[03:06] 6 [07:37] moin [08:04] morning [08:23] Morning all o/ [08:37] http://www.pcworld.com/article/2974148/software/canonical-is-letting-the-ubuntu-software-center-wither-and-die.html#tk.rss_all [08:38] is this true folks ? [08:57] czajkowski: which bit? [09:21] Canonical has silently discontinued the paid app store without informing developers, [09:28] that doesn't sound good [09:30] nope it doesn't [09:30] no problem with stuff not being continued as long as it's communicated out [09:30] just wondered if there was something that was published on a list I'd not seen so I could point it out on the article [09:31] ya [09:31] I have not seen anything posted publicly [09:31] most odd then [13:25] czajkowski: FWIW, we've had back-and-forth conversations with Michal about his apps for well over a year now [13:26] mhall119: fair enough, just seems a rather weird article out there [13:26] with no other info around it from canonical [13:27] mhall119: popey are canonical removing the software centre? [13:27] OMG, I hope they don't. (sorry for butting in) [13:28] Unless they allow developers of the active projects (A.K.A programs/apps) to move over to the new system. [13:29] And also have a way to say that this app/program is only for the desktop. [13:30] czajkowski: there are 2 parts to "the software centre", the desktop app and the server [13:30] the desktop app is planned to go away when Ubuntu defaults to using Unity 8, because the Store scope serves the same purpose [13:31] the server is planned to be replaced by the newer click/snappy store, also once Unity 8 is on the desktop [13:31] Ah, that makes more sense. So, does that mean any of the old stuff in the center will stay on that sever but just be on the new store? [13:32] czajkowski: no [13:37] belkinsa: it would need to be re-packed as a Snappy package to go into the new store [13:38] How hard will that be for these developers? [13:38] belkinsa: depends on the app, best case it already runs fine under strict confinement and just needs to be re-packaged (snappy is much easier than .deb so that shouldn't be a problem for them) [13:38] now, hard, later, easier [13:39] worst case, they don't work under strict confinement,and need code changes to use things like content-hub [13:41] Ah, okay. [13:41] * belkinsa was worried there. [13:42] One more question: any plans on cleaning up what's in the Center? [13:46] popey: mhall119 thanks, just seems odd to see this discussion happening on G+ and articles - not sure where it's coming from [13:46] thanks for answering [13:47] czajkowski: it's coming from a (justified) frustration from one developer, and extrapolating from there by PCWorld [13:48] Everyone likes hating on Canonical. [13:48] nigelb: maybe so, but this isn't just "haters gonna hate", Michal really has had bad experience using us to sell his apps [13:49] also, great to see you around here nigelb :) [13:49] mhall119: I'm always around. Don't always have something to contribute. [13:50] mhall119: Yeah, but the fallout from this is going to be a bunch of hatin' [13:51] oh probably === davidcalle_ is now known as davidcalle [14:13] czajkowski: mhall119 it's also come about because Ubuntu MATE pulled it from their derivative [14:15] mhall119: whoops. just read your messages, haven't been on IRC for a week. they did ok, though :D [14:15] we have some anecdotes, you'll hear soon [14:15] jose: glad they worked out :) [14:16] mhall119: btw, did you get my last email? [14:17] jose: about shipping stuff back, or about OSCON? [14:17] the OSCON one [14:18] jose: I assume that would be in the community section of the expo hall? [14:18] yup, that's the idea [14:18] however Jon told me I should email Josh asap since they're talking about it really soon [14:18] jose: figure out the costs and send us the proposal [14:19] if we can do it with the community donations, it's got my +1 [14:19] gotcha. will do - drafting that email now [18:23] popey: mhall119 aye true and convergence is good. just sad when you see threads like this https://plus.google.com/u/0/104302332254763494070/posts/GE7Dzo69ywR?cfem=1 found via another group posting based on the online article as well so unfortunately until people feel addressed correctly it's going to continue [19:56] czajkowski: what do you think should be done? [19:57] anyone know if hangouts on air still have to be public? [19:57] or can you do like private team calls? [19:57] mhall119: ? [19:58] i tried [19:58] it makes them public [19:58] https://support.google.com/plus/answer/4646402?hl=en&authuser=0 [19:58] joey is the best person to ask i think [19:58] oh, so unlisted. [19:58] ack [19:58] I'll ping him [19:58] he knows what's enabled and not [20:21] czajkowski: agreed that it is sad, I wish we had a better option to give him [20:23] popey: well replied is all he really wanted, and that has been hard across the board at various times. not just in this instance [20:24] czajkowski: he has been replied to, but the answer he got wasn't one that made him happy (can't blame him, but it was an answer) [20:25] mhall119: well then that should be clarified on there as the way it's read makes it look like nobody inc you replied which I found strange [20:25] I didn't reply to the most recent once, but I had replied to earlier ones. The recent ones I passed on to the commercial apps teams [20:26] but, as Martin replied, the process is bad and the correct fix is Snappy, but it's going to take a while to get there [20:27] nods [20:27] we tried to fix it with volunteers, but the ARB collapsed and they never reviewed paid apps anyway [20:28] we paid a contractor to review paid apps in the review queue, she did some previous versions of Michal's apps, but every time he updates the process has to start all over again