[13:19] <alwyn> Hi, this bug seems fixed in 16.04, how come it hasn't been ported to 14.04 yet? :s https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/mailman/+bug/1375821
[17:04] <jbayfield> Hi all, just a quick (and probably silly question) - let's say a bug is present in trusty, but it has been fixed in a later version of the package in xenial. In order to incorporate the fix in trusty should it be an SRU or a backport?
[17:05] <jbayfield> For context: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/procps/+bug/1664535
[17:05] <rbasak> jbayfield: cherry-picking the fix in an SRU would be fine.
[17:05] <rbasak> Backporting a newer version to the backports pocket is also fine in principle
[17:06] <jbayfield> I'm assuming the cherry-pick method would be the preferred one?
[17:06] <rbasak> It is the most straightforward (if the cherry pick is straightforward).
[17:06] <jbayfield> Okay, I see. Thanks for the help. :)
[17:06] <rbasak> You're welcome. Thank you for caring!
[17:07] <jbayfield> One other thing - said bug I linked to needs triage, haven't got permissions myself.
[17:11] <jbayfield> Going to ask another quick question while I'm here, not sure if this is the right channel or not, but I noticed for a lot of packages the latest branch that appears is vivid, yet it says "Uploaded to: Xenial" for example in some package versions. What's confusing me is what remote branch you use for this, as something like lp:ubuntu/xenial/packagename doesn't work - this is quite possibly an oversight on my part and 
[17:14] <rbasak> jbayfield: marked Triaged for Trusty. What's the status in Zesty?
[17:15] <rbasak> jbayfield: the bzr branches are no longer maintained.
[17:15] <rbasak> There is some git work in progress by my team, but it's not yet ready for general use.
[17:18] <jbayfield> rbasak: Bug does not occur in Zesty/Yakkety.
[17:18] <jbayfield> ie: it's already been resolved
[17:18] <jbayfield> About bzr/git: Alright, thanks for letting me know.
[17:18] <rbasak> Fix Released for the development release then. Thanks!
[17:18] <jbayfield> No problem.