13:02:58 <jki> #startmeeting CIP IRC weekly meeting
13:02:58 <collab-meetbot`> Meeting started Thu Mar 16 13:02:58 2023 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is jki. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
13:02:58 <collab-meetbot`> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
13:02:58 <collab-meetbot`> The meeting name has been set to 'cip_irc_weekly_meeting'
13:03:12 <jki> #topic AI review
13:03:15 <jki> 1. clarify usage of .sources files in cip-kernel-config (patersonc)
13:03:21 <patersonc[m]> nope
13:03:40 <jki> wasn't there some mail sent already?
13:04:03 <patersonc[m]> I don't remember sending something :P
13:04:12 <jki> then I dreamt ;)
13:04:16 <jki> 2. reach out to Greg regarding LTS (jan)
13:04:20 <jki> ok, status here:
13:04:37 <jki> I mailed to Raphael of the Debian LTS project
13:04:44 <jki> no reply yet though
13:05:33 <jki> but I learned from Linaro folks yesterday that there is a broader need still
13:06:20 <jki> same motivations as for us, and maybe there is chance to partner - with whoever wants to support longer LTS again
13:06:42 <jki> will need to follow up with them as well
13:07:45 <uli> did anybody get those slides from greg that were mentioned last time?
13:08:10 <jki> it's still just a single slide with already known content
13:08:40 <uli> could you send me a copy anyway? just for reference...
13:09:03 <jki> sure
13:09:06 <uli> thanks
13:09:47 <jki> done
13:09:52 <uli> great
13:10:10 <jki> ok, anything else here?
13:10:40 <jki> 3
13:10:42 <jki> 2
13:10:43 <jki> 1
13:10:47 <jki> #topic Kernel maintenance updates
13:11:04 <masami> This week reported 6 new CVEs and 7 updated CVEs.
13:11:29 <uli> reviewing 5.10.173
13:11:55 <pave1> reviewing 5.10.173/4/5.
13:15:17 <jki> anything else?
13:15:37 <jki> 3
13:15:39 <jki> 2
13:15:41 <jki> 1
13:15:44 <jki> #topic Kernel release status
13:15:48 <jki> - 4.4
13:15:53 <uli> 4.4.302-cip73 is out
13:16:14 <jki> -rt should follow, schedule-wise, right?
13:16:21 <jki> any blockers?
13:16:29 <uli> none that i'm aware of
13:16:48 <pave1> 'll take a look. Need to compare 4.14-rt releases.
13:17:51 <jki> ok
13:17:57 <jki> - 4.19
13:18:19 <pave1> -rt was released, matching 4.19-cip would be nice.
13:18:47 <jki> I guess you will ping iwamatsu-san on that
13:19:05 <jki> good
13:19:10 <jki> - 5.10
13:19:21 <jki> all up to date, iirc
13:19:26 <pave1> Yep. He's watching -rt announcements, too.
13:20:30 <jki> ok, anything else?
13:20:44 <jki> 3
13:20:46 <jki> 2
13:20:48 <jki> 1
13:20:50 <jki> #topic Kernel testing
13:21:19 <patersonc[m]> Hello
13:21:19 <patersonc[m]> I've got three things today.
13:21:19 <patersonc[m]> 1)
13:21:20 <patersonc[m]> As part of improving/formalising CIP testing I've started to draft a requirements document.
13:21:20 <patersonc[m]> Once the initial draft is complete I'll invite comments/review from you all, please :)
13:21:21 <patersonc[m]> 2)
13:21:21 <patersonc[m]> I've started to monitor and report to Greg the results of our testing on all of the LTS release candidates.
13:21:22 <patersonc[m]> I still need to add v6.2 support.
13:21:24 <patersonc[m]> My MRs from this work still need reviewing please, to make sure we're testing what is required.
13:21:27 <patersonc[m]> Please see bottom of https://lists.cip-project.org/g/cip-dev/message/10973
13:21:39 <patersonc[m]> 3)
13:21:41 <patersonc[m]> I had a chat with Sietze (Bosch) last week about frontends for our CI.
13:21:44 <patersonc[m]> The point here is that unless we want to heavily fork and modify KernelCI, it's never going to meet our non-kernel testing requirements.
13:21:47 <patersonc[m]> So we'll likely always want to keep our GitLab CI approach.
13:21:59 <patersonc[m]> The current apprach has drawbacks in that it's hard to track individual test case results between versions etc.
13:22:21 <patersonc[m]> So we'll likely need to have some sort of front end on top of GitLab to facilitate things.
13:22:22 <patersonc[m]> Sietze is going to start a survey to see what existing options there are - I'd ideally like to reuse something rather then reinvent the wheel.
13:22:23 <patersonc[m]> Done. And enter discussion... ;)
13:22:42 <jki> overflow :)
13:23:19 <jki> expressing the needs or wishes towards kernelci would still be valuable
13:23:45 <jki> at least for the purpose or recording them - and maybe triggering +1 or other remarks
13:24:05 <patersonc[m]> Agreed, but they are focused on Kernel testing only
13:24:21 <jki> what are the non-kernel testing needs then?
13:24:33 <jki> Debian package testing? -> Debian
13:24:38 <patersonc[m]> I was thinking cip-core testing, e.g. security packages etc.
13:24:58 <jki> CIP image integration -> that is our issue, indeed
13:25:22 <jki> packages should eventually all be upstream, thus enabled to be tested by Debian then as well
13:25:59 <patersonc[m]> It may be that forking kernelci is the best solution for us to handle all of our testing in one place. Maybe another front end will be better. That's what we'll investigate.
13:26:09 <jki> ok
13:26:40 <jki> but also the front-end needs should be clarified if they aren't also relevant beyond us
13:27:28 <patersonc[m]> Sure. I'm all for reuse, whether it's by us or others
13:27:43 <jki> great
13:28:42 <jki> anything else regarding testing?
13:29:23 <patersonc[m]> Any updates from the KernelCI world Arisu -san?
13:31:48 <patersonc[m]> I guess not :)
13:32:21 <jki> arisut: ?
13:33:05 <jki> ok, move on?
13:33:20 <jki> 3
13:33:21 <patersonc[m]> yea
13:33:22 <jki> 2
13:33:24 <jki> 1
13:33:28 <jki> #topic AOB
13:35:02 <jki> any other topics for today?
13:35:44 <jki> 3
13:35:45 <jki> 2
13:35:47 <jki> 1
13:35:50 <jki> #endmeeting