Use "Available" not "Online" as IM status

Every status other than offline is online, so having a single status called "Online" doesn't make sense. "Available" FTW.

This bug was fixed in the package fast-user-switch-applet - 2.24.0-0ubuntu7

---------------
fast-user-switch-applet (2.24.0-0ubuntu7) jaunty; urgency=low

  * Added debian/patches/73_max_users_from_passwd.patch which makes it so
    there is a maximum of 15 users that can be read from the password file
    before going into overload mode. In that mode there are no users shown
    from the password files, only logged in users and an other that will
    take you back to GDM. Fixes LP: #203217
  * Added debian/patches/94_user_manager_signals.patch which adds removal
    of signals on shutdown. Each of these signals are invalid if they're
    called anywhere after this function.
  * Updated 90_status_management.patch to better handle removal of signals
    which should fix LP: #285797
  * Updated 84_session_management.patch to properly disconnect the signals
    related to the DBus events it is watching.
  * 90_status_management.patch: Changing 'Online' to 'Available' fixing
    LP: #279057
  * 90_status_management.patch: More work into handling the pixels around
    the applet. This will be the final version for how those pixels are
    handled, closing LP: #272824

 -- Ted Gould <email address hidden> Thu, 06 Nov 2008 12:48:15 -0600

Although I agree that it would be good to fix this in intrepid, too, it is a heavily visible string change. Can you please get the doc team's approval, or respectively them to update the documentation accordingly, if they have screenshots and documentation about fusa?

On Fri, 2008-11-07 at 13:51 +0000, Martin Pitt wrote:
> Although I agree that it would be good to fix this in intrepid, too, it
> is a heavily visible string change. Can you please get the doc team's
> approval, or respectively them to update the documentation accordingly,
> if they have screenshots and documentation about fusa?

I e-mailed the ubuntu-docs mailing list and the only response was from
someone new who said that he didn't believe that the documentation was
up-to-date with the Intrepid version anyway. No one else disagreed so I
believe this is a safe update to make.

Accepted into intrepid-proposed, please test and give feedback here. Please see https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Testing/EnableProposed for documentation how to enable and use -proposed. Thank you in advance!

Please don't forget to update PO template, allowing translators to translate the new string "Available".

I don't know if you have to warn some mailing list for string change.

I consider substituting a very visible translated string with an unstranslated one for such a minor fix a clear regression.

Before doing such changes, please consider:

* Notifying the ubuntu-translators list about string changes, otherwise it is nearly impossible for translators to know there is a new string until it suddenly appears untranslated on the desktop.

* Releasing the fix short before a language-pack is released, so that it appears translated as soon as possible.

So please, consider waiting for this to go to intrepid-updates (or splitting 90_status_management.patch) until the translators have been notified about the string, have at least translated it and a language-pack update has been scheduled. I'll let the other translators know on the ubuntu-translators list.

Thanks.

This update has been in intrepid-proposed for over three months, without any testing feedback. Can anyone please test this version and tell us whether it still works normally, and this bug is fixed for you? Thanks!

I believe my previous comment can be considered as feedback.

Having the intrepid-proposed enabled and having installed the update, I can only say this will still be a regression until a new Intrepid langpack is released with the string translations.

Otherwise users will suddenly get a new untranslated (and very visible) string with the update.

I removed the current f-u-s-a from intrepid-proposed. Breaking translations and changing the UI is really not acceptable for a stable update, and I'm sorry that I got talked into and accepted this into -proposed at all.