[01:08] <duanedesign> what do you do with a bug that is requesting a change to the documentation on  help.ubuntu.com website
[01:10] <pedro_> duanedesign: assign it to the ubuntu-website
[01:16] <bdmurray> help.ubuntu.com is a wiki though right?
[01:17] <duanedesign> no
[01:18] <bdmurray> ah, only the commnity bit is
[01:18] <duanedesign> i think hel[.ubuntu.com/community is
[01:18] <bdmurray> if it is the front page its ubuntu-website
[01:19] <bdmurray> if it is about a release's documentation that would be ubuntu-docs(?)
[01:19] <duanedesign> er, help.ubuntu.com/communitty
[01:22] <Rocket2DMn> duanedesign, what page are you filing against
[01:23] <Rocket2DMn> you have a link to the report?
[01:26] <duanedesign> thank you very much for your help hggdh and pedro_ helped me.
[01:27] <duanedesign> I am new to bug triage, but eager to help. I appreciate all the help
[01:27] <Rocket2DMn> well thank you for your support, we need all the help we can get
[01:27] <Rocket2DMn> what bug were you talking about? I'm with the doc team  as well, I'd be happy to have a look at it
[01:28] <duanedesign> 307582
[01:28] <Rocket2DMn> bug 307582
[01:28] <Rocket2DMn> ty ubottu
[01:30] <Rocket2DMn> lol i think you assigned it wrong duanedesign, you dont need to Assign To, people tend to use "assign" and "set package to" (aka Affects) interchangably
[01:31] <Rocket2DMn> duanedesign, dealing with the doc team on LP is a little strange
[01:31] <Rocket2DMn> ubuntu-websites looks like some random user, ubuntu-website is team
[01:31] <Rocket2DMn> the bug is already filed correctly under ubuntu-docs though
[01:32] <Rocket2DMn> duanedesign, i wont intrude on your bug since you're handling it, but you should go back and change "Assign to" to "Nobody"
[01:32] <duanedesign> ok
[01:36] <duanedesign> Rocket2DMn: what about assigning it to the Ubuntu documentation team
[01:36] <Rocket2DMn> you dont need to do that, they are made aware of the bug.  A team member can assign it to themself if they want to handle it
[01:37] <duanedesign> I understand
[01:38] <andresmujica> if a bug task is marked in progress but unassigned... is that right?
[01:38] <hggdh> normally no
[01:38] <duanedesign> so as long as the package is set to ubuntu-docs on similar bug in the future  there is nothing else to be done.
[01:39] <hggdh> duanedesign, that's what I gather from the explanation Rocket2DMn gave
[01:39] <Rocket2DMn> most bugs go unassigned to people
[01:40] <Rocket2DMn> it just depends on the team really
[02:02] <Palintheus> should this just be marked duplicate and a comment asking the reporter to comment on the original bug? Bug 307173
[02:04] <hggdh> looking at it
[02:04] <Palintheus> thanks
[02:05] <hggdh> actually... yes, it seems to be a comment on the previous bug
[02:06] <Palintheus> ok so invalidate it and comment that that should be a comment
[02:06] <hggdh> but the previous bug -- bug 306501 is wrongly assigned to openjdk-6 instead of ooo
[02:07] <Palintheus> ok, so I can mark the first one as invalid, comment and reassign this one to OOo?
[02:07] <hggdh> Palintheus, you can copy the explanation the reporter gave on the second bug into the first, and close the new one as dup of the first
[02:07] <Palintheus> ah k
[02:07] <hggdh> you just mark it as a dup of 306501
[02:07] <hggdh> and reassign the package to ooo
[02:08] <hggdh> Palintheus, hold on
[02:08] <Palintheus> oh k
[02:09] <hggdh> the reporter is correct: 306501 *is* a java sigsevg
[02:09] <hggdh> and Java should not die with a sigsegv in the RTE
[02:10] <Palintheus> ok so don't reassign that one
[02:10] <hggdh> no, please do not
[02:10] <Palintheus> wilco
[02:11] <Palintheus> so once a bug is marked as a duplicate you don't ahve to do anything else on it (status, assignment, etc)?
[02:11] <hggdh> you should not. LP would automagically hide the duplicate from any search (unless you explicitly ask for dups)
[02:12] <Palintheus> awesome
[02:14] <Palintheus> ok, on this one (bug 307152) it appears work has been done on it but still new/unassigned does anything need to be done on it?
[02:15] <hggdh> questions I have, though: is the 'FaxAuftraege'a standard OOO function?
[02:17] <hggdh> I think it should be left as is -- Till's expertise is printing
[02:17] <Palintheus> gotcha
[02:34] <Palintheus> ok, I found a bug that I know isn't a bug, so is it marked as invalid and a comment explaining why it's not a bug all that's done? Bug #306072
[02:39] <hggdh> Palintheus, if it is not really a bug (I personally do not know, am new to FF, used to run epiphany), then yes. Explain why it is not a bug, and close invalid
[02:39] <hggdh> and tell the reporter to reopen if not in agreement
[02:40] <Palintheus> k
[03:54] <mrooney> what is the package that provides the default printing dialog, gnome-print?
[03:55] <mrooney> no that musn't be right
[03:56] <mrooney> or...it is and the package search is odd
[04:09] <mrooney> okay, I filed bug 307621, would anyone mind Confirming it quickly in Firefox or otherwise?
[04:11] <Palintheus> it looks like that will one may be changed to a feature request (wishlist), but I'm not completely sure
[04:12] <mrooney> Palintheus: can you confirm the issue?
[04:13] <mrooney> you could argue Low or Wishlist, the key difference is often whether or not the missing feature is reasonably expected
[04:13] <Palintheus> yeah, I confirmed that is what happens
[04:13] <mrooney> for example if firefox didn't have a close button, that wouldn't be Wishlist :)
[04:13] <mrooney> thanks!
[12:08] <LimCore> is it just me, or is sox unusable, leaving ubuntu without any usable sound converting software apart from audacity (which is slow, crashable, and not so good for batch)
[12:11] <LimCore> well, from RAW format to other formats.
[12:15] <LimCore> sox man page is confusing, it need more examples.  How this can be done?
[14:12] <andresmujica> do we have triaging meetings?
[14:14] <MrKanister> You mean https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuBugDay ?
[14:21] <andresmujica> https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/cheese/+bug/261473/comments/5
[14:21] <andresmujica> it seems they are from moblin team.
[15:02] <hggdh> andresmujica, there are no formal triager meetings
[15:02] <hggdh> (or, in another view, every day is a meeting)
[17:32] <afflux> are there any reasons why we would keep feisty bugs open?
[17:33] <afflux> or rather, any objections to me closing them? ;)
[20:05] <Palintheus> anyone have some suggestions on what to do with these bugs, bug 288481 bug 288483
[20:11] <MrKanister> Palintheus: What about marking one as the duplicate of teh other?
[20:12] <Palintheus> right, I figured that, but no clue as to what to do to the other
[20:15] <MrKanister> I'm not quite sure, but maybe converting it to a question would be a good idea
[20:15] <Palintheus> that's what I was thinking
[20:21] <MrKanister> There should be nothing wrong with that. For instructions have a lok at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/ConvertToQuestion
[20:22] <Palintheus> thanks
[20:23] <MrKanister> np
[22:30] <duanedesign> can someone take a look at bug #307744 I think the Importance of the bug should be set to 'Wishlist'
[23:09] <andresmujica> if a need-packaging bug marked as wishlist is asking a new version, but that version is already on the repos... fix released?   (the bug is old... so obviously the new package is there)
[23:26] <duanedesign> I think the Importance of the bug should be set to 'Wishlist bug #307751