[01:47]  * nigelb *hugs* jono !
[02:48] <EzraR> if a backports request has a patch attached is there something I can do to keep it off the radar of patch reviewers?
[02:48] <EzraR> i cant unsubscribe ubuntu review team but it doesnt need reviewed
[03:04] <nigelb> EzraR: who reviews backports?
[03:04] <nigelb> sru team?
[03:11] <EzraR> bacubuntu backporters?
[03:11] <EzraR> nigelb: ubuntu bacporters
[03:11] <EzraR> backporters
[03:12] <EzraR> i guess
[03:13] <nigelb> can you point me to a typical backport request?
[03:14] <nigelb> EzraR: oh, wait, its off the radar of patch reviewers
[03:14] <nigelb> backports and requested against a different project
[03:14] <nigelb> for example lucid backports are requested here https://bugs.launchpad.net/lucid-backports
[03:15] <nigelb> s/and/are
[03:16] <EzraR> https://bugs.launchpad.net/lucid-backports/+bug/602733
[03:16] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 602733 in lucid-backports "Please backport K3b 2.0.0 to lucid (affects: 1) (heat: 10)" [Wishlist,Fix released]
[03:16] <nigelb> EzraR: if you notice the launchpad project name, its not against ubuntu
[03:17] <nigelb> the patch review script only checks against ubuntu
[03:17] <EzraR> ok then i probably ran into because the person that filed the bug also set "also effects" to the package which they shouldnt have and I allready fixed
[03:18] <EzraR> thank you
[03:18] <nigelb> our script is a bit "aggressive"
[03:19] <nigelb> Please file a bug against ubuntu-review-overview if you feel it has encroached into backports, we'll modify our script :)
[03:20] <EzraR> no i dont think it really did, the bug reporter shouldnt have filed it against ubuntu
[03:21] <EzraR> although if the script skipped reports that also were against backports it might save some waisted energy
[03:21] <EzraR> not that there is a lot of such cases...
[03:22] <nigelb> hm, I'd encourage you to file a bug about it
[03:24] <EzraR> yeah now that i think about it it still gets ubuntu-review notified about it and if thats what you guys use to keep track of the queue it might affect the accuracy
[07:40] <dholbach> good morning
[15:01] <nigelb> dholbach: thoughts on having a DD explain about BTS for next package training session?
[15:01] <nigelb> probably bug squad can benefit from it too
[15:01]  * nigelb will do recruiting :)
[15:01] <dholbach> definitely
[15:02] <nigelb> lemme try to do some arm twisting
[15:02] <nigelb> thursday right?
[15:02] <dholbach> yep
[16:37] <dholbach> Day 4 of https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDeveloper Week starts in 23 minutes in #ubuntu-classroomDay 4 of https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDeveloper Week starts in 23 minutes in #ubuntu-classroom
[22:11] <mac9416> Hello, all. I'm a simple Python dev who wants to help with Cleansweep. I've never reviewed a patch before. Heck, I've never patched a file. I'm wondering if I can get come help reviewing this simple patch: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/leafpad/+bug/405576
[22:11] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 405576 in leafpad (Ubuntu) "Leafpad clean up GTK Include (affects: 3) (heat: 19)" [Undecided,New]
[22:11] <mac9416> Thanks, ubot4.
[22:13] <mac9416> I've managed to get the latest source for Leafpad, patch it, build the package, and install it. Everything appears to have worked fine. So, what now?
[22:23] <mac9416> I'm supposing I should forward this thing upstream. Is that correct?
[22:27] <yofel> indeed, now to find out where to find that upstream..
[22:28] <mac9416> Hi, yofel. Question: could the upstream be something other than Debian or GNOME?
[22:28] <yofel> sure, we and debian package software from all around the web, launchpad also supports quite a few bug trackers for that reason
[22:29] <yofel> (for bug watches)
[22:29] <yofel> the package description sent me to http://tarot.freeshell.org/leafpad/ btw...
[22:30] <mac9416> OK, but that doesn't mention anywhere to report bugs...
[22:32] <yofel> hm, there's http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/leafpad but that doesn't mention how to contact upstream either :(
[22:32] <mac9416> Is it possible that its a GNOME project?
[22:32] <yofel> maybe send the patch to debian so we at least don't differ from them (maybe they know more)
[22:33] <mac9416> k...
[22:34] <yofel> not sure about that, at least google only mentions it in relation to lxde..
[22:34] <yofel> nigelb: can you elaborate on patches and the Debian BTS?
[22:37] <mac9416> So, when I forward a patch upstream, basically what I'm doing is reporting a bug to the folks who run the project and asking them to apply or reject the patch?
[22:39] <yofel> yes, you report a bug at the upstream BT (or send a mail to their maling list for some projects) and add the patch to it
[22:39] <mac9416> OK, what's a BT?  :-)
[22:40] <yofel> sry, bug tracker ;)
[22:40] <mac9416> Ah, kk. I'm new.  :-P
[23:04] <mac9416> Looks like I can use reportbug -B debian --attach=path.diff to send the bug report and patch to Debian. Sound right?
[23:06] <yofel> in general yes, maybe use '-T Patch' to add a tag too, also there's https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Debian/Bugs and https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Debian/Usertagging
[23:07] <yofel> the wiki page uses 'reportbug --bts debian -P 'User: ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com' -P 'Usertags: origin-ubuntu maverick ubuntu-patch' -T patch' for example
[23:08] <mac9416> Wow. Looks like I have some reading to do.
[23:08] <yofel> but as I said, I'm not sure there, we're supposed to get a session in #ubuntu-classroom about the Debian BTS soon
[23:09] <yofel> it's a whole ecosystem in itself ^^
[23:09] <mac9416> Cool.
[23:18] <mac9416> Looks like I can use submittodebian to forward a patch. Nice.
[23:21] <mac9416> Eh, maybe not. Looks like it expects _me_ to have made the diff.
[23:27] <mac9416> Oopsy-daisy.
[23:29] <mac9416> yofel, should I go ahead and forward that patch, or should I hang out and wait for nigelb?
[23:32] <yofel> hm, not sure, let's see if the others are there.. persia vish
[23:38] <mac9416> Will the maintainer of the package be notified when a bug is reported?
[23:44] <yofel> actually, no idea, but I hope so
[23:46] <mac9416> k