| === Ursinha is now known as Ursinha-afk | |
| === Ursinha-afk is now known as Ursinha | |
| === Ursinha is now known as Ursinha-afk | |
| === Ursinha-afk is now known as Ursinha | |
| === wgrant_ is now known as wgrant | |
| === roadmr_afk is now known as roadmr | |
| === roadmr is now known as roadmr_afk | |
| === roadmr_afk is now known as roadmr | |
| === roadmr is now known as roadmr_afk | |
| [17:00] <rubund> Hello, I'm trying again. Can someone please nominate https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/osm-gps-map/+bug/1320359 for trusty? (or tell me what I'm doing wrong since this request seems to be ignored here) | |
| [17:00] <ubot5> Ubuntu bug 1320359 in osm-gps-map (Ubuntu) "Tiles not showing for libosmgpsmap 0.7.3" [Undecided,Fix released] | |
| === roadmr_afk is now known as roadmr | |
| [17:14] <rbasak> rubund: done. | |
| [17:15] <rbasak> rubund: you did everything right. I see that you were in the sponsorship queue at http://reqorts.qa.ubuntu.com/reports/sponsoring/index.html already, since ~ubuntu-sponsors was subscribed to the bug. | |
| [17:15] <rbasak> rubund: sorry it's taking a while. As you can see the sponsorship queue is quite big at the moment. | |
| [17:16] <rbasak> rubund: thank you for your patience, and for taking care of the package in Ubuntu. If you don't hear anything in the next week or two, ping me and I'll take a look at it when I can. | |
| [17:16] <rbasak> (if I don't get to it in my next patch pilot shift) | |
| [17:18] <rbasak> rubund: and I hope you can stick with it and hopefully get upload rights to this package soon. That would help reduce sponsorship requests and everyone wins :) | |
| [17:20] <rubund> hi rbasak! thanks a lot | |
| [17:20] <rubund> ! | |
| [17:21] <rubund> It's just that since I'm completely new to this, I get quite uncertain when I don't hear anything. | |
| [17:21] <rubund> But this is great. I did actually not know that it was already in the sponsorship queue. | |
| [17:23] <rbasak> rubund: yes, that is unfortunate. The process could be more transparent, especially when delays are involved. | |
| [17:23] <rbasak> This is the right channel to ask for bug status changes. | |
| [17:23] <rbasak> For other development process changes, #ubuntu-motu is the right channel as this is a universe package. | |
| [17:24] <rbasak> If you have difficulty getting an answer because people appear to be busy, watch the channel topic in #ubuntu-devel. When a patch pilot appears listed there, that's the person to ask, since he's nominated himself for that role. | |
| [17:24] <rbasak> HTH. | |
| [17:25] <rbasak> (also the ubuntu-motu mailing list usually gets responses to questions) | |
| [17:25] <rbasak> We really appreciate the efforts of developers actually trying to land patches (rather than users complaining but not volunteering to help) | |
| [17:26] <rbasak> If this describes you and you can't get an answer from any of these channels, ping me. | |
| [17:26] <rbasak> (and I'll point you in the right direction at least) | |
| [17:28] <rubund> Thanks a lot for explaining this to me | |
| [17:35] <rbasak> np | |
| [18:48] <rubund> rbasak: just one other question. I believe that the SRU can (should?) also be applied to saucy. The debian/changelog file in the patch only contains trusty though. Could it still be nominated here? (it is not so important since saucy is not LTS) | |
| [19:03] <rbasak> rubund: yes - you'd need a separate MP or debdiff for Saucy though. Is it really worth it though? Saucy is EOL in just a few weeks now. | |
| [19:04] <rbasak> rubund: so all users will need to upgrade to Trusty anyway. By the time the SRU is sponsored, reviewed by the SRU team, and verified for a week in proposed, I don't think there's any point. | |
| [19:05] <rbasak> rubund: EOL dates here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Releases | |
| [19:11] <rubund> rbasak: you're right. It's not worth it. I believed the EOL for saucy came later (had not checked in a while). Thanks for explaining! | |
| === rsalveti_ is now known as rsalveti | |
| === kees_ is now known as kees | |
| === Richard is now known as Guest69772 | |
| [20:45] <Guest69772> Can someone tell me if I named the right package for this bug report: | |
| [20:45] <Guest69772> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnome-power-manager/+bug/1335289 | |
| [20:45] <ubot5> Ubuntu bug 1335289 in gnome-power-manager (Ubuntu) "Shutdown timer regression" [Undecided,New] | |
| [22:46] <Guest69772> Can someone tell me if I named the right package for this bug report: | |
| [22:46] <Guest69772> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnome-power-manager/+bug/1335289 | |
| [22:46] <ubot5> Ubuntu bug 1335289 in gnome-power-manager (Ubuntu) "Shutdown timer regression" [Undecided,New] | |