[04:03] <TheDrums> stgraber: Hello, so it would appear pastebinit uses lang in some places, and format in others, so pastebinit -f doesn't actually do a thing.
[04:04] <TheDrums> http://paste.openstack.org/show/5QUGMGTfjlzTENk0dCR1/ works, but isn't quite right python code wise.
[04:20] <stgraber> TheDrums: I think you misread pastebinit's code, pastebinit itself never uses 'lang', some of the pastebins do in their html form, but that's why you usually see "format = lang" in the [format] section which tells pastebinit to use the html "lang" field to store the format
[04:21] <stgraber> TheDrums: it's however not possible that some of the config files are wrong ;)
[04:21] <stgraber> TheDrums: *impossible
[04:23] <stgraber> TheDrums: look at paste.debian.net.conf for an example where the pastebin uses "lang" as html form field and is properly mapped to pastebinit's "format" (I just tested and "pastebinit -f python -b http://paste.debian.net <some file>" gives you python syntax highlighting)
[05:02] <TheDrums> stgraber: Yeah, I may have had my head on backwards when I looked at the main program there. I knew what the config files did there, but was wondering why it wasn't working with -f, but did work if I changed the default in pastebin config.  Sorry about that.  (Clearly had it backewards as it classified the program as being off and config right. :P )
[05:07] <TheDrums> (I, of course, used openstack, but couple others seem off as well.)  Thanks for that.
[09:29] <knome> could somebody approve https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/topic-saucy-flavor-xubuntu for saucy so it'll start showing up in status.ubuntu.com? also, where are we regarding giving flavor leads such cow powers? :)
[09:30] <infinity> Looks approved to me...
[09:30] <knome> Series goal: Proposed for saucy
[09:30] <infinity> Oh, for saucy.
[09:31] <knome> as i said. :)
[09:31] <infinity> Accepted.
[09:31] <knome> ta
[09:31] <knome> also, do we seriously have to use the other-s-xubuntu-blueprintname naming?
[09:31] <knome> would xubuntu-s-blueprintname do as well?
[09:31] <infinity> Not sure what permission structure that lives under, but it's likely more of an "LP permissions are whack" technical issue than anything social, FWIW.
[09:32] <knome> this has been discussed before, i'm just quite not certain what the outcome was.
[09:32] <infinity> As for the naming thing, you might want to ask someone who hacks both summit and status (maybe cjohnston?) to see what magic is needed, and why.
[09:33] <infinity> knome: My guess is the permissions are tied to ubuntu-drivers, as so many random permissions are, but I'll bring it up with my massive team of two people and see if there's anything we can do for flavors that's bordering on sane.
[09:33] <knome> from my understanding, as long as we add all our blueprints as dependencies for that umbrella blueprint and they are accepted to saucy, we should be fine
[09:33] <infinity> knome: But for now, I'm happy to approve crap if you bring it to me. :)
[09:34] <knome> infinity, thanks, and thanks :)
[09:36] <knome> infinity, technical issues aside, would you be fine with the new naming scheme?
[09:36] <infinity> knome: I'm honestly not picky about how people choose to name their blueprints at all, so it's entirely about if it causes technical/tracking issues for any of the tools (hence the suggesting to ask cjohnston about it before you change anything).
[09:37] <infinity> knome: Aesthetically, flavor-release-thing makes perfect sense to me, as it does to you.
[09:37] <knome> infinity, okay, thanks. i'll go with that and see if it turns up. you can always rename.
[09:39] <infinity> knome: FWIW, I think Ubuntu has switched to naming blueprints after the month they were written, rather than the release they're targetting.
[09:40] <infinity> knome: See, eg https://blueprints.launchpad.net/?searchtext=foundations-1305
[09:40] <knome> aha. that doesn't make sense for us
[09:40] <knome> but good to know
[09:40] <infinity> knome: Which makes some sense, as you can retarget them later without them seeming silly in retrospect, I guess.
[09:40] <infinity> (I probably still have some -p- and -q- blueprints I should have retargetted instead of abandoning and rewriting, for instance)
[09:41] <knome> sure... but isn't that the same to rename to a new release? :)
[09:41] <infinity> Well, renaming shouldn't happen, IMO.  As it breaks links to the blueprint, etc.
[09:41] <infinity> So, this just encodes that it was written in 1305, but doesn't encode the target.
[09:42] <infinity> Then again "it was written for -s-" is about as useful to know, so whatever. :P
[09:42] <knome> oh right.
[09:42] <knome> i see the point
[09:42] <infinity> At the end of the day, it's all meaningless faff if we make sure the tracking tools all just follow the "approved for series" bit, and ignore names entirely as meaningless.
[09:42] <knome> yeah
[09:43] <infinity> But I think status curently has some silly notions about the names being meaningful.  I believe there was work being done (or already done) on tearing that logic out.
[09:59] <knome> infinity, went ahead and proposed several blueprints for saucy (xubuntu-s-*). they're all dependencies for https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/topic-saucy-flavor-xubuntu
[10:02] <infinity> knome: Approved.
[10:02]  * knome bows