[18:39] <alkisg> In https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/mesa/+bug/1815172, we went through the verification steps, the update was published, and now adconrad asks for verification again, could that be some script bug?
[18:39] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 1815172 in linux (Ubuntu) "Black screen on skylake after 18.0 => 18.2 update" [Undecided,Confirmed]
[18:41] <tsimonq2> alkisg: Those are two different releases.
[18:41] <alkisg> tsimonq2: check bionic, it's already there
[18:42] <tsimonq2> https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/mesa/18.2.8-0ubuntu0~18.04.2 <-- no, it just landed in -proposed.
[18:42] <alkisg> 18.2.2-0ubuntu1~18.04.2 500         500 http://gr.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu bionic-updates/main
[18:42] <alkisg> Oh, let me see where apt changelog pulls from then, as the fix is there
[18:42] <tsimonq2> It seems tjaalton kept those changelog entries.
[18:42] <tsimonq2> Human error, not script error. :)
[18:43] <tsimonq2> (If it's even a human error.)
[18:44] <tsimonq2> Although Timo did forget an SRU bug for the backport...
[18:44] <tsimonq2> hmm
[18:44] <alkisg> So, in comment #13 they ask me to test 18.2.2-0ubuntu1~18.04.2) bionic
[18:44] <alkisg> I do, it lands in -updates, everything fine
[18:44] <alkisg> Then another release is made, and another request for verification is done,
[18:45] <alkisg> ...but what does this new release address? It doesn't address my issue, which was already addressed...
[18:45] <tsimonq2> infinity: ^ Shouldn't this have been accepted with a tracking bug for the backport, or are we missing something here?
[18:45] <tsimonq2> alkisg: I would say ignore it for now, until Adam or Timo answers.
[18:46] <alkisg> ty
[18:47] <tsimonq2> Oh, it seems bug 1811225 does have the tracking for this release, so the only question here is what to do with the other bugs.
[18:47] <ubottu> bug 1811225 in mesa (Ubuntu Cosmic) "Mesa 18.2.8 stable release" [Undecided,Fix committed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1811225
[18:49] <tsimonq2> alkisg: I'm willing to bet, after seeing that, that another round of testing will be needed to verify that the bugfix didn't regress between the upload currently in bionic-updates and bionic-proposed.
[18:49] <tsimonq2> So while it was fixed, regression testing is needed here. That would make sense.
[18:49] <alkisg> Yeah that makes sense, I hope that the fix wasn't overwritten by the larger update though
[18:49] <tsimonq2> That's what someone has to find out. :)
[18:49] <alkisg> No I mean dropped from debian/patches
[18:50] <tsimonq2> Well, it's referenced in the changelog, so I'm guessing not.
[18:50] <tsimonq2> It wouldn't hurt to grab the packaging and verify though.
[18:50] <tsimonq2> (The patch itself might look different because of the new upstream release anyway, thus the need for another round of testing I think.)
[18:52] <alkisg> It's a one-liner... thanks, I'll do a test when the it's built
[18:54] <tsimonq2> Heh, I didn't know the context at all.
[18:58] <infinity> tsimonq2: The backport bug is there in a previous changelog entry.
[18:59] <tsimonq2> infinity: Yep, I realized that. :P
[18:59] <tsimonq2> Thanks.