[13:15] <LoT> so, i was looking through "NEW" ubuntu bugs, and we have a significant number... some that are just *ancient*
[13:17] <LoT> hggdh: happen to be alive?
[13:22] <LoT> who in their right mind nominated this for "Ubuntu" directly four days ago, if its already "Fix Released"
[13:22] <LoT> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/738453
[13:22] <ubot2> Ubuntu bug 738453 in avant-window-navigator "[natty] taskmanager applet crashes on right click" [Medium,Fix released]
[13:26] <LoT> its an old bug too
[13:26]  * LoT goes to poke the LP people
[13:28] <penguin42> LoT: You do get some random sets of changes in bugs and I can never figure it out, I've seen a few bugs which have just had loads of random changes, the best explanation is it's just new users not understanding, but I don't know
[13:28] <LoT> penguin42: i've undone their fails, but i'm starting to think we need some type of a restriction for bugs
[13:29] <LoT> PERSONALLY...
[13:29] <LoT> i believe that people should be required to sign the CoC in order to *edit* bugs "affects"
[13:29] <LoT> that way there's the requirements of a PGP key and a digital signature before they randomly modify bugs
[13:29] <LoT> my main concern is that this user is *literally* brand new.
[13:30] <LoT> Member since:2012-07-07
[13:30] <penguin42> LoT: Yeh I've seen it on a few, it'svery odd
[13:30] <LoT> this user only modified that one bug, too...
[13:30] <LoT> https://bugs.launchpad.net/~xerotonin#show_id=true&show_information_type=false&show_tag=false&show_reporter=false&show_targetname=true&show_assignee=false&show_date_last_updated=false&show_datecreated=false&show_importance=true&show_heat=true&show_milestone_name=false&show_status=true&batch_key=%5B%22-importance%22%2Cnull%2Ctrue%2C0%5D
[13:30] <LoT> BLEH EVIL LINK!
[13:30] <LoT> anyways
[13:31] <LoT> i did state in my comment that if they think it was *not* fixed, then rather than reassigning the bug to "Ubuntu", they should comment "This error showed up again" or "This bug showed up again in $version"
[13:31]  * LoT at least has the patience today to not rant at these people beyond that of typical LoT opinion0stating
[13:32] <penguin42> LoT: I've sene it before, and I've wondered if it's on purpose, but I don't get it
[13:33] <LoT> penguin42: might be a bot
[13:33] <LoT> but i'm thinking its something i bring up on the bugsquad mailing list
[13:33] <LoT> this happens pretty oftenish
[13:33] <penguin42> LoT: Yeh I did a while ago
[13:33] <LoT> and i dont like it
[13:33] <LoT> penguin42: i didnt see that, must've been before i joined
[13:33] <LoT> got the archive?
[13:34] <penguin42> LoT: Let me see, it was in April, I was commenting on the changes to bug 804662
[13:34] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 804662 in jockey "jockey-gtk crashed with TypeError in _execute_child(): execv() arg 2 must contain only strings" [High,Fix released] https://launchpad.net/bugs/804662
[13:34] <penguin42> LoT: https://lists.launchpad.net/ubuntu-bugcontrol/msg03696.html
[13:34] <LoT> penguin42: yeah i joined at the very very end of april :P
[13:35] <LoT> penguin42: ah, i wasnt subscribed to bugcontrol then (wasnt a member)
[13:35] <LoT> explains why i didnt see it xD
[13:36] <LoT> but yeah, i think its both an issue of PEBKAC and spam
[13:36] <LoT> that' Enki" name is familiar, but i cant place it...
[13:36] <penguin42> hey 4 letters being familiar....
[13:37] <LoT> where do i know that from...
[13:37] <LoT> i know it from somewhere important... was it from when i opered another network...?
[13:38]  * LoT digs around in 5-year-old files
[13:54] <LoT> penguin42: its mildly annoying when stuff that shows "Fix Confirmed" actually shows up in the "New" list, and its old and stale :/
[13:55] <LoT> i mean, there's this old bug in the 300ks and its still applicable for "oneiric", but apparently nobody fixed it
[13:55] <LoT> (originally reported in 9.04)
[13:56] <penguin42> LoT: Yeh there are lots of old bugs; if it annoys you, fix it :-)
[13:57] <LoT> penguin42: if they're still applicable, i'm not touching them :P
[13:57] <LoT> but old "Fix Released" stuff... :p
[13:58] <LoT> that shouldnt be messed with and if it IS messed with, well...
[13:58] <LoT> *booM*
[13:58] <LoT> i'll be on it :P
[13:58] <LoT> (if/when i see it)
[13:58] <LoT> okay, now i'm more annoyed with the general userbase... :/
[13:58] <penguin42> LoT: hehe yeh, the most common reason fix released stuff gets fiddled with is that people find the same bug coming up again
[13:58] <LoT> because apparently people think that every failed config file they set up is a bug
[13:58] <penguin42> LoT: Now now, can't get annoyed with them!
[13:59]  * LoT grabs the invalidation keys for the teams he's on
[13:59] <LoT> these "invalid" bugs are not bugs!
[13:59] <LoT> (they're on projects, which i manage, so... not bugcontrol or ubuntu)
[13:59] <LoT> penguin42: when you see twelve bugs that arent bugs on an upstream project, all within a minute of each other...
[14:00] <LoT> and they're random failed config files that the users wrote...
[14:00]  * LoT shrugs
[14:00] <LoT> i've never seen that much spam hit my inbox at once though
[14:00] <LoT> (and when i have, its only ever been when the Russians bombarded my email server, and the spam filters couldnt keep up
[14:01] <LoT> _
[14:01] <LoT> BLEH, keyboard's on the fritz again
[14:01] <penguin42> LoT: OK, so why are the users making so many config screwups and reporting them as bugs - are the error messages it creates not helpful enough?
[14:01] <LoT> penguin42: you mean like "$configargument is not valid within a $container section of the configuration"?
[14:01] <LoT> where $configargument is some random item
[14:02] <LoT> and $container is a block of config that relates to a specific part of the program
[14:02] <LoT> because that's the errors they're getting.. but the error even says it cant be used
[14:02] <LoT> and it also says refer to documentation
[14:02] <penguin42> ah, not much you can do about that then :-)
[14:02] <LoT> nope
[14:03] <LoT> except mark the bugs as notbugs and then convert to questions, then say "Please refer to the documentation, as the error states."
[14:03] <LoT> and then they email me and are like "But I followed the docs..."
[14:03] <LoT> "Did you read the section that says "Valid only in"?
[14:03] <LoT> "Ohh.... no...?"
[14:04] <LoT> *facepalm*  "Go read it"
[14:04] <LoT> (typical post-convert-to-question email chain)
[14:05] <hggdh> LoT: I am here now :-)
[14:06] <LoT> hggdh: heh, was going to ask you for the link to the source for your bot's "Announce" function, but then i dug up something that works better
[14:06] <hggdh> heh
[14:06] <LoT> hggdh: was in this channel instead of the -announce channel (irssi is evil that way)
[14:09]  * penguin42 goes to get a new audio lead - just being able to hear the left channel is annoying
[14:09] <LoT> oh god, this playlist came up again :/
[14:11] <LoT> i dont like this playlist much, its great for when i'm playing first person shooters...
[14:11] <LoT> but that's because this playlist makes me a tad more evil (perfect for FPS games)
[16:34] <penguin42> ah stereo
[16:39] <LoT> penguin42: enjoy it while it lasts
[16:39] <LoT> :P
[16:43] <penguin42> LoT: With these leads probably not too long :-(
[18:46] <PaddyLandau> Hello. I have reported bugs before using ubuntu-bug. However, how do I report a bug when it is about the installation itself?
[18:48] <penguin42> PaddyLandau: Report it against the package ubiquity
[18:49] <penguin42> PaddyLandau: How far does the installation get?
[18:50] <penguin42> (and which install image are you using?)
[18:55] <PaddyLandau> I am installing 12.10 alpha. It is only a minor problem.
[18:55] <PaddyLandau> Cosmetic, not a show-stopper.
[18:55] <PaddyLandau> The image is the 64-bit standard desktop.
[18:56] <penguin42> ok, cool, then I'd probably do it after installation, just do an   ubuntu-bug ubiquity
[18:56] <PaddyLandau> Thank you. I'll do that.
[18:56] <penguin42> np
[19:58] <njin> hallo, can someone verify if bug 1027207 is a dup of bug 1012906 (private) for me ? thanks in advance
[19:58] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 1027207 in ubiquity "Ubiquity 2.11.17 (oem-config) crash in console-setup" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1027207