Timezone UTC+1

[19:02] <asac> ok. agenda is
[19:03] <asac> i pushed "firefox 2 archive removal" to top ;)
[19:03] <asac> because mdke is blocked on it
[19:03] <asac> mdke wants to cleanup ubuntu-docs and remove all those complicated alternatives
[19:04]  * mdke nods
[19:04] <asac> which where introduced initially to all localized homepages
[19:04] <asac> s/where/were/
[19:04] <mdke> I'm right that firefox doesn't use those alternatives anymore right?
[19:04] <asac> mdke: yes. firefox without ubufox has the official mozilla homepage
[19:04] <Volans> asac: actually in FF3 how the localized Start Pages are managed?
[19:04] <asac> ubufox uses his own mechanism to detect the language
[19:05] <mdke> and whether the user is online/offline
[19:05] <asac> Volans: ubufox uses the preferred language and finds the right page automatically
[19:05] <asac> note: this is only an issue for the "offline" page. the online page uses the same "preferred language" on the webserver side
[19:06] <Volans> yes, I know
[19:06] <Volans> so ubufox have the translated page itself or open the one provided by the ubuntu-doc package?
[19:06] <asac> Volans: does this clarify a bit how it works?
[19:07] <mdke> Volans: the latter
[19:07] <asac> Volans: right. the code is
[19:07] <Volans> ok, thanks
[19:07] <mdke> ok, back to the agenda item - what are the issues over removing firefox-2?
[19:07] <asac> 7-36
[19:07] <asac> i think the only issue i can see would be that some extensions are not available
[19:08] <asac> thats true for, but what is more important here is that - afaik - we also have some extension packages
[19:08] <asac> which then would need to be removed
[19:08] <asac> Jazzva: do you know how many are left?
[19:08] <Jazzva> I think there might be few of them... 2-3
[19:09] <Jazzva> asac, I'll check them after the meeting
[19:09] <asac>
[19:09] <asac> thats the list of rdepends
[19:09] <asac> ok.
[19:09] <asac> so would be be ok in case there is really an extension that still doesnt have 3.0 support?
[19:10] <Jazzva> huh?
[19:11] <asac> can we decide whether we will remove firefox-2 without looking at the extension list?
[19:11] <Jazzva> those that don't have ff-3.0 support would be removed. there are only 2 or 3 which don't support ff-3.0, iirc
[19:11] <asac> or should we postpone decision based on what extension packages we find are not upgradable
[19:11] <asac> Jazzva: right. maybe those even have new upstream version
[19:11] <Jazzva> yep... I'll go through the list to see...
[19:11] <Volans> asac: but removing FF2 means that a user cannot still install it via apt?
[19:12] <asac> Volans: yes.
[19:12] <asac> Volans: but its outdated and we wont be able to provide security support
[19:12] <Volans> of course
[19:13] <asac> ok. so firefox-2 will most likely be removed?
[19:13] <Volans> in this case I think that the extension compatibility checks is not fundamental, is an "obsolete" version of a program
[19:13] <asac> can we say that or does anyone object?
[19:13] <Jazzva> fine with me...
[19:13] <fta2> i agree (drop ff2)
[19:13] <asac> good.
[19:13] <mdke> yay
[19:13] <asac> [ACTION] remove ffox 2 from archive as well as extensions that cannot be upgraded
[19:14] <mdke> perhaps someone could poke me when that is done
[19:14] <mdke> or nudge, whatever is preferred
[19:14] <asac> mdke: do you have any deadline?
[19:14] <mdke> asac: nope, although I wouldn't want to do anything too close to release, in case I break a path or something
[19:15] <asac> mdke: in worst case i would suggest that you remove the alternatives. if people complain you can point them that mozillateam will remove that package anyway
[19:15] <asac> mdke: so imo you can just go ahead. or do you see any problems with that?
[19:15] <mdke> ah ok. If there will be no possible further upload of mozilla-firefox-locale-all, then I can remove the alternatives now
[19:15] <asac> mdke: have you asked Riddell about konqueror?
[19:15] <asac> mdke: right. those will be removed for sure
[19:15] <mdke> asac: I tried konqueror, it does it's own thing. And I posted to -devel, but I might ask him too to be sure
[19:16] <asac> mdke: right.
[19:16] <asac> ok moving on?
[19:16] <asac> [TOPIC] abrowser rdepends transition
[19:17] <asac> abrowser has its own metapackage which basically means that packages that currently depend on firefox cannot be installed with abrowser
[19:17] <asac> so what we need to do is to look at all rdepends of "firefox" package. and add a | abrowser there
[19:17] <asac> firefox-3.0 rdepends should be fine though and dont need any action
[19:18] <asac> fta: you think you have time to help here? e.g. uploading a batch of universe packages? should take like 2 minutes for each package - though there is always the risk that an upload might suddenly not build anymore ... but we would like to know about them anyway
[19:18] <fta> agreed
[19:19] <fta> asac, it's simpler than the other project so yes, i should able to help here
[19:19] <fta> +be
[19:20] <asac> fta: i think we could just go through the list and if we work together it should take 1h or so
[19:20] <Volans> asac: I can help with some extensions if you want (like mine and others of needed)
[19:20] <asac> fta: so when you think you have 1h time just ping me and we can upload everything
[19:20] <fta> asac, oh, you want to do that manually ?
[19:20] <asac> fta: well. i think it just takes 1h or even less
[19:21] <fta> ok
[19:21] <asac> not sure if we want to develop something
[19:21] <asac> Volans: thats good. extensions need be updated too
[19:21] <asac> most likely we could go through all branches and add firefox everywhere
[19:22] <asac> err abrowser ;)
[19:22] <fta> asac, I'll sure ping you when i have some time
[19:22] <asac> [ACTION] asac and fta to add abrowser to all firefox rdepends and upload; everyone to help updating extension branches
[19:23] <asac> [TOPIC] Mozilla Freeze Exceptions
[19:23] <asac> is there anything we want to get in that needs a freeze exception?
[19:24] <Volans> all those rebuilding in order to add abrowser need some exception?
[19:24] <asac> Volans: no.
[19:24] <fta> we discussed ff3.1 already, is it still a no-go ?
[19:24] <asac> Volans: those are bugs ... not a feature so can be fixed all the time
[19:24] <Volans> right
[19:25] <asac> fta: not sure. my idea is to say that in case 3.1 beta is released before intrepid we should upload it
[19:25] <fta> mozclient: i want to extend it a little bit so we can put project files inside packages instead of m-d
[19:25] <asac> but i am open to other ideas ;)
[19:25] <Jazzva> asac, will we upload extensions that have updates, if the version we currently have only support ff2?
[19:25] <fta> it should help downstream
[19:25] <asac> Jazzva: yes. we can surely provide exceptions for those
[19:26] <asac> fta: thats ok. cant that even be sold as a bug?
[19:26] <Jazzva> cool :)
[19:26] <fta> asac, if someone files one, sure :)
[19:26] <asac> fta: most likely the currently supported packages will still be maintained in moclient?
[19:26] <asac> fta: ok. we can get kgoetz to file one i think
[19:27] <asac> fta: but in the end i dont really mind if we have a bug or not
[19:27] <Jazzva> asac, fta: I read something about wmmode being fixed in some newer ff release. did we upload that?
[19:27] <asac> fta: its just that if we release it as 0.10.1 its a bug fix release ;)
[19:27] <asac> Jazzva: whatis wmmode?
[19:27] <asac> transparent (for plugins)?
[19:27] <fta> asac, possible, i'll find a way to accommodate both (ie, files inside packages preferred over the ones in m-d)
[19:28] <asac> fta: right. for me that sounds like a bug and definitly doesnt need an exception ... we should just try to keep the diff minimal - if possible at all
[19:28] <asac> but i think the change shouldnt be intrusive
[19:28] <Jazzva> asac, I think it's a windowless mode for flash (and maybe other plugins). Firefox had a bug with it, which caused a lot of crashing before, but now it should be fixed
[19:28] <fta> Jazzva, it's fixed in 3.0.2 iirc
[19:29] <Jazzva> ok, just wanted to check if we uploaded that fix...
[19:29] <asac> Jazzva: are you using mozillateam firefox build?
[19:29] <fta> so it should be in since yesterday
[19:29] <Jazzva> asac, yes
[19:29] <asac> that should be 3.0.2
[19:29] <asac> fta: huh?
[19:29] <asac> fta: did they commit to 3.0.2 ?
[19:29] <XioNoX> The last build in ppa for hardy, don't work well with flash
[19:29] <fta> didn't they ? i didn't check
[19:30] <asac> i presumed that they were doing quality assurance ;)
[19:30] <fta> ok, so it's still not in (oops)
[19:30] <asac> fta: not sure. in case it landed in 3.0.3 we should try to cherry pick it
[19:30] <asac> for sure
[19:30] <Jazzva> asac, fta: 3rd blog post, that's where I read about it...
[19:30] <XioNoX> npviewer.bin keep crashing
[19:30] <asac> as 3.0.3 might be after intrepid and everyting that can mak eplugin crashes less likely is high-prio for us i think
[19:30] <asac> XioNoX: on amd64?
[19:31] <asac> XioNoX: that is libflashssupport which is still in ia32-libs ... -> that needs to be removed
[19:31] <Jazzva> asac, fta: Also here...
[19:31] <asac> [ACTION] file a bug about removing libflashssupport from ia32-libs
[19:31] <fta> asac, no, it has been committed upstream before 3.0.2, so 3.0.2 should be fine, in fact, people already reported that the 3.0.2~cvs version in my ppa was ok
[19:31] <asac> ^^ anyone wnats to do that?
[19:31] <asac> fta: ok good.
[19:31] <asac> fta: maybe thats why i dont see it here ;)
[19:32] <asac> XioNoX: can you try to manually remove and see if the crashes become less regularly?
[19:32] <Jazzva> asac, I can file a bug... that shouldn't be too much time-consuming... (exams)
[19:32] <asac> ;)
[19:32] <asac> Jazzva: thanks.
[19:32] <Jazzva> np
[19:33] <asac> ok ... i think we still can grant exceptions on demand.
[19:33] <asac> fta: 3.1 in intrepid. you think we could keep it updated for 6 month? (e.g. stable support)
[19:33] <asac> most likely people running that will upgrade to intrepid+1 anyway ... so saying that we provide updates for 6 month should be a good compromise
[19:34] <asac> fta: alpha 2 was just released right?
[19:35] <fta> the way i work now is to ppa build everything for intrepid and hardy so if someone agrees to test it, i can continue to build it for intrepid when it is released
[19:35] <asac> fta: ok cool. i can also help in time you really dont have time
[19:35] <Volans> asac: Alpha 2  19 August | Beta 1  Feature freeze. source:
[19:35] <asac> so with that i would like to see 3.1 in intrepid ;)
[19:36] <asac> fta: we should just take care that we get the branding right (e.g. use the branding upstream uses)
[19:36] <asac> and dont suggest that its 3.1 final in the menu
[19:36] <Volans> damn... that page was not updated after august 24, sorry
[19:37] <asac> Volans: i think alpha2 was released last week or something
[19:37] <asac> but i might be completely worng
[19:37] <Volans> in the nightly builds I see 3.1b1pre
[19:38] <fta> I still use "Minefield 3.1 Web browser" for the desktop file, but i wanted to jump to "Firefox 3.1" once b1 is out like we did for 3.0
[19:38] <asac> hmm
[19:39] <asac> fta: right. but alpha2 should be Shiretoko 3.1 Web browser i think
[19:39] <fta> in fact, i remember upstream did that, ie start calling 3.0 firefox instead of granparadiso starting to b1
[19:39] <asac> yep.
[19:39] <asac> i think we should use whatever they use. and thats shiretoko i guess for alpha2
[19:39] <fta> sure, fixed releases are call Shiretoko 3.1, hg snapshots are called Minefield
[19:39] <fta> called
[19:39] <asac> ah
[19:39] <asac> ok
[19:40] <asac> fta: but snapshots are always called minefields ... arent they?
[19:40] <fta> today yes, it's just a flag
[19:40] <asac> its just that b1 b2 and such are called "firefox" ;)
[19:40] <asac> ok cool
[19:41] <asac> fta: ok. then maybe upload the build that is supposed to go to intrepid and let me test. then we can just upload and hope that archive admin will except that we (the mozillateam) granted an exception for that ;)
[19:41] <asac> [ACTION] fta and asac try to get 3.1 alpha2 into the archive
[19:42] <asac> [ACTION] team report
[19:42] <asac> we had one for the extension team done by Jazzva :) ... great!
[19:43] <fta> alpha2, ok. should be easy. i guess we want it with abrowser-3.1 right, not as it was a few weeks ago in my branch ?
[19:43] <asac> i would really like to write a complete team report. and do that regularly.
[19:43] <Jazzva> asac, I should prepare one for august...
[19:43] <asac> usually i face the problem that i dont know what was done
[19:44] <fta> we may have SEAMONKEY_1_1_12_RELEASE late
[19:44] <asac> and wonder if we could have a wiki page or even a bot in irc channel where we can add all small actions
[19:44] <asac> we did
[19:44] <asac> so we can better do a report at the end of the month
[19:44] <fta> may as i'm not sure it's out yet or still in QA upstream
[19:45] <Jazzva> asac, IRC bot would be cool... it's easier to say "action: something", than editing a wiki page :)
[19:45] <asac> fta: true. but it doesnt require an exception because its also a security release
[19:45] <asac> Jazzva: yeah "done: i did this" ;)
[19:45] <asac> anyone knows a good bot?
[19:45] <asac> or just an irssi perl script maybe?
[19:46] <fta> grep :)
[19:46] <Seveas> a small perlscript hooked to editmoin? :)
[19:46] <Jazzva> it would be great if it could be done automatically, but i don't have an idea how to do that (collect all the information, if all the information is available)
[19:46] <asac> Seveas: how would that work?
[19:47] <Seveas> asac, not knowing irssi very well, I'd guess something like: script parses all lines, if it matches [action] oslt, it would add it to a wikipage via the editmoin tool
[19:48] <asac> Jazzva: well. i think what a list of a) uploads, b) commits and c) DONE: together should give a good picture for the one drafting the team report
[19:48] <asac> i think that it will need some manual editing and polishing anyway. its just that all the data would be in the right place
[19:48] <asac> Seveas: ah ok.
[19:49] <asac> so can we say that if you have done something (even its just a tiny task) just writing a short [DONE] ... line to the mozillateam channel would be ok?
[19:49] <Seveas> asac, a post-commit hook using editmoin, and a simple cronjob using launchpadlib that extracts commits/uploads will complete that report ;)
[19:49] <asac> Seveas: post-commit hook. how is that done in bzr?
[19:49] <Jazzva> asac, also not to over-use done tag. we don't want very log month reports, right? :)
[19:50] <asac> Jazzva: true.
[19:50] <Jazzva> s/log/long/
[19:50] <Seveas> asac, #bzr knows, I don't :)
[19:50] <asac> Jazzva: i think DONE for commits and uploads shouldnt be done
[19:50] <asac> only for things that cant be tracked otherwise
[19:50] <asac> (e.g. like reworking wiki, etc.)
[19:50] <Jazzva> mhm
[19:51] <asac> commits and uploads should be gathered automatically ... so a done wouldnt really be needed
[19:51] <asac> ok ... ill note
[19:53] <asac> [ACTION] asac to write down how to get items into the monthly reports and send that to mailing list/wiki
[19:53] <asac> i think i have enough ideas now how to do that ;)
[19:53] <asac> if anyone else wants to draft this, feel free to high-jack that item from me ;)
[19:53] <asac> ok ... i think we should skip the intrepid status for now
[19:54] <asac> or is there anything more general about our state for intrepid that hasnt been covered above?
[19:54] <asac> [TOPIC] check status of automatic update for extensions
[19:55] <fta> i guess there's no need to discuss about chrome, there's nothing usable for us so far
[19:55] <asac> Jazzva asked what the status auf the auto updates of extension branches is
[19:55] <asac> fta: right. i think its not relevant for intrepid
[19:55] <asac> fta: we should use PPAs until we get something usable
[19:56] <fta> ok
[19:56] <XioNoX> back
[19:56] <Jazzva> yes... iirc, fta's check-extensions script is pretty much usable, we have written a process how to do that, so now we only need to get it working, right?
[19:56] <asac> but we should bug jcastro about the chromium "master" project
[19:56] <XioNoX> connexion problems :(
[19:56] <asac> XioNoX: welcome back ;)
[19:56] <asac> XioNoX: topic is [TOPIC] check status of automatic update for extensions
[19:57] <XioNoX> ok, thx, I'll read the log later
[19:57] <asac> Jazzva: i think we are pretty much stuck right now
[19:57] <Jazzva> asac, stuck with?
[19:57] <asac> Jazzva: stuck aka "we only have check-extensions"
[19:58] <asac> and we have no plan what steps are next ;)
[19:58] <asac> but i would like to change that
[19:58] <fta> mostly my fault. I'm sorry, lack of time :(
[19:58] <Jazzva> hmm, I think we have a plan :). download newer extensions, unpack, push to branch, notify maintainer :)
[19:58] <asac> fta: thats ok. i think the idea was to write something quite powerful
[19:58] <fta> yes
[19:58] <asac> maybe we can find a less work intensive solution
[19:58] <asac> what would be needed to get something useful?
[19:59] <asac> Jazzva: right. but there are a few undefined variables in that game
[19:59] <asac> 1. where do we configure branches that are auto-updated?
[19:59] <Jazzva> branch names and how extension is packaged...
[19:59] <asac> actually 1. where and how do we configure branches that are auto-updated?
[20:00] <asac> 2. what upstreams do we support? xpi-med-(un)pack only?
[20:01] <asac> 3. how do we notify maintainer about a pending merge (i think that would be the launchpad merge feature, but we need to find out how to do that from a script)
[20:02] <asac> ok. so we have check-extensions
[20:02] <asac> now we need a download script i gues
[20:02] <asac> e.g. download xpi for extension A with version B
[20:03] <asac> fta: we get the latest available version for extensions through check-extension right?
[20:03] <Jazzva> yep... afaics, it should determine if it's packaged from xpi, or branched from cvs
[20:03] <fta> asac, yes, those in amo
[20:04] <asac> ok ... that means once we have the download script, we just need a high level script that goes through all xpi branches then downloads the latest xpi and uses med-xpi-unpack
[20:04] <asac> and then would have a script we could run to auto update?
[20:04] <asac> oh ... we also need a script to ask for merge
[20:05] <asac> fta: have you looked at launchpad 2.0 rpc api?
[20:05]  * asac wonders if they have a "merge request" operation
[20:05] <fta> not deeply enough yet, i just read blog entries about it.
[20:05] <asac> ok.
[20:06] <fta> seems a WIP to me
[20:06] <asac> [ACTION] write a script "download-xpi-from-amo <extension-name> <version>"
[20:07] <asac> [ACTION] write a script "request merge <branch1> <branch2>"
[20:07] <Volans> sorry, I have to go now, but I'm interested in the automatic update of extension task, I will read the log and I would like to help doing something
[20:07] <fta> the 2nd a feature already in LP
[20:08] <fta> +is
[20:08] <asac> [ACTION] write a high level script that assembles check-extension, download-xpi-from-amo and request-merge to automatically update upstream branches for extension branches that use the med-xpi orig structure
[20:08] <Jazzva> we also have , we could use those ideas
[20:08] <asac> fta: right. but we still need to programmatically trigger that feature i think
[20:08] <Jazzva> (branch naming and stuff)
[20:08] <fta> ok
[20:08] <fta> should be trivial
[20:09] <asac> Jazzva: yes. thats the document we should keep in mind when doing this
[20:09] <asac> but imo we should rather try to do something incomplete than do nothing, because its too much work to do at one time
[20:09] <Jazzva> i agree
[20:10] <asac> anything else on this topic?
[20:10] <Jazzva> i think we're done with it
[20:10] <asac> great.
[20:11] <asac> [TOPIC] anything else ;)
[20:11] <asac> maybe one more announce: fta is MOTU now ;)
[20:11] <fta> :)
[20:11] <Jazzva> yay, fta :D
[20:12] <fta> i have yet to upload something ;)
[20:12] <asac> fta: yeah ;) ... lets do the abrowser transition ;)
[20:12] <fta> sure
[20:13] <asac> oh. i have one more thing. i think we should look over all extensions and see if they a) have been updated in this cycle at all or b) if they can be updated.
[20:13] <asac> but i think that check-extension probably isnt enough?
[20:13] <asac> fta: does check-extnesions already check against intrepid?
[20:14] <Jazzva> asac, i can help with that too... i'll be totally free from 20-24 september
[20:14] <fta> it does your current dist
[20:15] <fta> Jazzva, lucky guy ;)
[20:15] <asac> Jazzva: great. is the list on the wiki page more or less complete?
[20:15] <asac> or are there still extensions in the archive that we dont track there?
[20:16] <Jazzva> asac, more or less... I think there might be few more that aren't maintained in bzr, and not tracked on the wiki
[20:16] <asac> ok
[20:17] <asac> do we explicitly add them to that list (and hence making them MT maintained) or is that ok to leave them in the limbo until we hear from them (e.g. because people point to bugs et al)
[20:18] <fta> most come from debian
[20:18] <asac> i think having a complete list would be nice. but its not really high prio from what i can tell. especially because most of those not listed on that page come from debian
[20:19] <Jazzva> well, I think we are still diverged from debian regarding extensions...
[20:19] <Jazzva> So, I think most of them are listed there... we don't get that much extensions...
[20:19] <Jazzva> asac, which reminds me... are we gonna get mozilla-devscripts to debian?
[20:20] <asac> good point. someone should file a RFP ;) ... then we can upload it with that bug number in changelog
[20:20] <Jazzva> great :)
[20:20] <asac> [ACTION] file RFP for mozilla-devscripts and get it into debian archive
[20:20] <fta> remember it's a native package
[20:21] <asac> fta: is that a problem?
[20:21] <asac> or do you mean that RFP is the wrong wording ;)?
[20:22] <fta> if we need to tweak it for debian, then native is probably not good
[20:22] <asac> [ACTION] asac to find out if initial uploads to debian strictly require a wnpp bug
[20:22] <asac> fta: hmm. we can have a branch ... which usually should be the same i think
[20:22] <asac> fta: we could handle debian as downstream
[20:22] <asac> e.g. merge down
[20:22] <fta> lol
[20:23] <asac> fta: ok. could you bake an initial release of latest mozilla-devscripts with a debian1 version?
[20:23] <asac> e.g. 0.10debian1
[20:23] <asac> hmm
[20:24] <fta> we have to blacklist it
[20:24] <asac> fta: actually i think we need to use ubuntu1 ... otherwise it will get auto-synched ;)
[20:24] <asac> [ACTION] blacklist mozilla-devscripts for auto-syncher/MoM
[20:25] <fta> 0.10~debian1 ?
[20:25] <asac> [ACTION] create debian branch with initial mozilla-devscript debian1 version
[20:25] <asac> fta: i think we should use 0.10debian1
[20:25] <fta> so debian is always behind ?
[20:25] <asac> it would be similar to what we do with debian packages
[20:25] <asac> when ubuntu is downstream
[20:25] <fta>        apt | 0.7.14ubuntu6 | intrepid/main Sources
[20:25] <asac> so imo the same logic should apply if debian is downstream
[20:26] <asac> fta: but i dont mind. actually we could also maintain it in debian and synch it from there to ubuntu
[20:26] <asac> fta: you can decide what you prefer
[20:26] <fta> but with 0.10debian1, debian will be ahead of us, then the merge/sync bot needs to blacklist it
[20:27] <asac> fta: right. thats what i mean. either we should use ubuntu1 i ubuntu or we should blacklist it
[20:27] <asac> fta: maybe ~debian1 is also an option to consider
[20:27] <asac> but i think we should either blacklist or maintain in debian
[20:28] <fta> i prefer the blacklist option, as i'm only on the debian side ;)
[20:28] <fta> -debian+ubuntu
[20:28] <asac> ok
[20:28] <asac> fta: we can add you as maintiner for the package in debian ... so you can directly upload there
[20:29] <asac> but lets start in the way you suggested
[20:29] <asac> ok, so the two actions above correctly reflect what we just discussed here right?
[20:29] <fta> yes
[20:29] <asac> 21:20 < asac> [ACTION] file RFP for mozilla-devscripts and get it into debian archive
[20:30] <asac> < asac> [ACTION] asac to find out if initial uploads to debian strictly require a wnpp bug
[20:30] <asac> < asac> [ACTION] blacklist mozilla-devscripts for auto-syncher/MoM
[20:30] <asac>  < asac> [ACTION] create debian branch with initial mozilla-devscript debian1 version
[20:30] <fta> ok
=== ubottu changed the topic of #ubuntu-meeting to: Calendar: | Logs: | 16 Sep 11:00: Community Council | 16 Sep 15:00: Server Team | 17 Sep 17:00: QA Team | 17 Sep 22:00: Platform Team | 18 Sep 00:30: ubuntu-pa LoCo Team | 18 Sep 12:00: Ubuntu Mobile Team
[20:30] <asac> those are the four actions related to mozilla-devscripts ;)
[20:30] <asac> ok ... anything else?
[20:30] <asac> otherwise i guess ubottu just told me that the meeting is over ;)
[20:31] <fta> fine with me, nothing more to add
[20:31] <asac> Jazzva: XioNoX: Volans ?
[20:31] <Jazzva> same here...
[20:32] <asac> ok. thanks! anyone wants to write minutes or is that supposed to be me this time? ;)
[20:32] <Jazzva> I can do it tomorrow, I think...
[20:33] <XioNoX> asac, nothing to add, exept if you have an idea of what i can do
[20:33] <Jazzva> see you in #ubuntu-mozillateam
[20:33] <asac> XioNoX: we have plenty of actions in this meeting
[20:33] <asac> we could look if anything suites you
[20:33] <asac> but lets talk about that in -mozillateam
[20:34] <asac> thanks all. nice meeting
[20:34] <XioNoX> ok good
[20:37] <fta> bye


MeetingLogs/Mozilla-2008-09-14 (last edited 2008-09-15 00:35:38 by cable-89-216-132-34)