Patch Pilot report 2010-12-08

[Dustin Kirkland]

I was on Patch Pilot duty today, and found it to be a nice way to
spend most of the day.  I applaud those responsible for organizing
this effort and allocating time for us to work on it.

Here are my results:

LP: #497886
 - merge needed a little cleanup, had to repack the orig tarball,
fixed a minor/easy lintian warning about copyright encoding, uploaded
to natty

LP: #576949
 - sponsored/uploaded to lucid-proposed for SRU, straightforward, easy enough

LP: #627272, #575019, #534629, #572271, #574443, #575152, #625105,
#591893, #621980
 - needs fixing; two SRU merge proposals (lucid & maverick) for
likewise, huge patches (958 & 1427 lines), fix 9 bugs, none of the
bugs have SRU statements, will review again once those SRU statements
are in place for each bug, advised that in the future, SRUs can go a
little smoother

LP: #677998
 - fix looks good, ubuntu-dev doesn't have commit rights on the target
branch, couldn't get the orig.tar.gz created, unsubscribing
ubuntu-sponsors for now, contacted ubuntu-doc, noted this in my review

LP: #682153
 - patch was simple/clean/good, built and tested, works and looks
better here, sponsored and pushed
 - however, seb128 raised an issue with my sponsoring this bug in IRC,
noting that I should have talked to the DX team first;  my bad (I
thought it was pretty straightforward);  perhaps we need some notes in
the PatchPilot wiki page on what to do about design issues?

LP: #685860
 - this one is hard/messy, proposed branch has conflicts, not ready
for sponsoring, marked incomplete, unsubscribed ubuntu-sponsors,
subscribed myself, will take another look if someone can clean up the
conflicts
 - author pinged me in IRC saying that there shouldn't be conflicts
with his debdiff;  I ran out of time today before having a chance to
take a second look, sorry.

Dustin Kirkland