[08:07] <s9iper1> any body knows how can we disable the guest account ???
[13:18] <teward> hggdh: around?
[13:20] <LordOfTime> irssi, stop redoing my nick!  :/
[13:21] <hggdh> I am around in 20 minutes
[13:22] <LordOfTime> i'll poke you then :P
[13:39] <hggdh> LordOfTime: ready
[13:48] <LordOfTime> hggdh: sorry, got sidetracked, one moment
[13:50] <LordOfTime> sorry, got innundated with phone calls
[13:50] <LordOfTime> being ITSec is hard sometimes :P
[13:50] <hggdh> heh
[13:50] <LordOfTime> hggdh: was looking over bugsquad join applications, was going to support someone on that list joining given their bugs work.  lemme find that applicant again
[13:50]  * LordOfTime has 25 IExplore windows open
[13:51] <hggdh> LordOfTime: bugsquad, or bugcontrol?
[13:51] <LordOfTime> bugsquad
[13:51] <LordOfTime> not bugcontrol
[13:51] <LordOfTime> i leave the vets of bugcontrol for those
[13:51] <hggdh> LordOfTime: all that is needed for joinging bugsquad is...
[13:52] <LordOfTime> hggdh: indeed, but it appears there's some since may and nobody's checked hence the poke :p
[13:52] <LordOfTime> if it were bugcontrol it'd be via the mailing list and i dont comment on those...
[13:52] <LordOfTime> DAMN IT STOP RINGING!  *yells at his phone*
[13:52] <hggdh> oh, I know what happened -- there are a few admins for bugsquad, and we get the join request in a round-robin way
[13:53] <hggdh> I will look at the pending requests
[13:53] <LordOfTime> 4 dont seem to have done significant bug work
[13:53] <LordOfTime> one has
[13:53]  * LordOfTime was looking at all teams he's with to find a serial joiner who has had no other LP activities, and was checking bugsquad just to be safe
[13:56] <LordOfTime> hggdh: there's no harm in me pointing members of the security team to bugs which ask whether a bug is actually a security bug or not, right?
[13:56] <LordOfTime> i mean, they'd truly know :P
[13:56] <hggdh> LordOfTime: no, not at all. You can also poke them at #ubuntu-hardened
[13:56] <LordOfTime> indeed
[13:56] <LordOfTime>  i sit there daily :p
[13:57]  * LordOfTime works on nginx security bugs, so keeps checking often
[13:57] <hggdh> LordOfTime: all pending join requests to bugsquad have been processed
[13:57] <LordOfTime> hggdh: i think a few weren't following the rules though
[13:57] <LordOfTime> some ahvent signed the CoC
[13:57] <hggdh> and I apologise for not checking there...
[13:58] <hggdh> LordOfTime: the rules are quite simple, and easy... if one does not follow them, one will be rejected
[13:58] <LordOfTime> i see :)
[13:58] <hggdh> and what happens is an email is sent to the rejected candidate explaining why
[13:58] <LordOfTime> i know the rules for bugcontrol are much more stringent.  they could be a bit more stringent for bugcontrol-via-other-projects-interactions
[13:59] <hggdh> interestingly, most of those rejected never apply again
[13:59] <hggdh> well, sort of. If you are an upstream to one of our packages, we have a real interest in having you here and helpin
[14:02]  * hggdh is rebooting, trying to find out if libvirt/qemu will work again
[18:10] <om26er_> could anyone try a nautilus crash please?
[18:10] <om26er_> press super+d while desktop is in focus
[18:10] <om26er_> *in Quantal
[18:19] <om26er_> okay then, its bug 1028028
[18:19] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 1028028 in nautilus "nautilus crashed with SIGABRT in raise()" [High,Fix committed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1028028
[18:20] <om26er> that was bug 1028028
[18:20] <om26er> no bottu :/
[18:20] <om26er> *ubottu
[18:43] <njin> omer26er: hallo, I cannot reproduce
[18:44] <njin> om26er:^^
[18:46] <LordOfTime> om26er: "Fix Committed" is the correct status, upstream's waiting for the package to be updated in Quantal
[18:46] <LordOfTime> once that happens, it becomes Fix Released
[18:47] <LordOfTime> if the bug still exists after that, well...
[18:55] <micahg> LordOfTime: well, that's the way the Desktop team uses that status, it's not listed that way on the wiki
[18:56] <LordOfTime> micahg: indeed.
[18:57] <LordOfTime> micahg: when you hang out around the Desktop guys, you learn that's how they interpret that.
[18:57]  * LordOfTime sometimes forgets what the wiki specifically says
[18:57] <LordOfTime> *yawn*
[18:57] <LordOfTime> i shouldnt even be looking at bugs, but alas, slow days at work *shrugs*
[18:58]  * LordOfTime notices he missed an important email chain, and shifts his attention
[19:04] <om26er> LordOfTime, yeah, thats fixed in -proposed
[19:05] <om26er> njin, you might be using -proposed repo?
[19:05] <om26er> njin, its fixed there
[19:23] <njin> om26er, yes i use -proposed
[20:03] <trism> The reporter for bug 1021783 would like an SRU of the fix from quantal to precise. I attached a debdiff and updated the description, but the bug is already marked fixed, so I'm not sure if anyone will see it (so I thought I'd ask here if someone could take a look), thanks
[20:03] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 1021783 in python3.2 "invalid behavior of curses.newpad().refresh() " [Undecided,Fix released] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1021783
[20:09] <micahg> trism: looking
[20:10] <micahg> trism: task granted, go ahead and subscribe ubuntu-sponsors if the rest of the paperwork is there
[20:16] <trism> micahg: thanks
[21:36] <ldz420> When using apport to make a bug report should I use the apport on the application before or after the bug happens?
[21:43] <ldz420> because I am wondering if the erroneous data show up after the error has occured
[21:45] <ldz420> Or does apport simply show all of the application that are involved so the information show doesn't change before or after the bug occurs