[12:20] <dsas> sabdfl: filed as 93242
[12:26] <Ubugtu> New bug: #93242 in launchpad ""most active in" should contain links to the things i've been active in " [Undecided,Unconfirmed]  https://launchpad.net/bugs/93242
[02:37] <joejaxx> is there anyway to remove team members on launchpad?
[02:37] <joejaxx> or does deactivation count as that
[02:44] <Kmos> desactivate it :)
[02:45] <LaserJock> joejaxx: deactivation counts
[02:46] <joejaxx> oh ok :)
[02:46] <joejaxx> i did not know whether it did or not since there was a deactivation section
[02:47] <joejaxx> Kmos: LaserJock thanks :)
[02:49] <LaserJock> joejaxx: I think it mostly just makes it easier to see past member and reactivate people
[02:49] <LaserJock> I think
[02:49] <joejaxx> yeah
[02:57] <LaserJock> sabdfl: is it possible for MOTUs to see/test PPA some time?
[03:00] <mpt> Gooooooooooooooood afternoon Launchpadders!
[03:12] <joejaxx> mpt: :)
[03:19] <jml> mpt: glad you agree with me :)
[03:25] <mpt> jml, we have a similar problem on Bugs SERPS :-/
[03:37] <jml> mpt: SERPS?
[03:37] <jamesh> LaserJock: not for a while -- we haven't rolled it out for anyone yet
[03:38] <LaserJock> jamesh: is there any public info on it?
[03:38] <LaserJock> by chance
[03:39] <jamesh> LaserJock: not really
[03:39] <mpt> jml, search results pages
[03:39] <jml> mpt: ahh :)
[03:39] <jamesh> the initial testing will lilkely be post-feisty anyway
[03:39] <LaserJock> ah
[03:39] <LaserJock> ok
[03:39] <mpt> http://www.google.com/search?q=define:serp
[03:40] <jamesh> LaserJock: something about fiddling with the distro build daemon code just before a release gets people nervous for some reason
[03:41] <LaserJock> jamesh: I figured maybe there might be a seperate instance 
[03:41] <LaserJock> but yeah
[03:41] <LaserJock> make sense for sure
[03:42] <jamesh> LaserJock: you could probably get better answers out of cprov -- I'm just repeating the info I got from him
[03:42] <LaserJock> k
[03:42] <LaserJock> do you know if it's planned that teams can use it as well as individual people?
[03:50] <jamesh> LaserJock: yes.  That's the mechanism that will be used to let multiple people upload to a single PPA
[03:50] <LaserJock> and will the PPA repos be apt-gettable?
[03:50] <jamesh> yep
[03:51] <LaserJock> alright, thanks for the info
[03:51] <jamesh> (they wouldn't be too useful if you couldn't ...)
[03:51] <LaserJock> that's a good start
[03:51] <LaserJock> :-)
[03:51] <jamesh> LaserJock: it is essentially the same code that gets used to build Ubuntu
[03:51] <LaserJock> ah
[03:52] <jamesh> so Ubuntu in essence becomes a special case of PPAs
[03:52] <jamesh> (it will be built using separate build daemons, and be published where it always has been)
[03:53] <jamesh> and, Ubuntu won't have a backing distro archive for builds like PPA's do
[03:54] <LaserJock> will the packages be able to build off of other PPAs?
[03:54] <jamesh> probably not (at least initially)
[03:55] <jamesh> just the base distro release and other stuff in the same PPA
[03:55] <LaserJock> ok great
[03:58] <Fujitsu> This sounds rather nice :)
[05:05] <Ubugtu> New bug: #93285 in malone "Discourage "me too" comments" [Undecided,Unconfirmed]  https://launchpad.net/bugs/93285
[05:50] <Ubugtu> New bug: #93290 in blueprint "Need colored icons for blueprints of different priority" [Medium,Unconfirmed]  https://launchpad.net/bugs/93290
[05:56] <joejaxx> is there a way to: stop users from adding an additional distribution to a bug but be able to have a certain team of the originating distribution to add an additional distribution
[05:56] <joejaxx> ?
[05:57] <joejaxx> the reason i ask is that i do not wish for bugs to be added for ubuntu that may not pertain to ubuntu itself
[05:59] <joejaxx> that would decrease the influx of bugs because users are getting into the habit of adding ubuntu as an additional distribution when the bug does not apply
[06:01] <joejaxx> but i do not know if that is possible
[06:01] <joejaxx> on launchpad that is
[06:01] <joejaxx> i do not want the aforementioned to cause problems :)
[06:03] <crimsun> I don't know of a way to do that presently; you can simply continue to reject the Ubuntu task
[06:03] <joejaxx> crimsun: oh ok
[06:04] <joejaxx> because i know this is going to become a problem in the future
[06:08] <mpt> joejaxx, can you give some examples of where that's happened. It seems like an odd thing for people to do.
[06:08] <Hobbsee> mpt: the soyuz bug
[06:09] <mpt> Except where a bug was mistakenly reported on the upstream project first (or on a Launchpad project, as in bug 88818), so people assume that the reporter must have meant Ubuntu
[06:09] <Ubugtu> Malone bug 88818 in malone "Many people report non-Launchpad bugs on Launchpad products" [Undecided,Unconfirmed]  https://launchpad.net/bugs/88818
[06:10] <mpt> Hobbsee, I'm pretty sure Soyuz has more than one bug :-) Which one are you referring to?
[06:10] <Hobbsee> mpt: hehe, true that.  the one that was holding edgy kernel's back, or claiming to.
[06:10] <Hobbsee> mpt: -proposed repo, iirc.
[06:10] <Hobbsee> not sure what the bug # was
[06:21] <mpt> joejaxx, if you have several examples of where this has happened, please collect them in a bug report on the "malone" project
[06:46] <Ubugtu> New bug: #93293 in soyuz "Details in source package portlet don't change without new upload" [Undecided,Unconfirmed]  https://launchpad.net/bugs/93293
[07:24] <sabdfl> Hobbsee: hi
[07:25] <Hobbsee> heya.
[07:26] <Hobbsee> sabdfl: grrr, looks like my info's at least partially out of date, but it looks like beryl's going into debian, so we should be able to sync from there.'
[07:27] <Hobbsee> that was all.  
[07:29] <sabdfl> Hobbsee: we should have it in ubuntu first
[07:29] <Hobbsee> sabdfl: true, but the packages have to be good enough.  it seems to be being discussed in -motu at the moment.
[07:30] <Hobbsee> and someone has to be motivated to put in the work to do it, of course
[07:39] <sabdfl> Hobbsee: the packages are good enough to start with
[07:40] <sabdfl> i'm disappointed that we didn't work to be the forum where they matured
[07:40] <sabdfl> but now they are there we certainly should be open to them
[07:40] <Hobbsee> true....
[08:01] <Ubugtu> New bug: #93298 in launchpad "HTTP->HTTPS redirection forgets subhost-of.beta.launchpad.net" [Undecided,Unconfirmed]  https://launchpad.net/bugs/93298
[12:17] <Hobbsee> oh no.  anyone feeling like being diplomatic in rejecting a bug?
[12:18] <Hobbsee> maybe not such a git as i thought from the subject.  https://beta.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/93344
[12:18] <Gwaihir> just to know: the deadline for the ddtp-ubuntu-* packages, is April the 5th?  
[12:18] <Ubugtu> Malone bug 93344 in Ubuntu "launchpad unsuitable for reporting bugs" [Undecided,Unconfirmed]  
[12:19] <fabbione> Hobbsee: looks like a good bug to me
[12:19] <fabbione> why would you reject it?
[12:20] <Hobbsee> fabbione: true, ish.  still, last i knew, email still required a working internet connection to send.
[12:20] <Hobbsee> ditto checking for already-reported-bugs
[12:20] <fabbione> Hobbsee: right, but they can be queued in a local spool like most MTA do when they can't deliver
[12:20] <Hobbsee> true...
[12:21] <Hobbsee> that doesnt get around checking the already-reported bugs issue though.
[12:21] <fabbione> reportbug still warns you that it can't check for stuff and still allows you to submit
[12:21] <Hobbsee> ahh
[12:21] <Hobbsee> dupemania.
[12:21] <fabbione> well yes...
[12:21] <fabbione> but most people don't check for that anyway
[12:21] <Hobbsee> good point
[12:21] <fabbione> so it doesn't really make a huge diff
[12:21] <Hobbsee> fair enough
[12:22] <Hobbsee> i'll go back and hide in my corner
[12:22] <fabbione> plus you will figure with time that one bug more is better than none "'cuz someboyd reported already for sure"
[12:22] <Hobbsee> true
[12:23] <Gwaihir> just to know: the deadline for the ddtp-ubuntu-* packages, is April the 5th?  
[12:23] <fabbione> i should really start blogging again..
[12:23] <Hobbsee> fabbione: that you should.
[12:25] <fabbione> Hobbsee: sometimes i am afraid i won't be exactly CoC compliant :)
[12:26] <Hobbsee> fabbione: heh.  in the spirit of the COC, or in the letter?
[12:26] <fabbione> in my rants :)
[12:26] <Hobbsee> you couldnt rant :)
[12:34] <fabbione> grrr
[12:34] <fabbione> planet.u.c has lost my hackergocu again
[12:34] <fabbione> goci even
[12:35] <Hobbsee> hehe
[12:36] <fabbione> oh i see why
[12:36] <fabbione> they did put in place a hell of a thing with bzr
[12:45] <AlinuxOS> danilos, hello
[01:02] <Hobbsee> fabbione: *grin*
[01:02] <Hobbsee> fabbione: another step forward in world domination!
[01:02] <Hobbsee> hey Spads 
[01:58] <piedoggie> ugh.  can't figure out how to create a launchpad hosted bzr repository.  everything points to off launchpad hosting
[01:58] <dsas> piedoggie: what are you trying to create a bzr repo of?
[01:58] <piedoggie> my own code
[01:59] <dsas> piedoggie: have you registered a new product?
[01:59] <dsas> piedoggie: I *think* you have to run through https://beta.launchpad.net/products/+new first
[01:59] <piedoggie> tried but the process assumes off site hosting
[02:00] <dsas> uhm https://launchpad.net/products/+new even.
[02:00] <LarstiQ> eh?
[02:01] <LarstiQ> this sounds vaguely familiar, but it certainly isn't true
[02:01] <LarstiQ> piedoggie: what piece of documentation gives you the idea that it assumes off site hosting?
[02:01] <piedoggie> larstiq.  we talked about this a few days ago 
[02:01] <LarstiQ> right
[02:02] <piedoggie> ti says : "Register an upstream open source product"
[02:02] <piedoggie> at the top of the page
[02:03] <LarstiQ> are you confused by 'upstream'?
[02:03] <LarstiQ> piedoggie: so, for actually hosting: 'bzr push sftp://username@bazaar.launchpad.net/~team/product/branch' will accomplish that given an existing team and product
[02:03] <piedoggie> confused no.  mislead, kinda
[02:03] <LarstiQ> piedoggie: I guess that could be better worded for people not used to thinking that way
[02:04] <LarstiQ> piedoggie: upstream here means the original authors, not the packaging of it in a distro like ubuntu
[02:04] <piedoggie> ah
[02:04] <LarstiQ> piedoggie: so registering an upstream product is what you want to do :)
[02:05] <LarstiQ> piedoggie: https://launchpad.net/bzr is also an upstream product, but largely lives in launchpad
[02:05] <piedoggie> yea, need to change the language
[02:06] <LarstiQ> piedoggie: I don't recall, did you file a bug about this documentation issue?
[02:06] <piedoggie> not yet.
[02:06] <LarstiQ> k
[02:06] <piedoggie> am tracking the disconnects as I register
[02:06] <LarstiQ> cool
[02:15] <piedoggie> k got the product registered.  now what
[02:21] <dsas> piedoggie: 'bzr push sftp://username@bazaar.launchpad.net/~accountname/productname/branchname
[02:23] <piedoggie> ok another doco dropout.  one more for the list
[02:23] <piedoggie> I don't need to do anythong like register a branch?
[02:26] <piedoggie> also, I currently have my project in a multo-branch repository locally, do I need to do anything magic to push up?
[02:35] <Ubugtu> New bug: #93383 in malone "Mail from duplicate bugs sent to other people who initially reported the bug" [Undecided,Unconfirmed]  https://launchpad.net/bugs/93383
[02:36] <dsas> piedoggie: doing the bzr push thing will create the branch.
[02:36] <dsas> I assume you have to push up each branch individually if you want to do many.
[02:37] <piedoggie> branchname == trunk?
[02:38] <LarstiQ> piedoggie: if you wish, sure
[02:38] <LarstiQ> dsas: yes
[02:39] <LarstiQ> note that ~accountname should be the user/team you want to be able to access that branch
[02:40] <LarstiQ> sftp://larstiq@bazaar.launchpad.net/~larstiq/bzr/hpss only I can write/read from sftp, sftp://larstiq@bazaar.launchpad.net/~bzr/bzr/hpps the entire bzr team can
[02:40] <piedoggie> ok doco drop out: the prokect page says the  "trunck"  series represents the primary line of development rather than a stable release branch. This is sometimes also called MAIN or HEAD.
[02:41] <piedoggie> it implies te branch name is trunk
[02:41] <LarstiQ> what url is that?
[02:42] <piedoggie> larstiq:  what is there is no team but one evolves
[02:42] <LarstiQ> piedoggie: then push it when it exists
[02:42] <LarstiQ> piedoggie: and just use your user in the meantime
[02:43] <piedoggie> 'bzr push sftp://username@bazaar.launchpad.net/~team/product/branch'   -<- trying to fill in the blanks for the docs
[02:44] <piedoggie> so ~team becomes ~esj for now and ~pjt-team later after forming a team?
[02:48] <LarstiQ> piedoggie: assuming you're esj :)
[02:48] <piedoggie> there's also a shortage of documentation of how to convert a privately hosted repository/branch to one hosted at launch pad
[02:49] <LarstiQ> just push?
[02:49] <piedoggie> piedoggie is my real name, esj is an alias I use on the net.  :-)
[02:50] <piedoggie> my question also points to a documentation dropout for the bzr project.
[02:50] <piedoggie> At the core, it's a question of how twisted can you get with the repository chains of branches
[02:51] <piedoggie> for example, people accustomed to the CVS style of source code control are comfortable with the Star model (a.k.a. hub and spoke)
[02:51] <piedoggie> I imagine the next stage for them would be doing small two or three person clusters of development again also replicating hub and spoke with a single person being the one responsible for merges
[02:52] <piedoggie> but after a while, how far does it go?  what are the normal/natural patterns of working?
[02:52] <piedoggie> But that's not for this conversation
[02:53] <piedoggie> right now, it's just push upstream from any branch and either count on launch pad being authoritative or a private ranch is authoritative and a launchpad to the public access point
[02:53] <dsas> piedoggie: You're perfectly free to use the cvs model with bzr
[02:53] <piedoggie> dsas: I understand that I have.  But I'm trying to move to a more flexible model and level of operation
[02:53] <piedoggie> s/that/and
[02:54] <piedoggie> I want to come back to one question which is the issue of "trunk" 
[02:55] <piedoggie> https://launchpad.net/akasha  is my project
[02:55] <dsas> piedoggie: what I've found works well if everyone having their own LP hosted branch of a product, and having a branch owned by the team. everyone hacks on their own branch, gets code reviewed, and then committed to the team one.
[02:55] <piedoggie> interesting.  Does that make it easier for people to collaborate?
[02:56] <piedoggie> What happens if a person works on multiple branches?
[02:56] <dsas> a person can only work on the team owned one, or their personal ones. they're welcome to have as many personal ones as they please.
[02:57] <dsas> for example I might have ~dsas/bughelper/0.1 and ~dsas/bughelper/dev and also be able to commit to ~bugsquad/bughelper/main
[02:58] <dsas> however we hold off commiting to the team one until someone else has checked out our personal branch and they review the code, and if it's ok merge it with the team one and push it.
[02:59] <piedoggie> and you create the branches by registering the branches under your account name.  Is that correct?
[03:00] <dsas> yes.
[03:00] <piedoggie>  do you need to register branches under the project?
[03:00] <dsas> piedoggie: no, it automagically does that.
[03:01] <piedoggie>  from the push?
[03:01] <dsas> yes
[03:01] <radix> ~username/productname/branchname
[03:01] <dsas> see https://code.launchpad.net/bughelper/ for example.
[03:01] <dsas> it automatically lists any ~person/bughelper/branchname branches
[03:02] <piedoggie> okay.
[03:02] <piedoggie> I can see them going to have to make some mistakes before I understand this
[03:02] <dsas> you can then access e.g. https://code.launchpad.net/~yourname/bughelper/bughelper.dev and add some meta data (e.g. stable branch, obsolete branch)
[03:02] <piedoggie> I can see I am going to...
[03:03] <dsas> piedoggie: that's ok. what I've described is just one workflow, I'm sure other teams use different ones.
[03:03] <dsas> piedoggie: Feel free to come in here and ask at any time.
[03:05] <piedoggie> I know this is more of a bzr question but I am really confused about creating different branches (CVS speak).  As far as I can tell it bizarre is just creating a branch and then operating on that branch.  So if I have a release, I branch that release and name it appropriately (ie akasha 0.5), it becomes its own stand-alone branch and then mainline continues new development.  Is that even...
[03:05] <piedoggie> ...vaguely close to right?
[03:06] <dsas> yes, 
[03:06] <piedoggie> okay.  And then you have more branches for point releases?  
[03:06] <piedoggie> Or do you start using tags or something like that for point releases
[03:06] <dsas> I think bzr only just got support for tags. I don't know about them yet.
[03:07] <piedoggie> okay.  At what point do all these branches start making the system break?  Both the human factor side and code side?
[03:07] <dsas> piedoggie: make the system break? 
[03:08] <piedoggie> In that the time it takes to traverse and reconstruct a branch at a given point in time becomes unacceptable or the reconstruction is impossible
[03:09] <piedoggie> it's probably far enough out I don't need to worry  about it.  With any luck I'll be dead by then.
[03:10] <piedoggie> Anyway, it's 10 a.m. and I'm getting calls for making breakfast.  Let me try a few things out and see how it breaks and I'll be back.
[03:10] <dsas> if you want to checkout a past branch on your local machine just do bzr checkout sftp://bazzar.launchpad.net/~user/product/name at any point in time
[03:10] <dsas> piedoggie: ok, good luck. I'm going for lunch :)
[03:25] <LarstiQ> piedoggie: most of our branches are not releases, but feature/bug branches
[03:25] <LarstiQ> piedoggie: ie, for each feature or bug we're working on, we have a seperate branch
[03:28] <LarstiQ> piedoggie: any workflow is possible
[04:26] <Ubugtu> New bug: #93344 in malone "launchpad unsuitable for reporting bugs" [Undecided,Unconfirmed]  https://launchpad.net/bugs/93344
[04:31] <Ubugtu> New bug: #93410 in launchpad "Karma is goin down" [Undecided,Unconfirmed]  https://launchpad.net/bugs/93410
[04:38] <pochu> not a bug ^ :)
[05:56] <bayle> hi guys
[05:58] <bayle> i have a problem with launchpad, i cannot subscribe the ubuntu code of conduct because launc. gives me this error: (7, 9, 'No public key') but i'm sure i have the public key, it is also load on some servers
[05:58] <bayle> does anyone can help me?
[05:59] <bayle> i'm: https://launchpad.net/~diego-bayle
[06:16] <pochu> bayle: have you signed it with the same key you have in LP?
[06:17] <pochu> bayle: you can take a look at this tutorial: https://help.ubuntu.com/community/SigningCodeofConduct
[06:42] <radix> whine whine the javascript for sorting columns in milestone view is still broken
[06:47] <radix> (in beta and regular-LP, and has been for like a year, whine whine)
[07:02] <Ruidoso_Silencio> Today I received almost 16 mails from launchpad regarding to locoteams... that's pretty odd
[10:21] <thumper> morning people
[10:40] <Ubugtu> New bug: #93516 in malone "beta.launchpad URL sent out to non-beta testers." [Undecided,Unconfirmed]  https://launchpad.net/bugs/93516
[11:30] <mpt> Goooooooooooooooooood morning Launchpadders!
[11:30] <thumper> morning mpt
[11:32] <ajmitch> morning mpt, thumper 
[11:32] <thumper> morning ajmitch
[12:16] <Ubugtu> New bug: #93541 in malone "Not possible to 'Reject' bug whilst duplicated" [Undecided,Unconfirmed]  https://launchpad.net/bugs/93541