[03:37] <photon> will Xubuntu 12.04 LTS desktop version be also supported for 5 years just as the 'standard' Ubuntu 12.04? I'm currently moving away from Ubuntu because of Unity and so far Debian and Xubuntu are on the table (I'm looking for a distro that is really stable and supported for a long time). Xubuntu 12.04 LTS getting security updates for 5 years would be a huge plus.
[03:38] <photon> AFAIK, the only thing that needs to be done is providing security updates for XFCE, as the rest is taken care of by the standard Ubuntu version.
[04:19] <photon> I guess my question goes to knome :)
[05:13] <micahg> photon: we were planning 3 yrs before
[05:45] <photon> micahg: it'd be cool if you guys reconsider since Kubuntu is probably doing the same, and the majority of the work is already taken care of by the Ubuntu team.
[05:46] <micahg> photon: the problem is that Xfce isn't maintained for that long even in Debian
[05:46] <micahg> Xfce for 3 years is a stretch, but if we're aligned with Debian, it's possible
[05:47] <photon> you mean it's not even maintained that long upstream?
[05:47] <micahg> right, they usually only support the current stable branch
[05:47] <micahg> and 4.10 is slated for release in March
[05:47] <photon> but 3 years is do-able?
[05:48] <micahg> with Debian's help, I think between Debian and Ubuntu we have 3 devs ATM :)
[05:48] <photon> oh :)
[05:48] <photon> well, that's understandable then.
[05:49] <micahg> and we only do this in our free time
[05:49] <photon> yes. right. 3 years sounds more sane then.
[05:49]  * micahg will have to support Firefox for 5 years in security updates
[05:50] <photon> why?
[05:50]  * micahg is an Ubuntu Security engineer :)
[05:50] <photon> oh :)
[05:50] <photon> I see
[05:51] <micahg> but that's my day job :)
[05:51] <photon> if it's any motivation, you'll probably get some more followers in the next months, given that almost everybody I talked to runs away from Unity :) and Xubuntu seems to be a really neat alternative.
[05:51] <micahg> we're happy to sponsor fixes from people for Xubuntu stuff
[05:52] <micahg> and anyone who's interested in contributing can usually be found stuff to do
[05:52] <photon> nice :)
[05:52] <micahg> Unity's really not that bad, I run it on my dev machine, I run Xubuntu on my other one :)
[05:53] <micahg> but for people who are used to GNOME 2, it can be a transition that just takes a little getting used to, but gnome shell is the same story
[05:53] <photon> Would you rather recommend Kubuntu?
[05:54] <micahg> no, Xubuntu is similar to the old GNOME 2 style
[05:54] <micahg> Kubuntu is a great distro as well
[05:54] <micahg> but for those used to GNOME 2, Xubuntu is probably the easiest transition
[05:56] <micahg> it's just a matter of personal preference, that's the beauty of Linux distros and Ubuntu specifically, you can easily switch between at least 5 difference DEs
[05:56] <micahg> s/difference/different/
[05:59] <photon> yes, I agree :)
[06:03] <photon> do you see any chance of Xubuntu LTS support being prematurely dropped, as all three of you do that in your free time (if I understood you correctly)? I'm asking because I'm considering it for a larger deployment and getting security updates for the full 3 years is quite important.
[06:05] <holstein> think of it like this... the repos are maintained for 5 years
[06:05] <holstein> all the buntu's, the official ones, get these updates
[06:07] <micahg> photon: you'll get the core security updates regardless of our LTS status, the last official xfce CVE that I know of  was 2 yrs ago
[06:10] <micahg> well, the stuff in main is supported for 5 years
[06:13] <photon> just to make sure I understand you correctly, what you are saying is, everything that isn't XFCE will get security updates for 5 years anyway, and XFCE for 3 years, and in addition to that XFCE is quite unlikely to have a security flaw anyway since the last CVE was 2 yrs ago?
[06:14] <micahg> photon: no, the core components that are shared with Ubuntu desktop will be supported for 5 years, Xubuntu stuff, we still haven't decided if it'll be 18 mo or 3yrs, but the last point is correct, also, you would be free to fix stuff and have it sponsored as well even if we're not doing it
[06:16] <photon> ok
[06:17] <micahg> also, there seems to be a CVE on average every 2 yrs, but we can try to at least fix those if the patch is backportable
[06:18] <micahg> photon: keep in mind, we probably won't be updating much except for high/critical fixes for the LTS due to our limited resources
[06:27] <micahg> and the support is best effort, the only thing we'd actually be committing to for the LTS status is to produce point releases for the first 2 years
[06:32] <photon> what are point releases? :) 
[06:32] <micahg> photon: updated CDs with whatever updates were added to the release
[06:33] <photon> oh I see.
[06:33] <micahg> the first one is usually 3 months after release, with subsequent ones following every 6 months until the next LTS
[06:33] <photon> as in 10.04.3?
[06:33] <micahg> exactly
[06:34] <micahg> I think we still need to draft a proposal as to what we expect to do in terms of LTS support
[13:02] <knome> http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1963776/menu-manager/1.jpg
[13:02] <knome> comments? :)
[13:02] <edii> :)
[13:02] <knome> point to edii
[13:12] <ochosi> edii: looks nice! to me it'd be more natural though to have the available things on the left and the selection on the right
[13:14] <edii> ah, right! i never even thought about that, but now that you've mentioned it i guess it would be more natural
[13:15] <ochosi> at least that's how most other progs do it (ftp-clients etc.)
[13:15] <ochosi> knome: about the icon-theme in xubuntu:
[13:16] <knome> yes
[13:16] <ochosi> i talked to danrabbit recently about the future of the elementary icon theme
[13:16] <edii> yep, i think i'll change that
[13:16] <knome> ochosi, mmh?
[13:16] <ochosi> he's trying to reduce the DE specific icons
[13:16] <knome> aha...
[13:16] <ochosi> but we can fix that mostly with symlinks as he won't really drop icons
[13:16] <ochosi> so i guess we might not have to be afraid of "losing" elementary
[13:16] <knome> do you think it's a viable option to keep using it for the foreseeable future?
[13:17] <ochosi> we should probably just do an xfce-addon pack
[13:17] <knome> yeah
[13:17] <ochosi> yeah, i think it'll be fine
[13:17] <knome> sounds fine
[13:17] <knome> isn't that what we've been doing anyway?
[13:17] <knome> well not in that scale, but still
[13:17] <ochosi> and he's not planning drastic changes in the next releases it seems
[13:17] <ochosi> yeah, but if you look into the 4.0 folder in the elementary-icon themes bzr branch it can be a bit scary :)
[13:18] <ochosi> i mean some nice improvements there, but rather incomplete and some changes not for the better
[13:18] <ochosi> but as i said, no reason to be afraid
[13:18] <ochosi> he'll mostly update mimetypes next
[13:18] <ochosi> which is a good thing imo
[13:18] <ochosi> atm mostly the "music"-mimes have changed and look a bit inconsistent with the rest
[13:19] <knome> okay
[13:19] <ochosi> but that'll be better if he updates the rest as well
[13:19] <ochosi> and it's still the best-looking most-complete theme out there
[13:19] <knome> yeah
[13:19] <ochosi> (other than faenza)
[13:20] <ochosi> but:
[13:20] <ochosi> we could consider renaming the icon-theme
[13:20] <ochosi> because the name is ridiculously long atm
[13:20] <knome> to?
[13:20] <ochosi> and we could do two versions, one linking to the bright panel-icons
[13:20] <ochosi> good question :)
[13:21] <ochosi> but "elementary Xubuntu dark" is rather longish. i mean if we also do "elementary Xubuntu" for the bright variant then it might in fact be ok again
[13:22] <ochosi> having the "elementary" tribute in the name might be fine, but we could also do as ubuntu does and just call them "Xubuntu" and "Xubuntu dark"
[13:23] <knome> Xubuntu e8y-dark
[13:23] <ochosi> e8y? :)
[13:23] <knome> elementary
[13:23] <knome> like l10n or i18n
[13:24] <ochosi> mhm
[13:24] <ochosi> rather nerdy abbreviation
[13:25] <knome> heh
[13:25] <knome> or just e-dark
[13:25] <ochosi> i mean for the average joe user
[13:25] <ochosi> yeah
[13:25] <ochosi> that's probably better
[13:25] <knome> but then they'll be like "what e"
[13:25] <ochosi> since elementary also use "e" as their logo
[13:25] <knome> mm
[13:25] <ochosi> we can set that in the tooltip/description
[13:25] <ochosi> s/set/say
[13:26] <knome> yeah.
[13:26] <ochosi> i actually forgot that that was there :)
[13:26] <knome> just call them "Xubuntu dark" and "Xubuntu light"
[13:26] <ochosi> that makes dropping "elementary" a lot easier
[13:26] <ochosi> yeah
[13:26] <knome> and tell them it's based on elementary
[13:27] <ochosi> btw, any more thoughts on the current design of the login madnick and me have been working on? (mostly madnick ;) )
[13:29] <ochosi> mostly whether you like the look
[13:29] <knome> nothing special really
[13:29] <ochosi> functionality-wise i think it'd be good to also get the user-chooser-menu when clicking the current nickname, not just when clicking the avatar
[13:29] <knome> just make the rounded corners less rounded
[13:30] <ochosi> everywhere or just the outside of the black box?
[13:30] <knome> at least the outside
[13:30] <ochosi> k
[13:30] <knome> hard to say if it'd look weird if there is two "levels" or roundness
[13:30] <ochosi> yeah, i want the "login" button to look like a gtk-button actually
[13:30] <ochosi> or at least like a real button
[13:31] <knome> mm
[13:31] <ochosi> do you think we should keep the bright/grey outline?
[13:31] <knome> don't know
[13:31] <ochosi> :)
[13:31] <knome> depends on how you want to change the things that are inside the box
[13:32] <ochosi> hm, not sure. i mean personally i like the overall look of it, that's why i made it that way :)
[13:33] <knome> brb
[13:36] <ochosi> knome: btw, not sure whether it's feasible, but one item i forgot for the roadmap is "beautify xubuntu's lockscreen". maybe we can discuss this at the next meeting
[13:36] <knome> mm-hmm
[13:36] <ochosi> the technical implications might also have to be discussed
[13:36] <knome> or we can add it as work item inside "misc. appearance"
[13:37] <knome> a-ha
[13:37] <ochosi> because it might mean forking xscreensaver...
[13:37] <knome> then maybe not ;]
[13:37] <ochosi> afaik the ugly lockscreen is hardcoded
[13:37] <knome> yeah, add that to our meeting agenda
[13:37] <ochosi> and theming-support was never added
[13:37] <ochosi> but i think if we coordinate with -studio we could probably do something nice with it
[13:38] <ochosi> just generic improvement, no "xubuntu-look"
[13:38] <knome> yeah
[13:38] <knome> as long as it is committable to upstream too...
[15:47] <Sysi> are there problems with gnome-screensaver or others?
[15:48] <holstein> i dont really have a problem with it
[15:48] <holstein> i think the screen locker looks like something from a different OS
[15:49] <holstein> like... say... windows 95
[15:50] <Sysi> at some point there was.. on lucid there are bugs with xscreensaver
[15:50] <holstein> i dont want/need a screensaver, so im using xlockmore-gl, which has its own problems
[15:51] <holstein> Sysi: i have an 11.10 install if you need me to test something buggy
[15:52] <Sysi> I have 11.10 on virtualbox
[19:55] <micahg> knome: are we having a meeting on sunday?
[21:16] <knome> micahg, i'm not sure if i can make it
[21:19] <micahg> knome: ok, what are we doing about alpha 1 as well as our recognized derivative status
[21:21] <knome> i have to talk about that with skear
[21:21] <knome> err, skaet
[21:21] <knome> do you have a suggestion?
[21:21] <knome> i mean, i'm sure it's more a question in the dev+packages side than the rest
[21:21] <micahg> well, do we have testers lined up?  any outstanding bugs need to be fixed?
[21:22] <knome> for alpha1?
[21:22] <micahg> yes
[21:22] <knome> i'd say let's go for alphas1
[21:22] <knome> -s
[21:22] <micahg> knome: also, you need to get a report in for the release meeting tomorrow
[21:22] <knome> the testers should know we are starting soon
[21:22] <knome> micahg, yep.
[21:22] <knome> micahg, are you attendind?
[21:23] <knome> d=g ...
[21:23] <micahg> not sure, if I'm around, I might lurk
[21:23] <knome> okay
[21:23] <micahg> I can't commit ATM
[21:23] <knome> hm?
[21:23] <knome> to what
[21:23] <micahg> the release meeting
[21:24] <knome> yah, np, madnick should be taking care of that
[21:24]  * micahg is also curious why we're writing a lightdm theming engine
[21:24] <knome> do you have a suggestion for the recognized derivative status?
[21:24] <micahg> a theme make sense, an engine, not so much
[21:24] <knome> madnick wants to do it that way
[21:24] <micahg> knome: I think we should go for it, but we have to discuss our LTS plans
[21:24] <knome> i have no problems with that
[21:25] <knome> (re greeter engine)
[21:25] <knome> as long as he has time for the other tasks too
[21:25] <micahg> knome: that sounds like something Robert should be doing, or at least if madnick is doing it, something that should be coordinated with robert
[21:25] <madnick> micahg: what engine did you have in mind?
[21:25] <knome> who is robert?
[21:25] <madnick> Because a theme cannot really do much
[21:25] <madnick> It can change background
[21:25] <micahg> knome: robert_ancell, author of lightdm
[21:25] <madnick> Thats pretty much it
[21:26] <knome> micahg, why wasn't this raised up before? (it's not too late now, but work has been done with the engine too)
[21:26] <micahg> madnick: ok, but this is something that probably belongs in core lightdm or you'll end up doing a lot more work, so I'd suggest trying to work with robert_ancell to get this in lightdm itself
[21:26] <micahg> madnick: work as in maintenance :)
[21:27] <madnick> micahg: hmm, not sure if i understand this
[21:27] <micahg> knome: this is why I wanted to review the roadmap in the meeting :)
[21:27] <knome> micahg, i see.
[21:27] <madnick> The "engine" is just a binary called by lightdm
[21:27] <madnick> To allow themeing
[21:27] <madnick> Its not acctually a library or anything
[21:27] <knome> micahg, if engines are supported, why can't we write one?
[21:28] <madnick> Its like with GDM
[21:28] <madnick> you could write your own binaries for that too
[21:28] <madnick> infact most distributions did
[21:28] <micahg> knome: is that how it's set up?  to me engine sounds like core functionality, maybe I'm misunderstanding
[21:28] <knome> micahg, maybe you are. madnick definitely knows more than me.
[21:28] <madnick> micahg: its just a greeter, but i call it an engine because it allows external themeing :)
[21:29] <micahg> madnick: oh, ok, just another greeter like unity-greeter
[21:29] <madnick> yes
[21:29] <micahg> ok, sorry, yeah, I guess that makes sense if the current greeters don't do what we want
[21:30] <madnick> sorry for confusing you, it may not have been the best use of words to put "engine" in there
[21:30] <micahg> madnick: so, this will be something other derivatives could use as well and we'll have our own theme for it?
[21:30] <madnick> yes
[21:30] <madnick> ubuntu studio showed some interest
[21:30] <micahg> madnick: sounds cool, thanks for the clarification
[21:30] <knome> micahg, i don't really want to do too much micromanaging - if madnick is building a theme, and he wants to build a greeter engine for it... he shall pursue it
[21:31] <knome> yeah, we are collaborating actually pretty closely with studio
[21:31] <micahg> knome: no, it's fine, I thought he was creating something that should be in core lightdm, but he's really just doing what the desktop team did and making a greeter, it's was a conflation in terminology, mostly on my part I think
[21:31] <knome> micahg, heh, yeah. nope :)
[21:32] <knome> micahg, no problem. good to have it cleared out
[21:32] <knome> micahg, is there something else in the roadmap you want to ask about?
[21:32] <micahg> knome: I"ll have to review it over the weekend, I've still got to get thunderbird out today
[21:32] <knome> oki
[21:33] <knome> do you have any insight to the derivative status thing?
[21:33] <micahg> knome: well, I think we should definitely go for it, I think 3 yr, with a best effort attempt for high/critical bugs and security fixes sounds about right
[21:34] <knome> micahg, the criteria is easy to fulfill?
[21:35] <knome> micahg, or if not easy, at least possible?
[21:36] <micahg> knome: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/RecognizedDerivatives, most of this we were doing already, it's just making a firm commitment for images I think, the rest we decide
[21:36] <knome> micahg, yeah, i have that page open. i was just making sure it is doable
[21:37] <knome> micahg, i have to ask skaet about the lts cycle, like what does "support plan" mean, eg. does it need to be a complete report or something else
[21:38] <micahg> knome: that's just how much effort we think we'll be putting into supporting the stable release
[21:38] <knome> micahg, do you think the plans we've been thinking of would be sufficient?
[21:39] <micahg> yes
[21:39] <knome> micahg, with the shortest possible LTS cycle and so
[21:39] <knome> mmh
[21:39] <knome> who would be the support contact
[21:39] <micahg> mr_pouit: any word yet on whether Debian will take 4.8 or 4.10 for wheezy?
[21:40] <knome> wheezy? sounds like a humorous debian version
[21:40] <micahg> knome: good question, do we have a bug triager?  mr_pouit and charlie-tca were handling this before
[21:40] <micahg> knome: toystory :)
[21:41] <knome> heh
[21:41] <knome> hmm.
[21:41] <knome> i suppose charlie-tca is the main bug triager
[21:41] <knome> but does that suffice?
[21:41] <knome> i mean, he probably can't fix any
[21:42] <micahg> yeah, I think that's fine, it just needs to be someone the release team can poke for updates/discussion
[21:42] <knome> okay
[21:43] <knome> could you put up a really brief suggestion re: the regocnized stuff and lts stuff based on this discussion?
[21:43] <micahg> where? xubuntu-devel?
[21:43] <knome> we could vote on that on the next meeting, and we could start focusing working on precise rather than think about bureaucracy
[21:44] <knome> that would be great
[21:44] <micahg> ok, will add to my list of things to do
[21:45] <knome> okay, thanks A LOT :)
[21:45] <knome> if we keep the meeting on sunday, will you be able to attend?
[21:45] <micahg> but we still need to coordinate for alpha1 if we want images :)
[21:45] <micahg> yes
[21:45] <knome> okay, i'll try to find out if i can make it too.
[21:45] <micahg> please send out an announcement for the meeting though
[21:45] <knome> and announce
[21:45] <knome> yeah
[21:45] <micahg> thanks
[21:45] <knome> i'll mail xubuntu-devel
[21:45] <knome> so what about alpha1?
[21:46] <knome> tbh, i don't know much about bugs that should be fixed :)
[21:46] <micahg> please add a note that w/out testers, we can't have an alpha 1 and we'll be organizing what's needed at the meeting
[21:46] <knome> okay
[21:46] <knome> i will
[21:46] <micahg> well, hopefully not many :)
[21:47] <knome> the topic says the testing starts at 2011-11-28
[21:47] <knome> i think charlie is going to get back at around that time
[21:47] <micahg> right, I was wondering if anyone is testing the daily ISOs ATM
[21:47] <madnick> GridCube and me will probably, atleast test the images
[21:47] <knome> micahg, should they be tested?
[21:48] <madnick> I've not done that daily
[21:48] <madnick> Because I didn't know that we were supposed to :\
[21:48] <knome> me neither.
[21:48] <micahg> well, I don't know that we've done alpha 1 releases before
[21:49] <knome> we did
[21:49] <micahg> The alternate CDs have an issue ATM, but the live CDs appear fine
[21:49] <knome> right
[21:49] <madnick> I was acctually told that testing begins december 1st :P
[21:49] <knome> isn't the only criteria "it builds" :P
[21:49] <knome> (for alpha1)
[21:49] <knome> s.kaet told me that
[21:49] <micahg> knome: used to be
[21:50] <micahg> I don't think that's enough anymore, but I could be wronf
[21:50] <micahg> *wrong
[21:50] <micahg> I think we're in pretty good shape though since we haven't made any major changes
[21:50] <knome> yeah.
[21:50] <knome> unless the debian imports broke things
[21:50] <knome> but if madnick has done any tests, it should be mostly okay i think
[21:51] <madnick> No, I've hardly done any testing, just installed 3 images. When people have said stuff in #xubuntu :P
[21:52] <madnick> Because charlie said: Testing begins Dec 1
[21:56] <Sysi> do they need to be tested on real hardware or would vbox do?
[21:57] <micahg> virtualbox is fine
[21:57] <micahg> madnick: idk if charlie was planning on us releasing alpha1
[21:57] <madnick> oh oka
[21:57] <madnick> y
[21:57] <micahg> but can whoever attends the release meeting please find out how much testing we need for alpha1
[21:57] <madnick> sure
[22:11] <Sysi> hum, I *could* test images directly on this macbookpro.. help for mactel-support team