[07:19] <pitti> good morning
[07:20] <pitti> slangasek: vmware packages> yes, except for the missing license and wrong debian/copyright, but as I said this might be a point where we have usually ignored any blatant error anyway
[08:01] <cjwatson> Anyone know why http://reports.qa.ubuntu.com/reports/kernel-bugs/reports/rls-p-tracking-bugs.html seems to be stuck?
[08:01] <cjwatson> Last generated on Thursday.
[08:44] <stgraber> 1.1.0-19ubuntu1.1~ppa1
[08:44] <stgraber> oops
[08:50] <pitti> cjwatson: last time I asked apw about it, and between him and bjf they poked it to update; they didn't tell me teh details what went wrong, though
[08:51] <pitti> they mentioned something about "LP upgrade", not sure if their cronjob needs manual handholding if it fails once
[08:55] <mvo> could a archive admin please check/accept my vmware-view-client upload to lucid?
[09:02] <pitti> mvo: looking
[09:05] <pitti> mvo: so, debian/copyright still smells fishy (including open source components without providing their source, etc.), but as we discussed by mail I'll just ignore this :)
[09:05] <pitti> so, accepted
[09:14] <mvo> pitti: thanks! more to come soon (maverick, natty :)
[09:52] <mvo> vmware-view-client for maverick, natty is now up as well, lucid appears to be build and may need a binary-new, not sure though, the LP page looks a bit odd
[10:49] <pitti> mvo: lucid bin-NEWed
[10:49] <pitti> mvo: sorry, didn't see your ping earlier
[10:49]  * pitti just spent about an hour writing the stable+1 summary/handoff
[10:50] <pitti> mvo: m/n source-NEWed, too; will watch the queues for binNEW
[10:53] <mvo> thanks pitti! much appreciated
[10:57] <pitti> mvo: both built and binNEWed
[10:58] <pitti> mvo: if someone could verify the app-install-data-partner SRUs, I can move them to -updates as well
[10:58] <mvo> pitti: great, I will ask in ubuntu-testing
[11:08] <pitti> mvo: you can also test it yourself if you have time and VMs/chroots
[11:09] <mvo> pitti: oh, even better. I shyed away from it because I did the SRU upload
[11:09] <pitti> mvo: *shrug* I trust you to use the actual .debs from -proposed :)
[11:09] <pitti> aside from that, it's just verifying that they show up in s-c and install correctly, right?
[11:09] <mvo> yeah
[11:09] <pitti> so for lucid/maverick etc. you might still need to wait for the publisher
[11:10] <mvo> ok
[11:11] <pitti> mvo: I'll now do some vacation-y stuff now (xmas prep, etc.), but will check IRC from time to time
[11:12] <mvo> pitti: thanks, *much* appreciated
[11:12] <pitti> kein Problem :)
[13:45] <mvo> pitti: all sru verification done
[13:45] <pitti> mvo: saw in the bug, moved to -updates five mins ago :)
[13:45] <mvo> !!
[13:45]  * mvo hugs pitti
[13:45]  * pitti hugs mvo, thanks for your hard work on this
[17:14] <slangasek> https://jenkins.qa.ubuntu.com/view/Precise%20ISO%20Testing%20Dashboard/view/Daily/ - why do some of the jobs show up with rain clouds when there's "100%" for the success column?
[17:16] <stgraber> slangasek: isn't it related to the number of failures over the last x runs or x days? Jenkins doesn't seem reachable here at the moment but I seem to remember reading something like that
[17:16] <slangasek> I don't know what it's related to :)
[17:16] <slangasek> it's confusing, that's why I ask :)
[17:17]  * slangasek wonders when armhf should be moved from http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/testing-ports/precise_probs.html to http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/testing/precise_probs.html
[17:17] <slangasek> maybe only after LibO is built ;)
[17:19] <stgraber> slangasek: hover says "1 out of the last 5 builds failed"
[17:19] <slangasek> so the "100%" only refers to the number of successes in the current build?
[17:20] <stgraber> right
[17:20] <slangasek> ok
[17:21] <stgraber> but yeah, I agree that showing 100% everywhere and having an icon indicating some kind of failure is a bit confusing ;)