[01:20] <luke-jr> issues?
[01:21] <vadi2> I think loggerhead died, unless it's known.
[01:22] <spm> something just hit hard - fixing atm
[01:26] <vadi2> spm: seems it's alive, thanks much
[01:26] <brunoqc> good job !
[01:26] <luke-jr> btw, how can I delete a "series"?
[01:27] <spm> luke-jr: send in a question via answers
[01:28] <luke-jr> meh
[01:28] <luke-jr> too lazy :þ
[01:31] <spm> luke-jr: I think you'd agree that deleting stuff just cause some anon person on irc asked for it, would be a Bad Thing(tm) :-)
[01:44] <luke-jr> ☺
[01:44] <luke-jr> I'd agree that there should be a delete button
[01:44] <wgrant> Bug #2141
[01:48] <spm> wgrant: did you know that # from memory? ;-)
[01:49] <wgrant> spm: Unfortunately.
[02:04] <wgrant> maxb: Your key count script seems dead...
[02:07] <luke-jr> wgrant: wtf is Triaged?
[02:10] <wgrant> luke-jr: Confirmed by a developer to be a problem and on the radar.
[02:11] <luke-jr> uh, this is different from Confirmed?
[02:11] <luke-jr> XD
[02:11] <wgrant> Yes, it's a privileged status.
[02:11]  * luke-jr goes through all his bugs and makes them Triaged
[02:11] <wgrant> Only developers can set them to be Triaged.
[02:11] <luke-jr> I see, but I'm the driver
[02:11] <wgrant> That too.
[02:11] <wgrant> Actually, it's the bug supervisor that can do it.
[02:12] <wgrant> But driver might work too.
[02:13] <luke-jr> well, I think I'm *everythign* on this project..
[02:15] <wgrant> That's a good way to be.
[02:15] <luke-jr> https://bugs.launchpad.net/yandere/+bugs
[02:16] <luke-jr> #ArmaTWGeTRON if you want to try the game :þ
[02:34] <maxb> ugh, so it is
[02:36] <maxb> wgrant: 'Error handling request. Exception raised: Invalid_argument("Too many responses")'
[02:36] <wgrant> Haha.
[02:36] <maxb> oh well. it gave a decent estimate on the end time before it imploded
[02:38] <wgrant> I don't think the rate is likely to change much, so it should be quite accurate.
[07:58]  * wgrant gives lp-bzr an excellent developer response mark.
[08:04] <thumper> wgrant: ta
[08:11] <wgrant> thumper: Why do branches not get automatically marked as merged when their merge proposal does? I have to go and poke the owner of the branch to mark them as merged to get them off my lists...
[08:12] <thumper> wgrant: they do
[08:12] <thumper> now
[08:12] <wgrant> They do not. The merge proposal gets closed.
[08:12] <wgrant> But the branch status doesn't change.
[08:12] <thumper> wgrant: the scanner marks them as merged when it notices
[08:13] <noodles775> My branches are being changed automatically... not sure what could be different...
[08:13] <thumper> wgrant: when the target branch is updated, the scanner marks the proposal and source branches as merged
[08:14] <wgrant> thumper: The scanner didn't pick up a merge revision, but it did close the merge proposal. But not the branch.
[08:14] <thumper> wgrant: if the tip of the source branch isn't in the target branch, it isn't marked
[08:15] <thumper> wgrant: you may have merged "not quite all" the revisions
[08:16] <wgrant> thumper: The branches hadn't diverged (the second branch only existed because the original branch was corrupt due to a bug in 1.6 stacking), so I pulled into the fixed main branch.
[08:16] <wgrant> So the tip was definitely there.
[08:16] <wgrant> It was the tip of the new branch.
[08:16] <thumper> heh
[08:16] <thumper> you hit a special case
[08:16] <wgrant> I thought so.
[08:16] <thumper> if the tip revisions are the same
[08:16] <thumper> then it wasn't merged
[08:16] <thumper> it IS the same branch
[08:17] <wgrant> But the merge proposal was closed...
[08:17]  * thumper shrugs
[08:17] <thumper> sorry
[08:17] <thumper> it uses two slightly different code paths
[08:17] <thumper> FTW
[08:17] <wgrant> Ewww. That would explain it.
[08:17] <thumper> :-|
[08:18] <wgrant> Is there a bug on that?
[08:21] <thumper> wgrant: well, the bug would only change it so the mp wasn't marked as merged
[08:21] <thumper> because you didn't really
[08:21] <thumper> you just overrode the target
[08:22] <thumper> I'm actually surprised that it did change the merge proposal
[08:22] <thumper> because I though that it didn't
[08:22] <wgrant> How odd.
[08:22] <thumper> and the two code paths differ only in one works on the merge proposal, and the other works on the branch
[08:22] <thumper> you could look at the proposal to see who recorded the merge
[08:22] <thumper> if it was the scanner it won't be shown
[08:22] <thumper> if it was a person, it will be
[08:23] <wgrant> thumper: I don't have mail about that change, and only the proposer and approver are listed.
[08:24] <thumper> hmm, certainly sounds like the scanner tweaked it
[08:24] <wgrant> That's what I thought.
[08:25] <thumper> wgrant: if the source branch is a series branch, it doesn't get marked as merged
[08:25] <thumper> wgrant: I just read the code (that I wrote)
[08:25] <wgrant> thumper: Neither was a series branch.
[08:25] <thumper> wgrant: this is to avoid series branches dropping off listings where they should be there
[08:25] <wgrant> Of course.
[08:25] <thumper> wgrant: got a reference for me?
[08:25] <wgrant> ~mgiuca/ivle/storm -> ~ivle-dev/ivle/storm
[08:27]  * thumper looks
[08:29] <thumper> wgrant: very weird
[08:30] <wgrant> That's what mgiuca said.
[08:33] <thumper> wgrant: nope I was wrong
[08:33] <thumper> wgrant: they are two different code paths
[08:33] <thumper> wgrant: and
[08:33] <thumper> # If the tip revisions are the same, then it is the same
[08:33] <thumper>                 # branch, not one merged into the other.
[08:33] <thumper> the merge proposal check doesn't check this
[08:34] <wgrant> Aha.
[08:34] <wgrant> Why should that be special-cased?
[08:34] <wgrant> Shouldn't it just check if the source tip is in the destination?
[08:40] <thumper> wgrant: because ...
[08:40] <thumper> wgrant: the scanner checks all branches against each other, not just those attached with merge proposals
[08:40] <thumper> wgrant: say you branch mine
[08:40] <wgrant> Oh.
[08:41] <wgrant> I see.
[08:41] <thumper> and push it to launchpad before doing any work
[08:41] <wgrant> Yep.
[08:41] <wgrant> I see.
[08:41] <thumper> it would be marked as merged when it clearly isn't
[08:41] <wgrant> I didn't realise it checked everything.
[08:41] <thumper> special majik
[08:41] <thumper> for projects that don't use merge proposals
[08:41] <wgrant> I haven't used lp-bzr much for a couple of years.
[08:41] <thumper> it is much better now than it was two years ago :)
[08:42] <wgrant> I can tell.
[08:43] <wgrant> So... can I make an arbitrary branch vanish silently by checking it out at tip-1, pushing it to a project, setting it as a series branch, then merging the remaining revision in?
[08:44] <wgrant> Or does it only scan series branches within a branch target?
[08:46] <savvas> is it possible to edit some comments of a bug report? (they contain personal information and the user asked for them to be removed)
[08:50] <bigjools> savvas: file a question and someone can take a look
[08:51] <savvas> alrighty
[08:51] <savvas> er.. bigjools, on answerts.launchpad.net/launchpad or soyuz ?
[08:51] <savvas> *answers
[08:51] <wgrant> +register-merge asks me for keywords indicating the type of review I am performing... am I not requesting a review on that page?
[08:51] <bigjools> savvas: launchpad
[08:51] <bigjools> all questions should go there anyway
[08:52] <savvas> ok thanks
[11:58] <wgrant> al-maisan: SQL queries are sufficient to get a bug made private?
[12:02] <al-maisan> wgrant: apparently :)
[12:03] <wgrant> al-maisan: Yet much of the dev documentation and DB patches therein are not...
[12:04] <al-maisan> wgrant: consistency is always difficult to achieve :)
[12:05] <wgrant> al-maisan: Apparently :(
[12:14] <mrevell> thekorn: pingaling
[12:15] <thekorn> mrevell, pongalong
[12:15] <mrevell> :)
[13:39] <jpds> cprov: Can you please look into: http://tinyurl.com/98sx65 - when you have some time? The build fails with: "Build killed with signal 15 after 150 minutes of inactivity"
[13:39] <jpds> ...not sure what to do about it.
[13:42] <wgrant> jpds: It's ardour, so it's scons, so it's the longest standing bug ever, so you need to run away. Now.
[13:43] <jpds> wgrant: I did not know that.
[13:43] <cprov> wgrant: right, what's the cause of this issue ?
[13:43] <wgrant> cprov: We have no idea.
[13:43] <vadi2> I'm having some trouble breaking a lock on bzr - it is not breaking: http://paste.pocoo.org/show/100523/
[13:43] <wgrant> But it is one of the more infamous build failures.
[13:44] <wgrant> I don't know an awful lot about it, however.
[13:44] <cprov> wgrant: is there bug filed about it ?
[13:45] <vadi2> ignore that, I got it working with a different url
[13:46] <wgrant> cprov: Hmm, it seems that the relevant scons-breaking launchpad-buildd bug was fixed on production a few days ago.
[13:46] <wgrant> But, that seems to not be the usual FTBFS issue, now I look into the log.
[13:46]  * Nafallo ponders if he didn't file a bug about that in dapper or so...
[13:46] <wgrant> Just another scons issue.
[13:46] <Nafallo> against linxdcpp iirc
[13:47] <Nafallo> wgrant: does that sound right? ^
[13:48] <wgrant> Nafallo: Possibly. The bug I found about the issue is bug #87077.
[13:50] <theseinfeld> hey guys, what or where is a documentation describing the purpose of bug-supervisor and security contact
[13:51] <jpds> wgrant: ardour built fine in my pbuilder for the record.
[13:51] <wgrant> jpds: That's the problem.
[14:15] <kiko-phone> mrevell, see theseinfeld's question?
[14:15] <mrevell> hey theseinfeld
[14:15] <mrevell> thanks ki
[14:15] <mrevell> thanks kiko-phone
[14:15] <kiko-phone> thanks xchat
[14:16] <mrevell> theseinfeld: https://help.launchpad.net/Bugs/YourProject#Bug%20supervisors%20and%20security%20contacts
[14:16] <mrevell> theseinfeld: That should give you what you need. If not, let me know and I'll update it so that it gives you the info you need!
[14:32] <theseinfeld> thank you mrevell
[14:33] <mrevell> my pleasure theseinfeld
[14:41]  * ScottK waves to barry.
[14:41] <ScottK> o/
[14:45]  * barry waves back to scottk
[15:47] <spitfire_> hi
[15:47] <noodles775> hi spitfire_ :)
[15:47] <spitfire_> every time I want to send bug report with apport it says:
[15:47] <spitfire_> "urlopen error The write operation timed out"
[15:47] <spitfire_> is this a bug?
[15:47] <spitfire_> My network isn't THAT slow
[15:48] <spitfire_> Ok it is slow, but I'm not running any torrent, or any application that is up/downloading.
[15:48] <spitfire_> Besides xchat and pidgin
[15:49]  * noodles775 tries to find out...
[15:49] <intellectronica> everyone: ubuntu bug tracking session as part of the developer week in #ubuntu-classroom in 10m if anyone wants to join and help (or just cheer)
[15:51] <spitfire_> noodles775: So I'm using t-dsl
[15:51] <spitfire_> 87 kBit/s upstream
[15:52] <spitfire_> 406 kBit/s downstream
[15:52] <spitfire_> it is slow.
[15:52] <spitfire_> But a ~200kb bug report shouldn't be too much...
[15:53] <noodles775> Hi spitfire_, that is slow, but apparently it's a know bug... allenap can you confirm?
[15:53] <spitfire_> yes, I just found it:LP
[15:53] <noodles775> spitfire_: great
[15:53] <spitfire_> https://bugs.launchpad.net/apport/+bug/314212
[15:54] <noodles775> That's the one...
[15:54] <spitfire_> it is confirmed already
[15:54] <allenap> spitfire_: You beat me to it :)
[15:54] <spitfire_> ?
[15:54] <spitfire_> allenap: ?
[15:54] <allenap> spitfire_: I was looking for that bug, see noodles775 message above.
[15:55] <spitfire_> oh
[15:56] <thekorn> it would be greate if someone from the launchpad team could comment on this bug
[15:57] <spitfire_> yeah
[15:57] <spitfire_> it's pretty important for testing.
[15:57] <thekorn> great, even
[15:58] <noodles775> allenap: do you know if anyone's working on it, or able to comment?
[15:58] <noodles775> (sorry if you're not the right person... your name was given to me ;) )
[15:59] <allenap> noodles775: I think flacoste would be the man to ask.
[16:00] <noodles775> ah, thanks allenap.
[16:00] <noodles775> flacoste: do you know if anyone is able to comment on bug 314212?
[16:15] <flacoste> noodles775: looking
[16:15] <noodles775> thanks flacoste
[16:20] <flacoste> noodles775: is it possible to get the error page returned?
[16:21] <flacoste> noodles775: because +storeblob doesn't look like it's failing in our daily reports, might be the proxy in front of it
[16:21] <noodles775> spitfire_ ^^^^^
[16:23] <spitfire_> ok
[16:23] <spitfire_> noodles775: But if it ain't my fault I'm not interested :P
[16:24] <spitfire_> Just waiting for the fix;)
[16:24] <noodles775> spitfire_: ;)
[16:25] <noodles775> spitfire_: if you've time, it'd be great if you could update the bug with a comment of the exact error (whether it's an apache error page etc... see flacoste's comment at the end of the bug)
[16:25] <spitfire_> ok
[16:26] <spitfire_> noodles775: but what should i do to check, what is the problem?
[16:28] <noodles775> spitfire_: that's the issue, trying to figure out exactly where the problem is. If you are able to get the app you were using to crash again, attempt to send the report, and then perhaps do a screenshot of the exact error, that'd be worth gold!
[16:28] <spitfire_> noodles775: it's already there: http://launchpadlibrarian.net/20931834/Screenshot.png
[16:29] <spitfire_> Attached to one of the comments.
[16:29] <spitfire_> I saw nothing else.
[16:29] <noodles775> ah, sorry spitfire_ ... didn't see that.
[16:29] <spitfire_> noodles775: and it's only symptom.
[16:29] <spitfire_> Not the source of rthe problem
[16:30] <noodles775> spitfire_: yes, I was hoping that it might have been a bit more descriptive :/ (ie. telling us the url it was trying to open)
[16:30] <spitfire_> flacoste: Can you toll me how can I investigate this problem?
[16:30] <spitfire_> *tell
[16:31] <flacoste> spitfire_: you need to get at the content of the error
[16:31] <flacoste> spitfire_: i don't know apport, so not really sure how you would do that
[16:31] <spitfire_> ok
[16:32] <spitfire_> oh
[16:32] <spitfire_> it's in /var/log
[16:32] <spitfire_> how obvious:P
[16:32] <flacoste> lol
[16:32] <spitfire_> yeah lol2
[16:42] <spitfire_> flacoste: but they seem useless
[16:42] <spitfire_> these logs
[16:42] <spitfire_> They only list which reports did apport try to send.
[16:42] <flacoste> ok
[16:42] <spitfire_> But I've attachec them anyway
[16:42] <flacoste> BjornT_ is trying to reproduce
[16:43] <flacoste> on small files, it works everytime
[16:43] <flacoste> he's now trying with large ones
[16:43] <spitfire_> flacoste: what?
[16:43] <spitfire_> Sendeing?
[16:43] <spitfire_> It doesn't for me.
[16:43] <flacoste> spitfire_: how big are your files?
[16:43] <spitfire_> I can't send a 50kb file:/
[16:44] <spitfire_> 59/2 kb
[16:44] <spitfire_> *59,2
[16:44] <spitfire_> all reports are in /var/crash
[16:46] <flacoste> BjornT_: ^^^
[16:48] <spitfire_> flacoste: every file stores a small and full dump
[16:48] <spitfire_> (Some are small enough, to not have small one)
[16:48] <spitfire_> double clicking them opens them in apport
[16:49] <spitfire_> so you can send them;)
[16:49] <spitfire_> BjornT_: ^^
[16:54] <BjornT_> spitfire_: could you send one of the reports you can't upload to me? (either send it to bjorn at canonical.com, attach it to the bug report, or put it somewhere else)
[16:55] <spitfire_> BjornT: attached to bug report
[16:56] <BjornT> thanks
[17:06] <furicle> Question - is there some way to get hits/traffic/downloads info on packages hosted on launchpad - either as team member or not?
[17:08] <salgado> furicle, no, but we're working on it
[17:09] <BjornT> spitfire_: no luck reproducing the problem :( i've tried more than 10 times with your crash report; works every time for me
[17:10] <BjornT> spitfire_: it could be that it's something between you and our server that is triggering the problem, but i don't have any good ideas for testing that theory
[17:36] <BjornT> spitfire_: when you get the upload error from apport. is it in the beginning or at the end of the upload? (i.e., is the progress bar at the beginning or end)
[17:37] <BjornT> spitfire_: or is it different each time?
[17:45] <spitfire_> BjornT: sometimes at the start (1/10) sometimes at the end 93/4)
[17:45] <spitfire_> *3/4
[17:45] <spitfire_> bigger files stop at 1/10
[17:47] <spitfire_> BjornT: maybe I should try traceroute or ping?
[17:47] <spitfire_> But on what server?
[18:00] <flacoste> spitfire_: any chance you are using a proxy server?
[18:08] <spitfire_> flacoste: nope
[18:12] <spitfire_> flacoste: http://pastebin.ca/1313704
[18:12] <spitfire_> ^^omitted my ip
[18:12] <spitfire_> this is result of tracepath on launchpad.net's ip
[18:16] <flacoste> hmm, i'm not seeing anything anormal there
[18:20] <ScottK> Once a PPA is signed, are existing binaries signed or do I need to reupload?
[18:21] <maxb> I think you need to upload one thing per distroseries
[18:22] <spitfire_> ScottK: THEY'RE SIGNED WITH YOUR KEY
[18:22] <ScottK> spitfire_: No they aren't.
[18:22] <spitfire_> the one for PPA is autogenerated
[18:22] <spitfire_> ScottK: they are
[18:22] <spitfire_> otherwise they would be rejected:P
[18:22] <ScottK> Clarify what you mean by 'MY' key then.
[18:22] <spitfire_> By launchpad.
[18:23] <ScottK> You've certainly got no private key of mine.
[18:23] <spitfire_> ScottK: gpg --list-keys
[18:23] <spitfire_> they're signet with PUBLIC
[18:23] <spitfire_> key
[18:23] <spitfire_> just like your emails
[18:23] <spitfire_> (if you use gpg)
[18:23] <spitfire_> *signed
[18:24] <spitfire_> ScottK: AFAIK you can sign key generated by launchpad with your key.
[18:25] <spitfire_> Didn't try that yet, my PPA hasn't got a key yet.
[18:25] <maxb> spitfire_: I think you've answered about three different questions that ScottK didn't ask, but not the one he did. :-)
[18:25] <ScottK> Right.  Not the question I asked.
[18:26]  * ScottK uses emperical methods
[18:26] <spitfire_> ScottK: you don't need to reupload:)
[18:27] <spitfire_> :P
[18:27] <spitfire_> If that was the question:D
[18:28] <ScottK> That was the question and that's not what I'm seeing.
[18:28] <ScottK> gpg: no valid OpenPGP data found.
[18:28] <ScottK> Nevermind
[18:28] <ScottK> Wrong test
[18:28] <maxb> I distinctly remember reading that signatures will _not_ be backpopulated.
[18:29] <maxb> The only open question is whether you need only upload one package, or one per distroseries, to make the generation happen
[18:29] <ScottK> It'd be handy if the PPA instructions didn't just say PPAs are unsigned, oh well.
[18:32] <maxb> Most PPAs are still unsigned at this point. :-)
[18:34] <ScottK> Looks like the release file is in fact signed.
[18:56] <yml> hello
[19:00] <yml> I have a branch on launchpad (bzr branch lp:~yml/+junk/django-geotagging) and a project which is django-geotagging.
[19:00] <yml> I would like to know what should be done to make the first the "trunk" branch of the second.
[19:01] <yml> should I create a team first ?
[19:03] <maxb> I think that is only necessary if you want to share write-access to the branch
[19:05] <maxb> I think you can do what you want by just visiting your branch's page, and clicking the tiny little pen icon on a yellow circle, next to the ~yml/+junk/django-geotagging heading
[19:06] <yml> maxb: I am going to put my glasses to click on this tiny little icon.
[19:06] <maxb> :-)
[19:08] <yml> in fact they are five icons like the one you describe
[19:12] <maxb> yml: yes, there are. You need the one next to the branch's name heading, as I said
[19:17] <yml> maxb: thank you this is now done
[19:17] <maxb> np
[19:17] <yml> my next question is about django-geotagging
[19:17] <yml> pardon me wrong paste
[19:18] <yml> ﻿my next question is about : what are series ?
[19:19] <LarstiQ> yml: development series
[19:19] <LarstiQ> yml: consider samba3 and samba4
[19:19] <LarstiQ> yml: or in more general, a stable series to do point releases from, and a development series to do active development on
[19:22] <yml> LarstiQ: They can be seen as the branch in SVN, right ?
[19:22] <LarstiQ> yml: it's more conceptual
[19:23] <LarstiQ> yml: you can see it as the concept behind a set of branches governing the work on those
[19:24] <yml> I see
[19:26] <LarstiQ> yml: https://help.launchpad.net/Projects/SeriesMilestonesReleases
[19:26] <yml> so I have my main branch where I am going to work : lp:dango-geotagging
[19:26] <yml> if some other people want to work on django-geotagging they can create branch
[19:27] <LarstiQ> yes
[19:27] <yml> and I could pull from their branch in order to beneficiate from there improvement
[19:28] <yml> this is done locally on my computer
[19:29] <yml> Then I push the changes I accept into trunk on launchpad
[19:29] <LarstiQ> yml: yes (though you'd likely need merge instead of pull)
[19:29] <LarstiQ> yml: yup
[19:30] <yml> LarstiQ: yes thank you
[19:30] <yml> I am looking forward testing this workflow
[19:30] <yml> Thank you for your help
[19:30] <LarstiQ> np
[21:46] <aleksr88> hey, is there anyone who could answer a newbie question about package creation/modification?
[21:48] <aleksr88> please?
[21:51] <mwhudson> aleksr88: not sure what you mean, but you're probably in the wrong place...
[21:52] <aleksr88> mwhudson
[21:52] <aleksr88> it has to do with uploading it to ppa in launchpad
[21:52] <spitfire_> aleksr88: so?
[21:54] <mwhudson> aleksr88: you have seen  https://help.launchpad.net/Packaging/PPA ?
[21:55] <aleksr88> spitfire_: basically, i pulled a source package from the ubuntu repositories, and i applied a small patch i needed for it to work in our environment, and i was wondering what needs to be done to change the version of the package so that it reflects that is a custom version
[21:55] <spitfire_> devscripts
[21:55] <spitfire_> nad then look at: https://help.launchpad.net/Packaging/PPA
[21:55] <spitfire_> and READ it carefully.
[21:56] <aleksr88> okay, thanks
[21:57] <spitfire_> aleksr88: and also read man devscripts ;)
[22:44] <ia> hello. i've just read help.launchpad.net/Packaging/PPA. could anybody clarify, please, some moment. uploading new upstream version(but without my own any changes) of app, is not welcome, even this app exists in official Debian/Ubuntu repo, but have out-of-dated version, right? for example, in Ubuntu's repo exist app-1.1, but in mainstream latest stable version - app-3.0. if i take app-3.0 tarball, make correct deb package(but initial release only without any p
[22:44] <ia> atches), and would like to share it with others, should i upload it in ppa?
[22:45] <mwhudson> ia: that sounds reasonable enough to me
[22:45] <mwhudson> ia: for example, python2.6 is available in a ppa for intrepid
[22:46] <ScottK> ia: It'd be more generally useful to get it updated in the Ubuntu archive
[22:52] <ia> ScottK: "Ubuntu archive" - do you mean to find some sponsor, which will upload packages right into ubuntu repos?
[22:54] <ScottK> ia: Yes.
[23:09] <spitfire_> Anyone here uses "giver"?