[01:53] <bluesabre> flocculant: great, thanks!
[01:53] <bluesabre> Unit193: if all looks good, we can have ochosi push the fix if nothing else :)
[01:54] <Unit193> Hah, just because I don't like it doesn't mean we don't do it. :P
[01:57] <Unit193> Hey, I'm just happy this has less crashing.
[07:33] <flocculant> knome: why is it that text on our wiki all looks bold ?
[08:26] <flocculant> bluesabre Unit193 - I'm completely confused I think on which thunar patches we actually have now - and which bug they're supposed to deal with
[08:26] <flocculant> http://packages.qa.ubuntu.com/qatracker/milestones/361/builds/117794/testcases/1681/results
[08:26] <flocculant> I've now got a pass where it ran for ~20 minutes
[08:27] <flocculant> and a fail where it managed to last for ~5 seconds before it went wrong 
[08:35] <flocculant> sigh - and after *that* failing - the manually renaming crash occurred almost immediately
[09:38] <knome> flocculant, that's a good question
[09:38] <flocculant> makes a change :p
[09:39] <knome> i believe it has again something to do with google fonts and how the webfonts are rendered
[09:39] <flocculant> mmm
[09:39] <knome> let me see if we use google fonts :P
[09:39] <knome> actually nope
[09:39] <knome> of course we don't
[09:39] <knome> we don't use any
[09:39] <knome> you don't happen to have the font "open sans" installed, i guess
[09:40] <knome> thus, the site falls back to sans-serif
[09:40] <flocculant> not looking like I do
[09:40] <knome> and if that font doesn't support the weights we define, or there is some other problem with rendering (this happens)
[09:40] <knome> i need to run now
[09:40] <knome> if you don't mind, please file a bug against xubuntu-website
[09:40] <knome> i'll get to it at latest monday
[09:41] <flocculant> yup of course
[09:41] <knome> thanks
[09:41] <knome> ok, hurrying already ->
[09:41] <flocculant> hah - have a good one :p
[09:48] <flocculant> bug 1579343
[09:48] <ubottu> bug 1579343 in Xubuntu Website "http://wiki.xubuntu.org appears bold" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1579343
[15:21] <Unit193> Yeah I had hit where it didn't refresh right, F5 fixed that.  So I suppose this isn't going quite as well as it should.
[16:09] <flocculant> Unit193: mmm
[16:09] <flocculant> what?
[16:11] <flocculant> knome: so - been thinking now we've got xubuntu wiki space - about qa doc stuff - not sure it's in the right place now we've got something we have some control over
[16:12] <flocculant> a chat at some point about that dear chap :)
[18:20] <Unit193> bluesabre: So new thunar is hit and miss it seems, if you look at results.
[18:21] <bluesabre> so I've read
[18:21] <bluesabre> disappointing :(
[18:22] <Unit193> However, seems to me like the thing I hit, doesn't always refresh so F5 fixes it?
[18:24] <bluesabre> I'm content with just not crashing myself
[18:25] <Unit193> Having to manually refresh seems better to me, but then again we're talking about a SRU.
[18:37] <bluesabre> yeah
[19:15] <Unit193> https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2016/05/msg00001.html
[19:58] <bluesabre> Seems risky to be running 386 this far down the line
[19:58] <Unit193> 586*
[19:59] <Unit193> I'm sure they'll still support 686 for a while yet, considering. :P
[20:00] <Unit193> Nice to have a fallback in case Ubuntu decides to be weird and drop it from the archive.