[17:00] <rubund> Hello, I'm trying again. Can someone please nominate https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/osm-gps-map/+bug/1320359 for trusty?  (or tell me what I'm doing wrong since this request seems to be ignored here)
[17:14] <rbasak> rubund: done.
[17:15] <rbasak> rubund: you did everything right. I see that you were in the sponsorship queue at http://reqorts.qa.ubuntu.com/reports/sponsoring/index.html already, since ~ubuntu-sponsors was subscribed to the bug.
[17:15] <rbasak> rubund: sorry it's taking a while. As you can see the sponsorship queue is quite big at the moment.
[17:16] <rbasak> rubund: thank you for your patience, and for taking care of the package in Ubuntu. If you don't hear anything in the next week or two, ping me and I'll take a look at it when I can.
[17:16] <rbasak> (if I don't get to it in my next patch pilot shift)
[17:18] <rbasak> rubund: and I hope you can stick with it and hopefully get upload rights to this package soon. That would help reduce sponsorship requests and everyone wins :)
[17:20] <rubund> hi rbasak!  thanks a lot
[17:20] <rubund> !
[17:21] <rubund> It's just that since I'm completely new to this, I get quite uncertain when I don't hear anything.
[17:21] <rubund> But this is great. I did actually not know that it was already in the sponsorship queue.
[17:23] <rbasak> rubund: yes, that is unfortunate. The process could be more transparent, especially when delays are involved.
[17:23] <rbasak> This is the right channel to ask for bug status changes.
[17:23] <rbasak> For other development process changes, #ubuntu-motu is the right channel as this is a universe package.
[17:24] <rbasak> If you have difficulty getting an answer because people appear to be busy, watch the channel topic in #ubuntu-devel. When a patch pilot appears listed there, that's the person to ask, since he's nominated himself for that role.
[17:24] <rbasak> HTH.
[17:25] <rbasak> (also the ubuntu-motu mailing list usually gets responses to questions)
[17:25] <rbasak> We really appreciate the efforts of developers actually trying to land patches (rather than users complaining but not volunteering to help)
[17:26] <rbasak> If this describes you and you can't get an answer from any of these channels, ping me.
[17:26] <rbasak> (and I'll point you in the right direction at least)
[17:28] <rubund> Thanks a lot for explaining this to me
[17:35] <rbasak> np
[18:48] <rubund> rbasak: just one other question. I believe that the SRU can (should?) also be applied to saucy. The debian/changelog file in the patch only contains trusty though. Could it still be nominated here?   (it is not so important since saucy is not LTS)
[19:03] <rbasak> rubund: yes - you'd need a separate MP or debdiff for Saucy though. Is it really worth it though? Saucy is EOL in just a few weeks now.
[19:04] <rbasak> rubund: so all users will need to upgrade to Trusty anyway. By the time the SRU is sponsored, reviewed by the SRU team, and verified for a week in proposed, I don't think there's any point.
[19:05] <rbasak> rubund: EOL dates here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Releases
[19:11] <rubund> rbasak: you're right. It's not worth it. I believed the EOL for saucy came later (had not checked in a while). Thanks for explaining!
[20:45] <Guest69772> Can someone tell me if I named the right package for this bug report:
[20:45] <Guest69772> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnome-power-manager/+bug/1335289
[22:46] <Guest69772> Can someone tell me if I named the right package for this bug report:
[22:46] <Guest69772> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnome-power-manager/+bug/1335289