20110118

Agenda

  • Review ACTION points from previous meeting
  • Natty Development

  • Weekly Updates & Questions for the QA Team (hggdh)

  • Weekly Updates & Questions for the Kernel Team (smb)

  • Weekly Updates & Questions for the Documentation Team (sommer)

  • Weekly Updates & Questions for the Ubuntu Community Team (kim0)

  • Open Discussion
  • Announce next meeting date and time

Minutes

The last full meeting had resulted in no new actions. The only action item was "ALL: please check the SRU tracker for 'needs-verification' bug" at http://people.canonical.com/~chucks/SRUTracker/sru-tracker-bugs.html. This is carried forward at SpamapS's suggestion. robbiew announced that Natty development is goin gwell and we've made great progress on work items.

smb is working on bug 686692 (natty kernel does not boot on ec2 t1.micro), but had not yet found a final solution. He also pushed a lucid SRU for bug 614853 (kernel panic divide error: 0000 [#1] SMP). Some discussion ensued on bug 704022 ("xen_emul_unplug=unnecessary on kernel cmdline is required in ec2 hvm"), to be continued offline.

Finally, the channel as a whole skillfully evaded the question "should ubuntu try to look like windows or Mac or neither?".

Meeting Actions

Agree on next meeting date and time

Next meeting will be on Tuesday, January 25th at 16:00 UTC in #ubuntu-meeting.

Log

[16:01] <hallyn> #startmeeting
[16:01] <MootBot> Meeting started at 10:01. The chair is hallyn.
[16:01] <MootBot> Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
[16:01] <SpamapS> *\o/*   gooooo rally!
[16:01] <SpamapS> hallyn: err, ok you can do it if you want. ;)
[16:02] <hallyn> [TOPIC] Review ACTION points from previous meeting
[16:02] <MootBot> New Topic:  Review ACTION points from previous meeting
[16:02] <hallyn> ALL: please check the SRU tracker for 'needs-verification' bugs
[16:02] <hallyn> http://people.canonical.com/~chucks/SRUTracker/sru-tracker-bugs.html
[16:02] <MootBot> LINK received:  http://people.canonical.com/~chucks/SRUTracker/sru-tracker-bugs.html
[16:02] <hallyn> everyone rais your hands if you're NOT guilty
[16:03] <SpamapS> That one should, I think, roll forward for a bit longer so we remember that its important.
[16:03] <SpamapS> at least until 10.04.2
[16:03] <hallyn> [ACTION] ALL: please check the SRU tracker for 'needs-verification' bugs
[16:03] <MootBot> ACTION received:  ALL: please check the SRU tracker for 'needs-verification' bugs
[16:03] <hallyn> SpamapS: sounds good, i'll try to remember to keep the link in with the action when i carry over
[16:04] <hallyn> robbiew to review ServerTeam wiki [carried over]
[16:04] <Daviey> i thought that was done?
[16:04] <hallyn> hm, is robbiew in?
[16:04] <SpamapS> I recall him claiming he'd done it as well.
[16:04] <robbiew> o/
[16:04] <hallyn> hm, didn't get updated on the meeting page...
[16:05] <hallyn> robbiew: ^ ServerTeam wiki all reviewed and uptodate?
[16:05] <zul> yeah i totally missed the boat on the server page
[16:06] <robbiew> yup...at least the external one
[16:06] <hallyn> zul: meaning action items aren't updated?  in that case let me search the logs for the real ction items
[16:07] <ShootEmUp> Hi everyone!
[16:09] <SpamapS> ShootEmUp: welcome!
[16:09] <ShootEmUp> glad to be here
[16:10] <hallyn> feh, there, jan 4
[16:10] <hallyn> yay, there ARE no actions from the jan 4 meeting
[16:11] <SpamapS> \o/
[16:11] <hallyn> so, barring objections (i.e. if i'm mistaken), i'll move on
[16:11] <ShootEmUp> none? what do they do in those meetings?
[16:11] <hallyn> [TOPIC] Natty Development
[16:11] <MootBot> New Topic:  Natty Development
[16:11] <hallyn> ShootEmUp: play duke nukem
[16:11] <hallyn> robbiew: ^ over to you
[16:11] <ShootEmUp> hallyn, what?
[16:12]  * robbiew wonders why he covers the one topic he doesn't do :P
[16:12] <robbiew> heh
[16:12] <robbiew> so we made great progress on work items
[16:12] <ShootEmUp> charlie-tca!
[16:12] <robbiew> lots of Done's, Postpones, and dropped
[16:12] <robbiew> all goodness
[16:12] <robbiew> I haven't checked bugs yet
[16:13] <robbiew> but I usually know of the serious ones...from the irc pings and email
[16:13] <robbiew> that's it!
[16:13] <SpamapS> Thanks Mr. Narwhal!
[16:13] <ShootEmUp> I have a topic to debate
[16:13] <hallyn> [TOPIC] Weekly Updates & Questions for the QA Team (hggdh)
[16:13] <MootBot> New Topic:  Weekly Updates & Questions for the QA Team (hggdh)
[16:13] <SpamapS> ShootEmUp: if its not related to the current topic please hold it until Open Discussion
[16:13] <andreserl> ShootEmUp: wait till the end of the meeting for Open Discussion :)
[16:13] <ShootEmUp> okay
[16:14] <hallyn> didn't actually see hggdh today, is he around?
[16:14] <hallyn> guess not, moving on, i know smb is here :)
[16:14] <hallyn> [TOPIC] Weekly Updates & Questions for the Kernel Team (smb)
[16:14] <MootBot> New Topic:  Weekly Updates & Questions for the Kernel Team (smb)
[16:15] <smb> So I did some little stuff last week but have no paper records, hence I am not sure anymore what that was
[16:15] <smb> Currently working on bug 686692
[16:15] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 686692 in linux (Ubuntu Natty) "natty kernel does not boot on ec2 t1.micro" [High,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/686692
[16:16] <smb> which I can locally reproduce but not yet found a final solution
[16:16] <Daviey> smb, Is that the bug that only happend on t1.micro i386's?
[16:16] <smb> just that it would boot if the mem= is a multiple of 4
[16:16] <smb> Daviey, t1.micro but I believe both i386 and x86_64
[16:16] <Daviey> ah
[16:17] <smb> They are doing something different with memory layout too. Just not sure this is just something that happens too or related
[16:17] <hallyn> any questions for smb?
[16:18] <smb> Other thing I pushed for SRU in lucid is the paper over approach for bug 614853
[16:18] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 614853 in linux-ec2 (Ubuntu) "kernel panic divide error: 0000 [#1] SMP" [Medium,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/614853
[16:18] <smb> To keep until we found/got a real solution
[16:19] <Daviey> smb, What nasty effects does it have?
[16:19] <smb> The current patch just avoids the divide by zero. While the variable in question is supposed to never be zero in the first place
[16:20] <smb> So I sent two patches for sru, the one preventing the divide and one sort of debug patch to yell when the variable is set/left zero
[16:21] <smb> smoser, Are you arround?
[16:21] <smoser> o/
[16:21] <smoser> yeah, smb, i agree with that.
[16:22] <smb> Just saw your bug 704022
[16:22] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 704022 in linux (Ubuntu) "xen_emul_unplug=unnecessary on kernel cmdline is required in ec2 hvm" [Medium,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/704022
[16:22] <smoser> one thing i had considered would have been to just add the debugging bit, and let it crash
[16:22] <smb> Though I am a bit confused by the logs as the ones which say with option and working seem to contain drops into busybox as well
[16:22] <smoser> even with info like "if you see this message, please add to bug  at https://launcpad.net/..."
[16:23] <smoser> smb i may have uploaded incorrect (un-trimmed) logs
[16:23] <smoser> but it does fail
[16:23] <smb> smoser, What made me rethink a bit is that those affected people seem to run production severs with that and so maybe a avoid and complain is preferable
[16:24] <smoser> yeah, so the reboot with argument i sjust not trimmed
[16:24] <smoser> so it contains the previous boot log (thats why the busybox in the middle of it)
[16:24] <smoser> http://launchpadlibrarian.net/62372677/restart-with-unplug-arg.txt
[16:24] <MootBot> LINK received:  http://launchpadlibrarian.net/62372677/restart-with-unplug-arg.txt
[16:24] <smb> smoser, Ah ok. That xvd* does not show up without the option is ok. Though one would think the sd* devices should always
[16:25] <smoser> smb, yeah, i agree, getting people actually fixed is good, but if you fix the problem you'll never get debug info
[16:25] <smoser> they wont send it becuase they wont know they have a problem
[16:25] <hallyn> so do you want it changed?  (let's either make a decision, or move offline?)
[16:25]  * SpamapS wonders if this couldn't be discussed further offline?
[16:26]  * SpamapS apologizes for smashing hallyn's toes
[16:26] <smoser> i can defer to smb's decision.
[16:26] <hallyn> grrr
[16:26] <hallyn> ok - any other questions for smb?
[16:26] <hallyn> (or from)
[16:26] <hallyn> if not,
[16:26] <smb> I am done
[16:26] <hallyn> thanks, smb
[16:26] <hallyn> [TOPIC] Weekly Updates & Questions for the Documentation Team (sommer)
[16:26] <MootBot> New Topic:  Weekly Updates & Questions for the Documentation Team (sommer)
[16:27] <hallyn> sommer is not around
[16:27] <Daviey> :(
[16:27] <hallyn> yup
[16:27] <hallyn> [TOPIC] Weekly Updates & Questions for the Ubuntu Community Team (kim0)
[16:27] <MootBot> New Topic:  Weekly Updates & Questions for the Ubuntu Community Team (kim0)
[16:27] <hallyn> kim0 is also not around
[16:27] <hallyn> and so, we move on to
[16:27] <hallyn> [TOPIC] Open Discussion
[16:27] <MootBot> New Topic:  Open Discussion
[16:28] <andreserl> ShootEmUp: your turn
[16:28] <ShootEmUp> should ubuntu try to look like windows or Mac or neither?
[16:28] <andreserl> lol
[16:29] <SpamapS> ShootEmUp: you may want to ask that in #ubuntu
[16:29] <hallyn> like my old palm V
[16:29] <andreserl> ShootEmUp: indeed. This is the Server team meeting
[16:29] <andreserl> lol
[16:29] <ShootEmUp> okay
[16:29] <hallyn> SpamapS: for some reason i thougth there was something you wanted to discuss?
[16:30] <SpamapS> why does everybody always assume I want to TALK? ;)
[16:30] <SpamapS> no I'm good
[16:30] <hallyn> :)
[16:30] <Daviey> wow, first time for everything! :)
[16:30] <hallyn> anybody?  going once...
[16:30] <zul> SpamapS: because you are a chatty cathy
[16:30] <SpamapS> zul: whatever you nervous nelly
[16:30] <hallyn> going twice...
[16:31] <zul> SpamapS: i know what you are but what am i?
[16:31] <hallyn> [TOPIC] Announce next meeting date and time
[16:31] <MootBot> New Topic:  Announce next meeting date and time
[16:31] <hallyn> hm, the meeting page says feb 1
[16:31] <hallyn> i dont' think that's right
[16:31] <hallyn> I would have assumed:
[16:31] <zul> 25th
[16:31] <hallyn> Tuesday, January 25 2011 16:00 UTC
[16:32] <hallyn> ok, another almost action-free meeting.
[16:32] <hallyn> thanks all
[16:32] <hallyn> #endmeeting
[16:32] <MootBot> Meeting finished at 10:32.

MeetingLogs/Server/20110118 (last edited 2011-01-21 23:06:54 by cpe-70-116-4-34)