[07:20] <dholbach> good morning
[07:34]  * nigelb waves to ajmitch 
[10:49] <dholbach> nigelb: http://daniel.holba.ch/blog/?p=709
[10:57]  * nigelb hugs dholbach :)
[10:58] <dholbach> :)
[10:58] <nigelb> you changed themes
[11:00] <dholbach> that was with wp3.0
[11:00] <dholbach> they have a new theme, so I thought I'd try it :)
[11:01] <nigelb> It looks good.  Add you picture too from one of the trips you took, should look good
[11:02] <nigelb> *your
[11:03] <dholbach> maybe I'll do it after this year's holidays, let's see :)
[12:45] <bdrung> nigelb: what do you think of the idea to use this channel for ubuntu-sponsors, too?
[12:45] <nigelb> bdrung: for reviewing branches? I have no problem :)
[12:46] <nigelb> It would be nice to have a channel for that and some noise :)
[12:46] <bdrung> nigelb: ubuntu-sponsors is for getting debdiffs sponsored.
[12:47] <bdrung> nigelb: there are overlaps (e.g. if the debdiff fixes a bug and that patchs needs to be forwarded to upstream), but there are unrelated sponsorings (e.g. sync requests, merge requests, or SRUs)
[12:47] <nigelb> bdrung: I understand and I don't have a problem with it.  Please go ahead :)
[12:48] <bdrung> nigelb: should i write a mail to ubuntu-devel?
[12:49] <nigelb> bdrung: I don't think so https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopment/CodeReviews
[12:50] <nigelb> bdrung: look at the sponsoring heading
[12:53] <bdrung> nigelb: this is a mix of ubuntu-reviewers and ubuntu-sponsors
[12:54] <nigelb> bdrung: yeah, the page is almost overwritted with review docs
[12:54] <nigelb> but the essential thing is #ubuntu-reviews is for code reviews, any form heter its patch or debdiff doesn't matter