Oct 2319:32:30<tymofiy>hi, Pike
Oct 2319:32:46<tymofiy>check out this one, please: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=400656
Oct 2319:33:44*pascalc вийшов (Quit: bye)
Oct 2319:35:20*toniher вийшов (Ping timeout)
Oct 2319:36:17<Pike>I did, it's just not clear who's going to move the flag out to .10. .9 is going to be a regression fix release for stuff we borked in .8, and is going to be just that. Folks are just eager to not regress more on the current relbranch
Oct 2319:37:03*smontaguZZZ тепер називається smontagu
Oct 2319:38:19<tymofiy>how can a l10n regress something other than it? Call at a beta if people are unsure if it is ok, but please do not hold it back for one or two months more...
Oct 2319:39:32<tymofiy>I see build guys just subscribing and not telling 'no way', they seem just to be waiting for your approval.
Oct 2319:40:24<tymofiy>so far no one who tried nightly complained, but talks 'why no official still' are heard day after day
Oct 2319:40:30*Cedric (Cedric@moz-DB8A7FF8.w90-36.abo.wanadoo.fr) зайшов на канал #l10n
Oct 2319:40:42*timr (timr@moz-334F2010.mountainview.mozilla.com) зайшов на канал #l10n
Oct 2319:40:42*ChanServ надав права напівоператора timr
Oct 2319:41:59<Pike>tymofiy: I can ask Mike Schroepfer to do the a-, if that helps. He did it on the release-drivers mailing list where I raised the issue, as did Mike Beltzner
Oct 2319:42:44*Frederic (Frederic@moz-8BD41A5C.w90-24.abo.wanadoo.fr) зайшов на канал #l10n
Oct 2319:43:41<Pike>tymofiy: .8 is full of regressions that are hard to understand, and that shouldn't have slipped ten-thousands of testers over a week of its beta period, yet it did regress a bunch of popular websites
Oct 2319:44:23<Pike>ah, beltzner actually did move the flag while we're talking
Oct 2319:44:38<Pike>hi cedric
Oct 2319:44:49<Cedric>hi Pike
Oct 2319:44:55*Benoit (benoua@moz-932C7B.adsl-dyn.isp.belgacom.be) зайшов на канал #l10n
Oct 2319:45:36*Benoit- вийшов (Ping timeout)
Oct 2319:45:58<tymofiy>I see.
Oct 2319:46:17<tymofiy>what date was intended for 2.0.0.9 now to be 10?
Oct 2319:47:01<Pike>Cedric: I guess you saw the bugmail that Gerv resolved the Breton bug INCOMPLETE, and I wanted to check in with you if you had any more recent feedback from Giulia. I recall that you wrote the langpack converter script mostly for here, just didn't see her using it, I guess?
Oct 2319:47:39<Cedric>No, unfortunately, no more news for weeks :\
Oct 2319:47:55<juanb>tymofiy, we'd like to ship 2009 as early as next week.
Oct 2319:48:12<Pike>tymofiy: 4-6 weeks after .8, I don't think we have a real date for it, just that there's no intention to push out .10 due to .9
Oct 2319:48:47<juanb>and now, as Pike says, .10 will be at least 6 weeks after 2009
Oct 2319:48:56*toniher (toniher@moz-A954894C.static.jazztel.es) зайшов на канал #l10n
Oct 2319:50:37<tymofiy>sad.
Oct 2319:50:39<Pike>juanb: well, after .9 or after .8? beltzner's comment in bug 400656 indicates .8
Oct 2319:53:05<juanb>Pike, it has taken 6-8 weeks to ship security releases with the number of fixes that 2008 had, for example. so 2.0.0.10 would take at least 6 weeks after we ship 2009.
Oct 2319:53:48<tymofiy>and, while we are on it, can you approve 2.0.0.10 in that bug?
Oct 2319:53:54<Pike>Cedric: 'k, thanks
Oct 2319:54:01<Cedric>np
Oct 2319:59:28<Pike>wow, something odd just happened
Oct 2319:59:43<dveditz2>2.0.0.9 (now .10) was scheduled for December 10-15 or so. If it slips any that makes it January so we're likely to reduce the number of fixes rather than let it slip