| === jjfrv8_ is now known as jjfrv8 | ||
| bluesabre | flocculant, still unable to reproduce https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/parole/+bug/1667786 ... is there a sample file somewhere that I can use to test this? I've thrown a variety of videos at it with no luck | 01:31 |
|---|---|---|
| ubottu | Launchpad bug 1667786 in parole (Ubuntu) "Parole 0.9.0 crashes when skipping any video" [Undecided,New] | 01:31 |
| flocculant | bluesabre: I'll try and find one, though I've not seen it crash - only not skip | 07:56 |
| bluesabre | morning all | 10:19 |
| bluesabre | flocculant, ah, I thought you'd seen the crash | 10:19 |
| bluesabre | do any videos successfully skip for you, because I have only one example where that does not work | 10:19 |
| flocculant | bluesabre: I appear to see mouse not being able to select a point in a film - have to drag the slider | 10:47 |
| bluesabre | flocculant, so none of this for you, http://imgur.com/a/nHmtJ, not seen that issue before | 10:52 |
| flocculant | bluesabre: yup that's the kiddy - not able to do that here | 12:01 |
| flocculant | jell.yfish.us/media/jellyfish-140-mbps-4k-uhd-h264.mkv | 12:04 |
| flocculant | that one for example | 12:04 |
| akxwi-dave | can confirm 1374887 on 32 bit version | 13:37 |
| akxwi-dave | ignore that sb bug 1667786 | 13:37 |
| ubottu | bug 1667786 in parole (Ubuntu) "Parole 0.9.0 crashes when skipping any video" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1667786 | 13:37 |
| akxwi-dave | plays fine but when skipping with slider the whole of parole just hands and crashes | 13:40 |
| akxwi-dave | Works fine on 64bit version | 13:42 |
| akxwi-dave | so bug only affecting me on 386 version of zesty | 13:43 |
| flocculant | bluesabre: can crasj 32bit parole with one of those jellyfishy downloads | 18:22 |
| ochosi | evening all | 21:42 |
| bluesabre | oh boy, more arch-dependent bugs | 21:43 |
| knome | hullo | 21:43 |
| ochosi | yeah, yuck, we should just close the door on 32bit :] | 21:43 |
| flocculant | ochosi: evening :) | 21:43 |
| flocculant | bluesabre: yea ... | 21:44 |
| knome | tbh, that doesn't seem so bad any more; this decision would actually take serious effect at 18.04 | 21:44 |
| bluesabre | seems like that's slowly the direction everything is heading | 21:44 |
| knome | yep | 21:44 |
| knome | and if we want to give people with 32-bit systems consolidation, we can just say we'll support 16.04 for a bit longer | 21:45 |
| knome | tbh, i'm not really sure how much that would even affect us | 21:45 |
| knome | we haven't been doing any huge backporting operations anyway | 21:45 |
| knome | so theoreticall if we supported 16.04 for a year or two longer, would that just mean there was a slight traffic bump on #x? | 21:46 |
| bluesabre | I'd imagine so | 21:46 |
| knome | the amount of support questions doesn't seem too overwhelming at the current rate, even if you considered the questions that are about EOL releases | 21:46 |
| knome | (and tbh, we already kind of reply something to them anyway, just usually not an answer) | 21:47 |
| knome | (like "update to X first, then Y") | 21:47 |
| flocculant | the only other thing would be people ignoring calls to test at point releases ;) | 21:52 |
| knome | i guess, but isn't our support extending to all the point releases already? | 21:53 |
| knome | or all minus one? | 21:53 |
| knome | my point is that there's not much to maintain at that point, and unless something huge lands in, it doesn't seem to affect even testing much (there's not much new to test) | 21:53 |
| bluesabre | yup | 21:54 |
| Unit193 | I'd have to switch to something else. :3 | 21:59 |
| * bluesabre doesn't want to abandon Unit193 | 22:01 | |
| knome | do you want a band on Unit193 then? | 22:02 |
| knome | however you interpret that | 22:02 |
| === acheronUK is now known as acheronuk | ||
| Unit193 | knome: To be clear, netbook really isn't that old, it's just something they did with netbooks. :/ | 22:24 |
| knome | yeah... | 22:24 |
| Unit193 | The Pentium M is a bit dated, but still works. :P | 22:25 |
| knome | a lot of things still *work* | 22:25 |
| knome | whether it's sensible for a modern operating system to support everything is a different thing | 22:25 |
| knome | and what about lubuntu? are they still keeping their 32-bit systems? | 22:26 |
| Unit193 | I'd only presume. | 22:26 |
| knome | they are the ones that want to support the lowest specs here anyway | 22:26 |
| knome | xubuntu has went away from the "lightweight" for a good time already | 22:26 |
| knome | not to say we don't care about the lower end machines any more, just that we value the benefits from deciding against them here and there enough to do it | 22:27 |
| knome | or sth | 22:27 |
| Unit193 | Not arguing that, just 32bit arch. | 22:28 |
| knome | sure | 22:28 |
| knome | but you mentioned but netbooks and pentium M | 22:28 |
| knome | neither of those are in the high end machine group | 22:28 |
| knome | putting it like that because some of the netbooks might not exactly be in the low end group either... but then i don't have much experience/information on that | 22:29 |
| Unit193 | Netbooks tend to be small form factor, generally lower power such that they use less battery. | 22:30 |
| knome | yep | 22:30 |
| knome | i know that | 22:30 |
| Unit193 | Ah, OK. | 22:30 |
| knome | i was just meaning i don't have exact idea if one could call them all low-end machines | 22:30 |
| Unit193 | Considering it came with Win 7 or so, I don't see your argument of "Xubuntu is too heavy" a good thing. :P | 22:30 |
| knome | no no, i specifically wanted to avoid that argument | 22:31 |
| Unit193 | Pretty sure you could call at least all the 32bit ones low-end. | 22:31 |
| knome | hence "aren't high end" vs. "are low end" | 22:31 |
| Unit193 | Heh, OK. And in case you missed it, I called the PM dated too. :P | 22:32 |
| knome | right, so in that regard not being able to support 32-bit netbooks is the same as not being able to support some low-end machines... which we are kind of doing already | 22:32 |
| knome | yeah, pentium M is dated, i know that | 22:32 |
| Unit193 | (Though I'm not putting LXDE on it, Xfce works fine, except xfwm quirks of course.) | 22:32 |
| knome | that's in the low-end category for sure - just wasn't completely sure about the netbooks | 22:32 |
| knome | so again, what i was trying to say is that dropping the 32-bit ISO seems to have a lesser effect than it might feel like it does | 22:33 |
| knome | after taking a look and think about the 32-bit machines that are the target group for xubuntu | 22:34 |
| Unit193 | iooijoij | 22:35 |
| Unit193 | ...Whoops. | 22:35 |
| knome | so if we drop the 32-bit ISOs, wouldn't the people with, say, 32-bit 16.10 installations still be able to upgrade (with the arch-dependent bugs) | 22:35 |
| knome | so we wouldn't be affecting those people immediately by breaking the universe for them, just bits of it | 22:36 |
| knome | on the other hand, new installations would only kind of be affected starting from 18.04 since we could just point people with 32-bit machines to install 16.04 | 22:36 |
| knome | and also as far as testing goes, if we didn't need to test the 32-bit ISO for the new releases, we would likely be moving that workforce for the 16.04 point releases flocculant was worried about | 22:37 |
| knome | if we wanted to go with extending the support time as a consolidation | 22:38 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!