/srv/irclogs.ubuntu.com/2010/08/17/#ubuntu-reviews.txt

dholbachgood morning07:57
=== yofel_ is now known as yofel
bdrungseb128: bug #60779310:04
ubot4`Launchpad bug 607793 in nautilus (Debian) (and 2 other projects) "Audio preview of CD tracks fails if totem is not installed (affects: 1) (heat: 10)" [Unknown,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/60779310:04
seb128yes?10:04
bdrungseb128: my understanding: ubuntu-sponsors is for sponsoring an upload for someone without upload rights. ubuntu-review is for getting a patch into ubuntu10:05
bdrungseb128: sponsoring an upload means that someone has provided something that can be uploaded10:06
seb128having 2 teams for the same things is confusing10:06
seb128we had this discussion in the past on list10:06
seb128there is no reason why we should require a perfect debdiff to sponsor something10:06
seb128having correct patches from people not knowing packaging is valuable10:07
seb128it's easy enough to add a changelog entry while sponsoring10:07
bdrungyes, but most of these 'random' patches target upstream code and should be processed by ubuntu-review -> getting them fixed in upstream and then sponsored into ubuntu10:09
seb128I've difficulties to understand wht ubuntu review is doing in fact now10:11
bdrungseb128: ubuntu-review should process every patch that is attached to an bug. 1. make sure that the patch applies 2. forward to upstream 3. once accepted by upstream upload to ubuntu if it's severe enough to not wait for the next upstream release10:13
bdrungubuntu-review requires no knowledge of the patch writer10:14
bdrungubuntu-sponsor does10:14
vishnigelb, dholbach ^^ maybe you could clarify...10:15
vishafaic, ubuntu-review is for getting a patch to a right place, not necessarily into Ubuntu, its need was mostly since patches were unattended and for someone to just tend to them..10:15
bdrungvish: getting a patch to a right place and into ubuntu in the long run (through package new upstream releases)10:16
vishbdrung: getting it into Ubuntu is of-course as per reviewers interest of the patch/ bug10:17
vishbdrung: yeah , it does eventually flow into Ubuntu..10:17
dholbachvish, nigelb: what is the question exactly?10:17
vishdholbach:  <seb128> I've difficulties to understand wht ubuntu review is doing in fact now10:17
nigelbhrm?10:18
dholbachslowly triage our 2000+ patches, feed them upstream and if important get into Ubuntu10:18
nigelbdholbach: 110:18
nigelb+110:19
bdrungwho runs the 'add patch tag' script? i have an enhancement request.10:19
nigelbbdrung: brian does.10:19
nigelbthere are 2 scripts now10:19
nigelbone will look at the ubuntu-bugs list and one will look at LP10:20
bdrungnigelb: can i see the source?10:20
seb128dholbach, why should the review team be subscribed to bug #60779310:20
ubot4`Launchpad bug 607793 in nautilus (Debian) (and 2 other projects) "Audio preview of CD tracks fails if totem is not installed (affects: 1) (heat: 10)" [Unknown,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/60779310:20
seb128?10:20
nigelbseb128: bug in the script or sponsors was subscribed after the script tagged it.10:21
seb128nigelb, ?10:21
vishnigelb: read the bug ;)10:21
dholbach2010-07-20 14:29:54Olivier Tilloyattachment addedoem-preview-audio-cd-tracks-with-playbin.patch10:21
* nigelb has very slow internet today10:21
dholbachseb128, 1^10:21
seb128nigelb, I don't understand how that replies to my question10:21
dholbachthe patch was removed afterwards10:21
seb128dholbach, that patchis being reviewed upstream10:21
vishdholbach: seb128's question is due to the last 2 comments on the bug :)10:22
seb128dholbach, I don't get why bdrung subscribed the review team again10:22
dholbachI'll leave that to you guys :)10:22
seb128I've tagged it "patch-forwarded-upstream"10:22
seb128dholbach, ok, so I still don't understand what reviewer are for there...10:22
seb128thanks for leaving me in confusion10:23
seb128;-)10:23
* seb128 hugs dholbach10:23
nigelbseb128: ubuntu-reviews comes into play since its a simple patch, that's all10:23
dholbachseb128, what the team is there for generally or why it is on that bug report?10:23
nigelbif bdrung hadn't subscribed the team, we would have been subscribed by the script anyway.10:23
bdrungseb128: ok, with patch-forwarded-upstream subscribing the team is not required10:23
seb128I though the team was to review non reviewed patches10:23
nigelbseb128: It was.10:23
nigelbseb128: It *is*10:23
seb128I don't get why reviewers need to be subscribed to that bug10:23
nigelbWe don't.10:24
seb128ok thanks10:24
nigelbYou've tagged it right anyway.10:24
* nigelb hugs seb128 :)10:24
seb128yes and bdrung came saying I did it wrong10:24
seb128and subscribed reviewers back10:24
seb128such my question there10:24
nigelbJust FYI, the script subscribes us back anyway :(10:24
* seb128 hugs nigelb10:24
nigelbbdrung: http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-reviewers/ubuntu-review-overview/trunk/files10:25
nigelbthe patch-overview file is what you want.10:25
nigelbbdrung: Talk to brian murray before you do anything though.  He'll probaly give you the latest code that he's running.10:26
bdrungseb128: ok, i should have only unsubscribed ubuntu-sponsor with the remark -> first get it accepted upstream and then resubscribe the team10:26
seb128bdrung, ok, that matches what I was thinking, I did that now btw10:26
seb128bdrung, note that Olivier subscribed the sponsors, not me10:27
seb128bdrung, nigelb, dholbach: thanks10:27
bdrungseb128: you wrote "subscribe the sponsors again once it's done"10:28
bdrungseb128: that led to my comment :)10:28
bdrungseb128: i agree with your latest comment "subscribe sponsors back when upstream is happy with the change"10:28
seb128bdrung, right, I though it was just needing tweak in reply to upstream comment to be ready to be commited upstream and so uploaded to Ubuntu10:28
seb128anyway it's all sorted now10:29
bdrungthanks seb12810:30
seb128thank to you ;-)10:30
bdrungbdmurray: around?10:52
bdmurraybdrung: I am now fwiw16:51
bdrungbdmurray: i was thinking about your patch tagging script. could it subscribe ubuntu-review if the attached patch is a debdiff (= changes "debian/changelog")?16:54
bdrungbdmurray: you can look at sponsor-patch in lp:ubuntu-dev-tools how i detected debdiffs16:56
bdmurraybdrung: using the extension type or downloading the attachment?16:56
bdrungbdmurray: downloading the attachment16:56
bdrungbdmurray: and analyze it with diffstat16:56
bdmurraybdrung: that sounds like a great idea - I'll see what I can do16:57
bdrungi am curious how many debdiff are out there without having ubuntu-sponsors subscribed (i found at least some by searching for "sync" and "merge")16:57
bdrungbdmurray: if the script subscribes ubuntu-sponsors, it should add a comment that it was done automatically16:58
bdmurraybdrung: got it16:59
bdrungbdmurray: does your script exclude fixed bugs?16:59
bdmurraybdrung: yes17:01
bdrungbdmurray: once you have something in place, can you do a dry run and give me the list of bugs?17:02
bdmurraybdrung: sure it might be a bit before I get to it17:03
bdrungbdmurray: i will be on vacation in three days. if i am not on irc, drop me a mail17:04
=== maco2 is now known as maco
=== ara_ is now known as ara
penguin42so what happens to bugs where the patch in them is already in the latest package but the bug is still open?22:22
nigelbpenguin42: close the bug as Fix Released.22:22
nigelbespecially if that patch is in maverick22:22
penguin42nigelb: Can you look at bug 42831822:22
* nigelb pokes maco. Can you help?22:23
* nigelb is kinda unstablishly sleepy.22:23
* penguin42 hands nigelb coffee22:23
nigelb3 am.  I'd rather have a pillow.22:24
penguin42oh that is a bit late, erm early22:25

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!