| federico3 | bryce: ping | 00:47 |
|---|---|---|
| bryce | federico3: heya | 00:47 |
| federico3 | bryce: quick question - I'm seeing if we can kill resapplet, or if it still needs fixes. So I was looking at opensuse's/fedora's/ubuntu's patches for resapplet --- do you guys ship 0.0.7? | 00:49 |
| bryce | resapplet | 0.0.7+cvs2005.09.30-0ubuntu5 | http://us.archive.ubuntu.com hardy/universe Sources | 00:50 |
| bryce | afaik we don't use it for anything | 00:50 |
| bryce | federico3: heh, pretty ancient git snapshot at that... | 00:51 |
| federico3 | bryce: ok, thanks :) | 03:04 |
| pwnguin | woo | 09:46 |
| pwnguin | new flash | 09:46 |
| pwnguin | that doesn't suck at rendering | 09:47 |
| tjaalton | hmm? I don't see a new one released | 10:02 |
| tjaalton | oh, beta | 10:02 |
| tjaalton | no pulseaudio support :( | 10:07 |
| tjaalton | fck, yet-another flight delay | 17:39 |
| bryce | james_w: I'm baffled why soeren doesn't include the revert dialog. I've asked but he won't explain what is wrong with it. | 20:54 |
| bryce | maybe it's just NIH syndrome? I don't know | 20:54 |
| james_w | yeah, he said it's not the right way to do it, but I'm baffled too. | 20:54 |
| james_w | it works, surely that's a good start? | 20:55 |
| james_w | are you in Prague now? | 20:55 |
| bryce | to be honest I'm rather surprised they shipped without at least some sort of revert capability | 20:55 |
| bryce | no, still in portland. | 20:55 |
| james_w | ah | 20:55 |
| james_w | I was going to suggest that we find a couple of hours next week to try and get it merged upstream, but that seems unneeded now. | 20:56 |
| * bryce nods | 20:56 | |
| bryce | yeah I don't see much point into putting in more time into the revert dialog until we see what upstream does about it | 20:58 |
| james_w | we could reply to his mail asking about the revert dialog again, so that upstream sees it | 20:59 |
| james_w | or sees it again rather | 20:59 |
| bryce | I thought about that, but I don't really care | 21:00 |
| bryce | either they'll come up with something better than our quickie hack, or they won't and we'll continue using our patch | 21:00 |
| pwnguin | did they reject the quickie hack? | 21:02 |
| bryce | pwnguin: basically | 21:03 |
| bryce | but without any explanation why | 21:03 |
| bryce | just a cryptic "I want something different" | 21:03 |
| pwnguin | hrm. in that case the best you can do is argue that accepting the quickie hack doesnt mean it can be redone later a more acceptable way | 21:04 |
| bryce | pwnguin: I'm sure soeren knows that quite well | 21:08 |
| bryce | pwnguin: I have to imagine he dislikes the idea of taking contributions from his distro's competitor ;-) ;-) | 21:09 |
| pwnguin | redhat? | 21:11 |
| pwnguin | redhat developers seem to believe no ubuntu developer actually writes code. when i mentioned displayconfig-gtk arlied got pretty upset | 21:14 |
| bryce | yeah | 21:14 |
| bryce | heh, I didn't know about that - what did he get upset about in particular? | 21:15 |
| pwnguin | i said ubuntu wrote a display configuration thing and he was like NUH UH | 21:15 |
| bryce | yeah the meme out there is that ubuntu never contributes upstream, so when we try to do it, they seem to freak out | 21:15 |
| pwnguin | it wasnt anything in particular, except perhaps his own ignorance of history | 21:16 |
| pwnguin | i'd have to dig the conversations out of my nouveau logs | 21:16 |
| pwnguin | i might not even have logs of it =( | 21:17 |
| Ng | remember to remind redhat guys with that attitude that one of our guys wrote their *init* ;) | 23:31 |
| Ng | or if you're feeling more offensive, that while they might bring code to the table, we bring relevancy and users ;) | 23:31 |
| Ng | bryce: thanks for the triaging of terminator event bugs, just pushed the patch into trunk. need to see if I can sneak some things like that in as SRU | 23:32 |
| bryce | Ng, heh | 23:33 |
| Ng | I find myself agreeing with murrayc a bit here - I'm upstream and I'm quite sure we can fix a bunch of bugs without regressing, and I would like to do so rather than leave people with the bugs for up to 3 years :/ | 23:34 |
| bryce | yeah | 23:35 |
| bryce | sometimes I think it would be nice to have two categories for sru's - one for truly important things like the kernel, libraries, firefox, etc. that would trash your system if a bad update got out - and another for less critical end user apps and stuff | 23:38 |
| bryce | like, point releases of terminator or inkscape ought to be sru-able. | 23:38 |
| Ng | definitely | 23:38 |
| Ng | and I would totally put in the effort to do point releases for that | 23:39 |
| bryce | same | 23:39 |
| Ng | as it is, there's no point, so I'll just PPA up the next full release | 23:39 |
| * bryce nods | 23:39 | |
| Ng | perhaps there is a case to be made for this to be allowed, particularly for universe stuff, in the LTS point releases | 23:40 |
| bryce | yeah with inkscape I'm dragging my feet on doing a point release | 23:40 |
| Ng | maybe not so much in the regular 6 month cycle | 23:40 |
| bryce | I'm probably going to have to sru each individual patch | 23:40 |
| Ng | :/ | 23:40 |
| bryce | which is a pita and time consuming | 23:40 |
| Ng | fancy sounding slangasek out about it? :) | 23:40 |
| bryce | might be a good idea. pitti had some strict principles about it, but steve is good at considering things case by case | 23:42 |
| james_w | I'd heard that the policy had been relaxed somewhat recently, but I'm not sure how that applies to point release exceptions. | 23:43 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!