[01:06] <sectech> Okay I have a bit of a situation here... I have bugs that are in the process of being triaged, but I won't have enough time to work on them for about a week (I am in the process of moving)... Should I let them sit until then or return them to "new" status?
[01:07] <sectech> I wasn't anticipating a lot of down time...
[01:43] <hggdh> sectech: if you assigned yourself to them, reassign to the correct group
[01:44] <hggdh> and leave them as incomplete (if this is their current status)
[02:34] <bddebian> Boo
[06:51] <lyzium> im having trouble with my first git bisect. im trying to find an error somewhere in a xf86-video-intel driver, but when i input the good and the bad nothing else happens. what would my next step be?
[06:51] <lyzium> the bug is explained here https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/xserver-xorg-video-intel/+bug/228526
[07:21] <nickellery> what package do you use for shut down errors?
[07:22] <nickellery> is it linux?
[07:22] <nickellery> or usplash?
[11:38] <Iulian> Hey
[13:26] <qense> ping bdmurray
[13:27] <emgent> heya
[13:42] <qense> when you subscribe to bugmail from a source package, do you get all mail, or just the new bugs?
[13:46] <Iulian> qense: All mails.
[13:46] <qense> nice...
[13:46] <qense> I wanted to keep an eye on new HAL bugs, but that would be a bit hard if you'd get all mail
[13:47] <Iulian> qense: What about update-manager then?
[13:47] <qense> ?
[13:48] <Iulian> I wanted to say that update-manager has a lot of bugs reported.
[13:49] <qense> true
[13:49] <qense> but I'm not really experienced with that :)
[13:49] <qense> (although I'll need to familarize myself with DeviceKit soon too, since that's going to replace HAL)
[16:30] <ruiboon> hi. require some help here in triagging a bug.. A package specifies an either-or type of dependencies and the users have one of them already installed. During postinst, the user select an option such that it requires the other dependency(which is not installed). Now the user fill a bug report saying that the other dependency should be install. what should this status be? invalid?
[16:45] <Hobbsee> hggdh: dude, calm down.  it's not a flame war :)
[16:46] <Hobbsee> hggdh: my comments were based on what a number of people have been saying - not you, in particular
[18:04] <qense> pretty nasty discussions at the bugsquad mailist about the dev vs bugsquad workflow
[18:14] <Iulian> Well, IMO we shouldn't start a fight about that as Hobbsee mentioned above.
[18:18] <qense> we should try to not flame each other
[18:18] <qense> but sometimes it felt a bit like that
[18:46] <MoMaT> I've reported a bug and it has been fixed upstream but there is no ubuntu (or even debian) package with the fix included yet.
[18:47] <MoMaT> what status should I set to the bug?
[18:47] <MoMaT> is "fix committed" OK, or should it be "fix released"?
[18:48] <Iulian> MoMaT: Fix Committed
[18:49] <Iulian> MoMaT: Also please have a look at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Status
[18:52] <MoMaT> Thx. I did. But got puzzled with the tar ball release announcement.
[18:53] <MoMaT> The fix is not only committed to the repo but new .x release has been hmmm... released.
[19:50] <dejv_ntb> hello
[19:51] <dejv_ntb> is here anybody of bug squad team?
[20:04] <ffm> dejv_ntb: yes
[20:04] <ffm> bdmurray: ping
[20:13] <dejv_ntb> join #ubuntu-bugcontrol
[20:15] <dejv_ntb> bug #207002
[20:16] <dejv_ntb> this bug has simple cause and patch available and it didn't get treated in any way since ubuntu dev's :(