=== work_alkisg is now known as alkisg
[17:22] <brainwash> I've set the status of all affected packages to incomplete, but the auto expire countdown did not start.
[17:22] <brainwash> bug 1175601
[17:22] <ubot5> bug 1175601 in xfce4-session (Ubuntu) "Two Chromium background instances and a browser window open on boot without my permission" [Undecided,Incomplete] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1175601
[17:23] <brainwash> usually it does, so why not this time?
[20:18] <sergio-br2> hello
[20:18] <sergio-br2> does someone knows if is this right?
[20:18] <sergio-br2> 3.10.44-11ddaac-20150109-11 < 3.10.44-981b066-20150109-10
[20:18] <sergio-br2> 3.10.44-11ddaac-20150109-11 is lower than 3.10.44-981b066-20150109-10 ?
[20:22] <dobey> yes
[20:23] <teward> sergio-br2: yes, because the 981b066 is higher than 11ddaac
[20:24] <dobey> sergio-br2: you should not include git revision hash values in version numbers. it's a bad idea
[20:24] <sergio-br2> hum, so you got problem to update like this version numbering
[20:24] <sergio-br2> but I can add git ids in the end, right?
[20:24] <dobey> also, version numbers should only have one - in them for debian packages
[20:24] <teward> i agree with dobey on both counts
[20:24] <dobey> no, you should have the git id in the version at all, really
[20:25] <teward> sergio-br2: you shouldn't have the gitid in the version at all, in fact, better to refer to the git rev in the changelog instead for a new release based off a different gitid
[20:26] <dobey> if the git tree was imported to a bzr branch in some way, you can use the bzr revno, which is just a number so much better for version numbering, or you can use just the timestamp
[20:26] <dobey> but hash strings are very bad for version comparison
[20:26] <sergio-br2> yeah, i use it
[20:26] <sergio-br2> the revno
[20:27] <dobey> hashes are not incremental
[20:27] <dobey> they are just hashes
[20:27] <sergio-br2> yup
[20:27] <sergio-br2> thanks
[20:28] <teward> sergio-br2: the way i get the git hash in, if i have to, i put that in the changelogs for the package - "New release based off of upstream git (HASHHERE)", but the hash string should never be in the version string for the package, as dobey says
[20:28] <teward> (for sanity and version comparison)
[20:29] <sergio-br2> yeah
[20:29] <sergio-br2> just curious
[20:29] <sergio-br2> trying to help a friend
[21:03] <mtrnord> hello :D how long does it usually take until I will retrive an Email after uploading the source?
[21:04] <dobey> infinitely long if your package didn't have a valid gpg signature
[21:04] <dobey> otherwise, normally a few minutes for an accept/reject mail
[21:06] <mtrnord> dobey: :/ than it seems that my gpg signature has a problem. But on my PC is everything correct (in the terminal are no errors). And I added this key to Launchpad also. What is maybe my problem?
[21:07] <dobey> did the package appear in your ppa?
[21:08] <mtrnord> ahh I see Launchpad use the wrong alias :/
[21:08] <dobey> well, there you go
[21:12] <mtrnord> no it works :D I get an reject email. But I thing that is better than nothing :D
[21:12] <mtrnord> *now
=== brainwash_ is now known as brainwash