[00:11] <sectech> bdmurray, ping
[00:11] <bdmurray> sectech: pong
[00:14] <sectech> bdmurray, pm
[00:19] <hggdh> maco, ping
[00:29]  * MTecknology hopes bug control app is approved
[00:29] <MTecknology> if it's not I'll just cry
[02:22] <Elbrus> If a bug is fixed in jaunty (already was before the bug was filled), it can it be set to "fix released", right?
[02:23] <hggdh> if it affects only Jaunty, yes
[02:24] <hggdh> if it affects other releases, and it is important enough to work on it for them, mark ir fix released on jaunty, and mark it for the other releases
[02:26] <Elbrus> hggdh: well, it is more a wishlist item: bug 303709
[02:27] <Hobbsee> hggdh: even if it won't fit the requirements for a SRU?
[02:27] <Elbrus> but: how would I set it fix released ONLY in jaunty? first do some magic?
[02:27] <Elbrus> :)
[02:29] <hggdh> you nominate the bug for the other releases
[02:29] <Elbrus> ok, I will do that.
[02:31] <Elbrus> hmm, then it goes to the release managers. I don't think this bug is important enought to bother them with this (also lazarus has other issues which will make this bug non-relevant)
[02:33] <Hobbsee> then just mark it fix released, and say it wont' get fixed for the earlier releases.
[02:35] <Elbrus> Hobbsee: that's what I planned to do, glad you agree
[02:35] <Elbrus> thanks
[02:35] <Hobbsee> Elbrus: cool :)
[02:35] <hggdh> Hobbsee, of course meeting SRU reqs. Forgot to mention it, busy eating a piece of good bread
[02:35] <Hobbsee> hggdh: :)
[04:01] <pckchem> If someone could mosey on over to bug 324621 and make sure I'm not being paranoid by marking it as a possible security vulnerability, I'd appreciate it.
[04:01] <pckchem> Excuse me, bug 304621
[06:10] <MTecknology> So, if doing "sudo rmmod ath_pci && sudo modprobe ath_pci" makes a problem go away, this bug is still in the confirmed state since there's isn't any patch or anything released to correct this issue w/o user intervention, right?
[06:12] <Hobbsee> MTecknology: wouldn't that just be solved by a reboot?
[06:13] <Hobbsee> but, yes, afaik.
[06:16] <MTecknology> Hobbsee: yes - but I wanted to make sure that was right
[06:16] <Hobbsee> ah
[06:18] <MTecknology> Hobbsee: goal was to see if the problem was in that module
[06:18] <Hobbsee> ahh
[06:20] <MTecknology> GR! I still want to find out if it's possible to subscribe to a page and all of its sub pages in wiki.ubuntu.com
[06:26] <dholbach> good morning
[06:26] <MTecknology> hi
[06:27] <dholbach> hi MTecknology
[06:27] <Hobbsee> hey dholbach
[06:27] <dholbach> hi Hobbsee
[06:28] <MTecknology> Hobbsee: could you help me out for a minute?
[06:29] <MTecknology> Hobbsee: I'm just going to need you to edit a page
[08:05] <BUGabundo_work> is martin pitt around?
[08:05] <BUGabundo_work> I would like to ask him something about jockey
[08:05] <BUGabundo_work> its not installing nvidia driver
[08:05] <BUGabundo_work> on jaunty
[08:50] <LinkOps> whats the best thing to do if you wanna start to learn how to resolve bugs new to linux and all that too
[08:50] <LinkOps> but have a deesire to learn and help
[08:55] <dholbach> LinkOps: check out https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/GettingStarted
[08:55] <dholbach> it links to all the necessary documentation - the packaging guide with tutorials how to patch packages, tutorial videos and lists to bugs you can get started with :)
[09:10] <BUGabundo_work> against what package should I file a bug on permissions?
[09:11] <dholbach> BUGabundo_work: can you be a bit more explicit what the problem is?
[09:11] <BUGabundo_work> I'm having trouble with kmail (on ubuntu jaunty
[09:12] <BUGabundo_work> so I filed http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=176773
[09:12] <BUGabundo_work> and discussed it on #kontact
[09:12] <BUGabundo_work> kron pointed to incorrect permissions on /tmp
[09:13] <dholbach> err
[09:13] <BUGabundo_work> yeah
[09:13] <BUGabundo_work> hard combo
[09:13] <dholbach> can you          touch /tmp/test         ?
[09:13] <BUGabundo_work> sure
[09:13] <dholbach> does that work?
[09:14] <BUGabundo> http://paste.ubuntu.com/79722/
[09:14] <dholbach> that looks good
[09:14] <randomaction> Hello guys. In this bug report ( https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnome-commander/+bug/295769 ) a crash is reported, but no .crash file, stack trace or anything is attached. I'm going to close it as invalid and give the stock response https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Responses#Missing%20a%20crash%20report%20or%20having%20a%20.crash%20attachment . Is this correct?
[09:14] <dholbach> I wonder what the problem is then?
[09:15] <dholbach> randomaction: sounds good
[09:15] <BUGabundo> dholbach: look at drw------- 2 bugabundo bugabundo 4.0K 2008-12-03 08:26 ksocket-bugabundo/
[09:15] <BUGabundo> no execute
[09:16] <dholbach> does it work if you +x it as root?
[09:17]  * BUGabundo testing
[09:19] <dholbach> BUGabundo: also try to          mkdir /tmp/test-dir         and see which permissions it has
[09:19] <BUGabundo> so far so good
[09:19] <BUGabundo> still hasn't crash
[09:19] <randomaction> dholbach: Thank you.
[09:19] <dholbach> randomaction: any time
[09:20] <BUGabundo> email is coming
[09:20] <BUGabundo> bug against kde or kdepim maybe?
[09:22] <dholbach> if the permissions for the directory you created are correct I guess it should be in kdepim or kde somewhere
[09:22] <dholbach> but I'm no K-Expert
[09:23] <BUGabundo> dholbach: http://paste.ubuntu.com/79725/
[09:24] <dholbach> looks like what I'd expect
[09:25] <BUGabundo> I'll file it against kdepim
[09:25] <BUGabundo> and let the mantainer decide later
[09:26] <dholbach> right, best to directly link the upstream bug too
[09:26] <dholbach> so you have all the information in one place
[09:27] <BUGabundo_work> its not a upstream bug
[09:27] <BUGabundo_work> at least #kontact doesn't seem to think so
[09:30] <yuriy> BUGabundo_work: if you've already filed it, link it anyway so the information is there
[09:30] <BUGabundo_work> ah sure
[09:30] <BUGabundo_work> 1st line!
[09:31] <BUGabundo_work> wanna know the strangest thing?
[09:31] <BUGabundo> $ kmail --version
[09:31] <BUGabundo> KDE: 4.1.80 (KDE 4.1.80 (KDE 4.2 Beta1))
[09:31] <BUGabundo> KMail: 1.10.90 $ apt-cache show kmail
[09:31] <BUGabundo> Source: kdepim
[09:31] <BUGabundo> Version: 4:4.1.73-0ubuntu2
[09:32] <BUGabundo> one is 4.1.80 the other 4.1.73
[09:32] <BUGabundo> FYI https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/kdepim/+bug/304705
[09:32] <yuriy> i've had apt-cache tell me some weird things as well
[09:33] <BUGabundo> $ apt-cache policy kmail kmail:  Installed: 4:4.1.73-0ubuntu2
[11:26] <Laibsch> Hello
[11:28] <Laibsch> I want to report a bug, but I am a bit unsure as to what package it is really in.  Here is what happened: I opened "Administration language support" and added support for Japanese.  Of course, I was expecting one or the other package to be added
[11:28] <Laibsch> But there were a couple of packages removed as well.  And I think that should not have happened without explicit confirmation.
[11:28] <Laibsch> Who should I blame? ;-)
[11:29] <Laibsch> "dpkg -S  /usr/bin/gnome-language-selector" maybe?
[11:29] <BUGabundo_work> I guess
[11:32] <Laibsch> Seems to be known
[11:32] <Laibsch> bug 37707
[11:33] <BUGabundo_work> that's another bug
[11:34] <BUGabundo_work> that happens when a user install without network
[11:34] <BUGabundo_work> and Ubuntu fails to download the languages on the 1st updates
[11:51] <Laibsch> really?
[11:52] <Laibsch> Separate issue?
[11:53] <Laibsch> I'd think both situations at least share a common bug: language-selector should never deinstall a package without a warning
[12:24] <BUGabundo_work> Laibsch: many apps have in common the package ... lol
[12:24] <BUGabundo_work> but from my POV it's a new bug
[12:24] <BUGabundo_work> please file it as such
[12:24] <Laibsch> ??
[12:24] <Laibsch> have in common?
[12:24] <BUGabundo_work> later if you or any QA member finds it is not, ir can be marked as dupe
[12:24] <Laibsch> I don't understand your point
[12:24] <BUGabundo_work> never mind
[12:25] <BUGabundo_work> to tired... and with no food in tummy
[12:25] <Laibsch> OK
[12:38] <drguildo> is there a channel for kernel problems?
[12:42] <BUGabundo_work> drguildo: #ubuntu-kernel
[14:33] <xteejx> Good afternoon guys
[14:49] <xteejx> Canonical: Is it you guys who approve/deny the Bug Control applications? I sent one off 3 weeks ago or so, edited it last week/week and half ago. Just wondering if theres any updates on progress please? :)
[14:53] <xteejx> Anyone?
[14:54] <dholbach> xteejx: bdmurray and pedro_ take care of that, but I'm not sure they're around yet
[14:54] <xteejx> dholbach: ok cool thanks dan :)
[14:55] <dholbach> anytime
[16:10] <bucket529> Could somebody please change bug 304580 from 'Undecided' to 'Wishlist'? Thanks.
[16:15] <charlie-tca> bucket529: done
[16:31] <xteejx> Can someone change bug 231455 to Medium for me please? And also I need help on this particular bug, am unsure how to get this guys Xorg logs
[16:34] <charlie-tca> xteejx: The bug is incomplete, why should it be changed in importance? It will still not be confirmed.
[16:48] <xteejx> charlie-tca: I am still unsure how to obtain their Xorg logs considering the circumstances
[16:59] <xteejx> Is Launchpad down?
[16:59] <charlie-tca> xteejx: The last comment should be a new bug, since he can not install. He (Socrates470BC) won´t have logs. For the others, request them, and if not supplied in 4 weeks, mark it invalid
[17:00] <charlie-tca> and add the comments to have it changed back when the logs are supplied.
[17:01] <xteejx> charlie-tca: Thanks :)
[17:01] <charlie-tca> no problem.
[17:03] <xteejx> is anyone else having a problem gettin onto launchpad?
[17:03] <charlie-tca> not here
[17:04] <xteejx> strange...it keeps timing out for me when i try to search
[17:41] <bdmurray> xteejx: what are you searching for?
[17:59] <bddebian> Boo
[19:16] <xteejx> bdmurray: Still here? Sorry got sidetracked
[19:16] <bdmurray> xteejx: yes, still here
[19:18] <xteejx> bdmurray: Hi. It was in regards to bug 231455. I don't know how to proceed with it, I'm a bit stumped I think I need his Xorg files as there is obviously a Xconfig error somewhere.
[19:18] <xteejx> Damn I knew it wasn't just me with launchpad
[19:21] <xteejx> No worries bdmurray, the other guy has a different problem
[19:22] <MTecknology> xteejx: ouch, that's a mess
[19:23] <xteejx> MTecknology: Tell me about it! Is there any way to refile his comments under another bug for him (Socrates) and get rid of them in that report?
[19:23] <MTecknology> h on
[19:24] <xteejx> kk
[19:24] <xteejx> back in 20 mins guys dinners ready :)
[19:27] <MTecknology> xteejx: can't do it
[20:03] <xteejx> MTecknology: just saw your addition to the bug report, thank you :)
[20:04] <MTecknology> xteejx: 'tis the best I can do
[21:08] <bucket529> Could somebody please change bug 303683 from 'Undecided' to 'Wishlist'? Thanks.
[21:11] <greg-g> bucket529: done
[21:53] <bucket529> Could somebody please change bug 303986 from 'Undecided' to 'Wishlist'? Thanks
[21:54] <bdmurray> bug 304929 is uh interesting
[21:55] <bdmurray> bucket529: done
[22:00] <sectech> Good evening...
[22:01] <bdmurray> sectech: hello
[22:03] <charlie-tca> bdmurray: yes, it certainly is. What do you do with it?
[22:03] <charlie-tca> more ifo maybe?
[22:04] <sectech> Are "please merge" bugs still being marked as wishlist?
[22:04] <sectech> if setup properly.
[22:07] <charlie-tca> bdmurray: did I read the logs right? he aborted java5 installation and then aborted java6 install?
[22:09] <bdmurray> charlie-tca: I really only looked at the title
[22:10] <charlie-tca> Logs seem to show he answered no when asked to download from Sun
[22:21] <drguildo> what's the name of the package i should file kernel bugs against?
[22:21] <drguildo> kernel or linux?
[22:21] <bdmurray> drguildo: linux but it'd be best if you used 'ubuntu-bug -p linux'
[22:22] <xteejx> linux
[22:22] <bdmurray> A lot of information will be gathered for you automatically that way
[22:22] <xteejx> I didn't even know that one
[22:22] <drguildo> bdmurray: thank ye
[22:23] <xteejx> bdmurray: You see with the ubuntu-bug reporting facility does it actually grab everything needed, or is that a figure of speech?
[22:23] <bdmurray> xteejx: it depends... ;-) on the package used and the type of bug
[22:24] <bdmurray> it'll grab everything you'd normally see in an apport bug report like release, package version etc...
[22:24] <bdmurray> then depending on the package it'll grab more stuff
[22:24] <MTecknology> xteejx: ping
[22:24] <xteejx> of course, but not necesarily backtraces?
[22:24] <xteejx> ping?
[22:25] <xteejx> MTecknology: I'm a human not a web server lol
[22:25] <MTecknology> xteejx: I'm thinking that bug should be held invalid
[22:25] <xteejx> Invalid? Why?
[22:26] <MTecknology> xteejx: b/c the reporter isn't giving any information at all and the other one isn't doing what we ask - especially as far as giving reasonable details
[22:28] <xteejx> MTecknology: That just means he's arrogant or can't read, I would use another word but not suitable for IRC, and not everyone lives in the UK to understand it lol I'd give it another week tops, he might reply, but that other guy is pi**ing me off
[22:28] <MTecknology> yup
[22:29] <MTecknology> xteejx: I'm pretty sure this guy is screwing things up himself
[22:29] <MTecknology> xteejx: http://launchpadlibrarian.net/20191435/A%3A\glxinfo.log
[22:30] <MTecknology> xteejx: Direct Rendering: Yes ... That doesn't happen if there's a significant issue
[22:31] <xteejx> Well i very much doubt direct r. would be on if there was a serious X detection problem
[22:32] <xteejx> Hmm, he has reported 3 bugs...2 of which have been Incomplete for a while.... I think enough has been said on that, Invalidate
[22:35] <MTecknology> xteejx: honestly, the reporter isn't much help either - but he
[22:35] <MTecknology> was at least putting in an effort
[22:35] <xteejx> true but his last addition to the report was........
[22:36] <bdmurray> which bug is this?
[22:36] <xteejx> 20th July
[22:36] <xteejx> bug 231455, what do you think bug master? :)
[22:36] <MTecknology> https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/xorg/+bug/231455
[22:36] <sectech> heh launchpad is puking on me
[22:36] <MTecknology> ya
[22:37] <xteejx> sectech: I had that earlier, couldn't search or anything
[22:38] <sectech> That's what I was trying to do... search for a dup bug
[22:38] <sectech> I'll try later
[22:39] <xteejx> sectech: Yeah same prob about 5 hours ago or so, seems search function is slowwwww and timing out
[22:39] <sectech> I'm sure someone reported it to QA.... many many times :P
[22:40] <xteejx> lol
[22:44] <xteejx> bdmurray: Whats your opinion on bug 231455? Invalidate it or leave it a week see if the guy gets back to us?
[22:44] <bdmurray> I'd keep trying to work with the 2nd person but they really should submit a new bug as you've indicated.  However, the conversation isn't interrupting the original report which should end up as invalid.
[22:44] <bdmurray> Given no further replies from the original reporter.
[22:45]  * xteejx confused
[22:46] <xteejx> bdmurray: Sorry its 10:46pm I'm easily confused this late
[22:46] <MTecknology> xteejx: that's not late
[22:46] <xteejx> MTecknology: It is when you get woken up at 7am with your partner running off to college lol
[22:46] <bdmurray> I think trying to help Socrates is a good idea and it isn't interferring with the original report since it seems dead.
[22:47] <MTecknology> xteejx: I invalidated the bug since the reporter isn't responding. The second guy needs to submit a new bug
[22:48] <MTecknology> bdmurray: Or would it have been a better idea to try to stick with him there?
[22:48] <MTecknology> We could continue trying to help him with the invalid status and see if we can get anything helpful from him?
[22:49] <xteejx> WEll, in that case it should stay incomplete?
[22:49] <bdmurray> My point is that it seems to be their first interaction with the Ubuntu community and we don't want to turn them away.
[22:49] <xteejx> I agree completely, but give them notes for future reports and help in this instance
[22:49] <bdmurray> Searching for related bugs would be a good idea.
[22:50] <sectech> Someone take a look at bug #304942 and tell me your opinion...
[22:50] <sectech> There has to be tons of dups out there for it... if I could get launchpad to not puke..
[22:50] <sectech> tempted to invalidate it... but that wouldn't be the proper procedure.
[22:50] <bdmurray> The lspci output has information about the video card
[22:51] <bdmurray> which is enough to figure out the video driver and the package to look for bug reports in
[22:52] <xteejx> sectech: seems that firefox is parsing data incorrectly causing a serious memory leak....backtrace?
[22:52] <sectech> xteejx,  On a 5MB file with incomplete html?
[22:52] <sectech> I agree it shouldn't take 1.2GB, if that's what it is indeed taking
[22:53] <sectech> but firefox will take a while to load the file.... and parse it.
[22:53] <bdmurray> I'm not sure why you'd invalidate that one
[22:53] <xteejx> 1.2GB? Probably the entire swap space, but it shouldnt be invalidated, its a current problem
[22:54] <MTecknology> sectech: Can it be reproduced?
[22:54] <sectech> bdmurray,  tempted....  but I know better....  It just seems like someone is disguising a .txt file as a small file and is trying to give firefox grief.
[22:55] <sectech> MT, it took a while to load on my system... but it did load
[22:55] <sectech> bdmurray,  I'm looking for a dup...  I'm thinking it's a classic case of "firefox taking too long to load really small 5MB file"
[22:55] <MTecknology> I'll try it in a bit
[22:57] <sectech> xteejx,  I think it's valid... but I smell something fishy with that one...
[22:58] <sectech> lol someone ran it through a w3 validator... 4348 errors
[23:01] <xteejx> Hmmm......stupid question is he using a supported version or firefox and what extensions etc is he running, one of them may be causing the leak
[23:01] <xteejx> *of firefox
[23:02] <sectech> Before I think of leak... I want to confirm it is actually taking 1.2GB
[23:02] <sectech> because the original reporter said the HTML file was small...
[23:02] <sectech> brb
[23:05] <MTecknology> xteejx: oh - I got up 0700 and went to 0300 doing homework the whole time
[23:05] <MTecknology> I'm gonna test that bug
[23:06] <xteejx> MT: lol rather you than me :)
[23:06] <xteejx> I can test in virtualbox
[23:07] <sectech> umm I wouldn't test that in a VB if I were you lol
[23:07] <sectech> well not unless you want it to stop responding for a while....
[23:07] <xteejx> whys that? memory leak cant affect me in a virtual swap
[23:07] <xteejx> i have a power button on the laptop lol
[23:08] <MTecknology> it doesn't feel like a memory leak
[23:08] <sectech> okay... anyone jump in and correct me here....   A memory leak typically means to me that memory is not freed up after a process is ran or after an action is preformed...  Firefox doesn't stay at 1.2GB once the file is parsed, it returns to it's original size (or close to it)
[23:09] <MTecknology> killall ftw
[23:09] <MTecknology> It's not a leak
[23:09] <xteejx> not a leak
[23:09] <sectech> Yes firefox takes quite a bit to parse the file, but so far I haven't been able to produce a memory leak
[23:10] <MTecknology> it's not a leak or an issue with firefox
[23:10] <MTecknology> it's an issue with the site
[23:10] <MTecknology> I think.....
[23:10] <sectech> MT exactly...
[23:10] <MTecknology> do this
[23:10] <MTecknology> wget http://www.archive.org/stream/titlelistofdocum024685mbp/titlelistofdocum024685mbp_djvu.txt
[23:10] <sectech> if you wget the ".txt" file
[23:10] <sectech> lol, you already did what I did
[23:10] <MTecknology> ya, that
[23:10] <sectech> See that's why I said I was tempted to invalidate it...
[23:10] <MTecknology> the thing is 4.9MB
[23:11] <sectech> I will leave it for now,  but I will be searching for a dup
[23:11] <xteejx> Agreed, file is just under 5MB its more than likely incorrect HTML coding in the page causing it
[23:11] <MTecknology> my god that xml is uge
[23:11] <MTecknology> huge*
[23:11] <MTecknology> the text file is XML
[23:12] <MTecknology> nope, It looked kinda like  it, sorry
[23:12] <MTecknology> well - I know one way to firmly test
[23:12] <sectech> Firefox will parse a file regardless if it's good html or bad html... and will show what it can... but it might take a lot to do it
[23:13] <MTecknology> trying it IE
[23:13] <sectech> I don't have IE lol
[23:14] <MTecknology> virtual machine, I have a class that does programming in VB.Net
[23:14] <MTecknology> I think IE loaded it, but it took a while
[23:14] <xteejx> the txt link is fine in google chrome on vista
[23:14] <xteejx> but its open source ;)
[23:14] <MTecknology> IE loads it
[23:15] <sectech> 100%?
[23:15] <MTecknology> seems to
[23:15] <MTecknology> it took a while
[23:15] <sectech> My system must be a bit slow, it's still loading on the server
[23:15] <xteejx> Its the size of the file and its all text, i think thats the big problem it should be downloaded to be viewed not opened in browser - user error partly, but firefox _should_ give an option to save
[23:15] <MTecknology> I wonder if maybe firefox does have an issue with it or if it's trying to eat up too many resources to parse
[23:16] <MTecknology> no it shouldn't
[23:16] <sectech> WHOA....
[23:16] <sectech> hang on.
[23:16] <MTecknology> it's written in HTML - just a bad extention
[23:16] <xteejx> its not just firefox, windoze too
[23:16] <MTecknology> I need to take off, I'll try to remember to catch up later
[23:16] <xteejx> cya MT
[23:16] <sectech> It's completely loaded and it's showing as having a footprint of 1GB...
[23:17] <xteejx> bloody hell
[23:17] <sectech> yeah that's not right......
[23:18] <sectech> any firefox team members in here?
[23:18] <xteejx> definately not for a tiny 5MB file.....if this was 1990 I'd understand...
[23:18] <sectech> or alive rather
[23:18] <xteejx> #mozilla ?
[23:18] <xteejx> !firefox
[23:18] <xteejx> !mozilla-bugsa
[23:18] <xteejx> !mozilla-bugs
[23:18] <xteejx> typical
[23:20] <persia> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Upstream/Mozilla ?
[23:21] <xteejx> omfg look at bug 231455 sorry its seriously laughable "will canonical take my pc to look at it" lmao
[23:21] <bdmurray> you could also try #ubuntu-mozillateam
[23:21] <maco> xteejx: well now you mention it....the people doing hardware drivers do have an easier time fixing bugs when they have direct access
[23:21] <sectech> bdmurray,  that's what I was after
[23:21] <kiko> hey there
[23:22] <kiko> is foppe around?
[23:22] <kiko> https://edge.launchpad.net/~foppe
[23:22] <xteejx> maco: I understand that, but I believe its a simple acpi problem, just a feeling...but he isn't providing the info
[23:22] <xteejx> I had to laugh to myself though
[23:22] <kiko> he's a bugsquad member.. bdmurray do you know who he is?
[23:22] <bdmurray> kiko: nope
[23:22] <kiko> he's hammering the site
[23:23] <xteejx> kiko: hammering?
[23:23] <xteejx> DOSing?
[23:23] <persia> kiko, Block if it's inappropriate usage.  That's an open team.
[23:23] <kiko> as in hitting the +bugs page many times every second
[23:23] <kiko> he's signed the CoC
[23:23] <xteejx> whats his ip ill sort it ;)
[23:23] <kiko> I think he's just doing something wrong
[23:23] <xteejx> forget that lol :)
[23:23] <kiko> 195.241.214.25
[23:24] <xteejx> kiko: thank you let me have a look see
[23:24] <kiko> member since 2008-04-06
[23:24] <xteejx> Shows on here Member since: 2007-12-21
[23:24] <xteejx> Karma: 68
[23:24] <xteejx> Ubuntero: Yes
[23:24] <kiko> yeah
[23:25] <kiko> member of -bugs since 04-06
[23:25] <kiko> bugsquad
[23:25] <xteejx> If someone is DOSing Launchpad its no wonder none of us have been able to connect all day and having searching problems, server load must be through the roof!!
[23:27] <xteejx> Is the server in IoM as well?
[23:27] <xteejx> cannot trace 195.241.214.25
[23:29] <maco> kiko: is that why lp keeps timing out?
[23:29] <xteejx> maco: VERY likely
[23:30] <xteejx> we're linux users can no-one obtain an ip?
[23:30] <maco> i can traceroute it fine
[23:30] <maco> well, mtr
[23:31] <maco> its a .nl
[23:31] <maco> do you want the reverse dns?
[23:31] <kiko> it's in .nl yeah.
[23:31] <kiko> I wish the guy was on IRC.
[23:31] <persia> Ummm....  THere's no point tracing the user.
[23:31] <kiko> I'll writehim
[23:32] <persia> It needs a social solution : finding the location is either pointless or invasive.
[23:32] <sectech> As for this firefox bug.. I am finding a lot of upstream reports...
[23:32] <sectech> I am searching for a good one to link to this
[23:32] <maco> persia: well i thought xteejx  was saying the IP was gone or deallocated or something
[23:36] <maco> xteejx: well that's interesting. "ok lets change this bug's focus completely"
[23:37] <teej> funny
[23:44] <sectech> Wow I actually got a search result rather then a time out error...nice
[23:46] <xteejx> Wahey!
[23:47] <sectech> and I am not seeing a bug that is capable of a good dup, so far....
[23:47] <sectech> which is a good thing for this version... maybe this is new
[23:51] <xteejx> Can someone change bug 231455 to Medium please?
[23:52] <sectech> xteejx, I'll look at it
[23:52] <xteejx> sectech: thanks :)
[23:53] <xteejx> damn
[23:53] <xteejx> bdmurray: HELP! If you're still awake bug 231455 its kinda gone tits up both have replied!!
[23:55] <xteejx> Any ideas?