[01:10] <Eickmeyer> ALL: I have yet to see any movement on bug 1851346 and I'm starting to get REALLY nervous. I can let it go for beta, but if this ends up in Final, with my flavor lead hat on, I will be very unhappy.
[01:10] <Eickmeyer> I'd at least like some comments, assignments, and status changes in the bug report, please.
[01:11] <Eickmeyer> xnox, juliank, bdmurray ^
[01:12] <Eickmeyer> popey: Could you help me follow-up with this rather critical bug? ^
[07:11] <juliank> Eickmeyer: fwiw, I picked it up for my committed queue last wed, so i'll either have a chance to investigate that soon, or it will revert to the general queue next week
[07:12] <juliank> Eickmeyer: It's fairly low priority, though - worst case you'd just remove the plugin and be grudgingly ok with it?
[07:13] <juliank> Eickmeyer: I'm stuck in grub work atm
[07:17]  * juliank really has to stop doing irc and email in the mornings
[07:25] <cpaelzer> doko: will you take a look at the llvm fix mentioned in https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/llvm-toolchain-10/+bug/1867173 ?
[10:01] <m_tadeu> hi...is this the place to ask about issues on ubuntu20.04?
[10:08] <rbasak> m_tadeu: #ubuntu+1 please
[10:08] <m_tadeu> thanks
[12:04] <kanashiro> doko, do you have a way to coordinate the work that people have been doing on packages FTBFS you reported? I am asking this because I have proposed two MPs fixing packages and when they got reviewed and sponsored they were already fixed
[12:09] <doko> kanashiro: no, besides filing the bug reports. if you work on an issue, you should mention it in the issue. and maybe look before in https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/focal/+queue?queue_state=1
[12:12] <kanashiro> doko, ack
[12:48] <doko> seb128, Laney: could one of you help with https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libaccounts-glib/1.23+17.04.20161104-0ubuntu2 ?
[12:53] <seb128> doko, hey, sorry but probably not this week, that would require debugging and that's an universe package so not a priority
[13:25] <Eickmeyer> juliank: That bug has been there since November and nothing has happened. To say that response of it being a low priority, despite people's installations breaking, is a little off-putting.
[13:25] <Eickmeyer> I'm OK with it being in beta, but it needs to be fixed by final. Full stop.
[13:29] <juliank> Eickmeyer: it's low priority because a page offering you to remove optional components is not an essential part of an installer, and can be removed if necessary without really negatively impacting anybody's experience
[13:29] <juliank> The first time I saw the bug was last week
[13:30] <Eickmeyer> Then it needs to be delegated to somebody else.
[13:31] <juliank> Given that the bug was originally reported in November and you let it sit around until last week, it's not really fair to blame other people for it
[13:31] <juliank> * let it sit around as well
[13:31] <Eickmeyer> I did not let it sit. I had been talking to this channel about it with zero response. I've been ignored up until this point.
[13:32] <juliank> it was only raised in last weeks meeting
[13:32] <juliank> sand I don't even know why
[13:32] <juliank> The bug has no importance set
[13:33] <Eickmeyer> And that's the biggest reason I'm upset about this. It needs to be fixed ASAP. This is critical priority from an Ubuntu Studio point of view. (I don't have access to set importance).
[13:33] <juliank> We normally only look at critical and high bugs
[13:33] <juliank> Eickmeyer: then why did you not mark it as such?
[13:33] <juliank> the importance is still undecided
[13:33] <Eickmeyer> I don't have access to set it as such.
[13:33] <Eickmeyer> Launchpad literally will not let me.
[13:35] <juliank> bdmurray: Eickmeyer needs to be in ~ubuntu-bugcontrol or at the very least ~bugsquad
[13:35] <juliank> having a flavour lead that's not capable of setting importance of bugs is fairly bad
[13:37] <juliank> Eickmeyer: so, if you don't remove anything on the installer page, everything works?
[13:37] <Eickmeyer> juliank: Correct.
[13:38] <juliank> ok
[13:38] <juliank> I need to get an ubuntustudio image eventually
[13:38] <Eickmeyer> ok
[13:38] <juliank> I won't have a chance to look at it today, but tomorrow should be doable
[13:38] <Eickmeyer> That's fine. :)
[13:38] <bdmurray> juliank: there is an application process for bug control
[13:39] <juliank> bdmurray: right, I should have added a question mark?
[13:39] <bdmurray> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuBugControl
[13:39] <juliank> now i added a question mark where it does not belong :(
[13:39] <bdmurray> Ah, yes to set importance join Bug Control or be a developer
[13:41] <Eickmeyer> "Ways to join:" Point #5 is definitely a qualifier for me, the list of bugs is in the hundreds.
[13:42] <Eickmeyer> Unfortunately, that would be too much to compile.
[13:42] <bdmurray> 5 bugs would be too much to compile?
[13:43] <Eickmeyer> I'd have to go through a ton of bug reports over the course of the past two years.
[13:44] <Eickmeyer> Possibly longer.
[13:46] <Eickmeyer> bdmurray: Can BugSquad set importance?
[13:46] <bdmurray> No
[13:46] <Eickmeyer> ok
[13:59] <popey> bdmurray what needs to happen in launchpad to enable Eickmeyer to be an effective leader of his flavour?
[14:00] <bdmurray> I don't know what it takes to be an effective leader but setting bug importance sounds useful and to do that one needs to be a member of Ubuntu Bug Control.
[14:02] <popey> Hah!
[14:45] <niedbalski> bdmurray: hey bryan o/, pinging you about lp: 1867398 (bionic)
[15:18] <Eickmeyer> bdmurray: Applied.