[07:54] <sil2100> mvo: hey hey! Is the DDTP translation updates now fully finished? Or are we still waiting on something?
[07:58] <mvo> sil2100: I'm just generating a new upload, rosetta (is it still called that?) had finished merging/exporting the new pot with it's DB last night and I'm generating a new upload based on this. but the previous upload should already be good, it's just that the new one has some more translations (~300 more e.g. for Translations-de in main afaict)
[08:04] <sil2100> \o/
[08:05] <sil2100> Excellent, guess it would be nice to have the updated ones as well. We're still blocked on some kernel regressions re: the RC, so I think we can still get those new ones in
[08:56] <fredldotmeAtwork> Hello! I've been working on a patch to GRUB2 on 20.04 which enables a boot increment/decrement counter mechanism, ported over from CentOS. Is there interest in having such a patch sent to Ubuntu, if it meets your standards?
[09:01] <schopin> fredldotmeAtwork: why not send it upstream?
[09:01] <schopin> That way it'll land in Ubuntu for "free" :)
[09:03] <schopin> in case you haven't seen because of your timeout:
[09:03] <schopin> 11:01 <schopin> fredldotmeAtwork: why not send it upstream?
[09:03] <schopin> 11:01 <schopin> That way it'll land in Ubuntu for "free" :)
[09:05] <fredldotme> schopin that's a good point, yes eventually I would like to do that. But it's in use in one of our products and since the migration from CentOS to Ubuntu, we would like to keep that functionality for automatic failover. That "landing for free" might take longer than we're able to wait for.
[09:06] <schopin> Allright. If I were in your shoes, I'd post the patches upstream, but also in parallel in LP.
[09:07] <schopin> with a link to the upstream post, of course.
[09:08] <fredldotme> Yeah I can do that. I have questions though about the copyright, since I merely made the patch/module build, I didn't write it. Should I make the commit/patch message just contain a reference to the source patch, aka "This is based on <URL>"?
[09:08] <fredldotme> Everyone, including upstream, might have different ideas on how to do that
[09:10] <schopin> I don't have any answer besides "raise the issue there" ;). As you point out, everyone might have different ideas. Perhaps explicitly CC/tag the original author when posting upstream?
[09:11] <schopin> They were used in CentOS so I'm guessing it should be allright copyright-wise. Unless... is grub under a CLA or copyright assignment?
[09:15] <schopin> It is. OK, that might make things a bit harder to get upstream. I'd suggest first discussing with both the author and upstream on the whole legal situation.
[09:17] <schopin> But in parallel you can always open a LP issue explaining what you just said here, with all the relevant links. It'd be a better way to gauge interest, as the relevant people will be notified :)
[09:18] <fredldotme> Hmm, alright then. Will give it a shot for sure! :) thanks
[09:18] <schopin> To help things with both your company migration *and* getting the patch in Ubuntu, you could set up the patched grub in a PPA.
[09:21] <fredldotme> Yeah it's been growing in our own CI for some time, shouldn't hurt to make it a publicly available PPA.
[09:21] <fredldotme> Hope I get this right, I'm pretty easily confused about preference of applied/unapplied repos :)
[11:02] <fredldotmeAtwork> Sorry to anyone in the core dev receiving mails around my merge request. ^^" third attempt at making the LP proposal worked as intended.
[20:09] <bdmurray> bryyce: Can you close the MP here? https://code.launchpad.net/~thesquash/ubuntu/+source/ubiquity/+git/ubiquity/+merge/407632 I manually merged it to the upstream ubiquity branch.
[23:07] <bryyce> bdmurray, done