[00:53] <theunixgeek> When's the next meeting?
[00:54] <somerville32> @schedule
[00:54] <ubotu> Schedule for Etc/UTC: 20 Dec 14:00: Desktop Team Development | 21 Dec 12:00: MOTU meeting | 02 Jan 12:00: Edubuntu meeting | 09 Jan 20:00: Edubuntu meeting | 10 Jan 14:00: Desktop Team Development | 16 Jan 12:00: Edubuntu meeting
[00:54] <theunixgeek> what's the current UTC time?
[00:56] <The-Kernel> 23:58
[00:56] <The-Kernel> I think
[00:56] <The-Kernel> not sure
[00:57] <somerville32> Pretty sure it is 00:58
[01:00] <pochu> @now
[01:00] <ubotu> Current time in Etc/UTC: December 20 2007, 01:00:31 - Next meeting: Desktop Team Development in 12 hours 59 minutes
[01:03] <theunixgeek> thanks
[09:28] <kraut> moin
[13:56] <Keybuk> tedg: morning
[13:57] <tedg> Keybuk: good afternoon.
[14:00] <Keybuk> mvo_, Riddell: ping
[14:00] <Riddell> hi Keybuk
[14:02] <pitti> hi
[14:02] <pitti> argh, sorry
[14:03] <Keybuk> ok, let's get going
[14:03] <Keybuk> mvo's client is here, but no life there yet
[14:03] <MacSlow> :)
[14:04] <Keybuk> did I miss any agenda items?
[14:04] <Keybuk> I didn't see any
[14:04] <pitti> I read the reports so far, didn't see any either
[14:05] <MacSlow> same here
[14:05] <Keybuk> does anyone have anything they want to discuss? :)
[14:05] <Keybuk> no?
[14:05] <pitti> we still have some merges left
[14:06] <MacSlow> nope
[14:06] <Keybuk> pitti: there's always some left ;)
[14:06] <pitti> but they are all pretty platformish
[14:06] <Keybuk> Debian won't stop changing things
[14:07] <seb128> hey
[14:07] <Keybuk> in that case, let me just wish you all a happy holidays
[14:07] <pitti> hey seb128
[14:07] <MacSlow> hi seb128
[14:07] <Keybuk> there's a button on your computer you may not have used before
[14:07] <seb128> oh, was a short meeting apparently? ;-)
[14:07] <Keybuk> it's marked "OFF" or maybe "Power"
[14:07] <pitti> seb128: do you know whether the remaining 20 merges have an assignee, or are they fair game?
[14:07] <seb128> pitti: let me look to the list
[14:07] <Keybuk> pitti: we're after freeze now, so they need RM approval, no?
[14:08] <pitti> Keybuk: no, why that?
[14:08] <pitti> we can continue merging and introduce new versions until FF
[14:08] <tedg> Oh, from people commenting on "exit-strategy" I know that no one uses that button, they expect them all to be in menus ;)
[14:08] <seb128> pitti: not sure about all of those, libgnomemm2.6 has been synced, libbtctl has a sync request open I think, python-distutils-extra should not be listed
[14:08] <Keybuk> Just a brief note to remind you all that the DebianImportFreeze[1] for Hardy
[14:08] <Keybuk> is two days away[2].  This is the deadline for initial merges of packages
[14:08] <Keybuk> for Hardy; after Thursday, December 13, merging packages is a freeze
[14:08] <Keybuk> exception, so please have your remaining merges for hardy finished before
[14:08] <Keybuk> this point.
[14:08] <seb128> not sure about the other ones
[14:08] <pitti> hm, that's not our usual definition of DIF
[14:09] <pitti> 'deadline for initial merges' is correct, of course
[14:09] <pitti> but DIF is just about stopping the autosyncs
[14:09] <Keybuk> it may be that steve is trying something different
[14:09] <seb128> tedg: hi, will you do the gnome-power-manager 2.21.1 update?
[14:10] <pitti> Keybuk: hm, we better ask him about that then; https://help.ubuntu.com/community/DebianImportFreeze should be updated if there are policy changes
[14:10] <tedg> seb128: Yes.  I was going to do 2.20.2 also, or no point?
[14:10] <seb128> pitti: when is UVF now? at the same time as UVF or DIF?
[14:10] <seb128> tedg: no point, we can have only 1 version in hardy
[14:10] <seb128> tedg: and we don't do GNOME 2.20.2 updates to gutsy
[14:11] <pitti> seb128: UVF doesn't exist any more; it's just FF now
[14:11] <tedg> seb128: Okay.
[14:11] <pitti> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopment/ReleaseProcess#head-e10e11c208ca4b6fda2649cd18e983ba6dac635d
[14:11] <seb128> pitti: right, I would not have asked otherwise :-P Ok, my question was "can we still upload new version", and you replied, thanks ;-)
[14:11] <tedg> There's an odd battery problem that bdmurray and others are reporting.  Apparently HAL is reporting on more batteries now, I think they might be BIOS batteries.
[14:12] <seb128> pitti: this page is confusing because nothing mention "no new version"
[14:12] <pitti> seb128: deliberately
[14:12] <seb128> pitti: which means there is no point we stop updates or need an approval?
[14:12] <pitti> seb128: in fact new upstream versions are ok until release freeze as long as they just fix bugs
[14:13] <pitti> seb128: well, it is ok according to the currently documented policy
[14:13] <pitti> if Steve wants to change that, we should talk to him about announcing it and changing the docs
[14:13] <seb128> ok
[14:13] <seb128> I'm fine with that
[14:13] <seb128> less work for me -;)
[14:13] <Keybuk> tedg: it also reports on batteries of things like mice and phones
[14:14] <Keybuk> when I connect to my phone with gnome-phone-manager, gnome-power-manager tells me what it's battery state is
[14:14] <Keybuk> (arguably these should be different icons, but meh -> Ubuntu 10.04)
[14:15] <tedg> Yeah, but it's a little odd that gutsy wouldn't have it and hardy would.
[14:16] <Keybuk> gutsy did that too, no?
[14:16] <Keybuk> anyway, let's officially adjourn the meeting and carry on conversations if we want ;)
[14:16] <tedg> Gutsy did it, but the bug report is that people had one battery in gutsy and two in hardy.
[14:17]  * mvo_ coughs
[14:17] <pitti> tedg: since our hal didn't change significantly, this might be due to the new kernel now reporting those batteries in /sys, too?
[14:18] <tedg> pitti: Good to know, they're not in /proc under ACPI.  So I'm thinking they're hiding somewhere else.
[14:18] <pitti> oh, or /proc; not sure
[14:19] <tedg> I think it's funny, I don't know why people are complaining about us adding batteries for them ;)
[14:20] <cjwatson> Keybuk: I checked with Steve about that DIF mail
[14:20] <cjwatson> he misspoke
[14:20] <cjwatson> he didn't intend to change the existing practice; read it as "merging packages that have not been merged yet is a freeze exception"
[14:20] <cjwatson> pitti,seb128: ^--
[14:21] <Keybuk> cjwatson: ah, thanks for the clarification
[14:21]  * mvo_ appologizes for not responding at the start of the meeting, he was reshuffling his harddisks in the upgrade test machine for better cooling
[14:21] <cjwatson> "Yes, sorry for failing to convey this nuance.  I'm not meaning to propose
[14:21] <cjwatson> any changes to this policy.
[14:21] <pitti> cjwatson: so merging one the first time is an exception, and a further merge isn't?
[14:21] <Keybuk> tedg: the extra battery status is a new feature, no? :)
[14:21] <cjwatson> "
[14:21] <cjwatson> pitti: as before
[14:21] <cjwatson> pitti: otherwise "all initial merges must be completed by DIF" would have no force :)
[14:22] <pitti> it just doesn't seem to be encouraging to finish them off
[14:22] <pitti> but good to know, I wasn't aware of that interpretation
[14:22] <cjwatson> they should have been finished before the deadline; if they aren't done, then we need to consider whether it's worthwhile to bother
[14:22] <cjwatson> -> freeze exception
[14:22] <pitti> ok
[14:23] <cjwatson> Keybuk: turning off the computer during holidays would interfere with playing nethack
[14:23] <Keybuk> playing nethack would interfere with your marriage ;)
[14:24] <cjwatson> :-)
[14:24] <cjwatson> (mind you, hasn't done that much yet)
[14:27] <mhb> hello, it is a bit silent now, could I please ask a question? I have heard about a decision on Kubuntu not being a LTS. Who did make such a decision and are we going to read any official information about this? Sorry if I am bothering.
[14:30] <MacSlow> mhb, really? If that's true, I did miss that.
[14:31] <MacSlow> mhb, Riddell should know I think
[14:31] <mhb> MacSlow: he suggested me to ask here. He does not have much information either, it seems.
[14:31] <MacSlow> *shrugg*
[14:35] <MacSlow> mhb, that question seemed to have "killed" the meeting :)
[14:35]  * mvo_ has no idea about this
[14:36] <seb128> I know there was some discussions about KDE4
[14:36] <seb128> it'll not be lts quality
[14:36] <seb128> but I don't know if they decided anything there
[14:37] <mvo> I will try to make sure that dapper->hardy upgrades (with text/gtk frontend) will work for kubuntu
[14:37] <mvo> but I guess that is not really related :)
[14:38] <mhb> seb128: we have not planned to ship KDE4 as default.
[14:39] <mhb> mvo: it is not really related, but definitely appreciated!
[14:41] <pitti> Keybuk: do you know something about the LTSishness decision?
[14:41] <Keybuk> I know lots of things
[14:42] <Keybuk> which thing that I know would you like to know?
[14:42] <Keybuk> :-)
[14:42] <Keybuk> ah, Kubuntu LTS
[14:42] <Keybuk> Riddell: have you announced anything there yet?
[14:43] <Riddell> I have not
[14:43] <Keybuk> ok; when are you planning on sending something out?
[14:44]  * Hobbsee thinks people have already found out
[14:45] <Riddell> Keybuk: I have no plans
[14:45] <Keybuk> Riddell: since people are asking, soon might be a good time :-)
[14:46] <Riddell> Keybuk: I don't really have anything to say
[14:47] <Hobbsee> Riddell: it's therefore the kubuntu council's decision on where to go from here, w.r.t kubuntu hardy, then?
[14:47]  * Hobbsee would ahve thought that was worth saying
[21:35] <theunixgeek> @now
[21:35] <ubotu> Current time in Etc/UTC: December 20 2007, 21:35:18 - Next meeting: MOTU meeting in 14 hours 24 minutes
[21:35] <theunixgeek> Why is every meeting in a bad time for me :(
[21:35] <theunixgeek> lol just kidding
[21:38] <somerville32> lol