[18:14] <wxl> bdmurray: you really think 1389588 is high?
[18:15] <bdmurray> bug 1389588
[18:16] <bdmurray> because it is a regression yeah
[18:16] <wxl> ah i didn't realize regressions were inheriently high
[18:16] <wxl> thx
[18:17] <wxl> i can't set it as triaged due to a server error
[18:17] <bdmurray> they should be prioritized over other work
[18:17] <bdmurray> I've done that now
[18:17] <wxl> do you know if we can link sourceforge trackers yet?
[18:18] <bdmurray> it says you can but launchpad barfed on the url
[18:18] <wxl> that's what i thought
[18:18] <wxl> i sure hope cjwatson fixes that soon :)
[18:18] <bdmurray> It might be worth checking in #launchpad about it or submitting a bug about laucnhpad itself
[18:18] <teward> bdmurray: you can't actually link to sourceforge trackers - #launchpad confirmed days ago with that bug i pinged you about wxl
[18:18] <teward> bdmurray: there's a lot of bugs already on that
[18:18] <teward> mine got duped just recently
[18:19] <teward> https://bugs.launchpad.net/launchpad/+bug/1412052
[18:19] <teward> dupe of https://bugs.launchpad.net/launchpad/+bug/605783
[18:19] <teward> untouched since 2012
[18:20] <wxl> teward: well now that cjwatson is doing launchpad full time it should be soon i hope
[18:20] <teward> wxl: true, but i also just piled onto cjwatson a bug RE: debbugs tracker
[18:20] <bdmurray> remember launchpad is open source ;-)
[18:20] <teward> so... *throws hands up*
[23:24] <refj> Why is a bug ignored for over two months? Does it lack information: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/debian-installer/+bug/1389754
[23:24] <refj> I have since ruled out is has something to do with iPXE, but rather related to lack of internet access.
[23:25] <refj> Would I have more success joining a mailing list instead?
[23:26] <teward> refj: I don't think "ignored" is accurate - the issue is that it has to be confirmed and tested.  i believe there were also much higher importance issues that took some precedence with relation to installations
[23:26] <teward> but don't quote me on that last one
[23:29] <refj> teward: Fair enough and I understand the problem of handling the amount bugs coming in. Would it help if I created a specific test case, including isos and preseed for the developers to test?
[23:33] <teward> refj: i'm not sure if there's a need for that, but specific test cases, identifying the specific ISO / preseed combo you used, etc. might help a little
[23:38] <refj> teward: Ok, then I will update the report with the specific version of the netboot images I use for installation.
[23:38] <refj> teward: thanks for your time.
[23:39] <teward> refj: you're welcome - but note that that on its own might not be enough for devs to trace the issue - so it'd be a heavy testing case
[23:39] <teward> refj: as well, if someone *doesn't* replicate the issue, then you're kinda stuck with E:norepro (shorthand for "can't reproduce!")
[23:40] <refj> teward: I've done some heavy testing, and as far I see it only requires a vlan with no internet access.
[23:40] <refj> teward: again thanks. going into specifics already. Its not for here.
[23:42] <refj> bye