On Mon, 13 Mar 2023 at 17:54, Erich Eickmeyer <eeickme...@ubuntu.com> wrote: > > On Monday, March 13, 2023 10:29:50 AM PDT Dimitri John Ledkov wrote: > > Ideally all flavours would be at 6.2 already, but due to various > > reasons they are not. > > This is understandable and perfectly reasonable. > > > This is not unique to lowlatency flavour, and applies to kvm, azure, > > raspi, and many more kernel flavours all of which are still on v5.19 > > in Lunar. > > My point is that lowlatency shouldn't be grouped-in to these flavors, but > should be given higher priority and grouped-in with generic since it's still > used in desktop systems by default and is directly affecting the testing of an > official flavor of Ubuntu. This was one of the reasons we had to miss testing > week because we didn't even have kernel parity. >
Impossible. we run out of disk space and cannot complete the lowlatency builds with generic any more. Thus it is now treated exactly like all other derivatives. We do not invest additional engineering & resource time, to prioritise lowlatency flavour, over other flavours, which have more images and higher usage. > > We pushed 6.1 out, and migrated, on generic only, to migrate lots of > > packages in proposed, specifically nvidia & everything entangled with > > it, and thus unblock autopkgtesting of all the userspace packages > > which were otherwise failing on v5.19. There is no intention to port > > all flavours to 6.1. > > Again, this is one of the reasons we had do miss testing week among another it was a mistake to skip testing week. you should have tested ubuntu studio during the testing week like all the other flavours did. As there are a lot of changes in lunar, that landed and affect ubuntu studio. For example, all cloud images which use various cloud kernel flavours, based on v5.19 did participate. Can you explain who made the call to skip testing week? as to me, it seemed, it's a requirement to release a flavour. Is studio going to skip Lunar release? > reason (two blockers this round). To not have kernel equality here could cause > false positives in kernel-level testing. JACK and the audio stack, in > particular, are directly affected by the kernel, and what might work in 6.1 > might not work in 5.19 with various devices. This could cause false bug > reports and create a lot more problems for triage. > > > in Lunar, no further 6.1 builds will be done for any kernel flavour > > for the time being. And v6.2 landing, across all flavours, is in > > progress. > > Understandable. I'm just trying to prevent the problem at hand in the future, > hence requesting that the decision to split the lowlatency into a lesser > flavor > be reverted and have it built and treated as if it were the generic kernel > since it is installed by default in an official flavor of Ubuntu on desktop > systems. It is just clear to me that it truly does not get equal treatment, > which confirms my fears, which is why I want the decision that was made > reverted so that proper testing can proceed as it was before this change. It was not a choice to split it, but necessity. We had to split lowlatency into a separate build, as generic & lowlatency from a single builder was unable to complete anymore due to build-time, disk usage, and upload time. It's either split builds, or no builds at all. Thus a revert, would just cause generic & lowlatency fail to build from source, always. -- okurrr, Dimitri -- ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
