[00:12] <jelmer> Jc2k, re
[00:14] <jelmer> Jc2k, k
[00:17] <Jc2k>  :)
[01:46] <Odd_Bloke> Merry Christmas, #bzr. :)
[02:00] <jelmer> merry christmas Odd_Bloke :-)
[04:05] <SnowyOwl> Hello colleagues, and Merry Christmas!
[04:07] <SnowyOwl> I keep getting 'ImportError: no module named commands' with TortoiseBzr from bzr-setup-1.10-1.exe
[04:08] <SnowyOwl> on several systems, most of them were working well with bzr-setup-1.9.exe
[13:17] <Spaz> merry christmas :)
[13:44] <Jc2k> merry christmas.
[13:44] <jelmer> merry christmas :-)
[13:44] <jelmer> hi Jc2k
[13:44] <Jc2k> *blinks*
[13:45] <Jc2k> i was just going to ping you jelmer :)
[13:45] <Jc2k> push and clone against server.py are working again
[13:49] <jelmer> ah cool
[13:49]  * jelmer merges
[13:49] <Jc2k> hopefully pull too, really need tests gah :p
[14:00] <magcius> Is bzr daemonless?
[14:02] <jelmer> magcius, not sure what you mean with daemonless
[14:02] <magcius> Does there need to be a server running like traditional VCS toold?
[14:02] <magcius> tools*
[14:02] <jelmer> magcius, you can pull / push to a remote server without a bzr-specific daemon necessarily running on that server
[14:03] <magcius> jelmer, so it uses WebDAV?
[14:03] <jelmer> magcius: But you can optionally use a server on the remote side, for better performance
[14:03] <jelmer> magcius, the main "dumb" transport that seems to be used is sftp
[14:03] <jelmer> magcius, ftp is also supported out of the box, and there is a plugin for webdav
[14:03] <magcius> Ah. Okay.
[14:06] <jelmer> Jc2k: I'm working on getting packs fixed, and on supporting fetch from remote in bzr-git
[14:06] <Jc2k> jelmer: okie dokie. i'm tempted to move the pack generation out of server.py and make client.py use it
[14:07] <jelmer> Jc2k: Go for it :-)
[14:09] <Jc2k> jelmer: im a bit cautious of moving anything to pack.py as i need to go via the repo object.. dont like the bouncy-around-dependencies :\ am i just being over sensitive, or shall i add packwriter.py/packbuilder.py?
[14:09] <magcius> Is there a bzr emacs ... err.. hook?
[14:10] <asabil> magcius: there is the emacs dvc mode iirc, and it does support bzr
[14:10] <jelmer> Jc2k, yeah, same here. What do you need the repo object for?
[14:11] <magcius> asabil, not according to this here HOWTO
[14:11] <asabil> magcius: http://www.xsteve.at/prg/emacs_dvc/dvc.html#table
[14:12] <Jc2k> jelmer: if i'm building a pack, i walk the dag to work out what objects to send. currently i use the repo both for the tree() /commit() methods and because in theory i might be generating a pack out of loose objects
[14:13] <jelmer> Jc2k, perhaps just extract out a function that works out what objects to send based on a list of shas and a callback for get_object ?
[14:14] <Jc2k> it would need def pack_contents(want, have, get_commit, get_tree)..
[14:15] <Jc2k> i guess i could also follow the bzr pattern and have a wrapper on the repo object that fills in get_commit and get_tree for me
[14:16] <ia> hello. for example, i create branch from other place. does exist some way to check for available changes in origin branch without 'bzr update' run?
[14:18] <jelmer> Jc2k, You can just use get_object() rather than get_commit / get_tree; they do the same thing
[14:18] <jelmer> ia, "bzr missing <url>"
[14:21] <ia> jelmer: oh, thank you very much. that's exactly what i looking for :-)
[16:36] <jelmer> Jc2k, updating my samba tree is actually already pretty quick
[18:38] <sohail> for bzr, how can I get the last checkin to a specific directory?
[18:38] <sohail> with svn, I'd just do svn log /path/to/dir | head -n 1 or something
[18:40] <magcius> sohail, do you want the checkin time or the revision number?
[18:40] <sohail> magcius, I want the revision number
[18:40] <sohail> I tried bzr revno /path/to/dir but that gives me the revno for the whole repo not that directory
[18:41] <beuno> sohail, changes to the dir, or anything in it?
[18:41] <sohail> beuno, anything in it actually
[18:41] <magcius> I think each revision is a branch, so it can't distinguish non-changed files
[18:41] <beuno> sohail, right, I don't think you can do that with the bzr client
[18:41] <beuno> maybe bzrlib, if you're into python
[18:41] <sohail> :-O
[18:42] <sohail> oh well, I need it to overcome a slight design miscalculation in my build automation but I'm still surprised
[18:42] <sohail> I'd rather fix that than figure out bzrlib :-)
[18:42] <sohail> thanks for your help!
[18:42] <beuno> :)
[18:43] <beuno> file bugs, everyone lines bugs in bzr
[18:44] <sohail> I assume you mean to say likes bugs
[18:44] <beuno> ah, yes
[18:44] <beuno> I do
[19:13] <A_Bach> im looking for configuration eclipse + bazaar plugin help...
[21:20] <mtaylor> lifeless: around?
[21:58] <bewst1> bzr-svn is giving me headaches.  I'm trying to push and it tells me the branches have diverged and I need to merge first, which is certainly false.  I merge anyway and it says "nothing to do," and I loop back to the beginning :(.  Any help?
[21:58] <jelmer> bewst1, did you commit your merge?
[21:59] <jelmer> bewst1, or do you perhaps have any local changes?
[21:59] <jelmer> bewst1, what version of bzr-svn are you using?
[22:01] <bewst1> jelmer: I don't know what it means to "commit a merge."  I did commit one file that I have changed, but I still have some changed files in my working copy that I don't want to push.  So, yes, I have local changes
[22:01] <jelmer> bewst1, and the branch you're pushing to has no changes you don't have locally?
[22:01] <bewst1> That's correct
[22:02] <bewst1> double checking...
[22:02] <bewst1> Why does everything seem to go so slowly?
[22:03] <bewst1> Yep, pull says "no revisions to pull" and merge says "nothing to do."
[22:03] <jelmer> bewst1, and you're pulling from the same location that you're pushing to?
[22:03] <jelmer> bewst1, what does "bzr missing <push-url>" say?
[22:06] <bewst1> yes, pull and push locations match
[22:06] <jelmer> bewst1, what version of bzr-svn are you running?
[22:06] <bewst1> bzr missing says I have 4 extra revisions.
[22:06] <bewst1> How to check the bzr-svn version?
[22:07] <jelmer> bewst1, "bzr plugins" should print it
[22:07] <bewst1> 0.4.13
[22:07] <bewst1> It's what Intrepid gives me by default
[22:08] <bewst1> I don't know what this "4 extra revisions" business is; I'm going to look at it
[22:08] <bewst1> Oh, it also says I'm missing 13 revisions
[22:09] <jelmer> bewst1, that would explain the divergence
[22:10] <jelmer> not sure why pull doesn't do anything though
[22:10] <bewst1> How is that possible?  Those revisions are basically the whole history of the file
[22:10] <bewst1> Maybe I did a lightweight branch?
[22:10] <jelmer> bewst1, did you change the branching scheme recently?
[22:10] <jelmer> bewst1, is the branch public?
[22:10] <bewst1> Sorry, n00b.  What is a branching scheme?
[22:11] <bewst1> The svn branch is not public
[22:11] <jelmer> bewst1, if you don't know I guess you haven't changed it :-)
[22:11] <bewst1> the bzr branch is in a local repo on my machine
[22:11] <bewst1> I don't know from public bzr branches
[22:12] <bewst1> The svn branch is... a branch of some svn trunk.  The 13 branches missing appear to be those that were made on trunk before the svn branch
[22:12] <bewst1> Does that help?
[22:14] <bewst1> The 4 "extra" revisions appear to be the ones made in the svn branch plus the one I committed to my bzr repo and am trying to push
[22:14] <jelmer> bewst1, if you run "bzr missing --show-ids" are the revision ids for the revisions the same?
[22:15] <bewst1> Sorry, the same as /what/?
[22:16] <jelmer> bewst1, the revisions in the svn branch as reported by "bzr missing"
[22:17] <jelmer> since "bzr missing" would report some revisions twice in the "missing" and the "extra" listings
[22:17] <bewst1> ?? without the --show-ids, no ids are reported.  Do you mean "are the revisions numbers the same?"
[22:18] <jelmer> bewst1, no, the revision ids
[22:18] <jelmer> bewst1, if you run "bzr missing --show-ids", it should report a list of revisions that's missing locally and a list of revisions that's extra locally
[22:18] <bewst1> jelmer: yes
[22:18] <jelmer> bewst1, for each revision it should print the revision id
[22:18] <bewst1> ues
[22:18] <bewst1> yes
[22:18] <bewst1> compare that id with what?
[22:19] <jelmer> bewst1, if I understand you correctly, some revisions are listed in both the first and the last list
[22:19] <bewst1> first? last?  Sorry, I don't know what you mean
[22:19] <jelmer> bewst1, some revisions are in both the "locally missing" /and/ the "locally extra" list, right?
[22:20] <bewst1> no
[22:20] <jelmer> not sure I follow you then
[22:20] <bewst1> The "locally extra" list contains revisions made in the svn branch, plus the one I committed to my local bzr repo.  The "locally missing" list contains revisions made in the svn trunk before the svn branch point
[22:21] <bewst1> Taken together that appears to be *all* of the revisions of the one file that I changed in the local repo
[22:22] <bewst1> Sorry, I should have said "directory," not "file"
[22:22] <jelmer> bewst1, can you pastebin the "bzr missing" output? just the revision-id for each commit should be sufficient
[22:26] <bewst1> http://dpaste.com/102508/
[22:27] <bewst1> The only revision made in the bzr repo is on line 1
[22:27] <bewst1> Lines 2-4 are revisions made to the svn branch
[22:27] <bewst1> The rest are revisions made to the svn trunk
[22:29] <bewst1> jelmer: nothing jumps out at you?
[22:29] <jelmer> bewst1, it does actually
[22:30] <jelmer> bewst1, the branching scheme has changed underneath you
[22:30] <bewst1> possibly when we upgraded to svn 1.5?
[22:31] <bewst1> I'm still not sure what a branching scheme is ;-)
[22:31] <jelmer> bewst1, (fwiw, this bug is fixed in bzr-svn 0.5, which no longer has branching schemes)
[22:31] <jelmer> bewst1, it should be possible to work around it though
[22:32] <bewst1> Why don't I just upgrade?
[22:32] <bewst1> I'd rather get something that works than get involved in workarounds.
[22:32] <jelmer> bewst1, 0.5 is still in development, and requires bzr 1.10
[22:32] <jelmer> bewst1, the workaround shouldn't be too bad
[22:33] <bewst1> listening
[22:33] <jelmer> bewst1, in ~/.bazaar/subversion.conf, set "branching-scheme = trunk2" in the section [bbad15d5-7c10-0410-ba9e-f711d5c1d17a]
[22:33] <bewst1> How is it possible that the branching scheme, which is not a concept I even know about, has changed?
[22:33] <jelmer> bewst1, bzr-svn detects it based on the URL used
[22:34] <bewst1> Oh... well, there's a little problem with the svn+ prefix which I have occasionally ommitted and then added back
[22:34] <bewst1> bzr-svn complained that it was deprecated, but then wouldn't do something unless I supplied it.
[22:35] <jelmer> bewst1, yeah, that's a known bug (in bzr itself)
[22:36] <bewst1> OK, so I'll try this workaround
[22:37] <jelmer> maybe also set "branching-scheme-mandatory = True"
[22:38] <bewst1> jelmer: same result without mandatory.  Will try that next
[22:39] <bewst1> btw, it changes the branching scheme back to what it was when it fails
[22:40] <bewst1> It's not failing... yet.  But damn it's slow
[22:41] <bewst1> Finally it asked for my svn password twice and failed with an internal error.
[22:41] <jelmer> internal error?
[22:42] <bewst1> http://dpaste.com/102509/
[22:43] <bewst1> I've gotta say, this first encounter with bzr is a bit of a nightmare.
[22:44] <jelmer> bewst1, wait.. weren't you trying to push to boost-consulting/site/branches/seo ?
[22:44] <bewst1> I know DVC is supposed to speed up development, but I could've gone a long way further with SVN by now.  Is it worth trying to figure this out, or should I come back when 1.5 is out?
[22:45] <jelmer> bewst1, I would recommend trying again when bzr-svn 0.5 is out
[22:45] <bewst1> Well, I was in a subdirectory of seo called utils, and was trying to push that
[22:45]  * LarstiQ would say trying to back on svn is the main source of pain here
[22:45] <jelmer> bewst1, that prevents all this mess with branching schemes
[22:45] <jelmer> bewst1, you can't push subdirectories in bzr
[22:46] <jelmer> bewst1, at least that explains why it was switching to a different branching scheme
[22:46] <bewst1> Oh, I totally messed this up.  I'm an idiot.  Let me try again.
[22:46] <jelmer> you probably want to push to boost-consulting/site/trunk I think?
[22:47] <jelmer> bewst1, you're not an idiot, but bzr-svn 0.4 exposed some internals that really should be hidden from the user..
[22:47] <bewst1> I was even pushing to the trunk.  Gah.  But now it says no new revisions to push
[22:48] <bewst1> Do I need to revert the branching scheme?  I didn't save it :(
[22:48] <jelmer> bewst1, if you push to trunk it should use the right branching scheme
[22:48] <bewst1> jelmer: I didn't want to push to trunk!
[22:48] <bewst1> I was being a fool
[22:48] <jelmer> bewst1, are you sure the revision isn't in svn yet?
[22:48] <bewst1> Will look.
[22:50] <bewst1> it is!
[22:51] <bewst1> OK, will try some more.  Any idea what the release date for 0.5 /might/ be?
[22:51] <jelmer> bewst1, roughly a month from now I hope
[22:51] <bewst1> That might be worth hanging on for
[22:51] <jelmer> there is a release candidate out that people found a few bugs in, I plan to fix those and release another RC in a week or two
[22:52] <bewst1> kewl; thanks
[22:52] <jelmer> unless any significant bugs come up in that RC, I will release that as 0.5
[22:53] <bewst1> Does bzr-svn interoperate properly with svn 1.5 branch/merge tracking?
[22:53] <jelmer> bewst1, somewhat
[22:53] <jelmer> bewst1, only for full merges (no cherrypicking)
[22:53] <jelmer> bewst1, since none of the main DVCS'es do cherrypicking tracking
[22:53] <jelmer> (yet)
[22:53] <bewst1> Sorry, what constitutes a full merge?
[22:54] <jelmer> bewst1, if you "svn merge" a branch, it will track that
[22:54] <jelmer> bewst1, if you "svn merge -c" a specific revision only or a revision range, it won't
[23:00] <bewst1> jelmer, OK, thanks.  So if you think you might want to do something like that, just create separate bzr branches for each such separate change?
[23:07] <jelmer> bewst1, for example