[Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:05:33] "for example when I set a bug to needs info, I generally assign it to the reporter to make this clear" [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:05:37] Now that's interesting [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:05:51] yes, there's a problem with the bug stuff. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:06:04] it totally misses the case of sponsoring. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:07:08] (do we outline what "sponsoring" is in case people here aren't 100% with the terminology?) [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:07:26] i'm emailing the list now [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:07:37] well, -devel-discuss [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:07:40] Let me guess: casual contributor A makes a fix, but it's actually uploaded by Developer B? [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:07:42] was planning to point to that while talking [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:07:48] mpt: that's the one. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:07:51] mpt: pretty much, and it's very common [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:07:58] * mpt cries [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:08:00] contributor A should be able to assign to himself, and be able to set the status. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:08:06] yes [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:08:57] Join owh has joined this channel (n=onno@59.154.24.148). [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:09:49] Join RAOF has joined this channel (n=Chris_@matht464.maths.unsw.edu.au). [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:10:57] Join StevenK has joined this channel (n=stevenk@14.5.233.220.exetel.com.au). [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:10:59] mpt: why in particular crying? [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:11:27] because I suspected this sort of problem might happen [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:11:41] though to be honest, I hadn't thought about mentoring, I was more concerned with undo [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:12:08] e.g. non-"developer" accidentally moves a bug from Todo to Triaged, and can't change it back [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:12:47] s/mentoring/sponsoring/ [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:12:50] Hobbsee, LaserJock already described the sponsoring issue [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:13:46] mpt: ahh [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:14:21] mpt: i'd suggest, to use someone else's suggestion here, to only let them change the status to a developer status if they're assigning it to themself. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:14:39] because that says "i'm working on this, no one else needs to touch it" [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:14:43] that would fix part of it [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:14:57] what wouldnt it fix? [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:15:16] Join statik has joined this channel (n=emurphy@189.66.188.72.cfl.res.rr.com). [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:17:36] mpt: ^ [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:17:48] it doenst fix the accidently sending it back, true [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:18:24] mpt: and this really needed to be a part of -devel-discuss or something, btw - the ubuntu develoeprs are going to have opinions on this sort of stuff [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:18:32] which is why a few of us were found, even at UDS. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:18:44] What's wrong with allowing the asignee to set the status to whatever they want? [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:20:05] [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:20:19] :) [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:20:46] Join ScottK has joined this channel (n=ScottK@ubuntu/member/scottk). [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:21:39] Hobbsee, the part where "developer" B is discussing a bug with person A on IRC, and says "sure, report it and assign it to me" [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:22:11] mpt: but that never happens. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:22:14] oh wait [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:22:18] Not everyone uses IRC, and there's no universal medium. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:22:24] mpt: that happens a lot less [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:22:46] mpt: and could be changed to "file a bug, and give me the number, for me to assign it to myself" [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:24:15] Which is more work for developer B, whereas the current workflow has person A doing it all. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:25:37] this is true [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:26:07] I suspect I'm being dense, but I'm not sure what breaks if you allow anyone to allocate a bug to themselves, then allow the person to set the status of the bug they took on. Can someone hit me with a clue-bat? [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:26:39] owh: that part is fine - it just doesnt solve the other case [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:27:09] Hobbsee: Then I don't understand the other case. Did I miss some part of the conversation? [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:27:37] owh: [14:21] Hobbsee, the part where "developer" B is discussing a bug with person A on IRC, and says "sure, report it and assign it to me" [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:28:29] Hobbsee: Yeah, I saw that, so I go to LaserJock and ask him about a bug, then he tells me to report it and assign it to him, or am I misunderstanding? [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:28:41] owh: correct [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:29:26] Hobbsee: So, how does that not work? LaserJock is now the assignee of a bug I put him into. Is that not currently the case? [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:29:49] owh: because you can only assign the bug to yourself if you'r enot a dev. that's the point. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:29:51] * owh is feeling pretty dumb, bit I'm still not understanding. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:29:54] er, if you are a dev [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:30:00] owh, the difference being you can't set it to Todo because (in this scenario) you're not a "developer" [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:30:20] mpt: er - can you still assign it to someone else if you're not a develoepr? [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:30:26] hmm [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:30:28] I don't know [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:30:31] Hold on, one thing at a time. Can I or can I not assign a bug as a normal person to someone else? [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:30:31] probably not [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:30:36] I guess you probably can [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:30:38] mpt: Surely you can check the spec. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:30:44] :) [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:30:46] This isn't covered in the spec, iirc [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:30:59] Oh, neat, a spec that doesn't spec out the feature :) [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:31:19] The BugWorkflow spec is about statuses, not about workflow [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:31:29] well, not about assignees [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:31:30] Oh. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:31:54] Is there any point in doing a test? I can create a dummy bug and assign it to Hobbsee if you like. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:32:07] owh: It hasn't been rolled out yet. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:32:21] I would have thought it might be on edge, but apparently not. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:32:25] owh, you can do that on staging.launchpad.net [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:32:27] But are we saying that this behaviour has changed? [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:32:37] mpt: Right now? [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:32:42] owh, afaik [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:33:34] mpt: Does the person I assign it to have to be a member of any group, or is it limited to particular groups, or perhaps "not" to a particular group? [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:33:52] Quit ubuntulog has left this server ("brb"). [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:34:24] Subdomains of staging seem to timeout at the moment. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:34:40] Join ubuntulog has joined this channel (i=ubuntulo@ubuntu/bot/ubuntulog). [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:34:55] * owh is logged in and clicking away. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:35:09] I can confirm that the spec doesn't mention assigning/reassigning bugs [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:35:16] owh: or this behaviour will change in a day or two [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:35:24] I don't know if it's live yet [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:35:30] mpt: is there any problem with making this particular spec public? even if you sanitize it first? [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:35:34] ajmitch: Yeah, that's what we really don't know. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:35:58] Fujitsu: Hmm, I spoke too soon. My timeout just came too :) [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:36:11] Hobbsee, I'll discuss that with BjornT when he's up [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:36:24] Hm, apparently just Malone doesn't work on staging. Convenient. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:36:38] worksforme [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:37:48] As ajmitch points out, this won't actually help us though will it? [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:38:28] I think staging code is meant to be in sync with production, so probably not. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:39:00] Fujitsu: So, tell me again the point of staging the same version as the live version? [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:39:41] Edge is meant to be more cutting-edge. Staging is just there as a testing ground [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:40:24] Fujitsu: But if it's a testing ground, what are you testing. If it's the same version as the live version, that makes no sense to me. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:41:09] Sorry, for users to play around with on a non-production database. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:41:14] owh, what do you mean by "staging the same version as the live version"? [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:41:42] staging.launchpad.net is, at the moment, newer code than launchpad.net [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:41:54] that's why staging.launchpad.net has the new bug statuses, and launchpad.net does not [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:42:08] Ahh, so it does? I can't see them, it just times out. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:42:28] mpt: It also times out for me, if you need a specific oops: OOPS-536S13 [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:42:30] https://devpad.canonical.com/~jamesh/oops.cgi/536S13 [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:42:46] Cool [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:42:59] Hmm, it needs a pwd :) [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:43:00] Is there any log or anything showing how the various sub-LPs compare code version-wise? [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:43:52] It seems that just the bug listings timeout, while specific bugs work. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:45:20] Fujitsu, yes, the page footer tells you exactly what revision is running [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:46:11] so launchpad.net is running r4287, while staging.launchpad.net is running r4419 [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:46:14] mpt: I recall I was told a couple of weeks back that they weren't comparable, as they're from different branches. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:46:43] really? That might be true, but I don't understand why it would be [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:47:10] Hobbsee: I've just assigned a bug to you (under staging), so we'll see what it does. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:47:12] I suspect that's the revision of the staging/production/edge bzr branch, which are merged from rocketfuel regularly. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:47:34] Hobbsee: Yup, you are now the Assignee. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:47:42] https://bugs.staging.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gphpedit/+bug/73310 [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:47:44] Launchpad bug 73310 in gphpedit "Selected text colour does not follow theme" [Low,In progress] - Assigned to Onno Benschop (onno-itmaze) [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:48:00] This is a STAGING bug, not a real one! [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:48:29] yep [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:48:35] ubotu, you silly wabbit [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:49:25] * Fujitsu assigned himself to a bug on staging and can't touch any other statuses. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:49:44] mpt: Once the production branch gets cherry picks, the numbers are no longer comparable. edge and beta revnos are never comparable (as they get at most one commit per day but launchpad/devel gets several) [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:49:54] Nick cprov is now known as cprov-ZzZ. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:50:04] Hobbsee: I'm now taking it back to see if I can change the status. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:50:05] stub: Ah, that's what I thought. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:51:12] Fujitsu: I can change the Status, but I cannot change the Importance. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:51:23] Join neversfelde has joined this channel (n=neversfe@nrbg-4db445bf.pool.einsundeins.de). [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:51:26] ok, thanks stub [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:51:29] mpt: Hey, this is still the old levels. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:51:36] * owh is confused. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:51:47] owh, I was just there ten minutes ago seeing the new ones [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:51:50] mpt: I thought that the staging version was the one that is going to be rolled out. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:51:57] owh: Mortals can't change the status to wontfix, triaged, or todo. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:51:57] mpt: erm...what happens in the case that a bug triager, not a ~ubuntu-developer, goes through, and finds the bug is already fixed upstream? They cant mark a bug as fix released, i believe. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:52:31] Hobbsee: It seems they can. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:52:45] Fujitsu: if the statuses go thru as intended, though [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:52:52] Hobbsee, arguably Fix Released isn't the appropriate resolution for that case anyway [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:52:53] The only statuses that aren't accessible to the unprivileged are wontfix, triaged and todo. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:52:54] I'm a nobody, that is, I'm not a member of any groups. I've just set the status to "Fix Released". [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:52:55] Won't Fix is [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:53:13] mpt: "upstream has released the fix for this" - it is the appropriate resolution [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:53:15] mpt: No, Fix Released is. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:53:30] Hobbsee, it's not going to be fixed specifically in Ubuntu, Ubuntu's just going to pick up the fix when it picks up the new release [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:53:40] mpt: the new release has often already occured. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:53:46] Well, I think this is presuming the release is already here. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:53:59] Wont Fix might work, but Fix Released is probably better. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:54:02] are you saying that now, the ubuntu bug should have wontfix, and the upstream bugs should be linked, etc, etc, etc [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:54:05] On this page, I only see the current status options: https://bugs.staging.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gphpedit/+bug/73310 [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:54:06] Launchpad bug 73310 in gphpedit "Selected text colour does not follow theme" [Low,In progress] - Assigned to Onno Benschop (onno-itmaze) [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:54:14] mpt: ^ [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:54:45] Hobbsee, that's how I always imagined it working (but probably no-one ever told the Ubuntu developers) [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:54:58] :) [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:55:23] mpt: that's a shitload of extra work, for very little gain [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:55:35] * owh agrees. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:55:50] mpt: and i'm not even going to go into the latter issue. yet. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:56:07] Hobbsee, what's the difference in work between moving a bug to Fix Released, and moving it to Won't Fix? [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:57:03] mpt: for when someone looks up an old bug, and goes "oh, okay, this has been fixed in a later version", rather than "oh, okay, so obviously they dont care, and wont fix it" [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:57:17] * owh nods. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:57:20] i can tell you now - the upstream bugs wont be linked a lot of the time, because it's a lot of extra work [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:57:40] * Fujitsu really doesn't want to register a bugtracker and project just to set a bug status properly. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:57:46] mpt: "wont fix" really means "yes, we know it's a bug, but we're not going to fix it" [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:57:59] mpt: whereas "fix released" means "it's a bug, it's been fixed, and it's in the archives" [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:58:03] there's a big difference there [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:58:15] although, if WONTFIX isnt shown on the default search, it's not a major issue. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:58:30] wontfix is a semi-closed state, or should be at least. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:58:48] "won't fix" also is an opportunity for someone else to come along and pick it up, where "fix released" is "This one's done, next." [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:59:03] Hobbsee, I understand what Ubuntu developers have been taking the statuses to mean [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:59:22] What I don't understand is your "extra work" comment [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:59:37] that's true - "wontfix" is an invitation for someone to go "but i'd really like to see this fixed, i'm willing to do the work to fix it if no one else is" [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:59:38] owh, whoa, how did you do that [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:59:46] oh wait [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:59:48] mpt: Do what? [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:59:51] That *is* the new statuses [Wed Jun 20 2007] [14:59:57] but we can see only a subset of them [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:00:04] Notice how they have new names [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:00:06] mpt: the having to look up the upstream bug, link it, wait for the status of the upstream bug to update [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:00:36] Hobbsee, why would you have to do that any more than you do now? [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:01:31] mpt: because what happens now, for a lot of the time, at least for kde bugs, is that people go through, adn try to check if it still exists. often, it'll have been fixed in a later vesrion, so they'll mark it as fix released, instead of rejected [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:01:52] mpt: As I understand Hobbsee's point, if we use Won't Fix as you suggest, then we need to document why. If the fix is released, it doesn't matter. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:02:50] hrmm [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:02:52] Hobbsee: Is that what you mean, or should I not put words in your mouth? [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:03:10] as in, "hey, whaddya mean it won't be fixed"? [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:03:12] owh: kidna. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:03:23] mpt: Yes. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:03:25] mpt: yeah. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:03:36] This is why I wanted to call the status "Won't Fix *Here*" [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:03:40] Hobbsee: Does it have prickles this kidna of yours? [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:03:42] (back when I still wanted it at all) [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:04:01] owh: Heheh. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:04:02] "Won't Fix" will really confuse some users [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:04:03] but I guess even that wouldn't have resolved all the confusion [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:04:19] mpt: From my perspective, fix released means that the fix exists, it will come when it comes. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:04:19] I still think SEP is better :P [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:04:36] owh: No, that is *not* what Fix Released means. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:04:41] i think wontfix should be only used for things of "we dont want to fix this for whatever reason, but acknowledge that it's a bug" [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:04:42] Fujitsu: ROTFL, I chocked on that. Bad. Coughing and spluttering. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:04:48] * Hobbsee ROFL's at Fujitsu [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:05:01] SEP rocks.k [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:05:09] Well, *cough*, Fix Released wasn't intended to be used the way Ubuntu developers use it either [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:05:09] * owh agrees. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:05:23] mpt: yeah, true that. we've had arguments on that already :P [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:05:49] Version tracking would make that practical. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:05:49] So, really what we're up against is that there are multiple understandings of what the status flag means. Perhaps this is the real problem. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:05:52] I regret to say I was a bit of an architecture astronaut back then [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:05:54] (as well as generally being useful) [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:06:08] overestimating the status-flipping people would be interested in doing [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:06:40] Gah, about to be dragged out by my hair, apparently. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:06:46] but I'm cured now [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:06:50] of course... [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:06:57] it was beaten out of you? [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:07:04] mpt: Wouldn't it be fair to say that the status gets flipped when people think something's changed, that is more information became available? [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:07:13] the "i can change the status of any bug assigned to me" would solve the "being able to mark as fix released" problem. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:07:44] owh, I don't know what you mean, unless you're referring to the Incomplete status in particular [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:08:07] mpt: No, you said "overestimating the status-flipping people would be interested in doing", that's what I was responding to. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:08:08] ajmitch, I beat it out of myself :-) Nowadays I think there should be five bug statuses [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:08:24] mpt: [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:08:24] Another workflow example that requires this is a member of bugsquad [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:08:24] who discovers that a bug in a package pulled directly from Debian has [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:08:24] been fixed in a newer version, and needs to set the status to "Fix [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:08:24] Released" with a comment indicating the version in which it is fixed. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:08:26] also occurs [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:09:05] ah, versions [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:09:36] owh, sorry, I still don't understand [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:11:07] mpt: Perhaps I don't understand what you mean when you say "overestimated the status flipping", How else do you expect people to flip the status? Are there processes that you envisaged that are not being used or that we don't know about? [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:13:07] owh, I mean, I overestimated the time which people would be interested in spending on changing the status of bug reports [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:13:15] for example [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:13:17] ROTFL [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:13:24] mpt: Sorry. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:13:38] mpt: They don't want to spend any time at all:) [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:13:41] the original idea was that when a bug was fixed in the development version (e.g. Gutsy) it would be marked Fix Committed [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:13:57] Sure [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:14:04] then when Gutsy was released as 7.10, all those Fix Committed bugs would be changed to Fix Released [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:14:09] but that's infeasible [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:14:30] that's just painful [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:14:34] Yeah, my understanding of Fix Committed is that it's been sent to the queue. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:14:36] as we tend to use committed for other stuff [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:14:46] largely because we don't have mass status changing, but only largely, not completely [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:15:01] because in that case, there's no easy to tell difference between "fixed in bzr, or upstream somewhere, and fixed in the archive" [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:15:06] partly because people just wouldn't be bothered [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:15:11] mpt: Mass status changing is a ****VERY**** bad idea IMHO. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:15:26] maybe [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:15:33] Mass other-stuff changing is needed [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:15:41] er, we still have confirmed in there? [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:15:42] (e.g. mass milestone targeting) [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:16:07] * Hobbsee cant actually see the use case for a separate confirmed, when there's a triaged [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:16:07] Hobbsee: Yup, I see that too. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:16:30] At the moment I understood it to mean "Me too" [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:16:47] "Triaged - may only be set by a bug contact" [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:16:48] s/it/Confirmed/ [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:16:52] (that's from the spec) [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:17:14] so anyone can mark as Confirmed, only bug contacts can mark as Triaged [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:17:14] mpt: How is a bug contact defined? [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:17:25] owh: people subscribed to the bugs of a package [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:17:29] owh: can be a person or team [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:18:32] then again... [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:18:42] So, the sequence is New -> Need Info -> Confirmed -> Triaged -> In Progress -> Fixed. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:18:56] by assigning to yourself, you're saying that you are taking responsiblity of the bug. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:19:11] Yeah, that's what I understood it to be. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:19:17] in which case, you should be able to set whatever you like. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:19:22] and it's yoru fault if you get it wrong. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:19:24] * owh agrees. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:19:28] Yup [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:19:47] * owh hands all bugs over to Hobbsee [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:19:49] :) [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:20:00] which only has an inconvenient side effect of getting lots of bugmail from them. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:20:26] owh: heh. i have enough, being on the kubuntu council [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:20:29] As a non group member, I do not expect to be able to set the Status to "Fix Released", but currently I can. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:20:36] owh, you missed Todo [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:20:45] Hobbsee: See, you should have stayed with Gnome :) [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:20:54] owh: i cant stand gnome. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:21:02] mpt: Yeah, between Triaged and In Progress [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:21:04] mpt: TODO isnt there [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:21:08] Hobbsee: I put up with it. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:21:20] mpt: Indeed, Hobbsee makes a fair point :) [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:21:20] Hobbsee, it is for "developers" [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:21:34] mpt: which is, sorry? [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:21:43] mpt: I'm a developer. I download source, play with it, fix stuff. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:21:46] mpt: developers != the people in ~ubuntu-dev. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:21:59] mpt: That's the real problem. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:21:59] mpt: developers > the people in ~ubuntu-dev. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:22:11] s/>/>>>/ [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:22:22] huh [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:22:29] you're right [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:22:37] I don't see Todo for a bug report about Launchpad itself [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:22:40] that's very strange [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:22:55] :) [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:23:02] it's saying "TOO MANY STATUSES. NO MORE! [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:23:40] Hobbsee: What about a slider, you know between borked and fixed :) [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:23:53] well [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:23:55] haha [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:24:10] I'm not sure if I can really see a case where a status should be tied to a group [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:24:14] Infinite status. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:24:34] seems to me like all status's should be available to everybody [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:24:48] Yup, I was just about to write that :) [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:25:42] do we have a reason for making only some statuses available to some poeple? [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:25:48] LaserJock: Is there an argument for giving "fix released" to everyone? I wouldn't feel comfortable with that flag, I'm not privileged to add stuff, just tell people about it. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:26:02] LaserJock: so that the odd few people cant abuse it. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:26:05] * owh expects to make a fix, attach it, then tell someone. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:26:18] owh: why not? [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:26:25] Hobbsee: so? [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:26:34] we let people do things all the time [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:26:37] LaserJock: i'm not saying it's a good one - that's jsut the reason [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:26:41] afaik [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:26:55] the whole wiki is open to anyone, why not the bug tracker [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:27:02] LaserJock: Well, I didn't think I should have the privilege to add a fix to the queue, so I shouldn't be able to mark it Fixed either. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:27:06] as long as they can't really mess something up [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:27:25] owh: why? if you fixed something you should be able to mark it as such [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:27:54] if people are doing the work they should be able to show it [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:28:08] LaserJock: Sure, but how is that taken care of in terms of uploading a fix that does something evil. Or am I missing your point? [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:28:12] uploading is the only thing that really separates devs from non-devs [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:28:18] and that's soyuz, not malone ;-) [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:28:52] owh: I'm saying, the only difference, where bug reports are concerned, is that I can acutually upload and you can't [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:29:11] but you can do the work, you can do the triaging, you can do everything but upload [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:29:30] LaserJock: Works for me. Of course you could mark a bug as fixed when it has not been though. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:29:38] sure [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:29:43] people make mistakes [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:29:53] no biggie, we learn and move on [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:30:26] I'm afraid if we start saying "No we don't trust you" then nobody is going to want to help out [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:30:35] LaserJock: So, I'm a software developer, I have a whizz bang product that's buggy as all getup. It's packaged in Ubuntu. It gets bugs lodged against it, I come along and mark them all fixed. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:30:48] Hmm, I typed all that, then you came along with your comment. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:31:01] I agree. I'd rather live in a society where we do trust people. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:31:15] well, we get bugmail, say "hmm, we need to educate this guy a little", and you learn [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:31:37] I've rarely seen cases when a person continually messed stuff up [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:31:48] Yeah. Cool. All good. So, we give everyone all privileges, except upload. Works for me. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:32:05] well, that's essentially the case as it is now [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:32:11] * owh adds a snake in the grass. "What about Importance?" [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:32:17] Importance is the only thing that I'm aware of [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:32:37] and I don't know that many people really care about that ;-) [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:32:39] I don't use it [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:32:48] maybe some do [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:32:49] LaserJock: That's because you can't :) [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:32:53] sure I can [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:33:11] As a member of which team? [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:33:17] ubuntu-qa [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:33:31] Fair enough. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:34:00] Well now that we've solved that... [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:34:08] * mpt just happens to come across a Launchpad bug that some random stranger has assigned to him-/her-self [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:34:17] heh [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:34:22] yes, it happens occasionally [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:34:23] people were routinely abusing Importance (*every* bug I report is important) [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:34:40] bug 2553 [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:34:40] Launchpad bug 2553 in launchpad "Can't edit group wiki page details" [Medium,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/2553 - Assigned to Jijo Baby (jijobaby) [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:34:43] mpt: So, can we all have all Status options, or will we have to wait for that? [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:35:04] mpt: Ask jijobaby for a status report :) [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:35:04] owh, I don't know, sorry [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:35:23] well, my suggestion would be to work out workflows for developers (~ubuntu-dev) and non-developers [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:35:45] then figure out how statuses and permissions best suit the workflow [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:36:30] LaserJock: Well, as someone fixing stuff, I'd like to be able to show that I'm working on it, so someone smarter than I doesn't come along, fix something I've been working on for weeks and leaves me in the dust :) [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:36:32] I don't mind changing workflow, but I kinda dislike doing it willy-nilly and I want to make sure non-developers are accounted for [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:37:05] LaserJock: I can see that I'm picking up more bugs, so marking them as ToDo would be great for my personal workflow. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:39:05] mpt: oh neat. that's a changed assignee, and a spammed bug report [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:39:28] Hobbsee: From me? gphpedit? [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:39:40] owh: no, the bug mpt mentioned [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:40:10] Hobbsee: Sorry, I thought you were looking in your mailbox and noticing stuff from the staging server. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:40:14] nah [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:40:18] Quit neversfelde has left this server (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)). [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:40:36] i dont seem to have that yet, though [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:40:51] or else it's lost amongst all the other bugmail [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:41:30] Hobbsee: I don't have it either. If all works as it should, perhaps it won't generate email :) [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:42:02] I think a good "solution" (I don't even know the problem) is to allow assignee's and developers to change statuses freely [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:42:19] and allow anybody to assign themselves [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:42:24] Yup. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:42:32] Quit jsgotangco has left this server ("Ex-Chat"). [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:42:37] LaserJock: +1 [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:42:49] guess we'll need to wait for input from the powers that be, though [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:43:20] * owh thought that LaserJock was the Master of the Universe. Perhaps the Universe is smaller than I thought :) [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:43:39] owh: he's a core dev, too [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:43:55] Hobbsee: :) [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:44:48] He is now. Incidentally, congratulations LaserJock :) [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:45:16] * owh wanders off for a late lunch. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:45:34] * ajmitch now grovels before LaserJock [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:45:38] bah [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:46:10] thanks RAOF [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:53:39] good morning [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:54:32] morning BjornT, welcome to the blood bath. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:55:17] hi Hobbsee :) [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:55:20] BjornT, would you be ok with making the BugWorkflow spec public? If so, who else should be consulted? [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:55:42] Join jsgotangco has joined this channel (n=jsg123@ubuntu/member/jsgotangco). [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:55:42] mpt: what was the problem with makign it public in the first place? [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:55:51] it's hardly hiding IP or something. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:56:06] and it affects non-LP pepole greatly [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:56:14] Hobbsee, no problem in particular, it's just that Launchpad specs are on a private wiki so there's an assumption of privacy [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:56:21] Join Prognatus_ has joined this channel (n=bjorn@2.80-203-143.nextgentel.com). [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:56:28] mpt: i'm ok with it, but i guess kiko-zzz or SteveA should approve make it public. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:56:31] ok [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:57:06] mpt: this is true - but is there a process for going "this is going to effect a lot of people, maybe we should make thsi public?" [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:57:14] no [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:57:26] well [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:57:54] This is the sort of thing mrevell would do [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:57:57] announce it in advance [Wed Jun 20 2007] [15:58:49] though that would be announcing that it was going to happen, rather than publicizing it for discussion [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:00:34] mpt: do you think it should be discussed? [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:01:24] as in, do you think people should be able to have their say on something's that's greatly influencing them? i know the ubuntu devs who were at UDS had a fair bit to say about it, even when it was only sprung on them for discussion about an hour before the discussion started? [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:01:41] and changed how some of this worked, iirc [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:03:17] mpt: mrevell is working on an announcement, and i see that he's already talked to heno about it (who announced it to the bug squad). [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:04:22] Hobbsee: tbh, this spec has been discussed for a year now. discussing it another year won't take us anywhere. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:04:46] Hobbsee, leave me out of this :-) [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:04:57] BjornT: true. unless the discussion was useful, and actually got things done [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:06:47] Hobbsee: it's hard to guarantee a useful discussion, though :) the fact that it has been going on for a year should mean that we're going around in circles. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:07:10] well, the discussion has not included a public spec [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:07:13] it's hard to know [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:07:13] BjornT: that is true. did the sevilla discussion actually do antyhign thoguh? [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:07:22] Hobbsee: now we're actually do get things done, by implementing something ;) i suggest we try it out and see what we can learn from it. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:07:43] BjornT: but we don't know what's supposed to be done, IMO [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:07:54] LaserJock: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/BugWorkflow [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:08:06] we just got an email like "tomorrow bug workflow and permissions are going to change" [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:08:16] BjornT: i'm just wondering WTF to do now that the sponsoring procedure is screwed, and how the people are not going to be able to step on other people's toes, as there's now no way to mark a non-dev as fixing a bug. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:08:47] BjornT: heah, thanks for that [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:08:48] BjornT: if you have a solution for how to fix that problem, which isnt "oh, make a developer do it, like with importance", then i'd greatly like to hear about it. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:08:50] Hobbsee: how does this affect the sponsoring procedure? [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:09:45] because the people being sponsored use those statuses [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:09:49] BjornT: because non-devs now cant assign bugs to themselves,and mark it in progress, to say "i'm fixing this" [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:10:02] where non-devs == people not in ~ubuntu-dev [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:10:12] Hobbsee: yes they can [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:10:28] so, let me tell you what's going to happen [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:10:31] BjornT: they can now, and they still can when the roll out is being done? [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:10:41] Hobbsee: yes [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:10:42] in fact, many people who fix bugs now can't get to Triaged even [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:11:02] if the chart on BugWorkFlow is right [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:11:09] i'm only going off what's been put on the devel-discuss mailing list, because as you may have noticed, the spec isnt public. so everything's second/third/fourth/fifth hand here. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:11:17] some statues will simply be renamed. Unconfirmed -> New, Needs Info -> Incomplete [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:11:24] BjornT, why can't I see "Todo" on Launchpad bugs on staging? Will that status be introduced later? [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:11:38] and Rejected will be split off into Invalid and Won't Fix [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:11:43] that much is fine, yes [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:12:05] Only the ubuntu bug contact (i.e. the QA team) will be able to set a bug to Won't Fix [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:12:05] BjornT: the status changes aren't the problem, the problem is the permissions on who gets to change them [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:12:38] there's also a new status: Triaged, which only the bug contact may set [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:12:42] and that's it [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:12:54] Todo will be introduced at a later stage [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:13:03] ah [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:13:10] all other statuses will be the same, including their permissions [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:13:23] ok, so will anybody be able to set In Progress, Fix * ? [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:13:32] Quit Prognatus__ has left this server (Read error: 113 (No route to host)). [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:13:46] the main idea is that it should be easy to join the bug squad, and they will basically use New, Incomplete, and Confirmed [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:14:06] BjornT: where the bug squad is for triaging? [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:14:22] after they have made sure that the bug reports are good bug reports, they will move the bug to Confirmed [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:14:54] since anyone can set a bug to Confirmed, it's hard to know about the "quality" of the triaging [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:15:26] so now the QA team can look at all the Confirmed bugs, and move the good ones to Triaged (so that a developer can look at it), or move it back to Incomplete [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:15:59] if the QA team sees that someone triages bugs well, they can promote him to the QA team, or something like that [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:16:04] ok, so this workflow seems ok for Main bugs or what I'd think of a traditional bugs [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:16:24] but it doesn't really seem to take into account the large amount of workflow "bugs" we do [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:16:38] i.e. sponsorship, archive admin'ing [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:16:43] LaserJock: yes, anyone will be albe to set In Progress, and Fix *. we didn't want to bother restricting those statuses [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:16:49] this seems that the number of people joining qa is going to be greatly increased [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:16:58] BjornT: oh good. that wasnt clear in the email [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:17:13] so people can mark a bug In Progress or Fix Released, but not Confirmed? [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:17:17] that's interesting :-) [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:17:22] LaserJock: s/confirmed/triaged/ [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:17:47] hmm, right, I thought confirmed was retained for something [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:18:05] so people can jump around "triaging" [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:18:08] yes [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:18:12] well, I guess that works [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:18:30] Hmm, so I'm an independent person. I know about my pet project. Can I set the status to Confirmed? [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:18:49] owh: yes you can [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:19:06] BjornT: I don't need to be a member of any team? [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:19:35] owh: no, anyone can set a bug to Confirmed [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:20:11] Hobbsee: i'll talk to mrevell to make sure that this is made clear in his announcement [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:20:20] BjornT: So, am I understanding correctly that a Triaged Bug is after Confirmed, but before ToDo/In Progress? [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:20:40] yes, because I think heno's email said that we'd have the full implementation like tomorrow [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:20:42] owh: triaged means "i have enough info, please someone fix me" [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:20:42] owh: that's right [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:20:54] BjornT: cool, thanks. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:21:10] So the spec we just saw at: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/BugWorkflow doesn't actually show "Confirmed" [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:21:46] In fact it says: rename "Confirmed" -> "Triaged" [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:21:52] it also seems to indicate that only developers will be able to set In Progress and ToDO [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:23:27] the design seems to separate the statuses into ones for "triagers" and "developers" [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:23:54] however I don't see how we are going to really be able to separate/define those groups well enough for restrictions [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:24:09] The spec also says: "Add a QA team to products and distributions. If a QA team is set, normal users can only use a restricted set of bug statuses." [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:24:30] That contradicts what BjornT just told us. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:24:38] owh: yeah, the page is a but outdated. here's what we drew up at UDS: http://people.ubuntu.com/~bjorn/bug-workflow.png [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:26:24] owh: that wiki page (on wiki.ubuntu.com) is the old discussion, which got a bit out of control. it doesn't describe exactly what will be done. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:27:04] Join allenap has joined this channel (n=allenap@212.233.38.45). [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:27:59] So, the only status that the bug-squad has "extra" is Triaged, all other status flags can be set by anyone (either the assignee, or a ubuntu-dev) ? [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:28:50] BjornT: Or can anyone set anything? [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:30:31] owh: well, it's ubuntu-qa that has Triaged extra, and they also have Won't Fix. all other statuses can be set by anyone (Todo will be restricted as well, but we won't add it until later) [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:32:09] BjornT: So, if I am aware of a bug and I can fix it, but I've got a few other bugs as well, and I'm not a ubuntu-dev, I cannot set a bug I've assigned to myself as "ToDo", so I can manage my own workflow? [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:33:58] owh: you have to set it to inprogress, and assign yourself [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:34:09] owh: well, that won't be a problem atm, since we haven't added Todo. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:34:25] BjornT: I'm just looking into the future. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:34:42] Hobbsee: Yes, but inprogress implies that I'm doing something does it not? [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:34:43] owh: after you've fixed it, how will you get the fix uploaded to the ubuntu archive? [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:34:57] BjornT: subscribing ubuntu-universe-sponsors [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:35:01] BjornT: I ask a friend :) [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:35:02] BjornT: and following that procedure [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:35:52] BjornT: The idea being that I as an external person can do everything except upload. That means I can help easier without adding to someone else's workload. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:35:54] Hobbsee: would it be feasible to ask ubuntu-universe-sponsors to set the bug to Todo for owh? [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:36:09] BjornT: um...not really. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:36:43] BjornT: because ubuntu-universe-sponsors is only for getting your stuff uploaded - it's not for requests of help, or antyhing else [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:36:46] just like ubuntu-archive is [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:37:07] we make that very clear, else people file bugs saying "this needs a merge, please do it" or similar, and subscribe us [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:37:36] Quit lfittl has left this server (Read error: 54 (Connection reset by peer)). [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:40:04] Hobbsee: ok. is there a wiki page describing this process? [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:41:37] BjornT: somewhat. https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Sponsorship/SponsorsQueue [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:41:44] Quit jsgotangco has left this server ("Ex-Chat"). [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:41:45] BjornT: it's still a bit of a WIP [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:41:51] but it's what we're using at the moment [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:42:06] it's very easy to flood the sponsors queue - so making them to as little extra work as possible is good [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:46:21] Hobbsee: ok. i'll have to think about how that would work with a new (restricted) Todo status. [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:46:27] BjornT: right [Wed Jun 20 2007] [16:46:31] but now, it's time for breakfast