[16:00] <jamespage> o/
[16:00] <gnuoy> o/
[16:00] <kickinz1> o/
[16:00] <coreycb> o/
[16:00] <zul> hi
[16:00] <rharper> \o
[16:01] <rcj> \o
[16:01] <beisner> o/
[16:02] <jamespage> ok lets go
[16:02] <lutostag> o/
[16:02] <jamespage> #startmeeting ubuntu-server-team
[16:02] <jamespage> oh joy
[16:04] <smoser> o/
[16:04] <matsubara> o/
[16:04]  * jamespage really does not want to write the minutes manually
[16:05] <rharper> cut-n paste?
[16:06] <jamespage> AlanBell, are you someone who might know where meetingology has gone?
[16:07] <jamespage> oh well then lets go
[16:07] <jamespage> #topic Review ACTION points from previous meeting
[16:07] <jamespage>     gaughen bug utlemming about bug 1360471
[16:07] <jamespage> gaughen, utlemming?
[16:08] <jamespage>      gaughen bug utlemming about bug 1360471
[16:08] <jamespage> utlemming?
[16:08] <jamespage> https://launchpad.net/bugs/1360471
[16:08] <jamespage> (previous actions)
[16:08] <utlemming> jamespage: in progress
[16:08] <jamespage> awespme
[16:09] <jamespage> #topic Utopic Development
[16:09] <jamespage> #link https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UtopicUnicorn/ReleaseSchedule
[16:09] <jamespage> so UI freeze on the 11th - not so interesting for serer
[16:09] <jamespage> server rather
[16:09] <smoser> jamespage, i'll folllow up and bother utlemming.
[16:09] <jamespage> Final beta 25th - so keep that in mind
[16:10] <smoser> jamespage, actually. utlemming got those uploaded yesterday.
[16:10] <zul> python-osprofiler, python-lxc, or openstack-granite hasnt been reviewed by an archive admin
[16:10] <jamespage> smoser, yeah - needed a re-upload I think
[16:10] <utlemming> jamespage, smoser: they are now in proposed and will be tested this week
[16:10] <jamespage> ok
[16:11] <jamespage> zul, have you been hassling the release team? I guess they need to ack first right?
[16:11] <zul> jamespage: i have
[16:11] <jamespage> good-oh
[16:11] <zul> jamespage: and then do to be acked first
[16:12] <zul> jamespage: there is a whole bunch of js stuff that need FFE for horizon as well
[16:12] <jamespage> we really still do need someone on the release team for server stuff
[16:12] <zul> we do
[16:12] <jamespage> I talk to gaughen
[16:13] <jamespage> #action jamespage to discuss release team assignments with gaughen (and release team)
[16:13] <jamespage> #subtopic Release Bugs
[16:13] <jamespage> #link http://reqorts.qa.ubuntu.com/reports/rls-mgr/rls-u-tracking-bug-tasks.html#ubuntu-server
[16:13] <rharper> p
[16:14] <jamespage> looks like a few bugs need some attention
[16:14] <jamespage> bug 1350810
[16:14] <jamespage> I'll ping kirkland about that
[16:15] <jamespage> bug 1347567 needs an upload
[16:15] <jamespage> zul or I can deal with that
[16:15] <coreycb> jamespage, I think that's merged
[16:15] <jamespage> bug 1330168 is blocked by a compiler regression on arm64 right now
[16:16] <jamespage> coreycb, it is - just needs releasing
[16:16] <jamespage> thats all the highs - I'd encourage people to actively do their bug triage rota scheduling and make sure any 14.10 relevant bugs get attention
[16:16] <jamespage> #subtopic Blueprints
[16:17] <jamespage> #link http://status.ubuntu.com/ubuntu-u/group/topic-u-server.html
[16:17] <jamespage> wow - we have quite alot of TODO's still
[16:17] <jamespage> as we are past feature freeze please review your assigned blueprints for any features that now need to be postponed for 14.10 release - I know I have a few.
[16:18] <jamespage> #topic Server & Cloud Bugs (caribou)
[16:18] <jamespage> no caribou today - he had nothing to raise
[16:18] <jamespage> #topic Weekly Updates & Questions for the QA Team (psivaa)
[16:19] <psivaa> jamespage: no updates from us :)
[16:19] <jamespage> good-oh
[16:19] <jamespage> #topic Weekly Updates & Questions for the Kernel Team (smb, sforshee)
[16:20] <kickinz1> There has been a patch submitted for bcache + virtio.
[16:20] <jamespage> awesome
[16:20] <jamespage> kickinz1, hows bcache looking generally
[16:20] <jamespage> ?
[16:20] <kickinz1> Quite good.
[16:20] <jamespage> awesome
[16:21] <kickinz1> But not sure if it is mature enough to telle everybody to use
[16:21] <jamespage> ack
[16:21] <jamespage> #topic Ubuntu Server Team Events
[16:22] <jamespage> anyone going to anything interesting?
[16:22] <gnuoy> There's a 0mq sprint at some point
[16:22] <kickinz1> There is also the sd conference.
[16:22] <kickinz1> s/sd/sdn
[16:22] <kickinz1> Not sure it is usefull to go...
[16:22] <jamespage> anyone going to the SDN conference?
[16:23] <jamespage> nope - ok
[16:23] <jamespage> moving on
[16:23] <jamespage> #topic Open Discussion
[16:23] <jamespage> anything from anybody?
[16:25] <jamespage> #topic Announce next meeting date and time
[16:25] <jamespage> same time next week - see you then
[16:25] <jamespage> #endmeeting
[16:25] <gnuoy> thanks jamespage
[16:25] <kickinz1> thanks
[16:25] <hallyn> thx jamespage
[16:25] <jamespage> np
[17:01] <chiluk> o/
[17:03] <chiluk> o/


[07:34] <apw> snadge, file the bug against the linux-image-NNN which is the broken one
[07:34] <apw> and say which you are running in the commentary
[08:07]  * apw yawns
[08:07] <apw> morning ...
[09:23]  * smb goes to get more tea
[11:00] <tjaalton> apw: so, should I create a 'update i915_hsw to current 3.8.13.x' pull request first, and then the two new commits on top of that?
[11:00] <tjaalton> it's just a bit of manual work
[11:04] <apw> tjaalton, that going to be like commits
[11:04] <tjaalton> yeah
[11:04] <apw> 57 commits
[11:04] <apw> ?
[11:04] <tjaalton> right
[11:04] <apw> hmmm ... for SRU
[11:05] <tjaalton> they just keep piling up :)
[11:05] <tjaalton> bad kamal :)
[11:05] <apw> i guess if we have applied them
[11:05] <apw> already for 'master' then they should be on hte ubuntu version
[11:06] <tjaalton> yup
[11:06] <tjaalton> I'll try with a few to see how awkward it is..
[11:07] <apw> tjaalton, ok thanks ... i guess
[11:20] <tjaalton> hmm, yesterday I got 57 commits as the diff, but only 37 now
[11:33] <tjaalton> ah, that's the pure stable tree diff.. raring has more
[15:24] <kamal> tjaalton, what'd I do?
[15:24] <kamal> tjaalton, apw ... should I be terrified about whatever it is that you're talking about here ...  because I am!
[15:25] <apw> yes, you should indeed, you are getting the blame at least
[15:26] <kamal> apw, while I'm sure the blame is rightly directed . . .  what exactly am I getting the blame for?  :-)
[15:26] <apw> needing 37 patches for i915 in quantal
[15:26]  * kamal looks sideways at apw
[15:27] <kamal> next you'll point out that we need 137 patches for i915 in precise!
[15:33] <apw> yeah the 37 in q is to avoid that in p i think
[15:34] <kamal> apw, are we really talking about quantal here?   tjaalton mentioned raring above (and I maintain 3.8, not 3.5, anyway) . . .  anyway...
[15:35] <tjaalton> kamal: no worries, just kiddin ;)
[15:35] <tjaalton> +g
[15:35] <kamal> I am of course open to suggestions, but it seems implausible that we could call any 37-patch set reasonable for application to "stable"
[15:36] <tjaalton> kamal: it's from your stable tree :)
[15:36] <kamal> oh oh, do I have this all backwards?
[15:36] <tjaalton> the diff .13..13.11
[15:36] <kamal> oh.  in that case . . .
[15:36] <kamal> I'm sure those patches are freaking awesome! . . .  perfect code, fully worthy of stable!  ;-) ;-) ;-)
[15:37] <apw> i think he was saying the quantal needs a bunch of fixes already applied in stable for raring, but on quantal, or something
[15:37] <apw> i am hoping some day he will send us a pull so we cna review
[15:37]  * kamal goes back to hiding under a rock then :-)
[15:38] <tjaalton> so I went through the 57 commits that git claimed that is the diff between .13 and raring, but in fact a bunch of those were already in .13, so the diff between quantal i915_hsw and raring is around 36 commits
[15:38] <tjaalton> three only in raring, and one of those valid for haswell
[15:39] <kamal> tjaalton, I'm curious about the three only in raring (you mean they're in raring, but not in <IP_ADDRESS>, right?) ... send me that list?
[15:39] <tjaalton> kamal: yeah I bet they are awesome, that's why I think it makes sense to merge to ubuntu/i915 in quantal :)
[15:40] <kamal> (not that that relates to your quantal project)
[15:40] <tjaalton> kamal: 0d0ecad2c0dd07e, e8c14411e539718, 0009bd009e9ec8b
[15:40] <kamal> tjaalton, thanks
[15:44] <tjaalton> the first one didn't make it upstream, actually
[15:46] <rtg> jjohansen, when Linus merges 'Apparmor bugfixes for 3.12' you should propose both patches for stable
[15:56] <jjohansen> rtg: ack, I will check if there is anything for stable. However I think all the bug fixes sent up lately have only been against the 3.12 pull request
[15:57] <rtg> jjohansen, oh, right. 13.10 is carrying the AA development branch.
[15:58] <jjohansen> yep
[18:14] <smoser> hey
[18:14] <smoser> stupid question
[18:14] <smoser> (familiar pattern when smoser speaks)
[18:14] <smoser> https://launchpadlibrarian.net/149319334/overlayfs_inotify.patch
[18:14] <smoser> on https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/882147
[18:14] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 882147 in coreutils (Ubuntu) "overlayfs does not implement inotify interfaces correctly" [Undecided,In progress]
[18:15] <smoser> could we have that ? if its functional? or help push it upstream ?
[18:15] <smoser> googling for CONFIG_INOTIFY_STACKFS doesn't really show anything
[18:19] <bjf> smoser, that's not implemented upstream, downstream or any of the tributaries
[18:19] <smoser> the patch is not.
[18:19] <smoser> overlayfs is upstream, right?
[18:19] <bjf> smoser, you are asking about inotify interfaces, right?
[18:20] <bjf> smoser, in overlayfs
[18:20] <smoser> overlayfs is upstream. right?
[18:20] <smoser> i'd like to have inotify support in overlayfs, because lots of stuff sucks without it.
[18:20] <smoser> i see that patch which seems to report that it is adding inotify to overlayfs
[18:21] <xnox> apw: ^
[18:21] <xnox> smoser: no, it doesn't not work and has performance penalty.
[18:22] <smoser> doesnt work woudl be enough reason to not have it
[18:22] <smoser> :)
[18:22] <smoser> xnox, you've tried it thoug?
[18:22] <rtg-afk> smoser, overlayfs is not yet upstream
[18:23] <smoser> ah. ok. i had thought it got accepted.
[18:23] <rtg-afk> smoser, multiple attempts,. but no joy yet
[18:24] <smoser> right. ok. well, move along then, nothing to see here.
[18:24] <smoser> i saw that patch and hoped magic inotify support materialized from the ether
[18:25] <smoser> xnox, you've tried it?
[21:27]  * rtg -> EOD