[02:15] <pleia2> do we have apport enabled on stable releases? I always thought we only kept it on in dev
[03:51] <Unit193> I believe it's disabled during dev, enabled for release. :P
[07:07] <flocculant> Unit193 pleia2 - as far as I know it is disabled on stable and at some point turned on for dev 
[12:11] <bluesabre> flocculant: yup, though they turned it on verrrrry late last cycle
[12:13] <bluesabre> https://bazaar.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-core-dev/ubuntu/xenial/apport/ubuntu/view/head:/debian/changelog
[12:13] <bluesabre> https://bazaar.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-core-dev/ubuntu/xenial/apport/ubuntu/view/head:/debian/changelog#L174
[12:13] <bluesabre> :D
[12:15] <knome> trööt
[13:14] <flocculant> bluesabre: yep - hence me making sure I have the info for people to do that early before they wake up :)
[16:57] <flocculant> pleia2: lol @ yourworshipfulness :p
[17:07] <pleia2> :D
[23:02] <Unit193> Hrm, really not much going on this cycle.
[23:03] <knome> christmas, new year
[23:06] <flocculant> Unit193: did you expect more? 
[23:33] <Unit193> flocculant: Not really, due to LTS.  But really there's not been anything much for me to poke at, so that's something.
[23:33] <flocculant> hhe
[23:33] <flocculant> just core ... 
[23:33] <Unit193> Yeah no, that was done last cycle....
[23:34] <flocculant> certainly seems to have been done with 
[23:34] <flocculant> seems like a good enough reason to have a meeting which you run next, to either give up with or push :D
[23:35] <flocculant> hate me in the other channel ;)
[23:35] <Unit193> Meh, not really much we can do, we've poked them quite a few times and "it's on the todo list"...
[23:41] <flocculant> so we should officially give up waiting - I will make sure we have a monthly report 
[23:42] <flocculant> I really don't see why 'our' people should think this is our fault
[23:44] <bluesabre> it's certainly troublesome
[23:44] <bluesabre> hi all
[23:44] <bluesabre> and....
[23:44] <bluesabre> dinner time
[23:44] <bluesabre> bbabl
[23:46] <flocculant> bluesabre: yea for sure it is, my position is if we're giving up then we should let all know it's not us that's doing so 
[23:46] <flocculant> just basically someone not liking we called it core first
[23:50] <knome> is it really just about the name?
[23:53] <flocculant> I think so
[23:53] <knome> think, but are not sure?
[23:53] <flocculant> slangasek dressed it up in other stuff for LP
[23:53] <flocculant> call me a cynic
[23:53] <knome> (sorry, do not mean to be a prick...)
[23:53] <flocculant> ofc
[23:53] <knome> you mean he called it something else?
[23:53] <knome> has anybody asked why?
[23:53] <flocculant> neither do I
[23:54] <flocculant> adam wondered why we called it core 
[23:54] <knome> right, and?
[23:54] <knome> i think it was slangasek who i had this argument over the name with
[23:55] <knome> he proposed a lot of other things, and i told why they aren't as good as core
[23:55] <flocculant> should you call it that? then whatever you want to call it .. then slanglasek came up with another reason, then has studiously ignored it
[23:55] <flocculant> adam was in channel not on LP
[23:55] <knome> well i was in channel too
[23:55] <knome> i haven't followed the LP side
[23:55] <knome> if you have a link handy...
[23:56] <flocculant> anyway - pretty obvious after months they are ignoring it now - so why should we not bring it up in meeting and vote to drop or not - citing canonical ? 
[23:56] <knome> drop what?
[23:56] <flocculant> core for lts
[23:57] <knome> why should we drop core for lts because somebody isn't content with what we are calling it?
[23:57] <knome> if that is the only aspect that is problematic, that is
[23:57] <flocculant> knome: but if we want it on cd.image then we have to at least to try it 
[23:58] <flocculant> and quite frankly I have enough to test on day 0 on my own as it is 
[23:58] <knome> if the name is the problem, let's call it "xubuntu humpty dumpty" to get it tested
[23:59] <knome> i do acknowledge there are other issues too, but let's make sure a silly name argument doesn't make this fall