[14:23] <chrisccoulson> bhearsum, when do you start pushing out new builds to nightly and aurora users?
[14:24] <bhearsum> nightly updates to 8 should be out already
[14:25] <bhearsum> Aurora updates will probably be out late this week
[14:25] <bhearsum> (and incidentally, Beta updates should be out tomorrow/thursday)
[14:25] <chrisccoulson> bhearsum, ah, ok. thanks
[14:25] <chrisccoulson> i'm ready to do new aurora and beta builds this week :)
[14:26] <bhearsum> np, that's great!
[14:47] <chrisccoulson> mdeslaur, it seems that you triage more useless firefox bugs than i do ;)
[14:47] <chrisccoulson> i wish i could automate the closing of bugs like bug 804417
[14:48] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 804417 in firefox "facebook is not opening in firefox" [Undecided,Invalid] https://launchpad.net/bugs/804417
[14:48] <mdeslaur> chrisccoulson: yes, I get them out of the security so they can get properly ignored by the firefox team
[14:48] <chrisccoulson> thanks! \o/
[14:48] <mdeslaur> chrisccoulson: np :)
[14:48] <chrisccoulson> how are you enjoying the royal couple btw?
[14:48] <chrisccoulson> it's so great to not have them over here ;)
[14:50] <mdeslaur> chrisccoulson: oh, they're kayaking in the northwest territories now. Would you like some pictures? :)
[14:50] <chrisccoulson> mdeslaur, no thanks, i'll let you keep the pictures to yourself :)
[14:51] <mdeslaur> chrisccoulson: for future reference, please send more tv shows to canada, and less royal couples. thanks.
[14:52] <chrisccoulson> mdeslaur, oh, i'm not sure you would want some of our tv shows either ;)
[14:52] <chrisccoulson> some of them are pretty terrible
[14:53] <chrisccoulson> this looks crazy: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14041973
[14:54] <mdeslaur> wow
[14:55] <chrisccoulson> that would be really annoying for anybody who had just spent a day washing and polishing their car
[14:55] <mdeslaur> chrisccoulson: I was tempted to write "Try this link: http://www.facebook.com" in that bug
[14:55] <chrisccoulson> lol
[14:55] <chrisccoulson> that might be good advice
[14:56] <chrisccoulson> i honestly don't know what people expect us to do with bugs like that though, and that one is fairly low down on the usefulness scale ;)
[14:57] <mdeslaur> I think I'll just tell them to go to askubuntu.com
[14:57] <chrisccoulson> that will please jcastro ;)
[14:57]  * mdeslaur will refrain from a fake steve jobs "Have you tried OpenBSD?" type response
[14:58] <chrisccoulson> lol
[14:58] <micahg> the convert to question response in firefox-lp-improvements suggests askubuntu.com
[14:58] <mdeslaur> hmm, I should edit the one the security team uses
[15:11] <fta> hm, no dpm :(
[17:56] <chrisccoulson> sigh @ https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=669625. i honestly think we should drop firefox
[17:56] <ubot2> Mozilla bug 669625 in Disability Access APIs "Linux/atk support for for e10s" [Normal,New: ]
[17:57] <chrisccoulson> at least google try to keep chrome working on LTS versions
[17:59] <micahg> well, google runs on the LTS, so it behooves them :)
[18:00] <micahg> I mean they are commited to keeping it running
[18:00] <micahg> Firefox doesn't seem to be as committed to linux as a whole
[18:08] <chrisccoulson> indeed
[18:08] <chrisccoulson> and if that bug is anything to go by, then i don't see how we can realistically support firefox anymore tbh
[18:09] <micahg> well, they've been conservative with technologies the past even for new releases, so I think they might change their minds there once they realize the impact
[18:14] <micahg> chrisccoulson: workaround already proposed in that bug :)
[18:15] <chrisccoulson> heh
[18:15] <chrisccoulson> it's still concerning that we get mixed messages from mozilla. do they expect us to ship the latest version or not?
[18:16] <chrisccoulson> Fernando certainly didn't think that we would be :/
[18:53] <bhearsum> i can't _imagine_ we would want Ubuntu LTS to ship really old Firefoxes
[18:55] <micahg> bhearsum: I'm still waiting to see what comes of the LTS discussions upstream
[18:56] <bhearsum> specifically, whether or not Mozilla is going to have LTS versions?
[18:56] <micahg> bhearsum: yes, and if not Mozilla, how much community support with specific knowledge of the codebase
[18:57]  * micahg would definitely prefer Mozilla to do it though :)
[18:58] <micahg> and that's not a commitment in any way to an LTS, but rather would like to see what's on the table and then make an informed decision
[18:58] <bhearsum> ah
[18:58] <chrisccoulson> i wouldn't prefer an LTS version of firefox, but I would prefer to ship the latest version if it works ;)
[18:58] <bhearsum> i'm not a decision maker or anything, but i can tell you that there's very little to no energy behind doing an LTS version - of course, that could change with enough backlash
[18:59] <bhearsum> right now we're mostly treating it as a reaction to change, though
[19:00] <chrisccoulson> i wouldn't really want to cripple our users with an LTS version of firefox, and one of the blockers for adopting linux is that we make users wait 6 whole months to get new versions of apps, which they have to upgrade their entire OS to get
[19:00] <chrisccoulson> we certainly don't want that
[19:00] <chrisccoulson> well, i don't ;)
[19:01] <micahg> and I don't want to deal with people having their addons broke every 6 weeks or with some other regression in the browser :), but we've already had this discussion :)
[19:02] <chrisccoulson> well, the addon situation isn't really that bad, and will certainly improve
[19:02] <chrisccoulson> as i've said before, the number of users who want to run the latest outweigh the number who want an old version
[19:03] <chrisccoulson> and if we're ever going to achieve mark's ambition of 200 million users, then the current status quo isn't good enough ;)
[19:04] <chrisccoulson> users on every other single platform get the latest version of the browser, and other applications
[19:04] <chrisccoulson> it's only us who make users wait 6 months and then force them to ugrade their entire OS
[19:04] <micahg> chrisccoulson: well, I'd rather figure out how to easily give the ones who want the latest crack rather than force it on everyone
[19:04] <chrisccoulson> why make the majority of users who want it jump through hoops?
[19:05] <micahg> well, I'd consider making the LTS only on an LTS if we do indeed see it's a majority (since the LTS user would most likely prefer stability)
[19:05] <chrisccoulson> well, we already have LTS users asking for the latest version
[19:05] <micahg> but it's moot until the conversation happens upstream
[19:06] <chrisccoulson> i even have people inside canonical pinging me for it now (from people running lucid)
[19:06] <micahg> chrisccoulson: we have a PPA for them
[19:06] <chrisccoulson> i certainly don't support the LTS idea. i just want to make sure the version we do get works
[19:06] <chrisccoulson> PPA's suck
[19:07] <chrisccoulson> we shouldn't provide users with a crappy experience and then tell them they have to install from a PPA to get an acceptable experience
[19:07] <micahg> the experience depends on what your goals are
[19:07] <chrisccoulson> and 3.6 really is a bad experience compared to the version of chromium we ship in lucid
[19:07] <chrisccoulson> well, if you set your goals low, then we'll never get anywhere tbh
[19:07] <micahg> 3.6 wouldn't be the Firefox LTS inany case
[19:08] <chrisccoulson> yeah, but 3.6 is a perfect example of how quickly things date
[19:09] <micahg> it's 1.5 yrs old, there are proposal for 6 month LTSs or 1 yr LTSs
[19:09] <micahg> again, moot discussion until discussion happens upstream
[19:09] <chrisccoulson> and as bhearsum said - "there's very little to no energy behind doing an LTS version". i think it would be foolish to throw away all the support we get, and the testing community, to ship an LTS version that nobody really supports (other than a few linux distro's)
[19:12] <chrisccoulson> this actually sums up my thoughts exactly: http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.planning/msg/8192ab9c6511119f
[19:12] <chrisccoulson> and http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.planning/msg/cdd6d90a4cfe83f2
[19:14] <bhearsum> chrisccoulson: huh, do you not work for Canonical?
[19:15] <chrisccoulson> bhearsum, i do
[19:15] <bhearsum> oh, ok - i misread between the lines of backscroll
[19:15] <chrisccoulson> oh, which bit did you misread?
[19:16] <micahg> bhearsum: I'm the one responsible for the stable release security updates :)
[19:16] <bhearsum> i thought "people inside canonical" implied you weren't in that group
[19:16] <bhearsum> micahg: oh, cool
[19:16] <chrisccoulson> bhearsum, oh, sorry ;)
[19:22] <chrisccoulson> micahg, i'm going to try and get our firefox-next PPA building on armel btw
[19:23] <chrisccoulson> i spoke briefly to jelmer at the rally last week, and he seemed fairly open to the idea of letting us do that
[19:23] <micahg> chrisccoulson: umm, I think that's a bad idea until we get the faster arm builders
[19:23] <chrisccoulson> micahg, not for firefox-next, it will only be about 1 build/wk
[19:24] <chrisccoulson> we have no armel testing coverage at any point until we try to do a release build
[19:24] <micahg> um, I hope the beta channel isn't once a week
[19:24] <chrisccoulson> why?
[19:24] <chrisccoulson> i'm not sure how often builds will come from the beta channel, but i can't imagine it would be much less frequently than that
[19:24] <chrisccoulson> and why is that a problem?
[19:24] <micahg> I was still under the impression that the first beta should be the release build unless big issues are found
[19:25] <micahg> if they're rebuilding once a week, something is wrong with the process
[19:25] <chrisccoulson> well, new builds are inevitable as more people test them and find issues
[19:25] <chrisccoulson> i don't think that would indicate anything wrong with the process at all
[19:25] <chrisccoulson> and it's not like it's difficult for me to support that
[19:25] <micahg> well, in that case, they're really betas and not RCs
[19:26] <chrisccoulson> i'm already ready to push the button on the first 6.0 beta tomorrow
[19:26] <micahg> I'd like to actually use -proposed for extended user testing for this new process
[19:27] <micahg> but I can't do that if they rebuild every week
[19:27] <micahg> well, I could, it'll just be annoying
[19:27] <chrisccoulson> well, i don't know how often we'll get builds. but i honestly don't think that tomorrows beta will be the release build in 8 weeks time ;)
[19:28] <micahg> I think I need to talk to the RM about this and find out what the actual goal of the beta channel is
[19:28] <chrisccoulson> to fix all the remaining issues before release?
[19:37] <chrisccoulson> m_conley, did you see my comment in #ubuntu-desktop earlier, about an issue that didrocks had with thunderbird?
[19:37] <m_conley> chrisccoulson: no - what's up?
[19:38] <chrisccoulson> m_conley, he was running a nightly build (because 5.0 crashes on startup), and he hit an issue where the UI main window was displaying with no contents in the folder pane
[19:38] <chrisccoulson> and this error in the error console:
[19:38] <chrisccoulson> "Error: tree is undefined" @ chrome://messenger/content/folderPane.js:885
[19:38] <chrisccoulson> and when you look at the code, that exception is actually impossible
[19:39] <chrisccoulson> so, we deleted the startup cache from his profile, and it worked again afterwards :/
[19:39] <m_conley> chrisccoulson: hrm
[19:39] <chrisccoulson> obviously, not reproducible, which is helpful ;)
[19:39] <m_conley> chrisccoulson: yeah.  :/
[19:40] <chrisccoulson> i wish we'd kept the contents of the startup cache now
[19:40] <chrisccoulson> hindsight is a wonderful thing ;)
[19:43] <m_conley> chrisccoulson: no way to retrieve it?
[19:44] <chrisccoulson> m_conley, no, i just asked him to delete it, before i realized it might actually be useful to keep it
[19:44] <m_conley> chrisccoulson: and what was this about TB 5 crashing on startup?  I remember you mentioning it earlier, but it strikes me as odd.  How did that pass our tests?
[19:45] <chrisccoulson> m_conley, that's basically https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=660778
[19:45] <ubot2> Mozilla bug 660778 in JavaScript Engine "Stack Overflow Crash [@ js::gc::Cell::arenaHeader() | js::gc::Cell::address()] | ASSERTION: JSEventListener has wrong script context?: 'stack && NS_SUCCEEDED(stack- >Peek(&cx)) && cx && GetScriptContextFromJSContext(cx) == mContext'" [Critical,Resolved: fixed]
[19:45] <chrisccoulson> i'm not sure what conditions actually trigger it
[19:46] <m_conley> it's extremely strange that this got through our QA.
[19:47] <m_conley> chrisccoulson: oh - the patch only landed yesterday...
[21:03] <BUGabundo> and here comes Firefox 8.0 :O
[21:04] <BUGabundo> evening
[22:40] <chrisccoulson> is this guy spying on me? http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=11020681&postcount=471
[22:41] <chrisccoulson> i uploaded that, like, 1 minute ago
[22:43] <chrisccoulson> ok, maybe 10 minutes ago ;)