[08:31] <TheDrums> cub: Guess you don't know what problems ttoine was having building it?
[08:32] <cub> nope I didn't see anything more aobut it
[08:33] <cub> not sure why he was building it since there seem to be a .deb as well
[08:39] <TheDrums> 0.92 is latest on the website.
[08:45] <cub> yes, seems to be the latest available
[08:46] <cub> Are linux developers shy of saying 1.0? Seems most applications always are 0.xx
[08:57] <TheDrums> Most don't have a leading 0. :P  I have a built package of 0.92 based on the Debian Exp one, was pretty simple.
[09:41] <zequence> One might as well use dating for versioning, if you ask me
[09:47] <cub> and talking about versions, are we keeping Ardour 2 in 14.04?
[09:57] <zequence> cub: You want to remove it?
[09:58] <zequence> I don't see why we need to keep it
[10:00] <cub> No, there was a questions in #ubuntustudio yesterday
[10:00] <cub> I haven't had time to run ardour3 yet :(
[10:01] <cub> But isn't it backwards compatible?
[10:01] <cub> You can open A2 projects in version 3, but not version 3 projects in Ardour2, right?
[10:04] <zequence> yep
[10:05] <zequence> I think some people might still run mixbus - based on ardour2, but I can't see why someone would prefer ardour2 over ardour3
[18:33] <cub> good evening
[18:33] <cub> zequence, is there anything we can do about the i386 iso failing?
[18:34] <cub> I browsed through the log file some days ago but it didn't really do me any good
[18:35] <cub> hmm but the latest iso seem to be from the 27th. So perhaps it did build one day there. Never mind me then.