[02:03] <Lutin> sabdfl: thanks :)
[02:24] <lbm> any lp admins online?
[02:48] <Lutin> sabdfl: btw, could you also change my mail adress from lutin-@ubuntu.com to lutin@ubuntu.com please ?
[02:55] <Hobbsee> Lutin: it's suggested you file a support request for such things...
[03:05] <Lutin> Hobbsee: I did, and he changed my lp nick but seems to have forgotten the mail change ;)
[03:06] <Hobbsee> Lutin: ah.  not sure if they autosync.
[03:07] <Lutin> Hobbsee: I think they don't, given LaserJock's mail adress
[03:07] <Hobbsee> ah
[03:11] <Lutin> heh, need some sleep. see you alter guys
[03:41] <Ubugtu> New bug: #89360 in launchpad "Font color does not have enough contrast" [Undecided,Unconfirmed]  https://launchpad.net/bugs/89360
[05:30] <Ubugtu> New bug: #89375 in launchpad "LP beta: Missing navigation links on translation page." [Undecided,Unconfirmed]  https://launchpad.net/bugs/89375
[05:45] <Ubugtu> New bug: #89376 in launchpad "LP beta: Opera doubles down on "Help"" [Undecided,Unconfirmed]  https://launchpad.net/bugs/89376
[07:30] <SEJeff> Can anyone help me figure out why launchpad isn't letting me file bugs against the kernel image package? Especially since I'm trying to report an oops
[07:38] <BjornT> SEJeff: sure. on which page are you trying to file the bug?
[07:39] <SEJeff> https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/feisty/i386/linux-image-2.6.20-9-generic/2.6.20-9.16
[07:46] <BjornT> SEJeff: hmm. it really should be easier to file a bug from that page, atm it's not intuitive.
[07:46] <BjornT> SEJeff: the thing is that the bug should be filed on the corresponding source package in ubuntu.
[07:47] <BjornT> SEJeff: so you have to start with following the link to the feisty source package on the bottom of the page
[07:47] <SEJeff> BjornT: Seriously, it doesn't make sense. A UI that is so unintuitive, a non-newb can't figure out how to file a bug is kind of stupid
[07:47] <SEJeff> How does the lp team expect newbies to file bugs? </launchpad-rant>
[07:48] <BjornT> SEJeff: from there you have to follow the link to the linux-source-2.6.20 package on the top of the page, and there you should have a "report a bug" link on the left
[07:48] <LaserJock> generally you wouldn't start from that page though
[07:48] <BjornT> SEJeff: how did you end up at that page to begin with?
[07:49] <SEJeff> package search for linux-image
[07:49] <LaserJock> generaly you'd start from launchpad.net/ubuntu/+filebug or the source package page
[07:50] <SEJeff> Actually, wouldn't a new user start at launchpad.net and then click ubuntu to file a bug against "ubuntu"? Or am I incorrect?
[07:50] <SEJeff> LaserJock: But thanks, I'll bookmark that
[07:50] <LaserJock> yes, exactly
[07:50] <LaserJock> that's what the url above is
[07:50] <LaserJock> that's what you get when you start at launchpad and click on the file a bug against ubuntu
[07:52] <SEJeff> LaserJock: I see it now. My workflow was: Go to lp.net, see "The Ubuntu Distro" click, search for packages, ...
[07:52] <LaserJock> right, but you still should have been ok
[07:52] <SEJeff> I skipped over the bugs link at the top left
[07:52] <SEJeff> Thanks
[07:53] <BjornT> SEJeff: i agree that it should be possible to file a bug using your workflow as well.
[07:53] <LaserJock> it is though, he just went too far :-)
[07:54] <BjornT> that's one way of looking at it :)
[07:54] <SEJeff> LaserJock: Is there a RFE page for launchpad?
[07:54] <SEJeff> Because that seems like something a normal user would do
[07:55] <LaserJock> BjornT: it would only make sense really to have a link where he was if it was "File a bug against this version"
[07:55] <LaserJock> BjornT: which would be cool
[07:56] <LaserJock> becuase filing a bug from that page would indicate you are interested in a particular version
[07:56] <BjornT> SEJeff: for small features like this it's easiest to file a bug at https://launchpad.net/malone/+filebug
[07:56] <SEJeff> I understand that apport + the kernel patches and core_pattern are all supposed to be magic, but when it doesn't work, that is a pain
[07:56] <SEJeff> I was really hoping that apport would catch the oops and report it, but it caught something and then killed itsself
[07:57] <LaserJock> how is it a pain?
[07:58] <BjornT> LaserJock: yeah, it could be useful to include the package version there.
[08:00] <SEJeff> LaserJock: Because a fairly straightforward workflow leads to an insensitive Bugs link. I almost decided to not even report the oops because of that actually
[08:00] <LaserJock> I don't really understand
[08:01] <LaserJock> you just overlooked the filebug link
[08:01] <SEJeff> ok. When glancing over lp.net, I missed bugs
[08:01] <SEJeff> Correct
[08:01] <SEJeff> And saw the most prominent Ubuntu Distribution on the page
[08:01] <SEJeff> So of course, I want to file a bug against Ubuntu, so I click it
[08:01] <SEJeff> But that leads to a dead end
[08:03] <BjornT> LaserJock: i think the thing is that SEJeff thought that he should file a bug on the specific version of the package. and it's easy to overlook the filebug link if you have your mind set on navigating to the binary package.
[08:03] <SEJeff> Well when you are using feisty and a previous kernel didn't break... you *should* file against a specific version
[08:03] <SEJeff> Or am I again wrong in thinking like this?
[08:03] <SEJeff> It seems logical
[08:04] <LaserJock> yep, we don't file against versions
[08:04] <SEJeff> ok, thanks
[08:04] <LaserJock> we file against a source package and that's pretty much it
[08:04] <SEJeff> Im used to bugzilla
[08:04] <LaserJock> I'd *love* to see the ability to file against a specific version
[08:05] <LaserJock> I'm not sure what would happen if the bug applied to more than one version
[08:06] <BjornT> LaserJock: once upon a time we tried to cover that by using something called "infestations", but we removed it since it was too complicated
[08:06] <SEJeff> LaserJock: I'm perplexed that it doesn't support a feature so obvious for a BTS
[08:07] <BjornT> SEJeff: it has been discussed quite a lot of times. and so the the outcome has been, that the version information should be put in the bug description
[08:07] <BjornT> we might consider adding a specific version field, though.
[08:08] <BjornT> s/so/so far/
[08:08] <SEJeff> BjornT: Launchpad is a good idea and will probably be pretty good. I've heard decent things about the beta, but that it is really slow
[08:09] <LaserJock> SEJeff: it's pretty much the same for me
[08:09] <BjornT> SEJeff: yeah, we're currently working on trying to make it faster.
[08:10] <SEJeff> BjornT: Sure. Writing code is always the easy part. Debugging / Optimizing is always the hard part
[08:10] <LaserJock> for me LP works best when URL driven
[08:10] <SEJeff> BjornT: Do you develop lp? If so I have a question
[08:10] <LaserJock> so maybe I don't notice the speed
[08:11] <BjornT> yeah. and the thing is, the speed problem isn't a problem with the code, it's mostly a problem that several small files need to be fetched by the browser for each page over ssl (which means that most browser won't cache the files)
[08:12] <BjornT> SEJeff: yeah, i'm an lp developer.
[08:12] <SEJeff> BjornT: People always gripe about lp being non OSS, but no-one ever says a word (because they are too ignorant) about Redhat Network.
[08:13] <SEJeff> Mark's grand scheme seems to be towards Ubuntu / Canonical sustaining itsself
[08:13] <SEJeff> Is lp, or some restricted feature of it, your equivalent of RHN
[08:13] <SEJeff> As in value added features to customers such as management, inventory, etc
[08:15] <BjornT> SEJeff: well, we do intend to release lp as open source one day, but it will probably take a while, and it will probably be done in steps, so that we release one bit at a time.
[08:16] <SEJeff> BjornT: Really!?
[08:16] <LaserJock> seems more like seperate project rather than value added
[08:16] <SEJeff> lp seems like it could actually give Canonical an edge in smoe areas
[08:16] <LaserJock> SEJeff: yes, Mark said that from the beginning I think
[08:16] <SEJeff> being a "meta-bts"
[08:17] <SEJeff> Of course it is his choice, but why keep it closed at all then? Surely the code isn't that ugly
[08:17] <BjornT> SEJeff: yeah, it's even in the faq: https://launchpad.net/faq
[08:17] <LaserJock> part of it, IMO, is that we really don't want a bunch of Launchpads floating around
[08:17] <LaserJock> the idea was to pull together projects
[08:18] <LaserJock> so many distros and software projects use Launchpad
[08:18] <SEJeff> LaserJock: That will always happen in OSS unless the project has a clear direction and encourages participation. Inkscape is a perfect example of fostering a community
[08:18] <SEJeff> But you guys have people like Jono working for you. He knows much more about communities than I do
[08:19] <LaserJock> right, but we are seeing it already, some of it might be because LP isn't OSS
[08:19] <BjornT> yeah, LaserJock is right. the main reason at this time is that we don't other launchpad's popping up, since it's designed so that everything should be in the same database.
[08:21] <SEJeff> Fair enough
[08:21] <SEJeff> You should poke mark into saying that directly so the free software nazis will stop complaining
[08:22] <SEJeff> Because that is perfectly valid
[08:22] <LaserJock> BjornT: are there any plans on making +filebug-advanced more ... advanced?
[08:27] <BjornT> LaserJock: no specific plans atm, but i do agree that it should be more "advanced", otherwise it's not much different from the normal filebug page. what would you like to see on it?
[08:28] <BjornT> it might be that we get rid of that page eventuall, and integrate it into the normal filebug page
[08:29] <LaserJock> BjornT: well, Version: would certainly be one that'd probably get used
[08:29] <SEJeff> BjornT: LaserJock Thanks for answering my questions
[08:29] <LaserJock> certainly ... probably 
[08:30] <LaserJock> I need to stop redoing my sentence half way through
[08:30] <LaserJock> SEJeff: np
[08:30] <LaserJock> BjornT: perhaps being able to subscribe or assignee directly from there
[08:31] <LaserJock> BjornT: perhaps Release: but that might not be as helpful as Version:
[08:32] <LaserJock> BjornT: mostly I'd love to see package-specific text when filing a bug. I've seen a few bugs floating around for that
[08:33] <LaserJock> but that'd probably be more appropriate for the simple +filebug
[08:34] <BjornT> yeah, the package specific text should be on the normal +filebug page.
[08:34] <LaserJock> oh, another one could be which binary package
[08:35] <LaserJock> for source package that produce quite a few binaries sometimes it's not obvious which one the user is talking about
[08:35] <LaserJock> but that might be confusing if you have to put in source package then binary package
[08:36] <Ubugtu> New bug: #89392 in launchpad "+addpackage form makes no sense" [Undecided,Unconfirmed]  https://launchpad.net/bugs/89392
[08:36] <BjornT> LaserJock: yeah. we used to fields for both binary and source package, but we ended up removing the binary one to make things simpler to understand.
[08:36] <LaserJock> how is that handled now? if a person puts in a binary package (when binary package != source package) does it automatically find the source package?
[08:36] <BjornT> LaserJock: yeah. and the entered binary package gets added to the description.
[08:36] <LaserJock> yeah, I think I remember that
[08:37] <LaserJock> oh sure
[08:38] <LaserJock> ok, then scratch that suggestion
[08:39] <LaserJock> BjornT: what about being able to add and attachment from there?
[08:39] <LaserJock> *an
[08:40] <BjornT> LaserJock: yes, that's planned. but it will be possible to add an attachment also from the simple +filebug.
[08:41] <LaserJock> well, hmm
[08:42] <LaserJock> it would seem like you could indeed fold them together and then have an "Advanced" drop-down for a few "extras"
[08:44] <BjornT> yeah, i think that would be better actually.
[08:51] <Ubugtu> New bug: #30856 in malone "would like to be able to add attachment(s) while filing the bug" [Medium,Confirmed]  https://launchpad.net/bugs/30856
[09:56] <sabdfl> Lutin: that's a different group
[04:21] <Ubugtu> New bug: #89476 in malone "busted permissions: cannot unsubscribe ubuntu-security when private" [Undecided,Unconfirmed]  https://launchpad.net/bugs/89476
[04:30] <lbm> any lp admins online?
[05:22] <kiko> lbm, yeah?
[05:33] <lbm> kiko: let me pm you
[08:40] <Rinchen> ping danilos
[08:40] <Rinchen> or Ping Kiko
[08:43] <Rinchen> if either of you happen to be working, I've been looking at a translate issue with a package.  The reporter is working with the maintainer but the assigned to (etc) needs some loving.  82506 and 75337
[08:43] <Rinchen> Not sure myself how best to set it.  Thanks.
[08:44] <Rinchen> maintainer says it's an upstream issue. yippee
[11:30] <pochu> heya effie_jayx :)
[11:30] <effie_jayx> hey :D