[07:57] <dholbach> good morning
[10:04] <bdrung> seb128: bug #607793
[10:04] <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/607793
[10:04] <seb128> yes?
[10:05] <bdrung> seb128: my understanding: ubuntu-sponsors is for sponsoring an upload for someone without upload rights. ubuntu-review is for getting a patch into ubuntu
[10:06] <bdrung> seb128: sponsoring an upload means that someone has provided something that can be uploaded
[10:06] <seb128> having 2 teams for the same things is confusing
[10:06] <seb128> we had this discussion in the past on list
[10:06] <seb128> there is no reason why we should require a perfect debdiff to sponsor something
[10:07] <seb128> having correct patches from people not knowing packaging is valuable
[10:07] <seb128> it's easy enough to add a changelog entry while sponsoring
[10:09] <bdrung> yes, 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 ubuntu
[10:11] <seb128> I've difficulties to understand wht ubuntu review is doing in fact now
[10:13] <bdrung> seb128: 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 release
[10:14] <bdrung> ubuntu-review requires no knowledge of the patch writer
[10:14] <bdrung> ubuntu-sponsor does
[10:15] <vish> nigelb, dholbach ^^ maybe you could clarify...
[10:15] <vish> afaic, 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..
[10:16] <bdrung> vish: getting a patch to a right place and into ubuntu in the long run (through package new upstream releases)
[10:17] <vish> bdrung: getting it into Ubuntu is of-course as per reviewers interest of the patch/ bug
[10:17] <vish> bdrung: yeah , it does eventually flow into Ubuntu..
[10:17] <dholbach> vish, nigelb: what is the question exactly?
[10:17] <vish> dholbach:  <seb128> I've difficulties to understand wht ubuntu review is doing in fact now
[10:18] <nigelb> hrm?
[10:18] <dholbach> slowly triage our 2000+ patches, feed them upstream and if important get into Ubuntu
[10:18] <nigelb> dholbach: 1
[10:19] <nigelb> +1
[10:19] <bdrung> who runs the 'add patch tag' script? i have an enhancement request.
[10:19] <nigelb> bdrung: brian does.
[10:19] <nigelb> there are 2 scripts now
[10:20] <nigelb> one will look at the ubuntu-bugs list and one will look at LP
[10:20] <bdrung> nigelb: can i see the source?
[10:20] <seb128> dholbach, why should the review team be subscribed to bug #607793
[10:20] <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/607793
[10:20] <seb128> ?
[10:21] <nigelb> seb128: bug in the script or sponsors was subscribed after the script tagged it.
[10:21] <seb128> nigelb, ?
[10:21] <vish> nigelb: read the bug ;)
[10:21] <dholbach> 2010-07-20 14:29:54	Olivier Tilloy	attachment added		oem-preview-audio-cd-tracks-with-playbin.patch
[10:21]  * nigelb has very slow internet today
[10:21] <dholbach> seb128, 1^
[10:21] <seb128> nigelb, I don't understand how that replies to my question
[10:21] <dholbach> the patch was removed afterwards
[10:21] <seb128> dholbach, that patchis being reviewed upstream
[10:22] <vish> dholbach: seb128's question is due to the last 2 comments on the bug :)
[10:22] <seb128> dholbach, I don't get why bdrung subscribed the review team again
[10:22] <dholbach> I'll leave that to you guys :)
[10:22] <seb128> I've tagged it "patch-forwarded-upstream"
[10:22] <seb128> dholbach, ok, so I still don't understand what reviewer are for there...
[10:23] <seb128> thanks for leaving me in confusion
[10:23] <seb128> ;-)
[10:23]  * seb128 hugs dholbach
[10:23] <nigelb> seb128: ubuntu-reviews comes into play since its a simple patch, that's all
[10:23] <dholbach> seb128, what the team is there for generally or why it is on that bug report?
[10:23] <nigelb> if bdrung hadn't subscribed the team, we would have been subscribed by the script anyway.
[10:23] <bdrung> seb128: ok, with patch-forwarded-upstream subscribing the team is not required
[10:23] <seb128> I though the team was to review non reviewed patches
[10:23] <nigelb> seb128: It was.
[10:23] <nigelb> seb128: It *is*
[10:23] <seb128> I don't get why reviewers need to be subscribed to that bug
[10:24] <nigelb> We don't.
[10:24] <seb128> ok thanks
[10:24] <nigelb> You've tagged it right anyway.
[10:24]  * nigelb hugs seb128 :)
[10:24] <seb128> yes and bdrung came saying I did it wrong
[10:24] <seb128> and subscribed reviewers back
[10:24] <seb128> such my question there
[10:24] <nigelb> Just FYI, the script subscribes us back anyway :(
[10:24]  * seb128 hugs nigelb
[10:25] <nigelb> bdrung: http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-reviewers/ubuntu-review-overview/trunk/files
[10:25] <nigelb> the patch-overview file is what you want.
[10:26] <nigelb> bdrung: Talk to brian murray before you do anything though.  He'll probaly give you the latest code that he's running.
[10:26] <bdrung> seb128: ok, i should have only unsubscribed ubuntu-sponsor with the remark -> first get it accepted upstream and then resubscribe the team
[10:26] <seb128> bdrung, ok, that matches what I was thinking, I did that now btw
[10:27] <seb128> bdrung, note that Olivier subscribed the sponsors, not me
[10:27] <seb128> bdrung, nigelb, dholbach: thanks
[10:28] <bdrung> seb128: you wrote "subscribe the sponsors again once it's done"
[10:28] <bdrung> seb128: that led to my comment :)
[10:28] <bdrung> seb128: i agree with your latest comment "subscribe sponsors back when upstream is happy with the change"
[10:28] <seb128> bdrung, right, I though it was just needing tweak in reply to upstream comment to be ready to be commited upstream and so uploaded to Ubuntu
[10:29] <seb128> anyway it's all sorted now
[10:30] <bdrung> thanks seb128
[10:30] <seb128> thank to you ;-)
[10:52] <bdrung> bdmurray: around?
[16:51] <bdmurray> bdrung: I am now fwiw
[16:54] <bdrung> bdmurray: i was thinking about your patch tagging script. could it subscribe ubuntu-review if the attached patch is a debdiff (= changes "debian/changelog")?
[16:56] <bdrung> bdmurray: you can look at sponsor-patch in lp:ubuntu-dev-tools how i detected debdiffs
[16:56] <bdmurray> bdrung: using the extension type or downloading the attachment?
[16:56] <bdrung> bdmurray: downloading the attachment
[16:56] <bdrung> bdmurray: and analyze it with diffstat
[16:57] <bdmurray> bdrung: that sounds like a great idea - I'll see what I can do
[16:57] <bdrung> i am curious how many debdiff are out there without having ubuntu-sponsors subscribed (i found at least some by searching for "sync" and "merge")
[16:58] <bdrung> bdmurray: if the script subscribes ubuntu-sponsors, it should add a comment that it was done automatically
[16:59] <bdmurray> bdrung: got it
[16:59] <bdrung> bdmurray: does your script exclude fixed bugs?
[17:01] <bdmurray> bdrung: yes
[17:02] <bdrung> bdmurray: once you have something in place, can you do a dry run and give me the list of bugs?
[17:03] <bdmurray> bdrung: sure it might be a bit before I get to it
[17:04] <bdrung> bdmurray: i will be on vacation in three days. if i am not on irc, drop me a mail
[22:22] <penguin42> so what happens to bugs where the patch in them is already in the latest package but the bug is still open?
[22:22] <nigelb> penguin42: close the bug as Fix Released.
[22:22] <nigelb> especially if that patch is in maverick
[22:22] <penguin42> nigelb: Can you look at bug 428318
[22:23]  * nigelb pokes maco.  Can you help?
[22:23]  * nigelb is kinda unstablishly sleepy.
[22:23]  * penguin42 hands nigelb coffee
[22:24] <nigelb> 3 am.  I'd rather have a pillow.
[22:25] <penguin42> oh that is a bit late, erm early