| === JamesTait is now known as Guest96415 | ||
| === Guest96415 is now known as JamesTait | ||
| faenil | DanChapman: yo, are you using https://github.com/qtproject/qt-labs-messagingframework for the qmf build? | 11:49 |
|---|---|---|
| === JanC is now known as Guest52941 | ||
| === JanC_ is now known as JanC | ||
| === _salem is now known as salem_ | ||
| === chihchun is now known as chihchun_afk | ||
| aquarius_ | jdstrand, ping: how do I go about applying for manual reviews for apps uploaded to the click store? | 16:18 |
| === javiercrowsoft1 is now known as javiercrowsoft | ||
| popey | aquarius_: there is a button at the bottom when your app fails | 16:59 |
| popey | "Request Manual Review" | 16:59 |
| jdstrand | yes, what popey said | 16:59 |
| jdstrand | sorry for the delay, was in a session | 16:59 |
| aquarius_ | ooh, really? I haven't tried uploading an app which deliberately fails :) | 16:59 |
| aquarius_ | jdstrand, what happens then? Does the app go into a queue and one of your team get to it at some point afterwards? | 17:00 |
| aquarius_ | popey, didn't know about the button. That's cool. | 17:00 |
| jdstrand | aquarius_: it will show up in a queue, yes. a member of the reviewers team will then look at it | 17:00 |
| aquarius_ | cool. | 17:01 |
| aquarius_ | I shall prepare wifitransfer to do just that, then. Is there guidance on "what best to do if you want an apparmor exception", or is it better to submit the app once and let that be the start of a dialogue with the reviewer about how best to do it? | 17:02 |
| mcphail | aquarius_: in my experience, manual review consists of "automatic review failed so its not going in" :( - good luck | 17:06 |
| jdstrand | starting a dialog via the review is fine | 17:06 |
| mcphail | jdstrand: have any apps with non-automatically accepted apparmor profiles been accepted? | 17:06 |
| mcphail | jdstrand: (beyond those developed by the core devs)? | 17:07 |
| DanChapman | mcphail, one i know if if the "Timer" app which is accepted and requires manual review. | 17:08 |
| DanChapman | *on i know of is | 17:08 |
| DanChapman | bah *one | 17:08 |
| mcphail | DanChapman: well, at least that negates my argument ;) | 17:09 |
| DanChapman | :-p | 17:09 |
| popey | mcphail: timer | 17:12 |
| popey | oh, he said that | 17:12 |
| mcphail | popey: :) | 17:12 |
| mcphail | Not a huge list, then... | 17:13 |
| popey | I can't recall any others that aren't made by canonical people | 17:13 |
| aquarius_ | ah, but the point is that there is a process for it. So I'll go through the process and see what happens, which will be useful info! | 17:15 |
| jdstrand | mcphail: not to my knowledge | 17:26 |
| mcphail | aquarius_: hope it gets approved as it would be blimmin' useful | 17:38 |
| aquarius_ | I'll try. :) | 17:38 |
| mcphail | aquarius_: prodding someone to look at https://bugs.launchpad.net/canonical-developer-experience/+bug/1521292 in the submission would be appreciated ;p | 17:47 |
| ubot5 | Ubuntu bug 1521292 in Client Developer Experience "No easy way for users to supply large amounts of arbitrary data for apps" [Undecided,New] | 17:47 |
| popey | bzoltan_: you all setup for http://summit.ubuntu.com/uos-1605/meeting/22678/sdk-roadmap/ ? (you may want to join #ubuntu-uos-appdev and anyone else joining too | 17:49 |
| === charles_ is now known as charles | ||
| === javiercrowsoft1 is now known as javiercrowsoft | ||
| === salem_ is now known as _salem | ||
| === tsimonq2alt is now known as tsimonq2 | ||
| c_ | d | 22:18 |
| === c_ is now known as Guest51818 | ||
| === javiercrowsoft1 is now known as javiercrowsoft | ||
| === javiercrowsoft1 is now known as javiercrowsoft | ||
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!