09] <ttx> ACTION: mathiaz to compile a list of easy merges for publication
[14:10] <mathiaz> mdz: I'm almost done on generating the list of easy merges for publication
[14:10] <mathiaz> I've finally figured out how to do that with bzr and package branches
[14:10] <mdz> [action]  mathiaz to compile a list of easy merges for publication
[14:10] <MootBot> ACTION received:   mathiaz to compile a list of easy merges for publication
[14:10] <ttx> that's all.
[14:10] <mdz> ok
[14:10] <mdz> [topic] Check blueprint status and progress for the week (mdz)
[14:10] <MootBot> New Topic:  Check blueprint status and progress for the week (mdz)
[14:10] <kirkland> ttx: i have covered Virsh and Virt-Manager in the documentation
[14:10] <mdz> the list I'm using for this is:
[14:10] <mdz> [link] https://edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/lucid/+specs?searchtext=server-lucid-
[14:10] <MootBot> LINK received:  https://edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/lucid/+specs?searchtext=server-lucid-
[14:10] <ttx> kirkland: yes, that action was already completed last meeting
[14:11] <kirkland> mdz: i'm here now
[14:11] <ttx> kirkland: bringing it up was a cut/apste error, sorry about that
[14:11] <mdz> this is not ideal, because it has some false positives (desktop and foundations blueprints)
[14:11] <mdz> but it has all of ours as well
[14:12] <mdz> if anyone knows a better way to get this out of LP, let me know
[14:13] <mdz> in my, er, spare time, I'm working on the blueprints API ;-)
[14:13] <ttx> also the assignee can be different from the drafter, so you should check https://blueprints.launchpad.net/~YOURNAMEHERE/+specs?role=drafter
[14:13] <mdz> all of the server-lucid-* blueprints on that list should be moved into Drafting status
[14:13] <mathiaz> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/~YOURNAMEHERE/+specs?role=drafter&searchtext=server-lucid-
[14:13] <mathiaz> ^^ this is even better :)
[14:14] <ttx> s/check/cross-check/
[14:14] <mdz> ttx, there is some way to do that with a universal URL, /+me or something
[14:14] <ttx> right
[14:15] <mdz> mathiaz, yes
[14:15] <mdz> many of them are still New or Discussion, so please update yours
[14:16] <mdz> kirkland, I reviewed what you submitted and sent feedback
[14:16] <mdz> the others, I'm waiting for you to tell me they're ready for review
[14:16] <mdz> you can do that by setting them to Review status when you're ready
[14:16] <mdz> I've sent email explaining what I'm looking for in the completed blueprints
[14:17] <kirkland> mdz: thank you
[14:17] <kirkland> mdz: i'm fixing up now
[14:17] <mdz> all of them should be completed by the end of this week
[14:17] <ttx> smoser: o/
[14:18] <kirkland> mdz: i clearly "missed" on the user stories ... do you have a favorite blueprint that has intriguing user stories?
[14:18] <mdz> does anyone feel they have too much to finish in that time?
[14:18] <zul> not I
[14:18] <soren> Hmm..
[14:18] <soren> I think I'll manage.
[14:18] <ttx> mdz: I do, but we already discussed that.
[14:19] <mdz> kirkland, I don't have a blueprint to hand, but you can look at the stories on the requirements pages
[14:19] <mdz> I mentioned them in the email
[14:19] <kirkland> ttx: mdz: I see that I'm the drafter of UEC-testing, mathiaz is the assignee ... I didn't realize I was responsible for drafting that one until just now
[14:19] <mdz> where there is an internal requirement behind the blueprint, I've already written the user stories for you
[14:19] <mdz> as a means of capturing the requirement
[14:19] <kirkland> mdz: right, I thought i followed that closely enough;  i'll try again
[14:20] <kirkland> https://blueprints.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/server-lucid-uec-testing
[14:20] <mdz> there are also loads of articles to be found with google about how to write user stories
[14:20] <mdz> kirkland, right, I believe that's because mathiaz couldn't be in the session, but you were
[14:21] <mathiaz> kirkland: yes - I wasn't in the session dealing with UEC testing
=== robbiew_ is now known as robbiew
[14:21] <mdz> if you can't get it done, now is the time to mention it, because we could find someone else who was there
[14:21] <mdz> I know you're off the rest of the week
[14:22] <kirkland> mdz: i was planning on fixing up the 2 I did write, writing up my year-end-review results, and enjoying the rest of my day off
[14:22] <mdz> who else was in the UEC testing session on Friday?
[14:22] <ttx> mdz: I was, I think soren was as well
[14:22] <mdz> this is on the critical path, so it still needs to be done this week
[14:22] <mdz> soren, can you take it?
[14:23] <kirkland> mdz: ttx: I'll do it
[14:23] <mdz> soren, ayt?
[14:24] <mdz> kirkland, OK, you can negotiate with soren separately if you find you need to hand it off
[14:24] <mdz> any other questions or considerations regarding blueprints?
[14:25] <mdz> otherwise, I'll expect everything to be ready for review first thing Monday morning
[14:25] <mdz> [topic] Assigned and to-be-assigned bugs: http://qa.ubuntu.com/reports/team-assigned/canonical-server-assigned-bug-tasks.html (mdz)
[14:25] <nijaba> mdz: should "community" blueprient be following the same process as well?
[14:26] <MootBot> New Topic:  Assigned and to-be-assigned bugs: http://qa.ubuntu.com/reports/team-assigned/canonical-server-assigned-bug-tasks.html (mdz)
[14:26] <soren> Sorry, someone was at the door..
[14:26]  * soren catches up
[14:26] <mdz> nijaba, all blueprints should follow the same process
[14:26] <nijaba> mdz: I know ScottK and maybe ivoks had a few
=== imlad is now known as imlad|away
[14:27] <mdz> [link] Assigned and to-be-assigned bugs: http://qa.ubuntu.com/reports/team-assigned/canonical-server-assigned-bug-tasks.html (mdz)
[14:27] <MootBot> LINK received:  Assigned and to-be-assigned bugs: http://qa.ubuntu.com/reports/team-assigned/canonical-server-assigned-bug-tasks.html (mdz)
[14:27] <soren> Um... Yeah, I think I was in the UEC testing session. Think.
[14:27] <mdz> nothing assigned to the team at the moment
[14:28] <mdz> there are a bunch of bugs there which are still targeted to Karmic
[14:28] <mdz> looks like they're all Eucalyptus related
[14:29] <mdz> so I assume those are SRU candidates, as opposed to 9.10-targeted bugs which slipped
[14:29] <mdz> probably they should be targeted for LL as well, but I don't think it's too important
[14:29] <ScottK> What's the link to the process we're supposed to be using for spec tasks?
[14:29] <ttx> some of those aren't candidates for SRUs -- I'll clean up
[14:30] <ttx> hmm, they show up wrongly in the list... they are wontfix for karmic
[14:30] <mdz> ScottK, do you mean the work items?
[14:30] <mdz> ttx, ah, ok
[14:30] <ScottK> mdz: Yes.
[14:30] <ttx> bug 438631 and bug 455816
[14:30] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 438631 in eucalyptus "eucalyptus-nc needs an upstart job" [Wishlist,Won't fix] https://launchpad.net/bugs/438631
[14:30] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 455816 in eucalyptus "When installing a UEC cluster, the prompt for the private interface is displayed after the "Installation complete" dialog" [Medium,Won't fix] https://launchpad.net/bugs/455816
[14:30] <ScottK> I heard something about using bugs for burndown charts, but haven't seen specifics on how this process is supposed to work.
[14:31] <mdz> ScottK, it's working the same way as in karmic for the moment, I don't think the bugs-as-work-items bit is completed yet
[14:31] <ScottK> mdz: OK.  Thanks.
[14:31] <mdz> i.e. the work items go in the status whiteboard
[14:32] <soren> I had never heard of this until Rick Spencer demoed it at UDS. This was in widespread use in Karmic?
[14:32] <mdz> nothing else jumps out at me from the bug list
[14:32] <ttx> soren: the desktop team was using it
[14:32] <kirkland> mdz: i'm also trying to verify the eucalyptus SRU
[14:32] <soren> ttx: Ok.
[14:32] <mdz> and the mobile team has adopted it as well
[14:33] <mathiaz> soren: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/WorkItemsHowto gives an overview of this process
[14:33] <mdz> mathiaz, ah, thanks, I was trying to find that link
[14:33] <kirkland> I reinstalled my UEC yesterday;  i have some strange behavior that I emailed nurmi about; i'm not ready to approve/decline the SRU package yet, though.
[14:33] <mdz> [topic] work item tracking
[14:33] <MootBot> New Topic:  work item tracking
[14:33] <kirkland> mathiaz: ^
[14:33] <mdz> [link] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/WorkItemsHowto
[14:33] <MootBot> LINK received:  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/WorkItemsHowto
[14:33] <soren> mathiaz: Neat, thanks.
[14:33] <mdz> any other questions about work items?
[14:34] <mathiaz> mdz: some work items can't be defined in some of my blueprints
[14:34] <mathiaz> mdz: example: write MIR for the list of agreed packages
[14:34] <mathiaz> mdz: which depends on agreeing on the list of packages first
[14:35] <mdz> mathiaz, I suggest creating work items for each of the proposed changes
[14:35] <mathiaz> mdz: that means that the list of work items will probably evolve over time
[14:35] <ttx> mathiaz: and adding it later will make it look like feature creep
[14:35] <ScottK> mathiaz: The list will evolve over time.
[14:35] <mathiaz> mdz: are we trying to get all work items defined now?
[14:35] <mdz> e.g. "discuss moving foobar to universe" would be one work item, and "move foobar to universe (if agreed)" would be a second work item
[14:35] <mdz> mathiaz, yes, as closely as we can estimate up front
[14:35] <ScottK> Last cycle on desktop stuff where I used this the tasks started out a few high level ones and got broken into more detail over time.
[14:36] <mdz> if some of them can be skipped, it's easy to skip them later, but we don't want to forget any
[14:36] <mathiaz> mdz: hm - ok. Does this mean there can be 20+ more work items in one blueprint?
[14:36] <mdz> it is possible to add them later, but usually this indicates that work was overlooked
[14:37] <mdz> mathiaz, you can add as many as you like, up to whatever the limit is for the status whiteboard
[14:37] <mdz> it's definitely >20
[14:37] <mathiaz> mdz: well - in this situation is that more investigation needs to be conducted in order to define more WI
[14:37] <mdz> mathiaz, if there are natural groupings, you could group them
[14:37] <ttx> mathiaz: I'd do 4 sets
[14:38] <mdz> e.g. discuss the package changes related to backup, then make the agreed changes for those packages
[14:38] <mdz> but it needs to be more than one work item, because even having the discussion will take more than 1-2 days
[14:38] <ttx> mathiaz: obvious, potentially harmful, etc
[14:38] <ttx> then have one WI to delimitate the sets
[14:38] <mathiaz> mdz: ok
[14:38] <ttx> and discuss / MIR for each set ?
[14:38] <mdz> we'll learn from this as we go, since this is our first time through this process
[14:39] <mdz> find out what works best, and adopt that for next time
[14:39] <ttx> mdz: ideally work items could be weigthed
[14:39] <mathiaz> ttx: well - not knowing how many packages will be considered makes it hard to define the number of set
[14:39] <mdz> the most important thing is that the list is at approximately the right level of granularity, so that we make steady progress through the list
[14:39] <mdz> it will never be perfect
[14:39] <ttx> mathiaz: it's still slightly more accurate than defining nothing.
[14:39]  * mathiaz agrees
[14:40] <ttx> that's how I did it for the java dependencies
[14:40] <mdz> ttx, if you can't think of any other way, you can split them up arbitrarily
[14:40] <ttx> last cycle
[14:40] <mdz> e.g. if something is probably 4 days work, you could do "implement foo #1", "implement foo #2", etc.
[14:40] <mdz> but we should only do that as a last resort
[14:40] <ttx> mdz: yes.
[14:41] <mdz> mathiaz, remember, it just needs to fit into a 1-2 day chunk of work
[14:41] <mdz> they don't all need to be exactly the same size
[14:41]  * mathiaz nods
[14:41] <mathiaz> I'll update the list of work items with your suggestions
[14:41] <mdz> the errors should average out
[14:41] <mdz> i.e. we're just as likely to overestimate as to underestimate, we hope :-)
[14:42] <mdz> ok, anything else on this topic?
[14:43] <mdz> [topic] Weekly SRU review (mathiaz)
[14:43] <MootBot> New Topic:  Weekly SRU review (mathiaz)
[14:44] <kirkland> (whoops)
[14:44] <mathiaz> there is one bug nominated for hardy
[14:44] <mathiaz> bug 426813
[14:44] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 426813 in net-snmp "snmpd dies after requests with snmpwalk" [Medium,Fix released] https://launchpad.net/bugs/426813
[14:44] <mdz> kirkland, whoops?
[14:45] <kirkland> mdz: i was discussing the Eucalyptus SRU earlier
[14:45] <mdz> kirkland, that's OK
[14:45] <mathiaz> zul: ttx: seems like a good candidate for an SRU?
[14:45] <kirkland> mdz: I see that conversation belongs here
[14:45] <zul> mathiaz: looking
[14:45] <zul> mathiaz:yep
[14:45] <ttx> mathiaz: yes
[14:46] <zul> mathiaz: im going to start tagging them so they are easily searchable in launchpad
[14:46] <mathiaz> bug accepted for hardy
[14:46] <mathiaz> zul: well you can use LP searches
[14:46] <mathiaz> zul: or do you wanna tag the sru-potential?
[14:46] <mathiaz> zul: in which case they should just be nominated
[14:46] <zul> mathiaz: yes that what I was thinking
[14:46] <mdz> mathiaz, zul, how would that be different from a nomination?
[14:47] <mathiaz> http://qa.ubuntu.com/reports/ubuntu-server-team/fixedbugs.ubuntu-server.2009-11-16.html
[14:47] <MootBot> LINK received:  http://qa.ubuntu.com/reports/ubuntu-server-team/fixedbugs.ubuntu-server.2009-11-16.html
[14:47] <mathiaz> ^^ this is last week fixed released bugs - anything worth in there?
[14:47] <mdz> mathiaz, that list looks a week old
[14:47] <mathiaz> mdz: yes - that was during UDS
[14:47] <mathiaz> mdz: we haven't processed it yet
[14:47] <zul> mdz: when its fixed in lucid then we can just close it and add a tag like "sru-potential" and talk about it during the weekly meetings
[14:48] <mathiaz> mdz: as we hadn't a meeting last week
[14:48] <mathiaz> zul: nominating them for the proper the release would do the same thing
[14:48] <mathiaz> zul: as we're reviewing the list of nominated bugs during the meeting
[14:48] <zul> mathiaz: okie dokie
[14:49] <mathiaz> ok - so anything SRU worth on http://qa.ubuntu.com/reports/ubuntu-server-team/fixedbugs.ubuntu-server.2009-11-16.html?
[14:49] <mdz> mathiaz, so we should have 2 weeks worth of bugs, no?
[14:49] <ScottK> For Universe, nxvl is working on some courier stuff that will be SRU worthy once it's resolved and there is a havp fix in work that should also qualify.  Both packages are currently very broken in Karmic.
[14:49] <mathiaz> mdz: yes - 2 weeks of bugs -> 2 lists
[14:49] <zul> mathiaz, #479955 might be
[14:49] <mdz> mathiaz, ah, ok
[14:49] <mathiaz> bug 479955
[14:49] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 479955 in samba "winbind authentication fails after karmic upgrade" [High,Fix released] https://launchpad.net/bugs/479955
[14:50] <mathiaz> ScottK: are the bugs nominated/accepted for karmic?
[14:50] <zul> actually its already been nominated
[14:50] <ScottK> mathiaz: I think not yet, but they are both still unfixed in Lucid.
[14:50] <mathiaz> ScottK: ok - so lucid first :)
[14:51] <ScottK> For havp the patch is still being reviewed and last I heard nxvl was beating he head against the wall over courier.
[14:51] <ScottK> Yes
[14:51] <mathiaz> ok - let's move on to the second list:
[14:51] <mathiaz> http://qa.ubuntu.com/reports/ubuntu-server-team/fixedbugs.ubuntu-server.2009-11-23.html
[14:51] <MootBot> LINK received:  http://qa.ubuntu.com/reports/ubuntu-server-team/fixedbugs.ubuntu-server.2009-11-23.html
[14:51] <mathiaz> anything SRU worth on this one^^?
[14:52] <zul> the ucf dbconfig-common is pretty easy to fix and probably SRUable
[14:52] <zul> bug 424653
[14:52] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 424653 in dbconfig-common "I cant desintall phpmyadmin completle the database" [Undecided,Fix released] https://launchpad.net/bugs/424653
[14:53] <zul> should be fixed for jaunty at least
[14:54] <mathiaz> zul: well - it doesn't seem too critical for jaunty now
[14:54] <mathiaz> ttx: ^?
[14:54] <mathiaz> anything SRU worth on the two lists above?
[14:54] <zul> im not exactly sure how to reproduce it though
[14:54] <ttx> mathiaz: yes, I'd say that's not important enough
[14:55] <mathiaz> ok - let's move on then
[14:55] <mathiaz> http://qa.ubuntu.com/reports/ubuntu-server-team/acceptedbugs.ubuntu-server.latest.html
[14:55] <MootBot> LINK received:  http://qa.ubuntu.com/reports/ubuntu-server-team/acceptedbugs.ubuntu-server.latest.html
[14:55] <mathiaz> what the progress on these bugs?
[14:55] <mathiaz> ^^
[14:56] <mathiaz> I think I need to add how long the bug has been assigned to this table
[14:56] <mathiaz> to measure whether things get stalled (which is the goal of this list)
[14:56] <mathiaz> I don't know I can extract the date of assignement from LP though
[14:56] <zul> either in  -proposed or in -updates or waiting for users to test
[14:57] <mathiaz> zul: all of them?
[14:57] <mdz> ok, we're almost out of time, can we close the SRU topic?
[14:57] <mathiaz> which reminds me that I should add the status of the bug as well
[14:57] <mathiaz> mdz: yes
[14:57] <mdz> [topic] Meeting time
[14:57] <MootBot> New Topic:  Meeting time
[14:57] <mdz> A few people mentioned this meeting time was less than ideal for them
[14:58] <mdz> last I checked, Maria was working on finding a better time, and I asked her to work directly with you on it
[14:58] <mdz> what was the outcome?
[14:58] <mdz> (she's on holiday right now, so I can't ask her)
[14:58] <ScottK> It's way better for me since I'm generally unavailable on Tuesdays.
[14:58] <mathiaz> mdz: I haven't heard of maria on this topic
[14:59] <mdz> kirkland, I believe you were one of the people with an objection
[14:59] <mdz> there was an email thread at the end of October
[14:59] <kirkland> mdz: yes, this time is very bad for me
[14:59] <kirkland> mdz: i've spoken with maria, filled out the survey again
[14:59] <kirkland> mdz: the day of the week is fine; it's the hour that's a problem
[15:00] <kirkland> mdz: one hour later would solve my conflict
[15:01] <mdz> kirkland, please work with maria to find a better time
[15:01] <mdz> [topic] AOB
[15:01] <MootBot> New Topic:  AOB
[15:01] <kirkland> mdz: okay
[15:01] <ScottK> Who was working on the SpamAssassin update?
[15:01] <ScottK> This is, I think, a very important topic for Lucid and I'd like to make sure we track it.
[15:02] <mathiaz> ScottK: IIRC Daviey investigated it
[15:02] <mathiaz> ScottK: I don't know the the outcome of the session though
[15:02] <ScottK> It sounded like we'll want to update, but we need to make sure of this.
[15:03] <ScottK> mathiaz: Could we make sure this gets added to something as a work item so it doesn't get dropped.
[15:03] <mathiaz> ScottK: that should be documented in the blueprint
[15:03] <ScottK> mathiaz: What blueprint?
[15:03] <mathiaz> ScottK: and the whiteboard of the blueprint (mail-server stack?) updated
[15:03] <ScottK> I don't think we have one explicitly for this.
[15:03] <ScottK> mail-server-stack was a Karmic blueprint.
[15:04] <ScottK> The one I'm working on is about package integration.
[15:04] <mathiaz> ScottK: well - if there is work to be done in Lucid and you'd want it to be tracked, I'd suggest to file a blueprint
[15:04] <mathiaz> ScottK: and create the necessary work items in the whiteboard
[15:04] <mdz> agreed
[15:04] <ScottK> mathiaz: I think it's important, but I really don't have time to deal with it.  It's in Main.  Please assign someone to deal with it then.
[15:04] <mathiaz> ScottK: could the spamassassin be added to the mail-related blueprint you're working on?
[15:05] <ScottK> mathiaz: It could if someone is going to do the work.
[15:05] <mathiaz> ScottK: right - documenting what needs to be done will make it easier for someone to pick it up later
[15:05] <ScottK> I don't mind having it in there for tracking, but I really don't have time to develop a relationship with another upstream (and that's what I think this will take)
[15:05] <mathiaz> ScottK: defining a work item doesn't mean *you* need to do it
[15:06] <ScottK> That's fine then.
[15:06] <mdz> ok, we're over time, can we adjourn?
[15:06] <mdz> thanks, all
[15:06] <mdz> #endmeeting
[15:06] <MootBot> Meeting finished at 09:06.

MeetingLogs/Server/20091125 (last edited 2009-11-26 03:39:53 by mathiaz)