[Corrected date] Ubuntu Kernel Team Meeting Minutes - 2010-09-07

Brad Figg brad.figg at canonical.com
Tue Sep 7 19:31:37 BST 2010

= Meeting Minutes =
[[http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2010/09/07/%23ubuntu-meeting.txt|IRC Log of the meeting.]]
[[http://voices.canonical.com/kernelteam|Meeting minutes.]]

== Agenda ==
[[https://wiki.ubuntu.com/KernelTeam/Meeting#Tues, 07 Sep, 2010|20100907 Meeting Agenda]]

=== Release Metrics:  ===
Release Meeting Bugs (6 bugs, 9 Blueprints)
==== Release Milestoned Bugs (79 across all packages) ====
  * 1 linux kernel bugs (no change)
  * 1 linux-fsl-imx51 bugs (up 1)
  * 0 linux-ec2 bugs (no change)
  * 0 linux-mvl-dove bugs (no change)
  * 0 linux-ti-omap bugs (no change)
  * 0 linux-meta-ti-omap bug (no change)
==== Release Targeted Bugs (202 across all packages (up 60)) ====
  * 12 linux kernel bugs (no change)
  * 2 linux-fsl-imx51 bugs (up 1)
  * 1 linux-ec2 bugs (up 1)
  * 3 linux-mvl-dove bugs (no change)
  * 1 linux-ti-omap bugs (no change)
  * 0 linux-meta-ti-omap bug (no change)
==== Milestoned Features ====
  * 13 blueprints (Including HWE Blueprints)
==== Bugs with Patches Attached:117 (down 1) ====
  * [[https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bugs?field.has_patch=on | Bugs with Patches]]
  * [[http://qa.ubuntu.com/reports/ogasawara/csv-stats/bugs-with-patches/linux/ | Breakdown by status]]

=== Blueprint: kernel-maverick-bug-handling  ===
Summit schedule sent. Saturday is the Triage Summit.
More vague work ongoing with the Forum, hopefully more closed out this week, several items will be postponed out of necessity.

=== Blueprint: kernel-maverick-bios-test-automation  ===
  *Changes this week to fwts:
    * handle some inquiries from community
    * LP#627959 FADT fix thanks to AceLan + GAS+64 bit addr fixes
    * update fwts to 0.18.2 in maverick universe
    * start natty branch: CMOS, APCI dumps

=== Status: Maverick  ===
We've uploaded a new Maverick kernel, 2.6.35-20.29.  Please test.
Kernel Freeze is Thurs Sept 16th, ie ~1 week away.  After Kernel Freeze, we transition to our SRU policy.  My target scenario however will be that we'll have no changes to the kernel beyond kernel freeze.  Also note that Maverick's RC (Release Candidate) 
date is Sept 30.  I suspect if any last minutes kernel changes do need to happen, an upload will need to occur approx 1 week before the Release Candidate to allow enough lead time for builds and assembly of candidate images.
We are again nearing being above the trend line for our overall burn down chart.  We need to start closing out all remaining open work items.  If your name appears in the following list, you have open work items.  Please review if your work item(s) can be 
marked as DONE or POSTPONED, else get er done.
JFo, sconklin, cking, apw, diwic, tgardner, jjohansen, smb

=== Security & bugfix kernels - Karmic/Jaunty/Intrepid/Hardy/Others  ===
A new lucid kernel went into proposed last week ~600 commits

=== Incoming Bugs: Regressions  ===
448 Maverick Bugs (up 80)
997 Lucid Bugs (up 39)
Current regression stats (broken down by release):
==== regression-potential ====
   * 225 maverick bugs (up 47)
   * 166 lucid bugs (up 4: to be converted to regression-release)
==== regression-update ====
   * 49 lucid bugs (up 6)
   * 7 karmic bugs (no change)
   * 4 jaunty bugs (no change)
   * 0 hardy bugs (no change)
==== regression-release ====
   * 177 lucid bugs (up 10)
   * 37 karmic bugs (no change)
   * 18 jaunty bugs (no change)
   * 3 hardy bugs (no change)
==== regression-proposed ====
   * 7 lucid bugs (up 3)
   * 1 karmic bug (no change)

=== Incoming Bugs: Bug day report  ===
Last weeks bug day was marginally successful due to my e-mail issuhttp://voices.canonical.com/kernelteam/?p=6096es.
I'd like to have next weeks bug day be on the same bugs, those in the Triaged state.
I'll be sending out the Bug Day mail later this week.
We will continue to have the Team Bug Day to address the Top 50 list as half days on Friday and Monday.
Reviewers, please take a look at your needs-review lists and help us keep the process moving.
Please also take ownership of your bugs as you work them so we can get them fixed or otherwise off the list.
There are several subsystems owned by all that need to be reviewed for inclusion in our top 50 list.
sigh, that first line is all messed up

=== Triage Status  ===
Kernel Triage Summit is on Saturday. Blog posts have gone up (http://voices.canonical.com/kernelteam/?p=6096)
The schedule is on the Fridge Calendar and on the Summit page itself (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Kernel/BugTriage/Summit/Maverick).
I'll continue microblogging and getting others to as well so that it can be as successful and well-attended as possible.

=== Open Discussion or Questions: Raise your hand to be recognized  ===
|| JFo        || Had a meeting today with several QA members and triagers concerning regression bugs. ||
|| JFo        || The Kernel accounts for over 60 percent of the total number of these bug tags. ||
|| JFo        || We discussed ways to reduce these numbers and I will likely be hosting a talk on this UDS. ||
|| JFo        || There was also mention of the regression-potential tag and its use or lack thereof. ||
|| JFo        || The general consensus was that it is not useful to anyone. I am interested in your thoughts on this. ||
|| JFo        || ogasawara, any preference on if the regression-potential tag goes away? ||
|| bjf        || i think we should apply some arsenal directly targeting regression bugs ||
|| ogasawara  || I personally don't leverage the regression-potential tagged bugs as they take a back seat to the regression-released bugs ||
|| JFo        || additionally there is talk of changing the regression tags as well ||
|| JFo        || bjf, I agree ||
|| JFo        || ogasawara, neither do I ||
|| tgardner   || regression-potential sounds like a bug that hasn't been triaged. ||
|| JFo        || it isn't a terribly useful tag to me ||
|| JFo        || tgardner, that is the thinking here as well ||
|| ogasawara  || JFo: so I'm not opposed to that tag going away ||
|| JFo        || I think, and I told them, that this can go away with almost no impact to us ||
|| JFo        || ogasawara, cool, thanks :) ||
|| JFo        || I figured you would be one of the only people to have an opinion on it :) ||


|| JFo        || we should really take a look at the possibility that abogani fails to provide an -rt kernel ||
|| JFo        || do we have anything that we could provide? ||
|| JFo        || in the way of -preempt or -lowlatency? ||
|| JFo        || I remember our talk tgardner about the duplication of effort ||
|| JFo        || but the ubuntustudio folks are asking me about it often ||
|| JFo        || among others ||
|| tgardner   || which is why -preempt went back into the  -rt kernel. ||
|| JFo        || ok ||
|| tgardner   || the folks that should be sponsoring abogani haven't stepped up to the plate ||
|| JFo        || so if he doesn't release an -rt then there won't be anything? ||
|| JFo        || I see ||
Brad Figg brad.figg at canonical.com http://www.canonical.com

More information about the ubuntu-devel mailing list