=== wgrant_ is now known as wgrant
=== doko_ is now known as doko
[02:13] <infinity> stgraber: doko wants python3.4 unblocked.  That cool with you, mister RM?
[03:24] <stgraber> infinity: I take it this has been reasonably well tested?
[03:25] <stgraber> infinity: because, "Python 3.4 release candidate 2." doesn't inspire me with confidence especially considering that our installer happens to be using that interpreter ;)
[03:26] <stgraber> however it does fix a couple of bugs that have been annoying me quite a bit, so there's that...
[03:32] <stgraber> infinity: ok, so copy if you want, though if you do so, do it in the next 4 hours. That way early european time respins will pick it up (for those flavours that haven't started building candidates yet anyway). Just note that if things go wrong, my plan is an immediate revert to rc1 (seems reasonable as build time is around 3h on slowest arch and there was no new binaries or any problematic change of the sort).
[03:32] <stgraber> I don
[03:32] <stgraber> gah
[03:33] <stgraber> I don't want us stuck debugging a weird python3 issue that somehow makes ubiquity blow up in an interesting way, if that happens we'll just do an ugly revert of the rc1 => rc2 change and do proper debugging after beta1 is out.
[03:34] <xnox> stgraber: i think i've fixed strange python3.4/new-gobject-introspection bugs already. So I'm ready for round #2 ;-)
[03:36] <stgraber> xnox: yeah, I'm just not too sure we want to spend time debugging this kind of issue in the middle of a milestone week :) so if we do get that kind of weird regression, we'll just revert python itself and try again after beta1 is out :)
[03:42] <xnox> stgraber: meh, i wouldn't let it in. It can totally wait until thursday 18:00 UTC.
[06:21] <infinity> stgraber: I have no real opinion on the matter either way.  I think doko just wants it in for his test rebuild, and he could easily copy it to a PPA for that, if you're wary of the upgrade and likely to revert at the first hint of a bug.
[06:22] <infinity> doko: ^
[08:29] <elfy> stgraber: not sure what's going on here - there's no beta 1 available for Xubuntu, I've requested a rebuild on the tracker - but I've no idea how long that takes to do anything
[08:36] <darkxst> elfy, ours (Ubuntu GNOME) showed up about an hour after hitting rebuild
[08:37] <elfy> darkxst: ok - thanks
[09:18] <peterm-ubuntu> infinity xnox is there a list of releases and dates (month for launch, end of hardware support and end of life) like on https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ReleaseTeam#Releases.List_of_releases for the future?
[09:20] <xnox> peterm-ubuntu: there is https://wiki.ubuntu.com/TrustyTahr/ReleaseSchedule the rest of the future is flexible. We do look at holidays and other major events and wiggle things left and right. So estimating anything beyond one release, is guesswork. And like any guesswork, it's easy to extrapolate.
[09:21] <xnox> peterm-ubuntu: do note the change for intermediate releases, they only have 9 month support, since raring.
[09:21] <xnox> and LTS is five years.
[09:23] <peterm-ubuntu> xnox ok... we are just trying to update http://assets.ubuntu.com/sites/ubuntu/latest/u/img/business/screenshot-server-release.png up to 16.04
[09:25] <xnox> peterm-ubuntu: use nine-month long  gray cubes spaced at 14.10, 15.04, 15.10.
[09:25] <peterm-ubuntu> will do
[09:25] <peterm-ubuntu> thanks
[09:25] <xnox> peterm-ubuntu: also the hardware and maintenance updates should have lts-to-lts overlap: e.g. 12.04 dark orange should be
[09:26] <xnox> peterm-ubuntu: until ~ 14.07
[09:27] <xnox> peterm-ubuntu: and i don't think 10.04 had "hardware" updates in the same sense as precise and trusty do/will (there wasn't hardware enablement packs back then)
[09:28] <peterm-ubuntu> xnox yikes... this chart has been around since before my time
[09:28] <xnox> peterm-ubuntu: but yeah, we plan is to stay at .04/.10 cadence. =)
[09:28] <cjwatson> There were linux-lts-backport-{maverick,natty,oneiric} packages in lucid-updates
[09:28] <xnox> cjwatson: oh, i didn't know. Sorry my mistake.
[09:28] <cjwatson> They were a bit different in approach but at the level of detail on that image it's close enough
[09:29] <xnox> peterm-ubuntu: ^^ ignore the "hardware" updates comment. It's all good.
[09:29] <peterm-ubuntu> ok... cjwatson and xnox we will update and run it by you guys again
=== tkamppeter_ is now known as tkamppeter
[10:51] <elfy> cjwatson: sorry to bother you - xubuntu is still without a b1 release on the tracker, I did do the rebuild button about 2 hours or more ago
[10:52] <elfy> not sure who to talk to about it either :)
[10:55] <xnox> elfy: you probably want stgraber, as he is driving b1 release. And morning hasn't arrived to his location yet =)
[10:55] <elfy> xnox: ok - thanks - not sure why the rebuild button isn't - but there you go, I'll catch him later
[11:11] <Laney> elfy: I just tried 'rebuild' and xubuntu seems to be building atm
[11:11] <Laney> dunno what went wrong for you but hopefully it'll show up soon
[11:11] <elfy> Laney: ok - thanks
[11:12] <Laney> unless the problem is after this point, of course
[11:12] <elfy> :)
[11:24] <ara> good morning! shall we move the 12.04.3 image to old-releases?
[11:24] <ara> it is not available here: http://old-releases.ubuntu.com/releases/
[11:24] <Laney> elfy: would you look at that
[11:24] <Laney> ;-)
[11:25] <elfy> thanks Laney :)
[11:26] <cjwatson> ara: I already put it there on the backend but the sync to the public site isn't working and I haven't had time to investigate why.
[11:27] <cjwatson> ara: (it might have run out of space or something)
[11:27] <ara> OK, thanks for the update :)
[11:27] <cjwatson> Also I think I already told one of your team this?
[11:28] <cjwatson> Ah, no, different team
[13:23] <rsalveti> can anyone unblock pulseaudio? small fix that is only affects touch
=== caribou_ is now known as caribou
[14:58] <stgraber> elfy: has everything been sorted out for you?
[14:59] <elfy> stgraber: all sorted thanks :)
=== charles_ is now known as charles
[17:35] <robru> ping release team? can somebody unblock ubuntu-ui-toolkit for me? I pushed a minor bugfix, should not regress anything on desktop.
[17:36] <robru> stgraber, infinity ^
[17:39] <stgraber> robru: is that missing fix actuall blocking anything major? (as in, why can't this wait till Thursday?)
[17:40] <robru> stgraber, well, it's a fix for some big test failures on the phone, which regressed this weekend. I'm just trying to pin down the recent phone regressions.
[17:41] <stgraber> ok. The change itself seems fine and doesn't appear to be in any of the binary packages the flavours participating in beta1 are shipping, so I'll let it through
[17:42] <robru> stgraber, thanks
[18:12] <slangasek> stgraber: if it's not in the binary packages used by the opt-in beta flavors, why is it blocked at all?
[18:13] <stgraber> slangasek: the source produces a bunch of binaries, two of which are on the media of some flavours, however the change that robru did doesn't impact any of those binary packages
[18:13] <slangasek> ah, ok
=== robru is now known as robru-is-deathly
=== robru-is-deathly is now known as robru-is-dying
=== barry` is now known as barry
[19:54] <stgraber> lubuntu added to beta1, block updated
=== veebers_ is now known as veebers
=== bregma_ is now known as bregma
[21:59] <bregma> hey folk, I need a FFe ack for https://bugs.launchpad.net/unity/+bug/1282804 (Unity7), do I need to wait for the beta freeze to lift?
[21:59] <ubot2> Launchpad bug 1282804 in Unity "[FFe] Move DPI settings over to use u-c-c settings." [Medium,In progress]
[22:02] <infinity> bregma: You don't need to wait until after beta, no, your bits might just end up stuck in proposed until Thursday.
[22:02] <infinity> bregma: I'm not sure I'm qualified to comment on the scope of the change, however, so I'l leave it to Laney who appears to have already been on the case.