[15:44] <arraybolt3[m]> Hi guys!
[15:52] <arraybolt3[m]> Simon Quigley (Developer): I remember you said something about debci being able to help with symbols in Debian packages. I'm trying to get qtermwidget upstreamed, and I'm facing a new symbol in the build process. It looks like debci only does autopkgtests, is that right? How would I use it for symbol fixing?
[15:55] <arraybolt3[m]> (Also, in case it matters, the symbol I'm dealing with is "std::__cxx11::_List_base<QByteArray, std::allocator<QByteArray> >::_M_clear()", almost looks like one I can ignore?)
 "Simon Quigley (Developer): I..." <- I'm thinking of a different service then. Debian PPAs.
 "(Also, in case it matters, the..." <- Yeah seems like it
[17:47] <arraybolt3[m]> Nice. Didn't know Debian PPAs existed, but for now, if the symbol can be ignored, I'll leave it.
[18:28] <arraybolt3[m]> Quassel just hit -proposed! \o/
 "Quassel just hit -proposed! \o/" <- Yep, needs some verification and then it can migrate in about a week.
 "Yep, needs some verification and..." <- Confirm Quassel in Jammy good - 
[18:56] <Eickmeyer[m]> Leo K: Would you mind commenting and changing the tags from verification-needed to verification done in the SRU bug?
[18:57] <Eickmeyer[m]> bug 1980687
[18:57] <LeoK[m]> Eickmeyer[m]: will find bug and do so
[18:58] <LeoK[m]> In progress
[18:59] <Eickmeyer[m]> Simon Quigley (Developer): My camping trip doesn't start until tomorrow, so for quassel you're off the hook. :)
 Done (re @lubuntu_bot: (irc) <Eickmeyer[m]> Leo K: Would you mind commenting and changing the tags from verification-needed to verification done in the SRU bug?)
[19:11] <Eickmeyer[m]> Thanks Leo!
[19:12] <Eickmeyer[m]> (you forgot to change verification-needed to verification-done, but I fixed)
[19:16] <Eickmeyer[m]> @leokolb: Don't change to Fix Released. That's done automatically when it migrates from Proposed to Updates and the SRU bot watches for that.
[19:17] <Eickmeyer[m]> Messes things up for the SRU team if you do that prematurely.
[19:18] <arraybolt3[m]> How safe is it for me to jump into an Ubuntu meeting with an idea when someone asked for comments? Stay out of it, right?
[19:19] <arraybolt3[m]> Eh, opportunity already passed. I'll just stick to read, don't talk.
[19:19] <Eickmeyer[m]> To answer the question: Depends on the meeting, and depends on if you're an expert in the matter.
[19:20] <Eickmeyer[m]> For instance, in Ubuntu Studio topics, I'll jump-in and comment if the situation is warranted, but I'll preface with "I have something to say RE: ${topic}".
[19:20] <arraybolt3[m]> They asked if any extra integration was needed in making sure everyone understands the CoC when affirming it.
[19:20] <arraybolt3[m]> I was going to suggest a double-confirm system.
[19:20] <arraybolt3[m]> But I'm not an expert. Thanks for the advice, I'll use it!
[19:21] <Eickmeyer[m]> Yeah, that's something to do with the Community Council, and something we wanted the DMB to work on.
[19:21] <arraybolt3[m]> DMB?
[19:21] <Eickmeyer[m]> I'd stay out of that one.
[19:21] <Eickmeyer[m]> Developer Membership Board.
[19:21] <arraybolt3[m]> (I've seen that term a lot, never knew what it meant.)
[19:21] <arraybolt3[m]> Ah, thank you!
[19:22] <arraybolt3[m]> I can see I even misunderstood the question. :-(
 Sorry  ..bit to eager.. (re @lubuntu_bot: (irc) <Eickmeyer[m]> @leokolb: Don't change to Fix Released. That's done automatically when it migrates from Proposed to Updates and the SRU bot watches for that.)
[20:38] <Eickmeyer[m]> Ha, no worries, I fixed it.