[00:47] <federico3> bryce: ping
[00:47] <bryce> federico3: heya
[00:49] <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?
[00:50] <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
[00:51] <bryce> federico3: heh, pretty ancient git snapshot at that...
[03:04] <federico3> bryce: ok, thanks :)
[09:46] <pwnguin> woo
[09:46] <pwnguin> new flash
[09:47] <pwnguin> that doesn't suck at rendering
[10:02] <tjaalton> hmm? I don't see a new one released
[10:02] <tjaalton> oh, beta
[10:07] <tjaalton> no pulseaudio support :(
[17:39] <tjaalton> fck, yet-another flight delay
[20:54] <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.
[20:55] <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
[20:56] <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
[20:58] <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
[20:59] <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
[21:00] <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
[21:02] <pwnguin> did they reject the quickie hack?
[21:03] <bryce> pwnguin: basically
[21:03] <bryce> but without any explanation why
[21:03] <bryce> just a cryptic "I want something different"
[21:04] <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
[21:08] <bryce> pwnguin: I'm sure soeren knows that quite well
[21:09] <bryce> pwnguin: I have to imagine he dislikes the idea of taking contributions from his distro's competitor ;-) ;-)
[21:11] <pwnguin> redhat?
[21:14] <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
[21:15] <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
[21:16] <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
[21:17] <pwnguin> i might not even have logs of it =(
[23:31] <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 ;)
[23:32] <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
[23:33] <bryce> Ng, heh
[23:34] <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 :/
[23:35] <bryce> yeah
[23:38] <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
[23:39] <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
[23:40] <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? :)
[23:42] <bryce> might be a good idea.  pitti had some strict principles about it, but steve is good at considering things case by case
[23:43] <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.