[01:43] <kees> apw: the linux in lucid -proposed .. that fixes a regression? when was the regression introduced?
[04:13] <daurnimator> how stable is 3.0rc7?
[04:13] <ohsix> verily
[11:29] <apw> kees, yes a regression introduced in v2.6.21, but only exposed by a java security update about 5 weeks back
[11:33] <kees> .21?? hah, whoa
[11:38] <apw> kees, a well old problem, odd that it was exposed all of a sudden ... 
[11:40] <apw> kees, i am not aware of any security issue related to it, nor anything other than euca setup which tickles it... but i can't say i've looked very closly
[11:41] <apw> kees, bah the update didn't go out anyhow after all that panicing last week over it
[11:56] <kees> hm, I guess it shouldn't go to -security. ah well, I'll upfate the bug
[17:10] <kees> sconklin: hm, I can't change security-signoff from "fix released" to "invalid" for LP 813507 
[17:10] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 813507 in linux "linux: 2.6.32-33.71 -proposed tracker" [High,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/813507
[17:11] <sconklin> hrmph, let me look (and this doesn't mean I'm really here)
[17:11] <sconklin> :-)
[17:12] <sconklin> kees: what does it complain about?
[17:12] <sconklin> and you're sure you're logged in, right? yesterday some of us got spontaneously logged out and it caused some confusion like this
[17:13] <sconklin> I just changed it.
[17:13] <kees> sconklin: I'm logged in, it literally gives me no options in the drop-down
[17:13] <sconklin> It occurs to me that changing things from fix-released may be one of the special cases that launchpad requires some odd privs for
[17:13] <kees> sconklin: am I missing some kind of permission?
[17:13] <kees> yeah
[17:14] <kees> sconklin: do you have the ability to flip it? I thought that bug fix was a security regression, but it's not, so it shouldn't go to -security
[17:14] <sconklin> I can do it. There are some operations that are reserved for package uploaders.
[17:14] <sconklin> I filpped it
[17:14] <kees> okay, thanks :)
[17:14] <sconklin> I just talked with Allison about permissions challenges like this, I'll ad this to the list
[17:15] <sconklin> And we're in luck! The workflow bot apparently didn't run while it was set wrong :-)
[17:16] <sconklin> it should run in about 4 mins and set that for release - I'll watch until that happens
[17:16] <kees> heh, yeah :)
[17:17] <sconklin> by the way, if this ever happens again, setting a tag of "verification-failed" on the bug is one sure way to stop anyone from publishing in any case, even if it's not exactly true. It's our big red button
[17:22] <sconklin> hmm, it didn't change anything. oh, found a bug in the workflow bot. Ok, I guess I'm 'here'.
[17:27] <sconklin> kees: ok, that's fixed, and it did the right thing. That package if ready for publishing. Thanks for flagging me on this