Patch Pilot Hand-off 24.04

Community
21

  • LP: #2007702: asked the reporter to fix the version numbers for the SRU candidates and pointed to the SRU policy.

  • LP: #2041171: removed ubuntu-sponsors, patch already uploaded.

  • LP: #2042902: asked the reporter to fix the version number for the mantic SRU candidates, pointed to the SRU policy, and asked them to adjust the trackers for each series.

2 Likes
22

  • LP: #2042902:

    • Continuation of the work of @paride 10 days ago and @athos-ribeiro 1 day ago.
    • I got an IRC ping as well even before finding it in the queue
    • Playing this as ā€œplease do Xā€ ping pong would not complete anytime soon, but sadly the requester was not available for direct discussion. So as fallback I provided a case study and reasoning/material to study how it should be done to learn from.
    • uploaded to noble, once good there and updates to the SRU uploads have been made it can be sponsored there

  • Ping about zlib sponsoring: I didnā€™t have time to do all of it, but at least was able to spot and suggest some organizational details in the changelog that should help to not be in the way when the next sponsor comes by

2 Likes
23

I had the opportunity to do a little piloting today. Here are a few notesā€¦

Uploads

Workflow Notes

  • Protip for sponsors: if you find yourself manually specifying -k, just set DEBSIGN_KEYID=<YOUR_KEYID_HERE> in ~/.devscripts - this will pick up your key every time.
  • Differences in quilt configuration usually are not blockers for sponsorship (in my opinion,) unless those differences result in incompatible patches. When sponsoring khmer for @ogayot, I noticed some differences. Given some further followup, I use some sane defaults from a guide, which removes that Index header. /etc/quilt.quiltrc has the default quiltrc, which enables the header and differences in the config. We should consider whether changing the defaults, or noting in the packaging guide, might be a good idea. Less diff lines are Usually better.
  • Canonical employees should note that sometimes, when using their @canonical.com email address, it creates a ghost Launchpad account. That karma belongs to you! Hereā€™s an example that I discussed with @adrien today.

General Notes

  • Remember, community members can patch pilot too! If youā€™re in ~ubuntu-dev, take a seat in the cockpit! :airplane:
  • Iā€™m seeing a lot of kernel-related and security-related sponsorship queue items. For example, four of the oldest items in the queue are security updates, and many of the newer items are kernel-related patches. Like some others, I tend to not mess with anything tangential to the kernel, and I donā€™t have the permissions to upload to the security pocket (despite being a proud member of MOTU SWAT.) If we could get representatives from both teams to knock out these items before the holidays, Iā€™d greatly appreciate it. Past people Iā€™ve pinged include @xnox and @alexmurray - perhaps either of you would be able to point us in the right direction.

ā€œExtremely Importantā€ Notes

1 Like
24

The sponsor queue report that the Patch Pilot team uses is the general report that excludes security and kernel uploads.

2 Likes
25

Makes sense, I didnā€™t notice that. Thanks.

That being said, KPI shows all items, and IMO the point still stands: red items should get appropriate attention.

1 Like
26

Well, we can fix the KPI to track the thing weā€™re actually trying to drive to zero!

The other items should get attention, yes. But kernel patches in particular are not really an Ubuntu community thing.

2 Likes
27

Letā€™s do it! :smile:

A quick point of clarification: thereā€™s a difference, in this case, between kernel packages and kernel-adjacent packages. The former, yeah, not touching with a 10-foot pole, let Canonical Kernel take care of that. The latter gets more fuzzy, because that covers e.g. DKMS-related packages that Iā€™d rather not touch, but donā€™t fall into the direct ā€œjurisdictionā€ of Canonical Kernel.

Those packages will still show up, and are still on the general report, but are not something most sponsors feel comfortable touching. We should think about either asking someone from Canonical Kernel to rotate and take care of these, and/or ask skilled/willing individuals from Foundations/another team to do the same.

1 Like
28

My shift today was affected by multiple conflicting meetings and interruptions. So I couldnā€™t get lots of stuff done.

1 Like
29

Notable Achievements:

  • LP: 2045000 - sponsored
  • LP: 2044852 - Gave some recommendations and created a PPA to confirm the patch works

Important Context

Excited to be able to help a bit more with patch pilot now that Iā€™m a core dev :smiley:

1 Like
30

In between meetings, I did some archaeology for the zeitgeist merge, and looked at the libgcrypt20 SRU.

Since the current queue is mostly made out of Canonical contributions, Iā€™d like future shifts to prioritize the zeitgeist merge if possible as it is a pure community contribution.

1 Like
31

This shift was my first patch pilot shift were I got pinged on #ubuntu-devel. It look like the patch pilot program takes off!

IRC discussions

Uploads

2 Likes
32

The sponsoring report has been moved to http://sponsoring-reports.ubuntu.com/

33
  • kmod - MP - reviewed, uploaded
  • alex4 - LP: #2045607
    • LGTM but asked for forward to Debian, then uploaded
  • cracklib2 - LP: #2045290 - uploaded
  • testresources - LP: #2045302 - uploaded
  • u-boot-nezha - LP: #2020692 - review, offer 2 suggestions
  • openjdk-21 - LP: #2036873 - do the next upload, this time for focal to use a different gcc version to fix a FTBFS there
  • xserver-xorg-input-synaptics - MP - reviewed, suggested some changes
1 Like
34
1 Like
35

Raised as https://github.com/ubuntu/ubuntu-release-metrics/pull/28

2 Likes
36

Notable achievements

1 Like
37
  • presage merge: sponsored
  • icu merge: basically did the merge again, splitting up the commits, and found issues with the previous uploads, where changes were made and not declared in d/changelog (see https://git.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/icu/commit/?h=import/72.1-3ubuntu2&id=9874c2f2e422a4a54dc1ff796a58cee05f0cd3d2). The merge itself carried over the ubuntu delta correctly, but I spotted something in d/rules in the debian upload and left a question (besides a bunch of comments).
  • zeitgeist merge: good structured merge, easier to review than the previous ones because of the split commits. I left some comments, and requested some info. Iā€™m not familiar with zeitgeist and desktop devel, so I was wondering if one of the patches which seem to come from the Unity era is still necessary.

These were somewhat complex reviews, so I only managed to do these 3.

1 Like
38
  • Had a long look at the lxc issue. Itā€™s ā€¦ complicated. The proposed package looks semi-reasonable and incorporates the changes requested except itā€™s built on importing 5.0.3 into Ubuntu directly rather than applying our delta on top of the upstream Debian version (also 5.0.3). Added some comments to the ticket
  • Sponsored patches for jruby (LP: #2023589)
  • Reviewed picom-conf packaging (LP: #2046086); looks very good, but minor suggestion(s) to address
  • Sponsored SRUs for alacarte (LP: #2037326)
1 Like
39
1 Like
40

I merged the icu changes in Merge into debian/sid : ubuntu/devel : lp:~liushuyu-011/ubuntu/+source/icu : Git : Code : icu package : Ubuntu

The other issues were either Incomplete or already done so I set their states accordingly, so no items remained after my shift, well two new ones appeared.

1 Like