[00:05] <GrueMaster> Oh, joy.  Double my fun.
[01:28] <wgrant> infinity, cjwatson: armhf all done. Just needs a manage-chroot/add-missing-builds when you're ready for builds. And might need some IS pokage to get it onto ports.u.c, I suppose.
[05:50] <cody-somerville> lol. If I click 'Ask me later' on the 'Ubuntu 11.10 Upgrade Available' popup, nothing happens.
[08:03] <infinity> wgrant: \o/
[08:09] <wgrant> infinity: Have fun with NEW...
[08:09] <wgrant> Although I guess you might have old scripts for that.
[08:14] <infinity> wgrant: Oh ugh.  Did it drop all those arch_all copies into new?
[08:14] <wgrant> infinity: No, but all the armhf binaries will.
[08:14] <wgrant> Once we start building them.
[08:14] <infinity> They... Shouldn't?
[08:15] <infinity> I don't recall that happening with armel or lpia.
[08:15] <infinity> Though it's been a while.
[08:16] <wgrant> Oh, indeed, it falls back to other archs.
[08:16] <wgrant> Forgot that bit.
[08:17] <wgrant> I see you have quite the army of arm* builders now.
[08:17] <infinity> Sort of, though we plan to get rid of all the babbages, so the current list is only temporarily exciting.
[08:19] <wgrant> Bah.
[08:19] <wgrant> Will be interesting to see how quickly the flock of pandas gets through the archive, anyway.
[08:20] <infinity> We'll need more of them.
[08:20] <infinity> And we're working on that.
[08:20] <infinity> But it might not be too awful.
[08:20] <infinity> I hope. :P
[08:21] <wgrant> At least we're starting early this time :)
[08:22] <infinity> Ish.  I seem to be taking vacation at a rather inconvenient time, but I hope to be babysitting builds be the end of next week.
[08:22] <infinity> s/be the/by the/
[14:38] <jdstrand> skaet: hi!
[14:39] <jdstrand> skaet: I was asked to talk to you about bug #314432
[14:39] <skaet> hiya jdstrand! :)
[14:39] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 314432 in launchpad "It's impossible to see all the bugs that affect a BugTarget if some bugs are targeted to one or more series and the Master task is closed (affects: 4) (dups: 4) (heat: 60)" [High,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/314432
[14:39] <skaet> jstrand,  classic.
[14:39] <jdstrand> skaet: this is a real problem for my team, and I imagine it would be for you. do you think we can up that to Critical as flacoste mentioned in comment #18 this morning?
[14:40]  * skaet looking
[14:40] <jdstrand> I also wonder why I am not allowed to escalate it
[14:43] <infinity> Only certain LP people can escalate LP bugs.
[14:43] <skaet> jdstrand,  as a way of dealing with the backlog,    they are taking that input from the representative stakeholders that's all.
[14:44] <jdstrand> sure, but this is getting on 4 years
[14:45] <jdstrand> slipping is one thing, but we are missing stuff (still) because of it
[14:45] <skaet> jdstrand,  yup
[14:46] <skaet> its on the list now,  there are some other things there too.   archive skew,  and rebuild are there as well.
[14:47] <jdstrand> skaet: ok, as my representative stakeholder, this is probably the most important bug the security team has
[14:47] <jdstrand> skaet: thanks
[14:47] <skaet> jdstrand.  gotcha.   :)
[14:47] <skaet> thanks.
[14:48] <jdstrand> skaet: would you mind commenting in the bug in whatever way is appropriate as my representative? :)
[14:48] <skaet> yup,  doing it now. ;)
[14:48] <jdstrand> \o/
[15:00] <jdstrand> skaet: actually, you may want to look at bug #874250. this was discovered today and adversely affects our kernel cadence
[15:00] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 874250 in launchpad "Nominations stop working when bugs have large number of projects (affects: 1) (heat: 12)" [Critical,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/874250
[15:01] <jdstrand> skaet: what this means is we have to skip these bugs entirely when doing our workflow. so, precise for example currently cannot be tracked
[15:02] <jdstrand> skaet: I guess I should revise my comment and say "these are the two most important bugs the security team has" :)
[15:03] <jdstrand> (cannot be tracked in those bugs where this LP bug bites)
[15:04] <skaet> jdstrand, which of thw two is hightest priority?
[15:05] <jdstrand> skaet: it would have to be kernel workflow at this point
[15:05] <jdstrand> skaet: but I worry that it will go to Critical and the other stay at High and the other won't be fixed for another 4 years
[15:05] <jdstrand> do I sound jaded?
[15:06] <skaet> jdstrand,  understandably.  :/   Anyhow,  I'll reflect the order in my request in.
[15:06] <jdstrand> skaet: k, sorry for not remembering the kernel workflow bug
[15:07] <skaet> no worries.   :)   This is the problem the launchpad team has in spades,  hence the desire we prioritize amongst each of the stakeholder viewpoints a bit.
[15:08] <jdstrand> skaet: well, while the old one affects more teams, the 2nd one is more strategic and there is no workaround
[15:08]  * skaet nods
[16:21]  * Laney promotes 648611 too