== Agenda == * Review ACTION points from previous meeting * Maverick Alpha2 subcycle * Deadline for specs submission * Weekly Updates & Questions for the QA Team (hggdh) * Weekly Updates & Questions for the Kernel Team (jjohansen) * Maverick Papercuts: Start of the alpha-2 round (ttx) * Weekly SRU review: [[https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam/KnowledgeBase#SRU%20weekly%20review]] (mathiaz) * How to handle updates to ec2-ami-tools, ec2-api-tools (Bug:582387) (smoser) * Open Discussion * Announce next meeting date and time == Minutes == ## Use title4 (ie ==== ) for each section of the minutes ## Only topics discussed during the meetings should be put in the minutes. ## Status reporting is done via another channel. ==== Review ACTION points from previous meeting (ttx) ==== * ttx to confirm spec submission deadlines with Jos: DONE * ttx to walk SpamapS through the spec proces: DONE ==== Maverick Alpha2 subcycle and specs ==== * specs need to be set to review by EOB May 26 (Extends deadline by 1 day) * design mandatory, implementation (work items) should have a full rough plan, user stories can be filled in later. ==== Weekly Updates & Questions for the QA Team (hggdh) ==== * zul needs help getting back ability to nominate bugs for lucid * QA workflow spec to remain as server team's responsibility (jiboumans) ==== Weekly Updates & Questions for the Kernel Team (jjohansen) ==== * status update on ec2/uec kernel upgrades * built many, none have booted, will check vmlinuz stripping/xen settings (jjohansen) * CEPH will be enabled in next upload to maverick ==== Weekly status for Server documentation (sommer) ==== * Server guide for lucid had a broken PDF, fix committed and awaiting upload to "h.u.c" (sommer) * documentation specs to be moved under Ubuntu launchpad project to allow usage of work items tracker (sommer) * [ACTION] sommer to try to move server doc spec to Ubuntu specs ==== Maverick Papercuts: Start of the alpha-2 round (ttx) ==== * All should blog/announce papercuts (ttx) * Minor features / wishlist are included because not LTS cycle (ttx) * nominate by marking bugs as affecting 'server-papercuts' project * nominations will be reviewed next week, sub cycle begins Jun 2nd, ends week before Alpha2 release ==== Weekly SRU review: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam/KnowledgeBase#SRU%20weekly%20review (mathiaz) ==== * Two bugs nominated, 567179 & 583542, to be declined pending more information * New SRU review process spec revealed with shiny pictures [[https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerMaverickSruProcess]] ==== Open Discussion ==== * EC2 AMI-API tools in multiverse are out of date whenever amazon adds services/regions/etc. * PPA vs. backports discussion results in PPA *and* backports upload as way to get latest tools to users. ==== Announce next meeting date and time ==== * Next meeting will be Tue, Jun 1 18:00 UTC 2010 == Log == {{{ [19:00] Meeting started at 13:00. The chair is ttx. [19:00] Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE] [19:00] ajoi [19:00] 0/ [19:00] Welcome to the 15428th Ubuntu Server Team meeting [19:01] * smoser claps [19:01] Agenda is fresh at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam/Meeting [19:01] Lucky scribe is SpamapS [19:01] * SpamapS bows [19:01] SpamapS: details about minutes publication at: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam/KnowledgeBase#Team%20policy [19:01] muhaha [19:01] [TOPIC] Review ACTION points from previous meeting [19:02] New Topic: Review ACTION points from previous meeting [19:02] * ttx to confirm spec submission deadlines with Jos: DONE [19:02] Deadline was today EOB, but we'll discuss that later [19:02] oh? [19:02] * ttx to walk SpamapS through the spec process [19:02] doh. [19:02] DONE as well, I think. He ran out of questions [19:03] [TOPIC] Maverick Alpha2 subcycle and specs [19:03] New Topic: Maverick Alpha2 subcycle and specs [19:03] We need to finalize specs, review them and assign some of them to the Alpha-2 iteration this week [19:04] Specs that are ready must be set to "Review" status [19:04] Given that a fair number of them are not yet in that status, I assume that today's deadline might be difficult to reach [19:05] So please move as many as you can to that status today. And the new deadline is tomorrow EOB [19:05] yay! [19:05] thank you! [19:05] ttx: what'S the most important items that should be part of the specs? [19:05] We'll review the specs starting today, asking questions on the whiteboard [19:05] ttx: should WI be already defined? [19:05] ivoks: I'll take care of the mail stack spec. [19:05] ttx: can the user stories be postponed? [19:05] ScottK: ok [19:06] ttx: or should the spec be completly ready? [19:06] * ScottK even started on it already. [19:06] mathiaz: design is the most important. Implementation (or WI) should at least give an idea of how much work is involved [19:06] mathiaz: if you need to pick something to leave out, user stories are a good candidate [19:07] ttx: ok - so in order of importance: 1. Design 2. Work Items (=implementation) 3. Other sections [19:07] mathiaz: I have a few specs where I'm missing info, so having an open plan in the spec is ok too. Something where the first steps of Implementation is "find the right design" :) [19:08] mathiaz: yes [19:09] such as "cloud-loadbalancer - create proof of concept LB config backend (puppet or REST): TODO [19:09] Ideally community specs would be filed by that deadline as well. Especially if they rely on some outside help [19:09] If they are not ready by tomorrow EOB we'll have trouble incorporating them in the general server roadmap [19:09] appologies for the late join, a call ran somewhat over. Thanks ttx for getting things started. [19:10] jiboumans: floor is yours, sir [19:10] ttx: that went fast :) [19:10] so, what ttx said ^ ;) [19:10] ttx: well - you've started the meeting [19:10] ttx: so only you can drive the bot [19:10] mathiaz: I can drive the bot. [19:10] ttx: (that may be a detail in the meeting though) [19:11] ttx: anything more on blueprint/spec prep? [19:11] I don't think so... Questions ? [19:11] Of course you can start working on urgent items on your specs. [19:11] [TOPIC] Weekly Updates & Questions for the QA Team (hggdh) [19:11] Also last thing... [19:12] Remember that merging is in full swing, and needs your help :) [19:12] done and done [19:12] [TOPIC] Weekly Updates & Questions for the QA Team (hggdh) [19:12] New Topic: Weekly Updates & Questions for the QA Team (hggdh) [19:12] none ATM. I just marked my specs for review [19:12] hggdh: excellent. any input needed from us for those that you'd like to bring up? [19:12] i would like to bring up something actually [19:12] only the additional test rig [19:13] zul, please go ahead [19:13] hggdh: let's sync up on that outside this meeting to get the fine points clear [19:13] it seems my access to nominate bugs for lucid has disapeared which slows me down is there a way to get that fixed? [19:14] Daviey/kirkland: are you around ? [19:15] i'll take that as a 'no' [19:15] zul: can you raise it with kirkland/daviey via mail please? [19:15] not sure if this is pertinent exactly, but I added myself as a bug triager on Fridays [19:15] jiboumans: sure [19:15] jiboumans: my question was unrelated to zul's problem [19:15] per zul's request I might add [19:15] I don't think they can help [19:15] ttx: my bad [19:16] zul: hm - has you membership in some team expired latelyÉ [19:16] zul: ? [19:16] mathiaz: i dont think so [19:16] zul: in that case we'll need to contact a losa right? [19:17] zul: I talk to bdmurray - he may be able to figure it out [19:17] zul: see with bdmurray first [19:17] jiboumans: probably lemme poke around a bit more [19:17] alright, anything else on QA? [19:17] no news there for now [19:17] not from me [19:17] hggdh: should the qa workflow spec be considered a server or a QA spec ? [19:18] i.e. who should be the approver ? [19:18] ttx: this is a good Q, I cannot answer. I would venture a mix [19:18] jiboumans: where do you want it ? [19:18] ttx: since we initiated it, leave me as the approver for now [19:19] ok, same for UEC testing, I suspect. [19:19] * hggdh thinks it saner [19:19] definitely for UEC testing [19:19] [TOPIC] Weekly Updates & Questions for the Kernel Team (jjohansen) [19:19] New Topic: Weekly Updates & Questions for the Kernel Team (jjohansen) [19:19] jjohansen: o/ [19:19] hey :) [19:19] i was wondering about the kernel upgrades in uec/ec2 [19:19] So I have started playing with the maverick pv-ops ec2 kernel [19:20] you're way ahead of me i see [19:20] I have built several but none have successfully booted :( [19:20] At the moment I am trimming configs and rechecking packaging/builds [19:20] jjohansen: need help? [19:20] nah, not yet any way [19:21] its early can't really expect it to go right the first few times [19:21] jjohansen: its probably nothing to do with the configs, its probably more to do with the vmlinuz you'll have to strip it [19:21] so hopefully we will have a kernel in a few days [19:21] I have an item in the cluster filesystem spec about Ceph being available as a module in the maverick kernel (which it is not in the latest). Do I need to add a work item in my spec for somebody on the kernel team? [19:22] zul: hrmm it should be stripped but I'll check [19:22] one thing [19:22] jjohansen: xen versions have different boot loaders [19:22] We already have that on our misc configs [19:22] that's a cloud filesystem [19:23] ceph should be enabled with the next upload [19:23] jjohansen: ty. :) [19:23] SpamapS: good to add a workitem anyway so we can keep track of it [19:23] ok, any other questions for kernel ? [19:24] [TOPIC] Weekly status for Server documentation (sommer) [19:24] New Topic: Weekly status for Server documentation (sommer) [19:24] That's a new point :) [19:25] hi sommer [19:25] sommer: As discussed, it's good for you to have a forum for us to sync our respective needs, so here you go :) [19:25] there's been some good discussion on the ubuntu-doc list about new formats [19:25] Is the 10.04 server guide available as a PDF? It came up on #ubuntu-server recently and I didn't know where to point someone. [19:25] ScottK: there was an issue with the PDF for lucid, but I committed a change yesterday to take care of it [19:26] it just now needs to be rebuilt and uploaded to h.u.c [19:26] sommer: do you have a spec covering new sections that you want written for Maverick ? [19:26] sommer: Great. Thanks. [19:26] ttx: yep, https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu-docs/+spec/server-maverick-serverguide-updates [19:27] hm, I don't think that one can be picked up by our work items system, since it's not the same project [19:27] sommer: so you'll have to use that lot in the meeting to shout when you need outside help. [19:27] oh, should I change it? [19:27] ttx: would be great to have all server related blueprints in the WI tracker though [19:27] wonder how we can do that [19:27] jiboumans: it needs to be an Ubuntu spec [19:28] jiboumans: then if targeted against Maverick, work items assigned to team members would show up in our tracker [19:28] can't the spec be just reattached to the ubuntu project? [19:28] if not I can recreate it [19:28] I doubt that's possible [19:28] or recreate it [19:29] sommer: that would be great. Then you can have work items like "write draft of section x" and assign that to someone, and keep "Review draft of X" on your plate [19:29] that'd work very well indeed [19:30] [ACTION] sommer to try to move server doc spec to Ubuntu specs [19:30] ACTION received: sommer to try to move server doc spec to Ubuntu specs [19:30] next is you ttx on papercuts [19:30] [TOPIC] Maverick Papercuts: Start of the alpha-2 round (ttx) [19:30] New Topic: Maverick Papercuts: Start of the alpha-2 round (ttx) [19:30] what's the project name? [19:30] sommer: "Ubuntu" ? [19:30] doh, sooo simple :) [19:30] So in order to have a full alpha-2 round for papercuts, I anticipated the review and prepared the round in advance. I'll call for nominations today, and open nominations (until next week's meeting where we'll decide on the bugs for the round) [19:31] delaying one more week would jeopardize the length of that subcycle [19:31] ttx: that warrants a seperate mail to u-devel/-server right? [19:32] jiboumans: yes. I start with a blog post, then tomorrow an email... Then I would appreciate some echo on blogs of yours [19:32] I already know Yokozar will echo it, since he was in that UDS room [19:32] any other blogger with a large audience is welcome (kirkland ?) [19:32] We already have a few candidates from previous leftovers [19:33] Note that this time, you can nominate minor features as well ! [19:33] minor features like what? [19:33] like utf8 in mysql by default? [19:33] The method is the same, mark as affecting the "server-papercuts" project [19:33] like things that would impact behavior, and that we refused because of FeatureFreeze during the lucid cycle [19:34] ivoks: a papercut needs to be non-conflicting [19:34] and simple to implement :) [19:35] otherwise we'd have to call it a paper stab [19:35] it's simple alright [19:35] We'll review the nominations next week to come up with a list of candidates [19:35] and start the subcycle on Jun 2nd [19:35] to end it end of week before the Alpha2 release [19:35] * sommer heh stab [19:35] questions ? [19:36] we'll need everyone's help in fixing those papercuts btw [19:37] choosing them is the easiest part of the job :) [19:37] [TOPIC] Weekly SRU review: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam/KnowledgeBase#SRU%20weekly%20review (mathiaz) [19:37] New Topic: Weekly SRU review: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam/KnowledgeBase#SRU%20weekly%20review (mathiaz) [19:37] * mathiaz opens up the links [19:37] two bugs nominated for lucid: [19:37] bug 567179 [19:37] Launchpad bug 567179 in mysql-dfsg-5.1 (Ubuntu) "Update mysql-server-5.1 hangs up" [Medium,Incomplete] https://launchpad.net/bugs/567179 [19:38] bug 583542 [19:38] Launchpad bug 583542 in openssh (Ubuntu) "ssh server doesn't start when irrelevant filesystems are not available" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/583542 [19:38] ubottu: im testing bug 567179 [19:38] Error: I am only a bot, please don't think I'm intelligent :) [19:38] stupid bot [19:38] i have it fixed for maverick (567179) just need to get people in lucid to test it [19:39] I think both bugs are not ready for SRU as of now [19:39] mathiaz: ack [19:39] as they still need to more information to get to the triage state [19:39] I'm going to decline them [19:39] any bugs worth fixing from http://qa.ubuntu.com/reports/ubuntu-server-team/fixedbugs.ubuntu-server.latest.html ? [19:39] there is no fix for 583542 available [19:40] 577165 [19:40] smoser: ok [19:40] bug 577165 [19:40] Launchpad bug 577165 in vsftpd (Ubuntu) "Typo in etc/init/vsftpd.conf" [Low,Fix released] https://launchpad.net/bugs/577165 [19:40] bug 573206 sounds important enough [19:40] Launchpad bug 573206 in mysql-dfsg-5.1 (Ubuntu Maverick) "[SRU] upstart script does not load AppArmor profile" [High,Fix released] https://launchpad.net/bugs/573206 [19:41] jiboumans: its already fixed in lucid [19:41] jiboumans: it's already done apparently. Zul's magic [19:41] zul++ also way ahead of me [19:41] * jiboumans notes that being in UTC+8 means he's behind the times [19:42] lol :P [19:42] I've written up the Spec for the updated sru-process in maverick: [19:42] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/server-maverick-sru-process [19:42] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerMaverickSruProcess [19:42] ooo, a graph ! [19:42] so if you wanna comment on what's coming up please head there [19:43] and there are shiny diagrams as wel :) [19:43] wohoo diagrams! [19:43] mathiaz: now I know why you don't have time to write user stories. Too busy doing shiny diagrams [19:43] ttx: :) [19:44] ttx: it's an experiment: [19:44] a picture is worth a thousand words! [19:44] agreed there [19:44] +1 [19:44] now you need to automate paperboard -> dia transition [19:44] that's all from me on the SRU front [19:44] ttx: I've got some ideas there :) [19:45] anything else? [19:45] on the SRU front? [19:45] smoser, you had something on ami/api tools? [19:45] yes. [19:45] seeking feedback. [19:45] ec2-ami-tools and ec2-api-tools are multiverse packages [19:45] they are updated by amazon to expose new features (or regions) on occasion [19:46] in the past we have provided backports of these via a ppa [19:46] smoser: one option is to push them to -backports [19:46] https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-on-ec2/+archive/ec2-tools [19:46] smoser: they may actually be SRUable as well [19:46] right. so 3 options: [19:46] a. SRU [19:46] b. [19:46] backports [19:46] c. ppa backports [19:46] we've been doing c. [19:46] (a) needs a TB derogation [19:47] smoser: under the exception that they're useless (?) if the network service changes [19:47] well they're never useless. [19:47] smoser: landscape-client is an example of package that an SRU exception [19:47] the old tools work, they just do not expose new functionality [19:47] smoser: right [19:47] smoser: so -backports is the best option [19:48] is there a reason to prefer -backports over ppa ? [19:48] smoser: -backports are easily discoveralbe [19:48] smoser: whereas PPA are less discoverable [19:48] i question it because there is a fair amount of use of the ppa, and education to use backports instead would be needed. [19:48] smoser: there is an option in the sources list manager to enable backports [19:49] smoser: and I think there -backports options in sources.list are also set but commented [19:49] we do have the option to enable the ppa on EC2 images ourselves [19:49] smoser: right - if it's common knowledge to enable the PPA then I'd stick with the existing option [19:49] In my brief time running Ubuntu server I've never used thes ources list manager.. but I've definitely setup a few PPA's to pull from [19:49] jiboumans, well.. tools are in multiverse, they're not in our images by design. [19:50] smoser: if the use of the PPA is advertised and documented then I'd stick with the PPA [19:50] mathiaz, if backports is the right thing, then i think we should go that route. [19:50] can the server guide be updated with that? [19:50] smoser: it seems that the use of the PPA is already common knowledge [19:51] smoser: I've got no problem pushing the updated ec2 tools in backports. [19:51] since this derived from the SRU process discussion, let's move to [19:51] [TOPIC] Open discussion [19:51] New Topic: Open discussion [19:51] smoser: so I wouldn't change that [19:51] smoser: and as mentioned by ScottK we could publish the package to both -backports and a PPA [19:51] mathiaz: Generally I think it's a problem to push people to use third party repositories when it's not really required. [19:51] smoser: it may add some overhad though [19:51] mathiaz, somewhat common knowledge. googling probably finds it, but it finds backports also. [19:52] i am leaning towards re-education [19:52] backports is a common place for backports [19:52] ScottK: right - IMO the main issue here is how discoverable the repository to use is (be it a PPA or a -backports) [19:52] smoser: that is almost t-shirt worthy [19:52] * ttx leans towards reeducation too [19:52] smoser: You know the backports procedure? [19:52] o/ [19:53] i can read [19:53] :) [19:53] SpamapS: we have a "quotes" page. [19:53] OK. Ping me if you have questions. [19:53] yeah. thanks ScottK [19:53] so... open discussion? :) [19:53] I'd like to talk about package stack names. [19:53] I like the idea of having them in both [19:53] smoser: https://help.ubuntu.com/community/UbuntuBackports [19:53] So far we have mail and cluster stack. [19:53] The PPA will get them right away.. backports upon completion of the process. Seems useful. [19:53] ScottK: go right ahead [19:54] i like to say that im melting [19:54] In mail stack, we're planning on using mail-stack-foo package names. [19:54] I think having a general rule of [stackname]-stack-[function] is a good way to go. [19:55] ScottK: i've been following the thread on naming and i'd agree there [19:55] I think cluster stack is similar, but not sure. [19:55] that makes sense to me [19:55] ScottK: yes it is similar, though the difference is that in our scenarios we are in need of multiple machine [19:55] Since I know you are pushing the idea of more community supported stacks, it seems like a good idea to have a standard naming scheme and have that documented. [19:55] ScottK: it caters to the road of least surprise (as opposed to 'dovefix' which makes sense mostly to those in the know) [19:56] are there other stacks in the pipeline? [19:56] SpamapS: Not that I know of, but I know Canonical wants to encourage the concept. [19:56] For Cluster Stack, names I've been thinking of is: cluster-stack-failover and cluster-stack-loadbalancing [19:57] ScottK: you apparently do not meet any resistance :) [19:57] how do stacks differ from tasks? [19:57] let's wrap up. [19:57] ttx: Could you have someone document this policy? [19:57] * SpamapS will takethe answer offline. :) [19:57] ScottK: where would you see this policy ? As a server team policy ? [19:57] the stack packages are virtual packages? [19:58] ScottK: or something more TB-level ? [19:58] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam/KnowledgeBase [19:58] ^^ seems like a good place to document that for the time being [19:59] [ACTION] ttx to document (or delegate documentation of ) package stack names [19:59] ACTION received: ttx to document (or delegate documentation of ) package stack names [19:59] [TOPIC] Announce next meeting date and time [19:59] New Topic: Announce next meeting date and time [19:59] Next week, same place same time [19:59] #endmeeting [19:59] Meeting finished at 13:59. }}}