13:08:08 <jki> #startmeeting CIP IRC weekly meeting 13:08:08 <brlogger> Meeting started Thu Feb 3 13:08:08 2022 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is jki. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 13:08:08 <brlogger> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 13:08:08 <brlogger> The meeting name has been set to 'cip_irc_weekly_meeting' 13:08:15 <jki> here we go 13:08:23 <jki> found the magic spell 13:08:43 <jki> who is around? 13:09:08 <uli> o/ 13:09:11 <iwamatsu> hi 13:09:14 <masami> hi 13:09:15 <josiah> Hi 13:09:18 <alicef> jki: https://gist.github.com/aliceinwire/2e6320fe4cd12a128102ce6ee3d3724d 13:09:23 <alicef> Hi 13:10:05 <jki> alicef: I have this as well, but when you are in hectic... ;) 13:10:05 <alicef> there is also patersonc but looks he have problems with matrix/element 13:10:10 <patersonc> hi 13:10:15 <patersonc> Joining from another client now 13:10:39 <jki> missing pavel 13:10:46 <jki> but given that we are late already... 13:10:57 <jki> #topic AI review 13:11:15 <jki> 1. Request private KernelCI branches for CIP maintainers - patersonc 13:11:22 <jki> any news on this PR? 13:11:28 <patersonc> Finally made the initial PR 13:11:29 <patersonc> https://github.com/kernelci/kernelci-core/pull/1022 13:11:34 <patersonc> Sorry for the delay 13:12:28 <jki> alicef: you will review this? 13:12:41 <alicef> yes 13:13:02 <jki> anything else missing for a merge? 13:13:06 <alicef> I have already reviewed with patersonc in private 13:14:33 <alicef> the discussion was about enabling rc to be tested for each commit and not only tags 13:15:07 <alicef> I don't think the PR is completely satisfy the issue request but is a good starting point 13:15:49 <patersonc> Any push to the *-rc branches will be run in KernelCI 13:16:14 <patersonc> Just maybe not instantly 13:16:45 <alicef> oh nice you could confirm that? 13:17:40 <patersonc> not until it's merged, or manually triggered in staging 13:18:25 <alicef> ok thanks 13:19:03 <alicef> I have no other objections 13:19:08 <alicef> as now 13:20:19 <jki> ok - so alicef will ack, and then someone else still needs to merge it, right? 13:20:28 <alicef> using cip_variants as I said looks good for me 13:21:02 <alicef> ack, staging test and merge 13:21:19 <jki> great 13:21:30 <jki> next topic? 13:21:38 <alicef> we need also gtucker ack 13:21:51 <alicef> yes next topic 13:22:02 <jki> 2. Make TSC motion regarding linux-4.4.y branch by CIP - jan 13:22:09 <jki> this has been sent 13:22:40 <jki> was the wording ok for all? 13:23:11 <patersonc> I think for the v4.4.y branch (non-cip) we should say we'll follow the current stable rules, not CIP's rules 13:24:36 <iwamatsu> That mean that we do not accept backports about features? 13:24:45 <jki> yes, regarding what CIP would additionally accept 13:24:51 <jki> that goes into cip only 13:25:24 <jki> but what we do not accept - because of out of scope - will also not go into 4.4.y 13:25:38 <jki> that was my idea behind referring to CIP rules 13:25:39 <patersonc> v4.4.y = bug/security fixes (like current LTS). v4.4.y-cip = v4.4.y + feature backports (current SLTS rules) 13:25:50 <patersonc> Gotcha 13:26:04 <iwamatsu> I understood. 13:26:13 <patersonc> Agree that v4.4.y should be CIP scope only, just follow LTS rules 13:26:39 <jki> we likely need to craft the announcement email carefully in this regard 13:26:49 <alicefm> if someone send a pull request for out the cip scope will not be accepted? 13:27:02 <alicefm> I'm understanding correctly? 13:27:45 <jki> at least we do not commit on accepting that - I would leave us the freedom to do so if there is value for us 13:28:03 <alicefm> ok 13:28:06 <jki> it's that thin line we were discussion last week and also in the TSC call 13:28:42 <jki> meanwhile, my motion still needs a second in order to start the actual voting 13:28:58 <jki> or suggestions to sharping the wording 13:30:35 <jki> anything else on this topic? 13:30:46 <alicefm> wording looks ok from what i remember 13:31:39 <jki> 3. Draft press announcement about 5.10 release and 4.4 self-maintenance - jan 13:31:55 <jki> i won this task during the TSC call 13:32:18 <jki> didn't have time to look into it yet, though 13:32:53 <jki> anything else for AIs? 13:33:10 <jki> 3 13:33:12 <jki> 2 13:33:14 <jki> 1 13:33:17 <jki> #topic Kernel maintenance updates 13:33:38 <uli> reviewed more 5.10.94 patches 13:34:03 <iwamatsu> I reivewed 5.10.96. 13:34:04 <masami> There was 8 new CVEs this week. also, there were tons of security fix for 4.X series. 13:37:47 <masami> I'll more look into security fix for 4.4.y from next week. 13:37:52 <masami> maybe, I'll send a patch to cip-dev mailing list if I can backport it. 13:38:25 <jki> what will be our criteria to look at backport candidates? 13:38:34 <jki> CVE attached? Or more? 13:38:54 <iwamatsu> I also take a look. 13:39:59 <iwamatsu> For CVE, if it is related to our reference board, try backport. 13:41:22 <jki> and how will we track that? our wiki is not tracking 4.9 and 4.14, only 4.19 regarding commits, thus backport candidates 13:41:47 <jki> btw, https://www.kernel.org/category/releases.html no longer lists 4.4 - was something sent already? 13:42:37 <iwamatsu> I think other backports will be the same. 13:42:54 <iwamatsu> Certainly we need a mechanism to manage patches for 4.4.y. 13:43:05 <iwamatsu> 4.4.302 has been released. 13:43:19 <jki> ah, ok 13:43:38 <iwamatsu> it has EOL mark. 13:43:46 <jki> just today 13:43:50 <iwamatsu> yes 13:44:10 <jki> oh, Greg mentioned us 13:44:17 <jki> we have the ball in our field 13:44:46 <jki> because of "is considering" - we are decided to 13:46:06 <jki> I think we should probably move forward with Pavel's proposal soon then, not yet referring to the ongoing 4.4.y continuation thing 13:46:24 <jki> that could still be announced later on top, once we have the ok 13:47:31 <jki> I can follow up on Pavel's post to cip-dev, suggesting that 13:48:01 <patersonc> How often will CIP add to their own version of 4.4.y? 13:48:14 <patersonc> And will there be "releases"? 13:48:23 <patersonc> 4.4.303 etc.? 13:51:34 <jki> good questions 13:52:08 <jki> it would probably make sense and should be easy to implement tagging releases along the CIP ones 13:52:55 <iwamatsu> I do not know the release of releases now. if the patch is accumulated, it will be release... 13:56:55 <jki> I think this would be about tagging the baseline of 4.4.30X-cip with 4.4.30X, like before 13:57:12 <jki> but only in our continuation branch 13:57:37 <jki> anyway, we need the general OK to publish and annouce the branch at all first 13:57:49 <jki> other topic here? 13:57:53 <jki> topics 13:59:17 <jki> 3 13:59:18 <jki> 2 13:59:21 <jki> 1 13:59:26 <jki> #topic Kernel testing 14:00:06 <patersonc> Not much news from me 14:01:42 <jki> everything's running smoothly then :) 14:01:45 <iwamatsu> We can not build 5.10.y/-cip tree yet. 14:01:55 <jki> ...except for... 14:02:15 <jki> what blocks it? 14:02:36 <alicefm> Not much news from me either 14:02:42 <iwamatsu> gcc 14:03:03 <patersonc> Oh yes, I did an MR, we just need to update cip-pipeilnes to use it 14:03:04 <patersonc> Sorry 14:03:53 <iwamatsu> gcc of gitlab's kernel build container is not fit 5.10.y. 14:04:06 <iwamatsu> NOP 14:06:25 <jki> anything else here? 14:07:36 <jki> 3 14:07:37 <jki> 2 14:07:40 <jki> 1 14:07:43 <jki> #topic AOB 14:07:56 <jki> irc bot: we'll get a new one! 14:08:19 <alicefm> ok nice 14:08:20 <jki> likely. Neal dug out a hosting at LF, details to be clarified 14:08:25 <masami> great! 14:08:25 <iwamatsu> nice 14:08:35 <jki> also if/how to get the archive migrated 14:09:33 <jki> any other business? 14:10:23 <jki> 3 14:10:26 <jki> 2 14:10:28 <jki> 1 14:10:31 <jki> #endmeeting