[04:47] <TheLordOfTime> anyone on the backports team alive and willing to look at two backport requests (one depends on the other0
[08:07] <dholbach> good morning
[08:07] <geser> good morning dholbach
[08:08] <dholbach> hi geser
[08:09] <geser> dholbach: http://gegen-den-strich.com/428.html
[08:10] <dholbach> HAHAHA
[08:10]  * dholbach hugs geser
[08:33] <ajmitch> hi dholbach, geser
[08:33] <dholbach> hi ajmitch
[08:35] <ajmitch> how have those hangouts been going?
[08:53] <geser> Hi ajmitch
[18:12] <jtaylor> someone know if universe/main will continue to be separated for raring?
[18:13] <ScottK> Nothing is likely to change.
[18:29] <xnox> jtaylor: what is your complete question for asking that? Do you have a question about what will happen after archive reorganisation?
[18:38] <alo21> hi
[18:39] <alo21> I have a doubt about how to fill in changelog in a merge...
[18:39] <alo21> If I make some changes, have I to write what I did in the changelog?
[18:40] <tumbleweed> you always should, yes
[18:40] <alo21> tumbleweed, I had a lot of changes
[18:41] <ScottK> You have to document them all.
[18:41] <jtaylor> xnox: I was told after the reorg we do not have to split source packages anymore
[18:41] <xnox> jtaylor: correct.
[18:41] <ScottK> We don't actually have very many of those.
[18:42] <alo21> tumbleweed, for example I edited Makefile, so I should write  - edit makefie
[18:42] <xnox> jtaylor: but we are not there yet.
[18:42] <tumbleweed> alo21: that wouldn't be a vary useful changelog entry
[18:42] <tumbleweed> alo21: you explain what you did, and why
[18:44] <alo21> tumbleweed, I am under a voice 'remaining changes'...
[18:46] <alo21> but I have made new changes, so I suppose I have to write that changes (new one), after and not under 'remaining changes'. Right?
[18:47] <tumbleweed> correct
[18:50] <alo21> tumbleweed, for example as here: http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/1413044/
[18:50] <alo21> tumbleweed, notice that without the patch (mentioned in changelog), the build fails
[18:51] <TheLordOfTime> i think 'Added new patch' should be 'Added new patch to fix [issue]'
[18:52] <TheLordOfTime> so people know what the patch does
[18:52] <TheLordOfTime> just my two cents ;)
[18:53] <TheLordOfTime> (as a bugs triager, if the given patch introduces a regression, which sometimes happens, its easy to trace what patch(es) cause the issues, then, when the changelog identifies what the "new" patch does.)
[18:53] <alo21> TheLordOfTime, for example the pace is used to build the package on ubuntu only. My deal is: have that entry be a part the 'remaining change', or not?
[18:54] <alo21> the patch has been created now (by me) to build the package
[18:55] <TheLordOfTime> if what you said there is the changelog... and the patch is new, i'm not certain it goes under "remaining changes" because its newly introduced
[18:55] <TheLordOfTime> tumbleweed'd know more though, i usually don't handle merges ;P
[18:55] <TheLordOfTime> in fact, i don't normally.  :P
[18:55]  * TheLordOfTime was commenting on the lack of a specific description in your statement about a new patch
[18:55] <alo21> ok thanks anyway
[18:56] <TheLordOfTime> But if i may interpret tumbleweed here, when he said this is correct: <alo21> but I have made new changes, so I suppose I have to write that changes (new one), after and not under 'remaining changes'. Right?
[18:56] <TheLordOfTime> I think its safe to assume he means "Yes, it goes after remaining changes, and not a part of remaining changes"
[18:57] <TheLordOfTime> but that's only based on my observations here and my interpretation, which may be wrong ;P
[18:58] <alo21> seems to be the most reasonable behaviour
[19:02] <alo21> done!