[00:47] bryce: ping [00:47] federico3: heya [00:49] 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] resapplet | 0.0.7+cvs2005.09.30-0ubuntu5 | http://us.archive.ubuntu.com hardy/universe Sources [00:50] afaik we don't use it for anything [00:51] federico3: heh, pretty ancient git snapshot at that... [03:04] bryce: ok, thanks :) [09:46] woo [09:46] new flash [09:47] that doesn't suck at rendering [10:02] hmm? I don't see a new one released [10:02] oh, beta [10:07] no pulseaudio support :( [17:39] fck, yet-another flight delay [20:54] 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] maybe it's just NIH syndrome? I don't know [20:54] yeah, he said it's not the right way to do it, but I'm baffled too. [20:55] it works, surely that's a good start? [20:55] are you in Prague now? [20:55] to be honest I'm rather surprised they shipped without at least some sort of revert capability [20:55] no, still in portland. [20:55] ah [20:56] 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] 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] we could reply to his mail asking about the revert dialog again, so that upstream sees it [20:59] or sees it again rather [21:00] I thought about that, but I don't really care [21:00] 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] did they reject the quickie hack? [21:03] pwnguin: basically [21:03] but without any explanation why [21:03] just a cryptic "I want something different" [21:04] 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] pwnguin: I'm sure soeren knows that quite well [21:09] pwnguin: I have to imagine he dislikes the idea of taking contributions from his distro's competitor ;-) ;-) [21:11] redhat? [21:14] redhat developers seem to believe no ubuntu developer actually writes code. when i mentioned displayconfig-gtk arlied got pretty upset [21:14] yeah [21:15] heh, I didn't know about that - what did he get upset about in particular? [21:15] i said ubuntu wrote a display configuration thing and he was like NUH UH [21:15] 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] it wasnt anything in particular, except perhaps his own ignorance of history [21:16] i'd have to dig the conversations out of my nouveau logs [21:17] i might not even have logs of it =( [23:31] remember to remind redhat guys with that attitude that one of our guys wrote their *init* ;) [23:31] or if you're feeling more offensive, that while they might bring code to the table, we bring relevancy and users ;) [23:32] 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] Ng, heh [23:34] 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] yeah [23:38] 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] like, point releases of terminator or inkscape ought to be sru-able. [23:38] definitely [23:39] and I would totally put in the effort to do point releases for that [23:39] same [23:39] as it is, there's no point, so I'll just PPA up the next full release [23:39] * bryce nods [23:40] perhaps there is a case to be made for this to be allowed, particularly for universe stuff, in the LTS point releases [23:40] yeah with inkscape I'm dragging my feet on doing a point release [23:40] maybe not so much in the regular 6 month cycle [23:40] I'm probably going to have to sru each individual patch [23:40] :/ [23:40] which is a pita and time consuming [23:40] fancy sounding slangasek out about it? :) [23:42] might be a good idea. pitti had some strict principles about it, but steve is good at considering things case by case [23:43] I'd heard that the policy had been relaxed somewhat recently, but I'm not sure how that applies to point release exceptions.