[02:42]  * nigelb hugs persia 
[02:42] <nigelb> Finally, the script worked!
[03:14] <nigelb> persia: I have some good news :)
[03:14] <nigelb> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bugs?field.subscriber=ubuntu-reviewers&field.tag=-patch-needswork+-patch-forwarded-upstream+-patch-forwarded-debian+-patch-accepted-upstream+-patch-accepted-debian+-patch-rejected-upstream+-patch-rejected-debian+-patch-rejected&field.tags_combinator=ALL&start=0
[03:14] <nigelb> only 1433 bugs with patches :)
[03:14] <nigelb> well, counting only those that fall in our subset :)
[03:26] <nigelb> I'll get to work on things when I get back from work :)
[03:26] <nigelb> So, I need to document workflow, add graphics, and re-write the docs :)
[03:39] <nigelb> hyperair: I got the sid pbuilder failure again
[03:39] <nigelb> can take a look at the logs and point out whats wrong?
[03:40] <nigelb> I: Configuring e2fsprogs...
[03:40] <nigelb> W: Failure while configuring required packages.
[03:40] <nigelb> hyperair: ^
[03:40] <hyperair> O_o
[03:40] <hyperair> that's all there is to it?
[03:41] <nigelb> yep
[03:41] <nigelb> no i mean thats the last 2 lines
[03:41] <nigelb> you want the whole thing?
[03:41] <hyperair> =\ weird thing
[03:41] <nigelb> that is the error about apt, but I have the fix for that in .pbuilderrc
[03:42] <nigelb> so, Im not sure whta I'm doing wrong
[03:43] <hyperair> O_o the fix for that in .pbuilderrc?
[03:43] <hyperair> what fix is this?
[03:43] <nigelb> um, apt isn't a required package, so generally DEBOOTSTRAPOPTS=("--include=apt" "${DEBOOTSTRAPOPTS[@]}") works
[03:44] <nigelb> thats the usual error I used to see in karmic when making sid pbuilder
[04:13] <hyperair> nigelb: that's just the apt issue. i thought you had an issue with e2fsprogs
[04:13] <nigelb> hyperair: oh, grr.
[04:13] <nigelb> how do I fix it?
[04:14] <nigelb> hyperair: my pbuilderrc file http://paste.ubuntu.com/440668/
[04:15] <hyperair> nigelb: i dunno.
[04:15] <hyperair> nigelb: can i see the full log?
[04:15] <nigelb> hyperair: sure, one moment
[04:16] <nigelb> http://paste.ubuntu.com/440670/
[04:16] <hyperair> weird. i've never seen that before
[04:17] <nigelb> hmmm
[04:17] <nigelb> later, work. I'm late.
[07:38] <dholbach> good morning
[15:07] <seb128> nigelb, dholbach: hey
[15:07] <seb128> could we get patch-needsdesign as an option?
[15:08] <seb128> seems to be required for some changes blocked on a design decision
[15:09] <dholbach> I'll let bdmurray and nigelb handle that :)
[15:09] <seb128> also would be nice to have a tools or an easy description about how to open a bug in debian
[15:09] <seb128> like give it a bug number in launchpad and get it to open an email with tags etc
[15:09] <seb128> similar to submittodebian
[15:10] <seb128> to forward changes to the bts
[15:10]  * vish thinks it is a nice addition , there are some bugs patches which are requests to change design 
[16:16] <nigelb> seb128: no problem. Can you give me the exact situation when it has to be used? I'll update documentation and poke brian about the change
[16:18] <seb128> bug #562729
[16:18] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 562729 in gdebi (Ubuntu) (and 1 other project) "gdebi: could not show link: operation not supported (affects: 2) (heat: 14)" [Undecided,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/562729
[16:18] <seb128> nigelb, ^
[16:18] <seb128> ups
[16:19] <seb128> #433838
[16:19] <nigelb> seb128: no no, I mean what should I change in the doc :)
[16:19] <seb128> rather
[16:19] <seb128> nigelb, well those have been reviewed from a packager perspective now
[16:19] <seb128> so they should not be in the review list
[16:20] <seb128> but they are blocked on design input
[16:20] <seb128> so they are neither needswork
[16:20] <seb128> not reviewed
[16:20] <seb128> nor
[16:20] <nigelb> hm, I agree, but in that case we can add all the things blocked by something else into a new category
[16:21] <seb128> ok, patch-needsreview
[16:21] <seb128> or needs<something>
[16:22] <seb128> I'm not sure what would be best wording
[16:22] <nigelb> patch-blocked?
[16:22] <nigelb> that sounds improper
[16:22] <seb128> we just need a way to opt things out of the queue
[16:22] <seb128> needsdecision
[16:22] <nigelb> yep, I hear you, I just want to think of something that could do that proprly
[16:22] <nigelb>  \o/
[16:22] <seb128> or input
[16:22] <nigelb> patch-needsdecision it is :)
[16:22] <seb128> or whatever
[16:23] <seb128> you should maybe check with a native speaker ;-)
[16:23] <seb128> I like needsinput as well I think
[16:23] <seb128> but I'm not english speaker ;-)
[16:23] <nigelb> needsinput or needsdecision - whatever is fine.
[16:23] <nigelb> I'll talk to brian and get the script updated along with the documentation
[16:24] <nigelb> seb128: Also, thanks for the suggesion :)
[16:24] <seb128> np
[16:24] <seb128> thank you for working on this
[16:24] <nigelb> happy to be :)
[16:24] <seb128> what about the "make easier to open a debian bug"?
[16:24] <seb128> do you think we could have a script
[16:24] <seb128> or email template?
[16:24] <nigelb> my coding skills are very poor, I know the right person to ping - bryce :D
[16:25] <nigelb> he probably already has a working beta of something similar ;)
[16:36] <nigelb> seb128: things seem to go faster than I thought.  I may have something for the debian bug in a few hours.  turns out its very easy :)
[16:38] <seb128> nice
[16:49] <vish> nigelb: needsinput or needsdecision , miss the "design" mention there , which is the actual blocker
[16:51] <nigelb> vish: I want a catch-all-tag for all issues blocked by something else
[16:51] <nigelb> We really don't wanna have 25 tags do we? ;)
[16:52] <vish> nigelb: the problem there would be getting back to such design bugs , how does a UX advocate get to the bugs?
[16:52] <vish> nigelb: the design bugs are a category of its own
[16:52] <nigelb> vish: you can have an ayatana tag saying design and then check for design+needsinput
[16:54] <vish> nigelb: you are then having an extra tag there too ;)
[16:54] <nigelb> vish: that isn't a reviewers tag
[16:54] <nigelb> I wanted to keep the review tags down
[16:54] <nigelb> because other stuff is also going to block
[16:55] <vish> nigelb: nah , i meant the reviewer has to add them anyway , and it needs to be mentioned in the wiki
[16:55] <vish> reviewers wiki
[16:55] <nigelb> vish: um why?
[16:56] <vish> nigelb: ex: bug #433838 , where the design input is waiting for the patch
[16:56] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 433838 in software-center (Ubuntu) "Use an icon in the location bar (affects: 1) (heat: 10)" [Low,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/433838
[16:56] <nigelb> vish: its an ubuntu-specific application, which is a very speical case.
[16:56] <nigelb> Most of the time, revieweres is about pushing back upstream
[16:57]  * nigelb afk for some time.
[16:57] <nigelb> keep talking I'll reply when back
[16:57] <vish> nigelb: but we *are* having ubuntu specific  apps too and the team is being subscribed to those bugs
[16:57] <vish> nigelb: patch is there , but the reviewer needs to know the right tags to add
[17:57]  * vish *shrugs*
[18:05]  * nigelb coding
[18:05] <nigelb> Needs another few more minutes to fix this thing and push it
[18:37] <bencrisford> nigelb: so if the patch doesn't work properly I just click "Add Tag" and add patch-needswork ?
[18:43] <nigelb> bencrisford: add a comment telling what is not working.  Also tell that if the issue is fixed to change the tag back to patch tag
[18:49] <bencrisford> nigelb: Ok, I already told them what is not working, I will add the tag + second comment now
[18:49] <bencrisford> thanks :)
[18:50] <nigelb> bencrisford: awesome!! thanks :)
[18:51] <bencrisford> nigelb: hmm, it seems there wasnt even a "patch" tag in the first place
[18:51] <nigelb> how did you end up in the bug?
[18:51] <nigelb> that bug is part of clean sweep project, hence no patch tag
[18:54] <bencrisford> nigelb: Its assigned to me, bug 536975
[18:54] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 536975 in qcad (Ubuntu) "Qcad menu entry lacks a category in lucid 10.04 (affects: 8) (dups: 1) (heat: 52)" [Undecided,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/536975
[18:54] <nigelb> bencrisford: ah, then its ok
[18:54] <bencrisford> the reviewers team is subscribed, but no patch tag
[18:56] <nigelb> hover over team name
[18:56] <nigelb> it should be subscribed by me
[18:57] <nigelb> I subscribed us to over 1000 bugs, adding tag would have generated huge deal of mails
[18:57] <bencrisford> Yeah it is :)
[18:57] <bencrisford> oh ok
[18:57] <nigelb> Its for a wider plan to clear all bugs with patches by maverick release
[19:07] <bencrisford> nigelb: cool :)