[04:17] <ajmitch> wendar: do you know how we should mark an already-published app as available for later releases in myapps?
[04:17] <wendar> ajmitch: I'm not sure I understand the question
[04:18] <wendar> to you mean the field you set in the review form for which versions of Ubuntu it targets?
[04:18] <ajmitch> https://myapps.developer.ubuntu.com/dev/apps/548/ is marked for oneiric only, afaik for the software center to pick it up, it should be published for precise & quantal
[04:18] <ajmitch> but it's not editable since it's published, unless I'm missing something obvious
[04:18] <wendar> the software center should pick it up when it's published in extras
[04:18] <wendar> or, you mean the extra metadata like the screenshot?
[04:19] <ajmitch> I guess I'll find out once extras is synced again
[04:19] <wendar> what myapps expects is that the app author will create a new submission
[04:19] <wendar> with the same app name but a different version
[04:19] <ajmitch> which won't work when w're copying releases forwards
[04:19] <wendar> and that submission will be marked for the new release
[04:20] <wendar> well, it would work
[04:20] <wendar> but, it shouldn't be necessary
[04:20] <ajmitch> it'll work, but requires the app submitter to do it, rather than us
[04:20] <wendar> myapps is pretty stupid, it doesn't really track versions like the real archive
[04:20] <wendar> yes, it does require the app submitter to do it
[04:21] <ajmitch> I need to sit down & dig into the software center to see what special-cased stuff it has
[04:21] <wendar> but, then ARB policy requires the app submitter to request to be carried over to the new release
[04:21] <ajmitch> we'd talked about changing that at UDS, iirc
[04:21] <wendar> so, if it's absolutely necessary for making the metadata visible, it should be okay to pester the app author
[04:22] <wendar> aye, but there was pretty strong reaction against automatic porting
[04:22] <wendar> there's a historical fear of "unmainained apps"
[04:23] <ajmitch> and I probably argued against it due to API breakage, especially with lenses
[04:23] <wendar> which is part of why the ARB was started in the first place
[04:23] <wendar> don't keep out small apps just because the author might disappear after 6 months
[04:23] <ajmitch> right
[04:23] <wendar> give them their 6 months of glory, and let them fade away naturally
[04:24] <wendar> but, we do make it too hard to repeat now
[04:24] <wendar> I feel bad about the music lenses, for example
[04:24] <wendar> the author worked so hard to get them working in one release of Ubuntu
[04:24] <wendar> and we never got them into the next release
[04:24] <ajmitch> there are plenty of examples for us to feel bad over :)
[04:24] <ajmitch> like the ssh lens
[04:25] <wendar> ah well, look forward I guess
[04:25] <ajmitch> yeah
[04:25] <wendar> so, there shouldn't be any need for a myapps entry for the quantal version of the app
[04:25] <wendar> but if there is, first talk to the myapps folks and see if they have the power to edit the existing entry
[04:26] <ajmitch> that's what I was going to do
[04:26] <wendar> and if not, then pester the app author to submit a dummy entry
[04:26] <ajmitch> I'd hoped you'd still be around at this hour in case you'd come across it first
[04:26] <wendar> (if the author isn't willing, well, then their app probably doesn't belong in quantal)
[04:26] <wendar> nope, never have
[04:26] <ajmitch> oh he's willing & in this channel :)
[04:27] <wendar> all the updates I encountered had a new myapps submission
[04:27] <wendar> well, good :)
[04:27] <ajmitch> I just thought it a waste of effort putting in a new submission because I remember having problems with duplicate apps showing in the software center with unity-lens-askubuntu
[04:30] <ajmitch> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/appdev-r-arb-review had what I thought - that we'd look at forward-copying to the next release after testing apps
[04:30] <ajmitch> was there disagreement on that afterwards?
[04:32] <wendar> I thought it was accompanied by at least a minimum of "we'll contact the author to let them know about the upcoming release, and they have to respond that they want to be in it"
[04:33] <wendar> in this case it sounds like you have
[04:33] <wendar> it's automatic copying we want to avoid
[04:33] <ajmitch> in this specific case of the sshsearch lens there are separate branches for each release as unity has changed
[04:34] <wendar> if the author isn't willing to be on the hook to handle support requests for the app in the new release, then it doesn't make sense
[04:34] <wendar> oh, I vaguely remember talking about that one
[04:34] <wendar> it has a new maintainer?
[04:34] <ajmitch> no
[04:35] <ajmitch> same maintainer, with a lot of patience
[04:35] <wendar> :)
[04:35] <wendar> okay, if it's a separate branch of code, it's not really a forward copy anyway
[04:36] <ajmitch> no it's not a copy, but the same myapps problems apply with trying to reduce the friction for app developers
[04:37] <wendar> yeah, I'm fine with giving past accepted apps preferential treatment over the sea of apps that have never been reviewed
[04:37] <wendar> they're known good, and very little work
[04:37] <wendar> and, I don't think it matters much if they have an entry in the myapps queue or not
[04:38] <wendar> but, I wouldn't avoid the queue like the plague, just because it's full
[04:38] <ajmitch> I'm just unclear on how much the software center depends on myapps data
[04:38] <wendar> me too
[04:38] <ajmitch> still, after all these years :)
[04:38] <wendar> well, it's changed a lot
[04:38] <ajmitch> yes it has, and mostly been improved
[04:38] <wendar> it was only last UDS that we got rid of the awful packaging hacks for metadata
[04:39] <wendar> and, we haven't published so many apps since then to have exercised all the edge cases
[04:39] <wendar> in fact, this is the first release we could have experimented with what happens to updated metadata
[04:40] <wendar> er, metadata for an app updated to a new release
[04:40] <wendar> since precise was the first release where we used myapps metadata
[04:40] <ajmitch> I suspect that getting everything all automated will take at least until 14.04
[04:40] <wendar> yes, definitely
[04:40] <ajmitch> hopefully it'll all be in place by the next LTS
[04:41]  * ajmitch should ask mvo about some of the software center/sca interaction details
[04:42] <wendar> yeah, that'd be useful knowledge to pick up
[04:42] <ajmitch> I only got to talk to him at the very end of UDS, but he's fairly knowledgeable about it
[04:44] <wendar> IIRC, he designed and built a lot of SC
[04:45] <ajmitch> yes
[04:45] <ajmitch> he's one of these super-contributors that we think are robots :)
[04:54] <wendar> :)
[13:57] <coolbhavi> hey wendar good morning
[14:57] <wendar> good morning coolbhavi
[14:57] <coolbhavi> wendar, does my announcement yesterday to ubuntu-devel suffice>
[14:58] <coolbhavi> ?
[14:58] <coolbhavi> hey cwayne :)
[14:58] <cwayne> heya coolbhavi :) hows it goin?
[14:58] <coolbhavi> I was looking at unity-lens-pypi
[14:58] <wendar> coolbhavi: yes, that's great, thanks for posting it!
[14:59] <coolbhavi> wendar, and the wiki edit?
[14:59] <wendar> coolbhavi: yup, that looked good too
[14:59] <coolbhavi> wendar, thanks a lot :-)
[14:59] <cwayne> coolbhavi: ah, how'd it look?
[15:00] <coolbhavi> cwayne, seems like d/copyright isnt updated :)
[15:00] <wendar> coolbhavi: thank *you* :)
[15:00] <coolbhavi> :)
[15:01]  * coolbhavi thinks that he can run in for a 2nd term on the ARB when his term completes :)
[15:03] <coolbhavi> cwayne, and d/rules too
[15:03] <cwayne> coolbhavi: branch updated :)
[15:05] <coolbhavi> cwayne, and the icon used for the lens looks like the py icon
[15:05] <cwayne> coolbhavi: in myapps or in the lens itself?
[15:06] <coolbhavi> lens. same like the github one
[15:06] <cwayne> ahh cmon
[15:07] <cwayne> Projects and companies that use Python are encouraged to incorporate the Python logo on their websites, brochures, packaging, and elsewhere to indicate suitability for use with Python or implementation in Python.
[15:08] <coolbhavi> wendar, your comments being on the python board?
[15:09] <wendar> hmmmm, generally it's better to use a unique icon
[15:10] <wendar> displaying the Python logo to indicate use with Python isn't the same as adopting the Python logo as the app logo
[15:11] <wendar> that would be more like displaying the Python logo on an "about" page
[15:11] <coolbhavi> cwayne, I think you would be better off using an icon on the lines of github lens
[15:11] <wendar> it's trademark law that comes into play here
[15:11] <cwayne> yeah, i understand
[15:12] <coolbhavi> wendar, thanks for your expert remarks :)
[15:12] <cwayne> ill try to figure something out, in the meantime, i've emailed them to ask permission just in case they allow it
[15:12] <wendar> cwayne: that makes sense
[15:12] <cwayne> wendar: yeah, i can't for the life of me figure out what else i could use as an icon :/
[15:13] <cwayne> wendar: coolbhavi: does that mean I'd need to change the result icons as well?
[15:14] <wendar> cwayne: it has to be black and white?
[15:14] <cwayne> it doesn't have to be, but it would look weird if not
[15:14] <wendar> cwayne: otherwise I'd suggest something like a magnifying glass with a blue and white yin/yang for the glass
[15:15] <wendar> sorry, blue and yello
[15:15] <coolbhavi> cwayne, result icons are just linking to py modules page. Should be fine in such a scenario wendar?
[15:15] <wendar> like, the python colors
[15:16] <wendar> coolbhavi: it should be okay, but still needs to be approved by the PSF
[15:16] <coolbhavi> wendar, oh okay thanks for some valuable insights
[15:17] <coolbhavi> brb dinner
[15:44] <cwayne> woo! " If the shape of the logo is unchanged, this looks like nominative use of the logo, which would be fine."
[15:45] <coolbhavi> cwayne, :)
[15:45] <cwayne> coolbhavi: i sent a reply to ensure that the result item icons are ok too
[15:45] <cwayne> hoping he responds soon, then we should be all set :)
[15:45] <cwayne> although i may need to fix the myapps icon
[15:46] <coolbhavi> please change d/rules too
[15:46] <coolbhavi> and i'll test it
[15:48] <cwayne> coolbhavi: pushed
[15:51] <coolbhavi> ll have a look thanks! once the icon thing is fixed ll give it a test run
[15:55] <coolbhavi> looks fine :)
[15:55] <cwayne> coolbhavi: great, thanks :)
[15:56] <coolbhavi> once the icon thing is sorted out its ready to go :)
[15:57] <cwayne> coolbhavi: awesome!  im hoping this guy responds before you leave :P
[15:58] <coolbhavi> ll leave a comment on list as a part of my review process so that I wont forget :)
[16:14] <coolbhavi> cwayne, emailed to you just now with the list in cc. you can reply to my mail once everything is sorted out :)
[16:14] <cwayne> coolbhavi: great, thanks :)
[16:14] <coolbhavi> off to bed now.. ciao! take care!