I left the linux kernel related items untouched in the queue for the kernel team to take them.
Not much IRC activity apart from @zhsj pinging us since his MPs don’t seem to get onto the sponsorship report.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubuntu-drivers-common/+bug/1990341 : SRU regression. Handed back to the submitter as the new patch isn’t based on the regressed package but rather on the original version.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/octavia/+bug/2024188 : I was about to upload, but checked in with the OpenStack team since there were mention of repositories other than the archive. It ended with @corey.bryant kindly offering to do the sponsoring.
There are many NEW packages in the sponsorship queue, which could take more than one patch pilot shift to be analyzed correctly.
- Left a note to leave review of the bluefield ipsec merge to the kernel team (as with the associated merge from the linked bug, LP: #2034578)
- Likewise with the bluefield devlink merge
- Same story for the first two of a series of patches all related to support of the NXP S32G board (LP: #2034640, LP: #2034641)
- Of the remaining patches, reviewed the
arm-trusted-firmware one and left comments on some of the improvements that would be required (starting with where the patches come from). Was going to remove
ubuntu-sponsors and mark
incomplete but Laider Lai managed to respond very quickly with the requested changes so the next pilot can continue reviewing this one.
- Also reviewed the
u-boot one and left comments on some improvements that would be required, and the potential for the up-streaming of the changes. Removed
ubuntu-sponsors for now.
Most (at time of writing all) of the
[needs-packaging] bugs in the queue are related to NXP S32G support.
There were 15 requests in the sponsorship queue. Two were apparantely already handled by the kernel team’s process and needed closing. Seven were contributions from one person from Canonical’s hardware enablement team, and don’t look like they can be handled through patch piloting. I reviewed and sponsored one. Two are already being reviewed by Andreas. One was for flash-kernel (another hardware enablement) that Dave has partially reviewed - perhaps he’s the best person to look again as it’s quite involved. That leaves two I didn’t have time to look at.
A common theme seems to be really complex hardware enablements or new features. I’m not sure these can ever be expected to be handled by generalist patch pilots, rather than Ubuntu developers with specialised experience in those specific areas. I’m concerned that we’re doing a disservice by encouraging these types of contributions to use the sponsorship queue. A topic for further discussion, perhaps?
The kernel team say they do not accept MPs and contributors must follow their process instead. This is not ideal and the opposite of my previous request. But the kernel team process is so far removed from the rest of Ubuntu development process that it’s probably not worth tackling that monster right now. For now, I closed the MPs since a kernel team member confirmed to me that these requests are being handled through their process.
The only reason these appear as git-ubuntu repositories in the first place is because we don’t have a good mechanism for me to detect kenrels and not import them. The list of kernel source packages is ever-growing and linux-firmware is for example not a kernel so a simple linux* match won’t work.
These are all filed by someone from Canonical’s hardware enablement team. Steve already mentioned in the first bug that it can’t be handled by generalist patch pilots since it also requires kernel process. The submitter doesn’t appear to have ever been on IRC as far as I can tell, so I was unable to just ask them there. I sent them a private message asking what process led them to submitting these here, and if they have an alternative, to try and understand how I might be able to improve the overall process here.
This led me to the related MP for the same issue but for a different series:
I’m not sure if it’s intentional that this other MP is no longer in the sponsorship queue due to , and/or if Andreas is expecting to look at it again himself or it should be reconsidered by a patch pilot. I pinged Andreas.
Seems really involved. Maybe not appropriate for the general sponsorship queue?
This seems too specialised for the general sponsorship queue. Dave has already looked at it; maybe he could look again please?
Reviewed and sponsored.
The status of the sponsoring queue is similar to that @rbasak described, with many very specific sponsorship requests mostly around kernel packages. I didn’t take action on those.
No questions on IRC.
No IRC pings. Some chatter about sponsoring but others were actively involved so I didn’t interfere.