[12:16] <rove> hi! I hitted a nautilus bug (maybe a memory leak??)
[12:22] <rove> I've still installed ubuntu 10.10 on my desktop on a new 500GB HD, It worked good until I copied my 60GB of files from old hd to my new one, on ubuntu Chan they tell me to say that to you
[15:16] <Abhijit> hi
[15:16] <Abhijit> someone please triage this bug
[15:16] <Abhijit> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/scribus/+bug/741807
[15:16] <ubot4`> Launchpad bug 741807 in scribus (Ubuntu) "Select single file by default (affects: 1) (heat: 6)" [Undecided,New]
[15:30] <yofel> Abhijit: does this happen with scribus-ng too? scribus 1.3 won't get any design changes anymore (lucid has scribus-ng 1.3.5 and in -backports 1.4rc1)
[15:31] <Abhijit> let me check
[15:31] <Abhijit> i have both installed. 1 sec
[15:33] <Abhijit> yofel, that issue is in scribus ng too. but in scribusng i had two documents. so i  cannot check now. is there any way to delte cache of scribus?
[15:36] <yofel> Abhijit: not sure, I'll be at home in ~20min then I'll look at it
[15:37] <Abhijit> ok
[15:37] <Abhijit> np
[15:53] <bdmurray> anybody know of a master bug reporting dpkg and '/usr/lib/pango'?
[15:53] <bdmurray> s/reporting/regarding/
[15:56] <hggdh> psusi, there?
[15:58] <psusi> hggdh: yo
[15:59] <hggdh> psusi, you closed all usplash bugs -- but usplash is still supported
[16:00] <psusi> hggdh: yes.. but the default bug task only refers to the development release.  If it is an SRU candidate, then a bug task should be opened against the stable release, otherwise it will not be fixed there.
[16:02] <hggdh> psusi, if there is no other tasks, the bug is effectively closed
[16:02] <psusi> in fact, an SRU normally requires that it be fixed in development first before it can be backported, and that isn't possible, so...
[16:02] <psusi> hggdh: that's correct
[16:03] <psusi> hrm... perhapse I should have used wontfix instead of invalid...
[16:03] <psusi> I don't think it really makes any difference though
[16:05] <micahg> psusi: that's why I told you that you have to look at each bug before closing them
[16:06] <psusi> micahg: why?  they won't be fixed.
[16:07] <micahg> psusi: says who?  just because you won't fix something doesn't mean it won't be fixed, if the issue is worthy of an SRU, a task should be opened in the appropriate release
[16:07] <psusi> micahg: even if it is important enough for an SRU, SRU requires it be fixed in development first, then backported.  That can't happen.
[16:07] <micahg> psusi: not in this case
[16:07] <micahg> psusi: that only applies if the package is in the development release
[16:08] <micahg> it's so that we get more extensive testing on the patch in question
[16:08] <psusi> we don't normally keep  bugs open just because they haven't been SRU'd... if it is fixed in the development release, then it's closed, unless nominated for an SRU...
[16:09] <micahg> psusi: only the appropriate release task needs to remain open
[16:09] <psusi> right... and if there isn't one, then the bug is closed.
[16:09] <micahg> psusi: right, but if you're clearing bugs for a package, it's best to review each bug to see if it's SRU worthy
[16:10] <psusi> why?  if it was critical then it should already have been targeted
[16:10] <micahg> psusi: by our huge bug triage staff?
[16:11] <yofel> note: triagers can't target bugs
[16:11] <micahg> yofel: triagers can nominate though
[16:11]  * micahg was being sarcastic
[16:12] <micahg> there's no guarantee that every bug was actually looked at
[16:12] <psusi> I figure after more than a year and 2 releases of a bug NOT being flagged as high priority, it isn't going to be no matter how much longer it languishes.  If it were really high priority, SOMEONE would have paid attention to it in that time.
[16:14] <micahg> psusi: not necessarily, world burning isn't the only SRU criteria
[16:14] <micahg> psusi: according to your logic, there should be no SRUs after 1 year in lucid
[16:14] <psusi> micahg: it has to be high or critical importance for an SRU
[16:14] <micahg> lucid is supported for 3 years on the desktop and 5 on the server
[16:15] <psusi> micahg: it's pretty darn unlikely... other than for a CVE that is newly discovered
[16:15] <micahg> usplash is the type of thing where even if a small number are affected it might be high
[16:16] <micahg> psusi: CVEs go through -security, not the SRU process
[16:16] <psusi> yea
[16:22] <bdmurray> I think the fact that a package was removed / is no longer be used probably indicates that less people are paying attention to it and bugs about it.  Additionally, usplash wasn't a well known application since it was plumbing.
[16:24] <charlie-tca> but that still should not make every single bug invalid without looking at them
[16:24] <charlie-tca> It is valid in lucid and maverick, yet we close the bugs because the package was not in natty?
[16:25] <charlie-tca> Why are we not closing every bug not in the development version, by that reasoning?
[16:25] <micahg> This should be extended to cover this case: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Responses#Fixed%20in%20Development%20release%20while%20still%20existing%20in%20a%20previous%20release
[16:26] <charlie-tca> Since we close if the package is removed from the development version, we could be down to just a couple of thousand bugs.
[16:26] <bdmurray> I can understand the logic behind it usplash doesn't exist in the development release and the default task is for the development release so it is Invalid for Natty+, but each bug should be reviewed to ensure they aren't SRU worthy.
[16:27] <charlie-tca> they were not reviewed. They were closed because the package is not in Natty
[16:29] <bdmurray> True, but I think this is better discussed in the next meeting or perhaps at UDS.
[16:29] <charlie-tca> bdmurray: please see bug 97552
[16:29] <ubot4`> Launchpad bug 97552 in usplash (Ubuntu) "Gnome closing splash screen doesn't match the desktop being used (heat: 8)" [Low,Invalid] https://launchpad.net/bugs/97552
[16:29] <bdmurray> We've got some Natty bugs to fry.
[16:29] <charlie-tca> The problem is "how many bugs will we lose by then?
[16:32] <charlie-tca> I am frustrated. I work hard to triage bugs correctly, and seeing them closed for no valid reason is just wrong.
[16:32] <micahg> +1, I don't think there should be any more mass bug closings until this is discussed
[16:35] <bdmurray> charlie-tca: I understand your frustration.  If we were to look at the particular bug as an example though I'd say it is not SRU worthy and subsequently Won't Fix.
[16:35] <charlie-tca> If I were to look at what was done, why would I triage any more bugs?
[16:36] <charlie-tca> They can stay in New until someone decides to mark them closed, and I did not then waste my time
[16:37] <bdmurray> charlie-tca: wasn't your time spent 2 years ago when the bug was more fixable?
[16:37] <charlie-tca> and now how many got closed in usplash?
[16:38] <charlie-tca> and when the next person decides to mass close a package of bugs, because they aren't in the development release, how many will get closed again?
[16:39] <charlie-tca> time spent two years ago, time spent now, it is all wasted under those conditions. I could have done something that was more worth that time, perhaps, two years ago?
[16:40] <yofel> Abhijit: ah, you mean that when you go to the recent documents tab in the welcome window it doesn't automatically select the only document?
[16:40] <Abhijit> yes
[16:40] <Abhijit> right
[16:40] <bdmurray> charlie-tca: I agree that a mistake was made in this particular case but I don't think it is a grave mistake.  We don't have a good policy for dealing with bugs in removed packages (and I'm sorry about that) because we have so many bugs to deal with about packages people are using.
[16:40] <Abhijit> :-)
[16:40] <yofel> Abhijit: ok, that's still like that in 1.4rc2
[16:41] <Abhijit> yofel, ok
[16:41] <bdmurray> charlie-tca: or packages that are currently under active development.
[16:43] <micahg> bdmurray: ok, but can we at least delay such further actions until there's a policy?
[16:44] <yofel> Abhijit: then again, it's only the case if you go there by mouse, if you press alt+d twice to go there then it is selected
[16:44] <yofel> Qt oddity I guess
[16:44] <bdmurray> micahg: yes, I don't get the impression psusi has a hit list of packages to close out bugs for.
[16:44] <Abhijit> yeah i was just suggeting the improvemnet yofel
[16:45] <bdmurray> I have such a hit list! but think time is best spent elsewhere.
[16:46] <yofel> Abhijit: I'll file that at scribus then and let them decide
[16:46] <Abhijit> yofel, ok sure. thanks.
[20:35] <njin> hello, wich is the package for gnome-language-selector '
[20:35] <njin> ?
[20:37] <yofel> njin: you do know about dpkg -S and apt-file?
[20:37] <yofel> njin: or better, read https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/FindRightPackage
[22:08] <bdmurray> remember its bug day!
[22:41] <bdmurray> I'm gonna write a bug pattern for a ubiquity bug if anybody wants to hear about it.
[23:26] <BUGabundo> o/
[23:44] <bdmurray> BUGabundo: hmm?