wgrantslangasek: Timeouts with an OOPS ID? Or timeouts with a "Sorry, we couldn't connect to the Launchpad server" sort of thing?00:22
slangasekwgrant: "couldn't connect"00:22
wgrantHad a report of that last night, also while filing a kernel bug.00:23
faganI get that a lot on the edge server00:23
slangasekI gather that the kernel's apport bits are now quite large :)00:23
faganif you keep trying you get it eventually00:23
wgrantslangasek: Do you recall how big it was in this case?00:24
faganthe edge sever has a much lower time out than the main server00:24
slangasekwgrant: hum, I don't know anywhere that it would've said00:24
wgrantslangasek: Doesn't apport normally say before it sends?00:25
slangasekI don't know :)00:25
slangasekmaybe!  I didn't look00:25
wgrantfagan: This is far nastier than a normal timeout, I'm afraid.00:25
slangasekI didn't hit the error until after it had sent00:25
slangasekthe timeout I was getting was after the data had been uploaded, and I was trying to submit the bug /submission/00:25
faganOh couldnt connect is a strange one00:25
penguin42wgrant: Sounds like what I was reporting earlier and last night ?00:26
wgrantpenguin42: Exactly.00:26
wgrantslangasek: Oh, that's even worse.00:26
fagandid anyone ask on #launchpad?00:26
wgrantYes, that's why I'm here.00:26
wgrantBecause slangasek ran away.00:26
slangasekfagan: I did, but then I retracted because the next attempt to post went through :)00:26
slangasekbug #635379, fwiw00:26
ubottuLaunchpad bug 635379 in linux (Ubuntu) "intel i945 GPU lockup, requires reboot to restore X" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/63537900:26
slangasekbut before that, it was persistent for ~30min or so00:27
wgrantThis may be bad firewall rules again.00:27
=== _b_j_f is now known as bjf[afk]
=== almaisan-away is now known as al-maisan
=== al-maisan is now known as almaisan-away
=== rgreening_ is now known as rgreening
atari2600aempathy is accidentally my entire config upon restart06:20
atari2600amore specifically my accounts06:20
atari2600aany workaround until the package gets fixed?06:20
dylan-matari2600a: I think you accidentallied a verb, but I'd guess the likeliest place to ask that question is #ubuntu+1 (the discussion / support / trying to use the thing channel for 10.10)06:36
atari2600athanks dylan06:43
cjwatsonjust so people know: bugs aren't being auto-closed by uploads right now, so you have to close them manually.  A Launchpad fix is on its way09:26
cjwatsonbug 63404509:26
ubottuLaunchpad bug 634045 in Soyuz "Regression: Launchpad-Bugs-Fixed header no longer works" [High,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/63404509:26
gellmarhi! Are here any maintainers for UDFtools?09:44
Prettowhere do i find information about hal not installed by default and what is used in it's place?14:41
faganPretto: hal was replaced by a few things really14:44
faganread the top note here to get the list http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/hal14:46
Prettofagan: thank you14:47
DamasceneI wish you release ubuntu less often. It's hard to follow all these releases for paid persons rather than volunteers14:56
Damascenetoo much regression14:57
=== JFo is now known as JeremyFoshee
=== JeremyFoshee is now known as JFo
GDamascene: the LTS releases are designed for people that need stability and long term support (LTS)15:05
ari-tczewDamascene: if you want to give an idea about longer development cycle, let's use listmails discussion or use brainstorm.15:06
ari-tczewbtw. I also think that development cycle should be longer.15:06
Damasceneok, thanks both15:07
Grapid releases have kinda put me off a little too, so often features look unpolished15:10
G(in my eyes)15:10
Gbut not just Ubuntu15:10
Damasceneand any way every one can get the latest version from some launchpad ppa15:19
directhexDamascene, that only works for leaf packages. personally, i like the short release cycles, as it encourages setting and reaching goals16:02
Damasceneyou might be right. but the current release system is too short I think16:03
Damasceneyou know the default for many people is to update when there is new release and that might case many problems for them16:04
directhexDamascene, if people want long-term supported releases, use long-term supported releases (6.06, 8.04, 10.04)16:04
Damascenewell as a user we just call it old release :)16:05
Damasceneany way I'm thinking of creating a wiki page to start a discussion about that16:06
directhexthe mailing list is the correct arena for this16:07
ChogyDanDamascene: it is probably better to focus on specific packages then the release as a whole.  Projects should follow their own release schedule, no?16:07
directhexalthough people will just say the same thing - use LTS if you want long-term support16:07
DamasceneChogyDan, many developers and users complain about not having the last version in the release. why not let them do it in their ppa and blame it on them.16:09
Damascenethe first thing they say when you try to report but is to use the last version they have. not Ubuntu's one.16:10
ChogyDanDamascene: that sounds like an argument for shorter releases, I don't think I follow16:11
Damasceneno what I mean is to let the developers to handle the software release and Ubuntu to handle the core. and release less often.16:12
directhexi think mdz argued for the latter part16:14
directhexproblem is upstreams are awful at distro integration16:14
directhexand, again, it can only work for leaf packages16:14
ChipzzDamascene: IMO, you can't have your cake AND eat it16:32
Chipzzwhich means: either you choose stability, ie LTS, or you choose in between releases, with the possibility of regeressions16:32
Damascenewhy not using decentralized Ubuntu? developers control their own apps releasing16:33
Damascenethen the problems is not ubuntu's problem16:34
=== yofel_ is now known as yofel
Damascenedirecthex, if developers don't want their programs to be in the most popular open source OS it would be awkward16:36
ogra_cmpcDamascene, i think yous problem is your view here ... you see apps and core bit totally ignore integration which is the main part ubuntu devs are doing ... ubuntu featurs usually consist of a combination of a bunch of apps with added glue inbetween16:38
ogra_cmpcif you let one app move forward independently the feature can break ... you cant guarantee even a minimal level of QA etc16:38
Damascenewhy don't we start with an another repo like universe where developers can just push their apps there and see the outcome? it would be optional and for testing. when I had to install the latest evolution I just had to add it's ppa. it seems simple to have a universal open to developers ppa16:43
Chipzzalso, with a decentralized approach you also loose all Q&A16:44
Chipzzsame problem16:44
ChipzzDamascene: you ignore the gist of the problem, really16:44
ChipzzI think you lack a basic understanding of what is really the issue here16:44
Chipzzwhich is a lack of manhours16:44
Chipzzand he necessity for Q&A16:44
DamasceneChipzz, so in the current state Ubuntu is doing QA of other apps?16:44
Chipzzthey're doing at least some form of Q&A on the packages, not necessarily the apps16:45
Damascenewhy do you thing the developers can not do that if you linked them directly with the users?16:45
Chipzzlike I already told you, lack of manpower16:46
ogra_cmpcthe scenario you describe above already exists, we call it launchpad :)16:47
ogra_cmpcevery upstream dev is free to add his/her project and provide daily builds, stable builds etc in a ppa16:47
ogra_cmpcwhy would you want to make all of universe unstable if single people only need single apps16:48
Damasceneogra_cmpc, but that should be done by manual for every package16:48
ogra_cmpcit is already happening for some16:49
tumbleweedDamascene: it has to be manual. Every package is different16:49
Damascenethe idea for now is to have another repo for now with the latest release from developers16:49
ogra_cmpcbut be sure ubuntu as a distro wont give up its stability for a permanently rolling archive16:49
ogra_cmpcDamascene, https://help.launchpad.net/Packaging/SourceBuilds/GettingStarted16:52
Damascenewhat I see now look like this. developer release package version 1 stable and 1.5 in testing. ubuntu has the package version 0.5 stable and 1.0 in testing. ubuntu users are using 0.5 and find bugs while there is 1.5 going to be released16:52
ogra_cmpcits not a matter of ubuntu but a matter of devs making use of the reciepoes for daily builds16:52
Damasceneogra, developers are not releasing daily! they have stable and testing too.16:53
ogra_cmpcup to them16:53
* ogra_cmpc only releases stable 16:53
ogra_cmpceverything else is development ;)16:53
DamasceneI just hoped to find something to release the gap16:53
ogra_cmpcsee the help page above16:54
ogra_cmpcits supposed to close the gap16:54
Damascene* lower the gap16:54
Damasceneyes the word is close16:54
ogra_cmpcbut it needs adoption on the developer side16:54
ogra_cmpcwhich you wont get from many sides due to political reasons16:54
ogra_cmpcwhich is alo not a job for ubuntu to solve16:55
Damascenelet me gather my ideas and start a wiki page. things need to be sorted in some place.16:56
ChipzzDamascene: look, it's very simple; 0.5 gets released with the LTS, and 1.0 gets released by upstream after. It's simply not desirable to move 1.0 to the LTS, because the problems with 0.5 are known and documented. If you were to push 1.0 to LTS for every single piece of software, your LTS would hardly be stable16:57
penguin42that's what backports for isn't it?16:57
Chipzzpenguin42: not exactly, no16:58
penguin42Chipzz: But partially, yes ?16:58
Chipzzpenguin42: if you're going to push every 1.0 release into backports, you might just as well run a non-LTS release, or even a development release16:58
Chipzzand exactly what have you gained then?16:58
ogra_cmpcmore workload :)16:59
Chipzzand from the user POV, you have gained little to nothing16:59
penguin42Chipzz: Yeh but it helps for the few packages which get a really major useful upgrade16:59
ogra_cmpcwhich in turn boils down to the "lack of manhours" from above16:59
tumbleweedpenguin42: all packages get really useful upgrades, but they also get new bugs17:00
Chipzzpenguin42: if you put package a into backports, another user is going to whine to get package b in too, and another package c, ...17:00
ChipzzI think this discussion is pointless and silly17:01
ChipzzDamascene fails to understand what a release is, and fails to appreciate the amount of work it takes17:01
Chipzzand the discussion is going around in circles17:01
DamasceneChipzz, developers releasing with bugs is because of the lack of user testing17:01
Damascenethanks for the nice discussion.17:02
ChipzzDamascene: like I said before, your POV is basically "I want more updates" and the answer to that is basically "Can't do due to a lack of manpower"17:03
Chipzzand this isn't going to get fixed unless canonical hires more ppl17:03
penguin42how much automated testing happens?17:03
Damascenenot exactly. the update are their but needs some of Ubuntu man power for testing instead of providing packages that the upstream do not want to support17:05
Damascene* there17:05
DamasceneI know this is not Ubuntu only problem and it can not solve it alone. developers will have to make sure there packages are really stable17:06
ogra_cmpcChipzz, why would it be a matter of canonical hiring anone ?17:08
ogra_cmpcits a matter of having more devs, no matter if they are employed by canonical, TI, dell, or are hobbyists17:10
Chipzzogra_cmpc: right; but that would be the easiest solution17:10
Chipzzogra_cmpc: the quality of packages hardly is garantueed when a package is made by a volunteer17:11
* ogra_cmpc disagrees17:11
ogra_cmpca volunteer often is more intrested in his package than someone being paid for maintining other peoples software imho17:12
tumbleweedChipzz: where does debian's legendary stability come from then?17:12
Chipzzogra_cmpc: do I really need to point out the (perceived) lack of quality of a lot of packages in universe/multiverse?17:14
Chipzztumbleweed: do you really want an answer to that?17:14
tumbleweedChipzz: I'd say that's because there aren't enough people for the size of universe17:14
ogra_cmpcChipzz, do i need to point ut the overworkedness of many paid canonical devs ?17:15
ChipzzIMO the better quality of packages in debian is because of the New Maintainer process, which assures people are intimately familiar with the debian policy because they get asked questions about it during the course of the NM process17:15
Chipzzogra_cmpc: I am not pointing a finger at Canonical Employees here17:16
Chipzzwhat I *am* saying is that the barrier to becoming a MOTU is much lower, resulting in underqualified MOTU's17:16
Chipzznot all of them, mind you17:17
ogra_cmpcwell, you are assuming canoinical hiring more employess would help in any way17:17
tumbleweedprobably true. But also not enough of them. I see more neglected packages than packages where MOTUs screwed up17:17
ogra_cmpccanonical is a company working for revenue ...17:17
ogra_cmpcadding more people requires to make more of it17:17
ogra_cmpcthe only solution can be to get more voluteers17:18
Chipzzogra_cmpc: it would help the quality of packages, since Canonical would presumably only hire very qualified ppl17:18
directhexcanonical employees are not better by definition than community MOTU17:18
ogra_cmpcno matter if for main or universe17:18
directhexIME, anyway17:18
Chipzzdirecthex: I would hope they are, or Canonical has a serious problem screening new hirees17:18
ogra_cmpcChipzz, it wouldnt ...17:18
directhexChipzz, again, my experience says otherwise.17:19
directhexthe biggest problem with universe is that people upload to it17:20
ogra_cmpccanonical hires the best for the task if it can ... but people plainly tasked with only packaging are very very rare in the company17:20
penguin42I guess it depends; some community guys are full time experienced programmers anyway - they just don't happen to work for canonical17:20
directhexuniverse quality is at its worst when people upload stuff directly which isn't in debian, then never maintain it long term17:21
=== emma_ is now known as emma
directhexsecond worse is when they introduce an ubuntu delta from debian, then never notice that it needs an update (but there is more chance of it being noticed than when the upload is ubuntu only)17:21
ogra_cmpcdirecthex, that applies to main as well17:22
directhexthird worst is when ubuntu distro changes mean a direct unmodified debian package doesn't work, even though the package itself is unmodified17:22
directhexogra_cmpc, yeah, but at least people are meant to care more about main. i try not to abuse my upload powers17:22
DamasceneI made that page for the subject17:45
=== bjf is now known as bjf[afk]
=== dendro-afk is now known as dendrobates
=== almaisan-away is now known as al-maisan
=== apparle_ is now known as apparle
ScottKChipzz: The perceived lack of quality for Universe/Multiverse is due to lack of manpower and packages being left unmaintained.  It is (almost always) not because someone is working on the packages and doing it badly.20:53
ScottKAlso getting hired by Canonical doesn't give anyone upload rights.  MOTU/Core-dev that are employed by Canonical get approved the same way community people do.20:55
=== tester_ is now known as ia
=== al-maisan is now known as almaisan-away
=== Amaranth_ is now known as Amaranth
ChipzzScottK: like I pointed out before, my comment wrt Canonical hiring ppl should be interpreted in terms of Canonical having lots of knowledgable ppl, which will be the ones reviewing applications, and as a result them hiring only knowledgable ppl23:55
Chipzzas opposed to ppl in MOTU who may be rather new to packaging23:55
ChipzzI was in no way implying that Canonical employees get a different treatment due to being employed by Canonical, but rather that it stands to reason that Canonical employees deliver high-quality work23:58

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