[03:06] <nigelb> 6
[07:37] <Tm_T> moin
[08:04] <MooDoo> morning
[08:23] <davidcalle> Morning all o/
[08:37] <czajkowski> http://www.pcworld.com/article/2974148/software/canonical-is-letting-the-ubuntu-software-center-wither-and-die.html#tk.rss_all
[08:38] <czajkowski>  is this true folks ?
[08:57] <popey> czajkowski: which bit?
[09:21] <czajkowski> Canonical has silently discontinued the paid app store without informing developers,
[09:28] <popey> that doesn't sound good
[09:30] <czajkowski> nope it doesn't
[09:30] <czajkowski> no problem with stuff not being continued as long as it's communicated out
[09:30] <czajkowski> 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] <popey> ya
[09:31] <popey> I have not seen anything posted publicly
[09:31] <czajkowski> most odd then
[13:25] <mhall119> czajkowski: FWIW, we've had back-and-forth conversations with Michal about his apps for well over a year now
[13:26] <czajkowski> mhall119: fair enough, just seems a rather weird article out there
[13:26] <czajkowski> with no other info around it from canonical
[13:27] <czajkowski> mhall119: popey are canonical removing the software centre?
[13:27] <belkinsa> OMG, I hope they don't. (sorry for butting in)
[13:28] <belkinsa> Unless they allow developers of the active projects (A.K.A programs/apps) to move over to the new system.
[13:29] <belkinsa> And also have a way to say that this app/program is only for the desktop.
[13:30] <mhall119> czajkowski: there are 2 parts to "the software centre", the desktop app and the server
[13:30] <mhall119> 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] <mhall119> the server is planned to be replaced by the newer click/snappy store, also once Unity 8 is on the desktop
[13:31] <belkinsa> 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] <popey> czajkowski: no
[13:37] <mhall119> belkinsa: it would need to be re-packed as a Snappy package to go into the new store
[13:38] <belkinsa> How hard will that be for these developers?
[13:38] <mhall119> 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] <popey> now, hard, later, easier
[13:39] <mhall119> worst case, they don't work under strict confinement,and need code changes to use things like content-hub
[13:41] <belkinsa> Ah, okay.
[13:41]  * belkinsa was worried there.
[13:42] <belkinsa> One more question: any plans on cleaning up what's in the Center?
[13:46] <czajkowski> popey: mhall119 thanks, just seems odd to see this discussion happening on G+ and articles - not sure where it's coming from
[13:46] <czajkowski> thanks for answering
[13:47] <mhall119> czajkowski: it's coming from a (justified) frustration from one developer, and extrapolating from there by PCWorld
[13:48] <nigelb> Everyone likes hating on Canonical.
[13:48] <mhall119> 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] <mhall119> also, great to see you around here nigelb :)
[13:49] <nigelb> mhall119: I'm always around. Don't always have something to contribute.
[13:50] <nigelb> mhall119: Yeah, but the fallout from this is going to be a bunch of hatin'
[13:51] <mhall119> oh probably
[14:13] <popey> czajkowski: mhall119  it's also come about because Ubuntu MATE pulled it from their derivative
[14:15] <jose> mhall119: whoops. just read your messages, haven't been on IRC for a week. they did ok, though :D
[14:15] <jose> we have some anecdotes, you'll hear soon
[14:15] <mhall119> jose: glad they worked out :)
[14:16] <jose> mhall119: btw, did you get my last email?
[14:17] <mhall119> jose: about shipping stuff back, or about OSCON?
[14:17] <jose> the OSCON one
[14:18] <mhall119> jose: I assume that would be in the community section of the expo hall?
[14:18] <jose> yup, that's the idea
[14:18] <jose> however Jon told me I should email Josh asap since they're talking about it really soon
[14:18] <mhall119> jose: figure out the costs and send us the proposal
[14:19] <mhall119> if we can do it with the community donations, it's got my +1
[14:19] <jose> gotcha. will do - drafting that email now
[18:23] <czajkowski> 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] <popey> czajkowski: what do you think should be done?
[19:57] <jcastro> anyone know if hangouts on air still have to be public?
[19:57] <jcastro> or can you do like private team calls?
[19:57] <jcastro> mhall119: ?
[19:58] <popey> i tried
[19:58] <popey> it makes them public
[19:58] <jcastro> https://support.google.com/plus/answer/4646402?hl=en&authuser=0
[19:58] <popey> joey is the best person to ask i think
[19:58] <jcastro> oh, so unlisted.
[19:58] <jcastro> ack
[19:58] <jcastro> I'll ping him
[19:58] <popey> he knows what's enabled and not
[20:21] <mhall119> czajkowski: agreed that it is sad, I wish we had a better option to give him
[20:23] <czajkowski> 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] <mhall119> 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] <czajkowski> 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] <mhall119> 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] <mhall119> 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] <czajkowski> nods
[20:27] <mhall119> we tried to fix it with volunteers, but the ARB collapsed and they never reviewed paid apps anyway
[20:28] <mhall119> 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