[14:10] <BUGabundo> guud afternuun peeps
[15:41] <jdstrand> fta: ok, based on today's meeting, the TB is waiting on a formal request for a microrelease exception for chromium-browser. it seems like they will approve it, but need that to vote on. See https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates/MicroReleaseExceptions
[15:41] <jdstrand> fta: see that page for justification, and also include in it something about how debian/ won't change except for things required to make the new version build
[15:45] <fta> jdstrand, how i am i supposed to ship improvements then? like new translations (deskop file or langpacks), new system policies (like system wide addon paths, default home page), etc)
[15:46] <jdstrand> fta: I don't have answers to that. basically, you need to handle it the same way mozilla is being handled. perhaps chrisccoulson can advise
[15:46] <jdstrand> well..
[15:46] <jdstrand> s/you need to handle/it needs to be handled/
[15:50] <fta> jdstrand, i ask because with the limited resources i have to work on this (remember it's a huge beast and no one's helping me, and i'm not full time on it), it's far easier for me to ship the same thing everywhere, after a staging period in the -stable ppa of course
[15:52] <fta> jdstrand, also, all the new improvements i add land 1st in the daily ppa, and they take a while to go down the daily->dev->beta->stable->u+1->u chain
[15:52] <fta> jdstrand, so there's often plenty of time to notice issues
[15:54] <jdstrand> fta: I understand what you are saying, but that does not follow microrelease exception procedures. if debian/ is changing, the vote will be no. what I see the mozilla team do isn't much work-- they freeze debian/ and create a branch at release. then update the changelog and any required cherrypicks from trunk. it isn't that bad. talk to chrisccoulson about practical workflows
[15:54] <fta> jdstrand, if canonical is willing to take the lead for the official releases, i'd be happy to pass the torch and focus my attention on something else
[15:55] <fta> jdstrand, sure but the mozilla team has dedicated people
[15:55] <jdstrand> I'm not sure how I became the gatekeeper for this issue for both you and the TB, but I am just trying to convey protocol
[15:56] <jdstrand> actually, help is on the way
[15:56] <micahg> fta: it's just chrisccoulson and myself
[15:56] <jdstrand> http://webapps.ubuntu.com/employment/canonical_UP-USE/
[15:57] <micahg> jdstrand: cool :)
[15:57] <jdstrand> it is Ubuntu's practice to freeze versions and backport patches
[15:57] <jdstrand> to drop huge new codebases in a stable release is a *major* exception given to mozilla and chromium
[15:58] <jdstrand> to ask that packaging doesn't change sounds pretty minor in my mind
[15:58] <jdstrand> you just have separate branches for debian/
[15:59] <jdstrand> do all your work in trunk, and when you are satisfied with it, cherrypick the required for building bits
[16:00] <jdstrand> fta: you should note that I am also not paid to work on chromium browser. I do much of the testing to allow it to be copied from -proposed in my 'free' time
[16:01] <fta> jdstrand, sorry for all the troubles. please forget about it then. i guess i should too. maybe it's best to ask for chromium to be removed for stable then, like debian did
[16:02] <chrisccoulson> hi!
[16:02] <chrisccoulson> (sorry, busy in KVM testing security updates) ;)
[16:02] <jdstrand> fta: we've both worked hard to get to this point. we are on the verge of getting the exception. I don't know why we would give up now
[16:03] <chrisccoulson> yeah, it's not a lot of additional overhead maintaining separate branches. most of the churn is updating changelogs with the new version numbers, uploading, and testing
[16:03] <chrisccoulson> which you still have to do regardless of whether you have separate branches or no
[16:03] <chrisccoulson> t
[16:05] <jdstrand> fta: my point there was that you are not working alone. I've been doing a not insignificant amount of work with testing and the process to make the updates happen. just like you have done a significant amount of work to prepare the updates
[16:07] <fta> so it seems i'm the one to blame now.. great
[16:07] <jdstrand> fta: what blame?
[16:07] <jdstrand> there is no blame
[16:08] <jdstrand> afaics there is nothing wrong
[16:08] <jdstrand> branch debian/, write a proposal, done
[16:36] <mdeslaur> fta: your maintenance of chromium is _incredibly_ appreciated. Nobody is criticizing your work, trying to make you jump through hoops, or blaming you for anything. Releasing updates for stable releases has the introduced regressions in the past that have affected _millions_ of people. Branching the debian/ directory for stable releases is simply one of the things that prevents that from happening.
[16:40] <fta> mdeslaur, i already have dedicated branches for maverick and lucid, and i'm already restraining myself from merging everything down, but most of the packaging changes are there to fix bugs reported by people running lucid, and bzr is really bad with cherry-picks, making my life harder to track what's been lost each time. not to mention the big jumps that often means major changes
[16:44] <mdeslaur> fta: well, some amount of change in debian/ is often necessary, especially when you update versions. But, the idea is to try and minimize change to the stable releases. chrisccoulson can probably tell you exactly what kind of things he refrains from changing in stable releases.
[16:44] <mdeslaur> fta: I realize it's more work for you, but we'll have help soon.
[16:50] <fta> mdeslaur, i'm already twisting my brain to maintain this #!$ branch: http://people.ubuntu.com/~fta/chromium/chromium-stable.png
[16:51] <mdeslaur> fta: wow, cool graph
[16:51] <mdeslaur> fta: I understand, and realize all the work you've put into this
[16:53] <micahg> fta: BTW, chromium is back in squeeze from what I saw
[16:54] <BUGabundo> woot
[16:54] <BUGabundo> micahg: dev channel? or stable
[16:54] <BUGabundo> last I check it only had 6
[16:54] <micahg> BUGabundo: stable
[16:54] <BUGabundo> booo
[16:54] <BUGabundo> I'm on UNSTABLE
[16:54] <micahg> BUGabundo: Debian doesn't do dev channel
[16:55] <BUGabundo> then what's SID for ?
[16:55] <BUGabundo> lol
[16:55] <micahg> BUGabundo: stable releases :)
[16:55] <BUGabundo> then again I'm stuck on 2.6.32.x kernel
[16:55] <fta> micahg, what changed then? they dropped it because it was moving too fast. i don't think google backed off on the idea of releasing fast
[16:55] <micahg> fta: I have no idea, makes no sense to me
[16:56] <fta> http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?packages=chromium-browser
[16:57] <fta> http://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=chromium-browser
[16:57] <micahg> ah, so they're behind as well :-/
[16:59] <fta> we don't have .63 in lucid either, not a security update
[17:07] <fta> this one is nice too: http://people.ubuntu.com/~fta/chromium/graphs/chromium-beta.png
[17:07] <fta> http://people.ubuntu.com/~fta/chromium/graphs/
[17:42] <fta> micahg, BUGabundo: http://upsilon.cc/~zack/blog/posts/2010/10/Debian_squeezes_Chromium_back_in/  but you probably read it already
[20:52] <micahg> chrisccoulson_: lfaraone: what do you think about adding sugar-firefox-activity to the mozilla package set?
[20:55] <chrisccoulson_> micahg - i don't mind
[20:55] <chrisccoulson_> having a crisis now though, so no time to think ;)
[20:55] <micahg> chrisccoulson_: I saw
[22:52] <BUGabundo> fta: http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=58050
[22:53] <fta> BUGabundo, bad subject, should be crash in tcmalloc or something like that
[22:55] <fta> BUGabundo, what do you mean by open search page?
[22:57] <BUGabundo> fta: opening http://brainbird.net/search/notice
[22:58] <fta> BUGabundo, no crash here
[22:59] <BUGabundo> doh forgot to mention browser version
[22:59] <BUGabundo> FAIL
[22:59] <BUGabundo> 7.0.547.0 (61463) Ubuntu 10.10
[22:59] <fta> last one
[22:59] <BUGabundo> fta: crashes everytime
[23:00] <fta> even with a fresh profile?
[23:00] <BUGabundo> no
[23:00] <BUGabundo> with mine
[23:00] <BUGabundo> let me launch a new one and reteste
[23:03] <BUGabundo> fta: works fine one a fresh provile
[23:03] <BUGabundo> [768:783:33156902305:ERROR:net/disk_cache/backend_impl.cc(1193)] Critical error found -8
[23:03] <BUGabundo> but got that
[23:08] <fta> BUGabundo, you should add the missing bit, version, os, etc.. or run apport and link the ubuntu bug there
[23:08] <BUGabundo> I did
[23:09] <BUGabundo> apport won't run on PPA versions
[23:09] <BUGabundo> shame
[23:15] <fta> BUGabundo, it should now, try
[23:15] <BUGabundo> it does?
[23:15] <BUGabundo> cool beans
[23:16] <BUGabundo> and it even autocompletes package names
[23:16] <BUGabundo> YAY
[23:16] <BUGabundo> /tmp/apport.chromium-browser.zng9ny.apport
[23:17] <BUGabundo> that's SOOOO MUCH nicer