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