13:03:12 <jki> #startmeeting CIP IRC weekly meeting
13:03:12 <collab-meetbot`> Meeting started Thu Mar  2 13:03:12 2023 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is jki. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
13:03:12 <collab-meetbot`> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
13:03:12 <collab-meetbot`> The meeting name has been set to 'cip_irc_weekly_meeting'
13:03:20 <jki> #topic AI review
13:03:27 <jki> 1. enable more stable trees for testing (patersonc)
13:04:39 <patersonc[m]> I kicked off some tests with this
13:04:40 <patersonc[m]> With 5.15 and 6.1, BBB didn't boot
13:04:44 <patersonc[m]> And for 5.15 and 6.1 the de0-nano dts wasn't built
13:05:18 <patersonc[m]> Perhaps both issues are config issues
13:05:33 <jki> not unlikely
13:05:47 <patersonc[m]> If anyone is interested, 5.15 pipeline: https://gitlab.com/cip-project/cip-kernel/linux-cip/-/pipelines/786741576
13:05:47 <jki> tried upstream defconfig instead?
13:05:51 <patersonc[m]> 6.1: https://gitlab.com/cip-project/cip-kernel/linux-cip/-/pipelines/786780354
13:05:57 <patersonc[m]> jki: Not yet
13:06:18 <patersonc[m]> Well, Arm defconfig is built, haven't checked if it runs on bbb though
13:07:03 <patersonc[m]> Anyway, WIP
13:07:18 <jki> ok, great
13:07:35 <jki> 2. report 6.1 test plan to LKML (pavel)
13:07:47 <jki> just listing, depends on 1 to be ready enough
13:07:53 <jki> or is it?
13:08:40 <patersonc[m]> We could run with what we have. EIther accept the 2 test jobs that will fail or remove them, until it's fixed
13:09:05 <jki> pavel: would you like to move forward?
13:09:15 <pave1> Yes, can do.
13:09:27 <jki> perfect
13:09:35 <pave1> Id remove jobs for now.
13:10:54 <jki> anything else regarding AIs?
13:12:08 <jki> 3
13:12:09 <jki> 2
13:12:11 <jki> 1
13:12:13 <jki> #topic Kernel maintenance updates
13:12:43 <uli> i tested and pushed 4.4 rc and sent request for review
13:12:55 <masami> This week reported 22 new CVEs and 4 updated CVEs.
13:13:00 <masami> I think new CVEs are not so critical vulnerabilities.
13:13:16 <pave1> I'm reviewing 5.10.170 and 171.
13:16:07 <jki> anything else to report/discuss?
13:16:43 <jki> 3
13:16:45 <jki> 2
13:16:47 <jki> 1
13:16:50 <jki> #topic Kernel release status
13:16:54 <jki> - 4.4
13:17:07 <uli> ready to be released, waiting for the review thumbs up
13:17:40 <pave1> Will take a look. Sorry  for delay.
13:17:52 <jki> cool
13:17:59 <jki> when is -rt due again?
13:18:03 <uli> next time
13:18:07 <uli> iirc
13:18:08 <jki> ok
13:18:17 <jki> - 4.19
13:18:51 <jki> iwamatsu is missing, but maybe someone else has infos
13:20:35 <jki> then move on
13:20:39 <jki> - 5.10
13:20:42 <jki> likely the same
13:20:54 <jki> anything to report regarding -rt?
13:21:05 <pave1> both 5.10 and -rt should be on track.
13:21:16 <jki> good
13:21:34 <jki> #topic Kernel testing
13:21:54 <patersonc[m]> Hellooo
13:22:18 <jki> yes, we can read you
13:22:35 <patersonc[m]> Ha, sorry
13:22:42 <alicefm> Waiting staging to get new kselftest changes for testing it with cip kernel configs
13:23:02 <patersonc[m]> I don't have much to add from the TSC earlier or the AI above
13:23:25 <patersonc[m]> Main TODO is to interact with Bosch and delegate some tasks
13:23:40 <jki> ah, great
13:24:20 <jki> anything else regarding testing?
13:25:30 <jki> 3
13:25:31 <jki> 2
13:25:33 <jki> 1
13:25:36 <jki> #topic AOB
13:25:44 <jki> - LTS....
13:25:54 <jki> how to talk to Greg?
13:26:02 <jki> who can talk to Debian kernel team?
13:26:37 <pave1> Greg responds to emails.
13:26:44 <jki> better public?
13:26:49 <jki> or private first?
13:27:44 <jki> and who wants to start this?
13:27:45 <pave1> I believe that depends on what we want...
13:27:58 <pave1> Public is better.
13:28:30 <jki> are Greg's concerns somewhere public already?
13:28:35 <jki> and plans?
13:28:44 <jki> not that we carry some "news" to the world
13:29:18 <jki> public is the reduced lifespan of 5.15 and 6.1 at least
13:29:26 <jki> and the trend
13:29:30 <pave1> I'm getting my lts news from you.
13:30:10 <jki> and I got them from LF emails (and now they are archived here, publicly :) )
13:30:14 <patersonc[m]> What's our goal? Try and get him to extend LTS to 4/6 years again?
13:30:25 <patersonc[m]> We'd need to get more then just CIP on board to commit to testing & support etc.
13:30:32 <jki> first of all understand what it would take from his POV
13:30:39 <jki> exactly
13:30:55 <jki> we should be honest with ourselves and him that we alone can't fix it
13:31:07 <pave1> I believe we should write somewhere that we'll maintain 6.1 for 10 years.
13:31:10 <jki> at least not for a general-purpose LTS
13:31:34 <pave1> That will likely not change anything.
13:31:34 <jki> ...working towards
13:31:44 <jki> right
13:31:53 <jki> we need a gap analysis
13:32:05 <jki> and then we could also discuss with potential other stakeholders
13:32:16 <patersonc[m]> Having LTS back at 2 years would likely lead to more users of CIP. We just need to convert some of those users to paying members so we can fund the maintenance :)
13:32:25 <jki> or ask Greg with whome he already talked
13:32:28 <pave1> Then we should probably go through our channels at LF to see what would be required.
13:32:45 <pave1> Both -stable and -cip are lf projects after all.
13:33:11 <jki> is stable a formal project?
13:33:27 <jki> or "just" a task of Greg?
13:33:38 <pave1> Not sure really.
13:34:26 <pave1> Talk to Neil C. if we don't get results from public discussion>
13:35:04 <jki> so, back to that public thread to start - where, how, who?
13:35:11 <pave1> Also maybe Siemens / Renesas could publicly explain that -lts is important?
13:35:25 <jki> sure, that can be done
13:37:07 <jki> pavel: would you like to start a discussion? or should I?
13:37:12 <pave1> Not sure, this level of management is over my usual levels...
13:37:37 <pave1> jki -- I'd be happy if you would.
13:37:44 <jki> who has talked most to him so far? that was my idea behind it
13:38:09 <jki> I didn't do much in LTS context, but can try if there is no better fit
13:39:57 <jki> great, so I generated an AI for me :)
13:40:12 <jki> but I will take you in CC-custody!
13:40:17 <pave1> I'm usually the one replying to stable announcements, but that is 'engineering' level
13:40:38 <pave1> and I believe we are talking more management level here.
13:41:47 <patersonc[m]> Thank you jki !
13:41:51 <jki> patersonc[m]: can you organize that someone from Renesas will be able to follow-up with needs and use-case on that?
13:42:17 <jki> I can make a start for Siemens as part of the email
13:42:21 <pave1> I can talk to SuSE if they have any long-term plans  for 6.1.
13:42:32 <jki> pavel: TIA!
13:43:24 <jki> other members would be good to see on stage then, too
13:43:25 <patersonc[m]> jki: Sure
13:43:32 <patersonc[m]> I guess it's the general use case behind CIP :)
13:44:04 <pave1> Probably could ask RedHat too, but  maybe someone has better contacts there.
13:44:06 <jki> yes, but it is stronger if there are mutliple voice with some concrete cases
13:44:42 <jki> who all contributed to stable so far?
13:44:49 <jki> Linaro seems to be out
13:44:57 <jki> Yocto?
13:47:44 <pave1> 
13:48:26 <jki> and who to contact on Debian side? i suppose iwamatsu-san has contacts there
13:49:40 <patersonc[m]> yea
13:49:50 <pave1> I guess so.
13:50:03 <jki> it still appears to me that Debian could be our strongest ally on this, also use case wise
13:51:32 <pave1> I have very little idea how Debian works with kernel.
13:52:45 <jki> it seems to me they have very few core people to integration / port, and then the community as test lab
13:53:28 <pave1> Actually.. someone does Debian lts maintainance 'for hire'.
13:53:29 <jki> anyway, I'll ask iwamatsu, maybe also try to reach ben on this
13:53:44 <jki> sure, we pay them as well
13:53:47 <pave1> Those might be good people to talk to.
13:54:03 <jki> but I don't know which persons of the lts team do kernel, and how many
13:55:36 <pave1> They probably do little lts kernel development, but it is likely important to them and their customers.
13:55:49 <jki> raphael hertzog...
13:55:58 <jki> will try that direction too
13:57:07 <jki> any other ideas / thoughts?
13:57:25 <jki> or even other AOBs?
13:58:02 <patersonc[m]> The kernel sources things
13:58:04 <patersonc[m]> s/things/thing/
13:58:17 <jki> please go ahead!
13:58:32 <patersonc[m]> In older kernel versions, in cip-kernel-config we had a script that went through and generated .sources files
13:58:38 <patersonc[m]> This hasn't been done for 5.10
13:58:47 <patersonc[m]> I wondered if this approach is still used?
13:59:12 <patersonc[m]> My understanding is that these .sources files were somehow used to track what we needed to maintain in the kernel - I could be wrong of course...
14:00:05 <pave1> Probably still used, probably someone just needs to run the scripts.
14:00:26 <pave1> Likely iwamatsu as he is maintaining configs repository.
14:00:54 <jki> then ask again next week or via the ML?
14:01:14 <pave1> I guess ML is best.
14:01:32 <jki> patersonc[m]: next AI for you ;)
14:01:56 <patersonc[m]> Ha
14:02:30 <jki> anything else for today?
14:02:47 <patersonc[m]> Not from me
14:03:09 <jki> 5
14:03:10 <jki> 4
14:03:11 <jki> 3
14:03:13 <jki> 2
14:03:14 <jki> 1
14:03:16 <jki> #endmeeting