[00:17] <lifeless> beuno: search should be fully fixed now
[00:17] <lifeless> Peng_: thanks for that fix if I didn't already say so.
[00:23] <Peng_> :)
[00:47] <lamalex> Hi, is there any documentation on setting up loggerhead?
[00:47] <lamalex> I'm trying to figure out how to configure apache to forward requests to it, but not really having a lot of luck
[00:57] <lifeless> lamalex: uhm, 'serve-branches.py PATH'
[00:57] <lifeless> lamalex: then in apache just setup a proxypass
[01:02] <lamalex> i did that... it's not working
[01:10] <lifeless> lamalex: check its working directly
[01:10] <lifeless> that you can use ff on the localhost port 8080 (where loggerhead starts)
[01:10] <lifeless> oh, there is also an optionI think to enable host munging via apache - in server-branches
[01:12] <lamalex> yah, i didn't want to do localhost because that means having to ssh portforward
[01:12] <lamalex> which while not hard
[01:12] <lamalex> is just annoying
[01:12] <lamalex> but i'll try it
[01:13] <lamalex> ok yah it's working on localhost
[01:50] <lifeless> lamalex: make sure you have python-pastedeploy installed
[01:51] <lamalex> lifeless: yah, i do
[01:52] <lifeless> lamalex: specify --prefix=/apacheprefix/
[01:52] <lifeless> lamalex: to serve-branches
[01:52] <lifeless> e.g. if you want loggerhead at http://host/loggerhead/
[01:52] <lifeless> specify --prefix=/loggerhead/
[01:53] <lifeless> (IIRC - the help could be better on this)
[01:57] <lamalex> what about if i want bzr.host.com
[02:11] <lifeless> it should autodetect the host
[02:35] <poolie> spiv: did you have other stuff for 1.9? is it up for review, merged, or not ready yet?
[02:42] <spiv> poolie: nothing else for 1.9, no
[03:27] <thumper> spiv: so server side autopacks have made it for 1.9?
[03:27] <poolie> thumper: yes
[03:27] <thumper> w00t
[03:27] <thumper> I wonder if this fixes a problem we were having on LP
[03:28] <thumper> poolie: is format 1.9 the default format?
[03:28] <thumper> I didn't follow the answer to that one before
[03:28] <poolie> no
[03:29] <poolie> it also has some fixes for the transient pack-file-not-found bug
[04:37] <gauthierm> I exported a svn repository to my local machine, set it as a bzr repository and made a hundred or so revisions. I now have commit access to the svn repo. Is it possible to push my individual bzr commits to the svn repo?
[04:40] <poolie> gauthierm: i *think* just pushing back will move them across, but i've barely used bzr-svn myself
[04:54] <gauthierm> bzr crashed when I tried to merge my bzr changes into svn.
[04:57] <gauthierm> Looks like its bug #240597.
[04:57] <gauthierm> heh, you're good.
[04:57] <gauthierm> wait, you're a robot!
[04:58] <gauthierm> I'll sort it out tomorrow.
[05:52] <poolie> lifeless: ping? can you read bug 293440?
[05:54] <lifeless> poolie: I am assuming the new code in 1.8 did something like 'config = master.get_config()' ... rather than 'master_nick = master.nick'
[05:54] <lifeless> poolie: yes, I am able to read it
[05:55] <lifeless> and your patch looks decent
[05:56] <lifeless> (decent and appropriate)
[05:58] <poolie> thanks
[06:36] <Peng_> Whee :)
[06:36] <poolie> yep
[06:37] <Peng_> BTW, the NEWS file says 1.9 was released on 2008-10-31, not that 1.9rc1 was.
[06:38] <poolie> yes
[06:38] <poolie> it's fixed in the actual 1.9
[06:38] <poolie> if you're looking on the web it may take a little while to update
[06:38] <poolie> ah
[06:38] <poolie> now that was actually pretty easy
[06:39] <poolie> automation yay
[06:40] <Peng_> ok :)
[06:42] <DBO> is there any status on monodevelop-bzr other than "it still does nothing"?
[07:18] <vila> hi all
[07:20] <lifeless> hi
[10:00] <lifeless> gnight
[10:15] <jszakmeister> jelmer: you there?
[11:21] <jelmer> jszakmeister, hi
[11:21] <jszakmeister> Hey!
[11:22] <jszakmeister> I reported a bug a few days ago: https://bugs.launchpad.net/bzr-svn/+bug/291370
[11:22] <jszakmeister> I was curious if you had seen something like that before.
[11:22] <jszakmeister> I thought I was using a "typical" workflow with bzr-svn... but perhaps I'm doing something wrong.
[11:23] <jszakmeister> Oh, and I just tried to reproduce with bzr 1.9 and bzr-svn 0.4.14... I get a different error, but it still backtraces.
[11:26] <jszakmeister> brb...
[11:34] <jszakmeister> ...alright, I'm back.
[11:41] <verterok_> 'morning
[11:41] <jelmer> jszakmeister, thanks
[11:41] <jelmer> jszakmeister, I'll see if I can reproduce here
[11:42] <jszakmeister> jelmer: I added a script for the new bzr 1.9 release... but that produces a different error at the moment: alueError: invalid property value 'branch-nick' for None
[11:43] <jszakmeister> ...and thanks for looking into it.  I appreciate it!
[13:49] <Odd_Bloke> Could someone help me diagnose what's going on in http://paste.pocoo.org/show/90470/?
[13:51] <luks> broken server that responds 302 instead of 404 to a missing page?
[13:51] <Odd_Bloke> Right, that's what I thought.
[13:52] <Odd_Bloke> luks: Thanks. :)
[14:16] <nekohayo> hmm. bzr-svn is not built in the ppa
[14:16] <nekohayo> I tried getting the latest tarball but when doing make I get this:
[14:17] <nekohayo> http://pastebin.com/d6f2ed19f
[14:17] <nekohayo> any ideas?
[14:28] <jelmer> nekohayo, you need to have libsvn-dev installde
[14:28] <jelmer> *installed
[14:29] <nekohayo> that should be mentionned in the INSTALL file or wiki :)
[14:30] <jelmer> it is :-)
[14:30] <jelmer> Requirements/Subversion development files in INSTALL
[14:32] <nekohayo> jelmer: http://pastebin.com/d641f37ac I couldn't find a package named rst2html? what did I miss?
[14:33] <jelmer> nekohayo, install python-docutils
[14:44] <nekohayo> it builds! :)
[15:03] <jelmer> beuno, hi
[15:39] <beuno> jelmer, hi
[15:40] <jelmer> beuno, now I forgot what I wanted to ask :-(
[15:41] <beuno> jelmer, still nice that you said hi
[15:41] <beuno> we can leave it at that until you remember
[15:41] <jelmer> :-)
[15:41] <jelmer> looking forward to the new loggerhead btw
[15:42] <jelmer> the new code.bitlbee.org should also be running it soon, in favor of bzr-hgweb
[15:43] <beuno> cool, it's been a while since we released
[16:02] <dash> i've got an old mercurial repository I want to convert to bzr. how are people doing that these days?
[16:02] <dash> neither bzr-hg or bzr-hgimport seem to work with the latest versions of things.
[16:04] <Odd_Bloke> dash: fastexport and fastimport, I think.
[16:04] <luks> bzr-fastimport with soem of the git exporters, probably
[16:05] <uniscript> is there a bzr-svn for bzr 1.9? Or shall I repackage the 1.6-1.7 version to allow 1.9?
[16:07] <dash> Odd_Bloke: Fancy. Looks like that did the job
[16:07] <dash> thanks guys :)
[16:07] <jelmer> uniscript, there is a bzr-svn for 1.9, 0.4.14
[16:08] <uniscript> any plans for a package? each time bzr comes out I lose bzr-svn
[16:08] <uniscript> :(
[16:08] <jelmer> uniscript, there's already a debian package, http://bzr.debian.org/pkg-bazaar/bzr-svn/experimental/
[16:08] <uniscript> directory is empty
[16:08] <jelmer> it's a bzr branch
[16:09] <jelmer> the actual package can be found at http://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=bzr-svn
[16:09] <uniscript> ta
[16:16] <uniscript> hmm no i386 support and I get tied in dependency knots trying to build the thing
[16:23] <jelmer> uniscript, what sort of dependency knots?
[16:24] <uniscript> pdebuild depends on 1.9 and debuild has sqlite3 problems due to using medibuntu
[16:37] <jdong> hey bzr folks :)
[16:37] <uniscript> but why is debian bzr-svn 0.4.14 not available for i386?
[16:38] <jdong> I'm looking at a bzr backport to Hardy. Would like to get Jaunty up to 1.9 first
[16:38]  * jdong grabs changelog of 1.9~rc1 vs 1.9
[16:40] <james_w> jdong: 1.9-1 is in Debian if you hadn't seen it
[16:40] <jdong> james_w: obviously I should stop using packages.d.o :)
[16:40]  * jdong clobbers that shortcut for a p.qa.d.o one :)
[16:40] <james_w> good choice :-)
[16:41] <jdong> james_w: is there a sync request open for jaunty yet?
[16:41] <james_w> jdong: nah, I assumed it would auto-sync
[16:42] <james_w> yeah, it will
[16:42] <james_w> jelmer: hey, is everything in shape for bzr 1.9 in Debian?
[16:43] <jdong> yeah ok the problem ("problem") is sid only has 1.5-1.1 from what I can see
[16:43] <jelmer> jdong, we can't upload to sid yet because it's kept open for uploads for lenny
[16:43] <james_w> ah, of course
[16:44] <james_w> jdong: would you like to request it, or shall I do it?
[16:44] <jelmer> uniscript, the debian auto-builders haven't build bzr-svn yet for i386 (but they haven't built bzr itself either yet, so that shouldn't be a problem)
[16:44] <jelmer> james_w, Yeah, everything in Debian should be in shape for 1.9
[16:44] <jdong> james_w: please do, you are more experienced with the stack of packages involved :)
[16:45] <james_w> jelmer: great, thanks. We're going to work on backporting it to Intrepid/Hardy so we need a group that works well together.
[16:45] <jdong> awesome :)
[17:01] <jelmer> james_w, I gave the .orig.tar.gz checksum issue some more thought
[17:02] <james_w> cool
[17:02] <jelmer> james_w, I think the best solution would probably be to use the version from the apt repository if there is one, and otherwise generate one
[17:03] <jelmer> james_w, would that make sense?
[17:03] <james_w> that could work
[17:28] <jelmer> james_w, do you have any idea about 466244 and  477431 ? it seems to me like they're both pycentral bugs
[17:28] <jelmer> (Debian bugs)
[17:30] <james_w> yeah, not sure about them
[17:32] <Odd_Bloke> Can ubottu be goaded into linking to Debian bugs?
[17:35] <james_w> debian bug 466244
[17:36] <Odd_Bloke> Debian bugs 466244 and 477431?
[17:36] <Odd_Bloke> Sweet.
[18:24] <emmajane> beuno, ok, I promise that's enough bugs from me today. :)
[18:58] <NfNitLoop> asdfasdfso I'm writing up documentation on bzr-svn for a presentation to coworkers...
[18:58] <NfNitLoop> and I noticed an inconsistency:
[18:59] <NfNitLoop> when I push my trunk back to svn, I just 'bzr push $REPO/trunk'
[18:59] <NfNitLoop> but if I'm working on a new branch that I want to mirror in svn, I have to 'bzr svn-push $REPO/branches/mybranch'
[18:59] <NfNitLoop> should I be using svn-push in both cases?
[19:16] <lifeless> NfNitLoop: no, svn-push is a special case to handle svn's need to atomically create the new branch
[19:21] <NfNitLoop> so I should only use svn-push to create a new branch in svn, but 'push' is fine to update an exitsting branch w/ new changes?
[19:26] <lifeless> NfNitLoop: yes
[20:29] <emmajane> Who was I bugging about olive the other day? I think it was jelmer ?
[20:29] <jelmer> emmajane: Yep :-) Hi!
[20:29] <emmajane> jelmer, hey :)
[20:30] <emmajane> I have a qustion that *might* be a bug but I'm not sure.
[20:30] <emmajane> I'm just going to pastebin some output
[20:30] <emmajane> http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/68977/
[20:30] <emmajane> I get this dump when I start olive from a directory that has no .bzr folder
[20:31] <fullermd> Sheesh.  Man, somebody is going to say jelmer's name while he's asleep, and we'll all be sure he's dead when he doesn't respond...
[20:31] <emmajane> fullermd, hehe
[20:32] <jelmer> 'morning fullermd :-)
[20:32] <jelmer> emmajane, Yeah, that's definitely a bug
[20:32] <emmajane> jelmer, and this is when I start it with .bzr in the same folder: http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/68979/
[20:32] <emmajane> jelmer, same bug?
[20:33] <emmajane> jelmer, I think it's the same output but I'm feeling crosseyed at python outputs...
[20:33] <jelmer> emmajane, yes, I think so
[20:33] <emmajane> jelmer, kay.
[20:33] <emmajane> jelmer, thanks. :)
[20:33] <emmajane> jelmer, suggested title for the bug?
[20:33] <jelmer> emmajane, Generally, I think any terminal output from bzr-gtk (other than "can't open display") would be a bug
[20:33] <emmajane> "garbage on start" probably won't cut it. ;)
[20:34] <emmajane> kay :)
[20:34] <fullermd> Hm, I get some...
[20:34] <jelmer> emmajane: perhaps something like "finalized floating point object used"
[20:34] <jelmer> s/point//
[20:34] <emmajane> jelmer, oooo that makes me sound clever :)
[20:34] <fullermd> Used to anyway.  Don't see it in a quick check.
[20:36] <jelmer> emmajane: I'm just rephrasing the error message as short as possible; I have no clue what's going on either at this point (-:
[20:36] <emmajane> hehehe
[20:39] <emmajane> jelmer, submitted.
[20:39] <jelmer> emmajane, thanks!
[20:39] <emmajane> jelmer, thanks for clarifying that it was "bad" output...
[20:54] <Leonidas> I have just updated to bzr 1.9 and there are two new repo-formats
[20:54] <Leonidas> Which one is to choose? I don't really understand what this rich-root thing is.
[20:55] <Peng_> Leonidas: If you're not using a rich-root format already (rich-root, rich-root-pack, ...), you don't need to.
[20:57] <Leonidas> Peng_: I have pack-0.92, so which one would be best?
[20:58] <Leonidas> to clarify: I don't need backwards-compatibility, so I don't need to stick to an older format
[20:59] <jelmer> Leonidas, 1.9
[20:59] <Leonidas> jelmer: does it support stacking? bzr help formats is a bit ambivalent in this regard.
[21:00] <jelmer> Leonidas, yes, it does
[21:00] <Leonidas> ok, great.
[21:00] <Leonidas> the branch format 0.15 is still the most recent, right?
[21:02] <fullermd> I thought stacking had a new branch and new repo format.
[21:03] <emmajane> jelmer, I found olive to be full of fail for downloading a branch. Do you know if you've been able to get it to work? Or should I just download using the command line utility?
[21:04] <jelmer> Leonidas, No, 1.9 has a new format. 0.15 is ancient, btw, much older than 0.92
[21:05] <jelmer> emmajane, About to get coffee, I'll give it a try after that
[21:05] <emmajane> jelmer, no worries.
[21:10] <Leonidas> jelmer: how to update these? bzr update on each checkout?
[21:11] <Leonidas> jelmer: 0.15 is ancient, but somehow since I started using bzr 0.15 on that project, I somehow missed updating the branches & checkouts because I didn't know that there were new formats.
[21:20] <Peng_> 0.15's Branch 6 was the newest branch format until the 1.6 format.
[21:25]  * Leonidas will update all that stuff today, after he's done with todays commits
[21:31] <Peng_> All the latest branch format buys you is stacking, so you don't really need to bother.
[21:35] <fullermd> And without the branch format upgrade, you probably end up with another one of those "unknown" formats.  Fun for the whole family.
[21:37] <Peng_> Heh, yep.
[22:12] <lifeless> Leonidas: we nag after a while
[22:12] <james_w> hey lifeless
[22:13] <james_w> didn't get a chance to investigate moving to 1.9 today
[22:13] <lifeless> no worries
[22:14] <james_w> they branches use 1.6, so 1.9 would just be GraphIndex, correct?
[22:16] <lifeless> yes
[22:16] <lifeless> 'just'
[22:16] <lifeless> (btree index btw, graphindex is what < 1.9 uses)
[22:16] <james_w> oh, yeah, sorry
[22:17] <james_w> I'm away next week, but I'll see if I have time to run a script to do it
[22:17] <james_w> the initial flood to jaunty died down today, so it would be feasible to do it at this point
[22:18] <james_w> I could kick it off tonight I guess
[22:35] <Peng_> If it's relevant, there's a script to convert from packs to btrees more efficiently. http://bundlebuggy.aaronbentley.com/project/bzr/request/%3C49133617.8080600%40arbash-meinel.com%3E
[22:36] <james_w> yeah
[22:36] <james_w> thanks
[22:41] <jelmer> it would be nice to see that integrated into "bzr upgrade"
[22:44] <Peng_> Yeah. The review comments discuss that. http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.bazaar-ng.general/48951/focus=48962
[22:47] <Leonidas> ok, update went without problems. I got some 'unknown' format repositories, so I just updated all.
[22:48] <Leonidas> And it was quite fast. Not like last time