[00:10] <maxb> I've cleaned everything but the eggs cache
[00:17] <maxb> gah, what?
[00:18] <maxb> devel works, my python2.5 branch does not
[00:18] <maxb> But there's nothing there that goes anywhere near lazr anything
[00:19] <maxb> Getting distribution for 'lazr.uri==1.0.1'.
[00:19] <maxb> Installing lazr.uri 1.0.1
[00:19] <maxb> Caused installation of a distribution:
[00:19] <maxb> lazr.uri 1.0
[00:19] <maxb> with a different version.
[00:19] <maxb> Got None.
[00:19] <maxb> While:
[00:19] <maxb>   Installing.
[00:19] <maxb>   Getting section filetemplates.
[00:19] <maxb>   Initializing part filetemplates.
[00:19] <maxb> Error: There is a version conflict.
[00:19] <maxb> We already have: lazr.uri 1.0
[00:19] <maxb> What on earth is buildout attempting to tell me?
[00:25] <maxb> oohkay, purging python-lazr-uri .deb made it work...
[00:26] <maxb> isn't buildout supposed to be insulating you from system python versions?
[00:34] <maxb> /home/maxb/launchpad/lp-branches/python2.5/lib/canonical/config/__init__.py:19: UserWarning: Module lazr was already imported from None, but /home/maxb/launchpad/lp-branches/python2.5/lib is being added to sys.path
[00:34] <maxb> !?
[00:45] <james_w> maxb: there was a fix to lazr.config today I believe
[00:50]  * maxb observes that the zope sourcedep still isn't completely obsolete, if the symlinks are to be believed
[00:57] <maxb> OK after cleaning absolutely everything, now I can't "make" devel eitehr
[00:57] <maxb> either
[00:57] <thumper> :(
[00:57] <thumper> my make is failing too in mailman
[00:58] <maxb> heh, at least you got that far
[00:58] <thumper> mwhudson: hey, build engineer
[00:59] <mwhudson> thumper: as of monday! :)
[00:59] <mwhudson> *next* monday
[00:59] <thumper> :)
[00:59] <thumper> does your make work?
[00:59] <mwhudson> dunno
[00:59] <mwhudson> running pull now
[01:00] <mwhudson> i just read something about make in mailman failing from last week, francis said he'd fixed it though
[01:01] <jml> mwhudson, hello
[01:02] <jml> thumper, I was just looking at https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/launchpad-code/+bug/418290
[01:02] <mup> Bug #418290: Person's code facet has unclear section linking to the teams the person is a member of <Launchpad Bazaar Integration:New> <https://launchpad.net/bugs/418290>
[01:02] <thumper> jml: yeah
[01:02] <mwhudson> jml: hello
[01:02] <thumper> File "/home/tim/src/lp/devel/eggs/zope.proxy-3.5.0-py2.4-linux-i686.egg/zope/proxy/_zope_proxy_proxy.py", line 6, in __bootstrap__
[01:02] <thumper>     imp.load_dynamic(__name__,__file__)
[01:02] <thumper> ImportError: /home/tim/src/lp/devel/eggs/zope.proxy-3.5.0-py2.4-linux-i686.egg/zope/proxy/_zope_proxy_proxy.so: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory
[01:02] <jml> thumper, can we simply fix the links to link to the code listing?
[01:03] <thumper> jml: there was a "fix" recently that changed the fmt:link to always go to the root site
[01:03] <thumper> jml: we may be able to get it to go to the code site
[01:03] <thumper> jml: I've not yet investigated
[01:03] <thumper> jml: I think it is just team/fmt:link/code
[01:03] <thumper> (or branches)
[01:04] <maxb> So, what is buildout *supposed* to do if I have lazr.uri 1.0 installed as  a .deb but versions.cfg says 1.0.1 ?
[01:04] <thumper> it is a bit of a mixup
[01:04] <jml> thumper, yeah, I think the 'fix' is a good idea
[01:04] <mwhudson> maxb: look in your download-cache
[01:04] <jml> thumper, but it's different from forbidding links to particular facet pages :)
[01:05] <jml> thumper, and it seems that linking to the team branch listings actually is desirable
[01:05] <maxb> mwhudson: Hmm. it appears to be throwing its hands up in horror and bleating incomprehensible error messages instead
[01:05] <thumper> it is there
[01:05] <mwhudson> maxb: i'm not completely surprised
[01:05] <jml> right.
[01:05] <thumper> jml: the bug was that normally a link to a person or team should take you to the overivew
[01:05] <thumper> jml: but in this case we should link to listings, and probably give it a better title too
[01:05] <thumper> s/title/heading
[01:06] <jml> thumper, I was about to file a bug about the heading, actually :)
[01:06] <thumper> jml: file away and assign to me
[01:06] <jml> thumper, will do.
[01:08] <thumper> grrr
[01:08] <thumper> how can I code if I can't run the tests
[01:08] <thumper> a rhetorical question
[01:09]  * jml thinks about the new project page
[01:14] <jml> leonardr, hello?
[01:16] <jml> leonardr, I have three simple questions for you, if you have a moment.
[01:32] <jml> is spm back today?
[01:32] <spm> aye
[01:34] <jml> spm, welcome back :)
[01:34] <jml> spm, feeling better?
[01:35] <spm> jml: yeah muchly. The joy of children and bringing home colds from school....
[01:35] <jml> heh
[01:36] <jml> spm, my todo list says I have a couple of things to ask you about
[01:36] <jml> spm, one of them being bazaar.edge.launchpad.net
[01:41] <thumper> maxb: I blew away the contents of the /eggs dir, and make clean build worked ok
[01:53]  * mwhudson lunches
[01:58] <leonardr> jml: since i forgot to quit irc, you may ask your questions :)
[01:58] <jml> leonardr, heh, thanks :)
[01:59] <jml> leonardr, first, what should I call the constant for the production API service root. I've picked LPNET_SERVICE_ROOT for now, but STABLE_ and PROD_ might also fit.
[01:59] <jml> leonardr, second, what should the URL be? I've got https://api.launchpad.net/beta/ now, but the 'beta' troubles me a little.
[02:00] <leonardr> jml: i would go with PRODUCTION or STABLE
[02:00] <thumper> lunch time
[02:00] <jml> leonardr, third, when I authorize an app for the production service, I am taken to an edge web page (probably because of the beta user redirect). Is this a bug?
[02:00] <leonardr> look at the other constants and do what they do. i believe they also have /beta/
[02:01] <jml> leonardr, they also have beta.
[02:01] <jml> leonardr, so I should follow what they do?
[02:01] <leonardr> yes, the constants are going to behave like "HEAD" or "trunk" in a version control system
[02:01] <leonardr> they will point to the most current version of the web service
[02:01] <leonardr> which right now is /beta/
[02:01]  * jml prefers 'PRODUCTION' to 'STABLE', since the latter might have API stability connotations.
[02:01] <leonardr> sounds good
[02:02] <leonardr> #3 is a bug -- you're in the launchpad beta testers team, so your requests to lpnet redirect you to beta
[02:02] <leonardr> flacoste filed this bug a couple weeks back
[02:02] <leonardr> s/beta/edge/
[02:02] <jml> cool.
[02:02] <jml> leonardr, thanks for that. I'll land the patch with the new constant then.
[02:03] <leonardr> great
[02:04] <wgrant> Is the beta team restriction in place on the lpnet API vhost?
[02:04] <leonardr> wgrant: yes, that's the bug
[02:05] <wgrant> leonardr: Not the same bug... I mean, api.edge.launchpad.net is restricted to beta testers. Is api.launchpad.net?
[02:05] <leonardr> ah
[02:05] <leonardr> i don't know. are you sure that restriction is still in place? i thought we got rid of it
[02:05] <wgrant> I don't know.
[02:05] <leonardr> but if it's still in place on edge, it should still be in place on lpnet
[02:05] <wgrant> It is certainly in place on edge.
[02:06] <wgrant> I saw somebody complaining about it on identi.ca earlier in the week.
[02:06] <leonardr> maybe that's another thing we should change
[02:06] <wgrant> Restricting it on edge might be reasonable.
[02:07] <maxb> It's not restricted on edge. I used the api long before I joined the beta-testers team
[02:08] <wgrant> Hm.
[02:08] <wgrant> Then why was it crashing for a non-beta-tester, I wonder..
[02:10] <wgrant> Huh, you're right. It's not restricted on edge (or at least wasn't 1.5 months ago).
[02:17] <maxb> huh. So the testsuite no longer runs unit tests first?
[02:20] <wgrant> It did for me yesterday, but that was without the new zope.testing.
[02:30] <jml> oh right.
[02:30] <jml> new zope.testing.
[02:31]  * jml has work to do!
[02:34] <wgrant> jml: What are you doing?
[02:35] <jml> wgrant, enabling parallelization of the Launchpad test suite
[02:35] <wgrant> Ooh. Excellent.
[02:35] <jml> but also, paging the new zope.testing version into my brain
[02:35] <jml> so I can work on making sure it's stdlib unittest compatible
[02:35] <jml> (mostly so that lifeless's unit testing work can be applied to it)
[02:38] <wgrant> subunit?
[02:47] <jml> wgrant, subunit and testresources
[02:47] <jml> and ideally, much of the work in bzrlib.tests and bzr-ec2test, but let's not get ahead of ourselves
[02:59] <wgrant> Argh. 844 line diff :(
[03:01] <jml> wgrant, most reviewers can be bribed to review diffs over the allowed size
[03:02] <lifeless> particularly with code that is an improvement
[03:03] <wgrant> Almost half of it is new tests.
[03:05] <jml> thumper, beuno: Is https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/launchpad-code/+bug/236442 much closer to being fixed now that we have spark lines?
[03:05] <mup> Bug #236442: Show how active I've been <feature> <Launchpad Bazaar Integration:Triaged> <https://launchpad.net/bugs/236442>
[03:06] <wgrant> Well, you don't have sparklines any more...
[03:06] <thumper> jml: I killed them
[03:07] <thumper> jml: I intend to bring them back, but they need fixing
[03:07] <jml> thumper, that seems perfectly fair to me.
[03:07] <jml> thumper, I think that the bug I mentioned doesn't benefit from sparklines so much as actual graphs.
[03:07] <thumper> yeah
[03:09]  * thumper primal screams
[03:09] <jml> mwhudson, just re-discovered https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/launchpad-code/+bug/85326
[03:09] <mup> Bug #85326: Codehosting server should initiate a pull attempt <branch-puller> <codehosting-ssh> <Launchpad Bazaar Integration:Triaged> <https://launchpad.net/bugs/85326>
[03:09] <jml> thumper, wassup?
[03:10] <thumper> the query for person active reviews is an arse
[03:10] <thumper> we need two different base collections
[03:10] <thumper> and different queries
[03:10] <thumper> unioned
[03:10] <mwhudson> jml: "hmm"
[03:15] <jml> mwhudson, it's apparently my oldest open bug on launchpad-code
[03:18] <mwhudson> jml: that's quite a surprise
[03:21] <jml> mwhudson, yes.
[03:29] <jml> bloop
[03:32] <jml> thumper, when you've got time, I'd like to talk about Monty Taylor's post to launchpad-users
[03:33] <thumper> yeah, I'm actually trying to get work done right now :(
[03:33] <jml> thumper, understood.
[04:00] <mwhudson> jml: i think, probably, 85326 should be wontfix/subsumed by our eventual message queue stuff
[04:00] <mwhudson> jml: in the fullness of time, the puller might not even run on the same machine as the ssh server
[04:00] <jml> mwhudson, indeed.
[04:00] <jml> mwhudson, but it could also be done before-hand.
[04:01] <mwhudson> jml: you mean as a temporary improvement?
[04:01] <jml> mwhudson, yeah
[04:01] <mwhudson> well, yes it could
[04:01] <jml> mwhudson, I don't think it would hinder any of the message queue work
[04:01] <jml> and it wouldn't be too difficult a change, I think
[04:02] <mwhudson> jml: there's quite a lot of stuff in vaguely similar areas i'd rather do first, i think
[04:02] <mwhudson> (combine puller and scanner, maybe pre-exec-ing bzr lp-server processes)
[04:02] <wgrant> maxb: I think you want http://lpdebs.canonical.com/{dapper,jaunty}/
[04:02] <jml> mwhudson, I'd combine the puller and scanner first for sure.
[04:03] <wgrant> maxb: That has 0.11 to 0.35.
[04:04] <jml> mwhudson, I think I'd probably trigger a pull before working on pre-exec, since I think waiting for a pull is a worse kind of waiting than waiting for a bzr lp-serve process to spawn
[04:04] <jml> (also because I know how to trigger a pull :))
[04:04] <mwhudson> jml: i'm interested to see how my/our puller rewrite works in practice
[04:04] <jml> probably the memory issue trumps both of those
[04:04] <jml> mwhudson, me too!
[04:05] <jml> mwhudson, I guess it's waiting for a prod rollout?
[04:05] <mwhudson> it will reduce the latency before a pull starts to 10s in some circumstances
[04:05] <mwhudson> right
[04:06] <jml> I have to confess I'd forgotten about that patch.
[04:08] <wgrant> maxb: By 'jaunty' I of course mean 'hardy'
[05:40] <spm> mwhudson: (mwhudsondoyle?) ref bug 411250. Ha! it seemed to go away on it's own - perhaps thumper can enlighten? it "felt" like a -ve cache issue....
[05:40] <mup> Bug #411250: rewriter seems to negative cache for a long time <Launchpad Bazaar Integration:Incomplete> <https://launchpad.net/bugs/411250>
[05:41] <mwhudson> spm: there's enough moving parts for things to be able to get pretty confusing
[05:41] <mwhudson> spm: but unless it happens again, i intend to basically not think about this again :)
[05:41] <spm> heh. and fair enough too.
[05:42] <spm> fwiw, nothing quite like nagios generated sms's on a regular basis to encourage bug-reporting. :-D
[05:52] <thumper> I need a better title for: 'Reviews requested I can do'
[05:53] <thumper> because I can now review anything
[05:53] <thumper> what it really means is:
[05:53] <thumper> a team I'm a member of has been asked to review this proposal
[05:53] <thumper> but that's kinda wordy
[06:02] <jml> hmm
[06:02] <thumper> I'm about to wander off and go and make dinner
[06:02] <thumper> coming back on line when the kids are in bed
[06:03] <stub> thumper-cooking: The key word in the existing title is 'requested'.
[06:03] <thumper> stub: I have a different question for you
[06:04] <stub> thumper-cooking: The existing title seems fine (although I think 'Requested reviews I can do' is better)
[06:04] <thumper> stub: we have constantly issues with the security.cfg
[06:04] <thumper> stub: I want to have some group defined for "bzr-identity" that has the select rights on all the right tables
[06:04] <thumper> stub: and have that group used in our other db users
[06:04] <thumper> stub: is there an example of how to set this up?
[06:05] <stub> Check out garbo, garbo-hourly and garbo-daily - it will show you how inheritance works in that file.
[06:05] <thumper> stub: ok, ta
[06:05]  * thumper really leaves to cook now
[07:04] <mwhudson> well i've now read all the mail that had arrived by the time i got back on tuesday morning
[07:04] <mwhudson> but not all the mail that's arrived since then :)
[07:15] <jml> mwhudson, heh
[07:28] <noodles775> Morning
[07:39] <jml> hi
[08:11] <maxb> wgrant: oh great, that gets me all but 0.7 through 0.10
[08:12] <wgrant> yep.
[08:17] <maxb> lifeless: Care to cast your mind back to 2006 and speculate where launchpad-dependencies (0.8) dapper might have been kept?
[08:17] <lifeless> in dapper
[08:17] <lifeless> [yes, it was actually in the distro at one point]
[08:17] <wgrant> 0.6 is the latest in the distro.
[08:17] <wgrant> I located 0.11 to 0.35 this morning.
[08:17] <wgrant> And >= 0.36 are in the PPA.
[08:18] <lifeless> sorry, nothing springs to mind then
[08:19] <wgrant> It also looks like 0.2 and 0.3 only ever lived in pre-Soyuz Dapper.
[08:19] <maxb> ah well, 4 missing versions is a lot better than 30ish
[08:20] <jml> maxb, can you give me a file name that I could search for?
[08:20] <maxb> launchpad-dependencies_0.7.dsc, 0.8, 0.9, 0.10
[08:21] <jml> no joy.
[08:21] <maxb> It's not critical, there's info in debian/changelog
[08:22] <jml> cool.
[08:22] <jml> danilos, good morning
[08:23] <wgrant> maxb: I will grab a recent Karmic live CD in the next couple of days and see if I can reproduce your failures in a really clean environment.
[08:40] <maxb> meh, I have a couple of new failures, even on 2.4
[08:40] <maxb> https://dev.launchpad.net/LaunchpadOnKarmic
[08:42] <wgrant> maxb: How's the 2.5 run looking?
[08:42] <maxb> see the <tests still in progres...> marker :-)
[08:42] <wgrant> maxb: Ah, I see.
[08:43] <jml> maxb, so few?
[08:43] <maxb> 2 consecutive test runs take longer than overnight :-(
[08:43] <maxb> jml: hmm? which?
[08:44] <jml> maxb, after <tests in progress>, there looks to be very few tests that are actually failing
[08:44] <jml> I'm pleasantly surprised :)
[08:44] <maxb> ah, well after the marker, those are still the results from before zbuildout landed
[08:45] <wgrant> But presumably zbuildout should make it *better*.
[08:45] <jml> ohh, I see.
[08:45] <adeuring> good morning
[08:46] <maxb> Oh, and the page doesn't take account of the fact I had to cheekily "pycentral pkgremove python-lazr-uri" to make the buildout work at all
[08:48] <jml> has the lazr packaging mess been sorted out yet?
[08:48] <jml> (I guess your comment means "no", maxb)
[08:48] <wgrant> buildout is the solution to everything *handwave*
[08:49] <maxb> Well, it certainly hadn't been sorted when I was attempting to get these test runs going before sleeping last night
[08:49]  * wgrant just up'ed devel and is about to try.
[08:50] <maxb> wgrant: dpkg -l python-lazr-uri ?
[08:51] <wgrant> maxb: Not installed, thankfully. I must have an old launchpadlib.
[08:51] <jml> test with stable
[08:51] <wgrant> That is a strange package name.
[08:51] <maxb> lucky you! :-)
[08:52] <jml> devel might well have test failures (who can say!)
[08:56] <maxb> jml: good point, well made :-)  Though it's the buildout flat out failing to do what its raison d'etre is that's really annoying me.
[09:00]  * wgrant throws broken eggs at SHHH
[09:02] <wgrant> Aha, it works. But zc.tracelog is being a bit loud.
[09:08] <maxb> Next meeting I intend to ask the peanut gallery to express opions on SHHH
[09:08] <maxb> and opinions
[09:20] <jml> lifeless, push-pop-progress, right?
[09:20] <gmb> wgrant: I've just herded your structural subs branch off to ec2. I started a run last night but the instance crashed and burned some time this morning.
[09:23] <wgrant> gmb: Thanks.
[09:25] <lifeless> jml: yes
[09:25] <jml> lifeless, done
[09:30] <jml> g'night
[09:30] <noodles775> Enjoy your evening :)
[09:35] <bigjools> seeya jml, and congrats BTW
[09:49] <lifeless> bigjools: on?
[09:51] <thumper> lifeless: staying alive?
[09:52] <lifeless> oo oo oo oo
[09:52] <thumper> staying alive
[09:52] <thumper> staying alive
[09:52] <lifeless> oo oo oo oo
[09:52] <thumper> :)
[10:02] <mrevell> morning
[11:00] <deryck> morning, all.
[11:00] <noodles775> hi deryck !
[11:09] <wgrant> People seem to think that packaging is trivial and automatic...
[11:22] <bigjools> wgrant: it ought to be
[11:22] <bigjools> Quickly will be a step in the right direction
[11:23] <wgrant> bigjools: For simple apps, sure.
[11:23] <wgrant> bigjools: But libraries, not so much.
[11:24] <bigjools> .deb is way over-engineered for most stuff IMO
[11:25] <noodles775> bigjools: what, in particular, do you think is over-engineered for packaging, say, a gnome game?
[11:26] <bigjools> nothing in particular
[11:26] <wgrant> There's nothing wrong with .deb for that.
[11:26] <wgrant> The build system, perhaps.
[11:26] <noodles775> bigjools: so what's "most stuff" then?
[11:27] <bigjools> did you see jono's session at All Hands when he learned to package something?
[11:28] <noodles775> yep
[11:28] <wgrant> So you don't mean .deb. You mean the source package format.
[11:28] <bigjools> probabl
[11:28] <bigjools> y
[11:28] <bigjools> and the number of people in the audience who argued over how to do something?
[11:29] <wgrant> For setuptools or autotools applications, it's very easy with CDBS or dh7.
[11:29] <bigjools> but then I don't have a great deal of experience packging stuff, I am probably talking out of my arse
[11:29] <wgrant> Heh.
[11:29] <bigjools> however, I think it could be easier
[11:30] <wgrant> Before DH7 and CDBS were big, it was pretty awkward.
[11:30] <noodles775> bigjools: yeah, so the process could be a lot more helpful - or *feel* a lot more intuitive with the right tools, ,but the biggest difficulty is that the problem-domain is complex
[11:30] <noodles775> yep.
[11:30] <bigjools> I think it's only as complex as you want to make it
[11:30] <james_w> bigjools: that was partly due to the nature of some of the people in the room :-)
[11:30] <bigjools> james_w: no doubt :)
[11:37] <bigjools> james_w: btw I owe you an apology, I was confusing you with someone else when I was talking about lpnet vs edge API usage, sorry :(
[11:37] <james_w> np
[11:37] <james_w> I'm just happy it's there :-)
[11:37] <bigjools> yeah, I was surprised it wasn't from the start
[11:44] <danilos> bigjools: it doesn't count unless it's in an email (an apology that is :)
[11:45] <danilos> bigjools: btw, I was surprised it wasn't either, flacoste did it basically a day after we've decided to go with it, but it never went out
[11:45] <bigjools> danilos: shaddap and do your job :)
[11:47]  * danilos crawls back into his corner
[11:48] <danilos> mars: btw, is conversions.html based on db-stable or something?  if I run it over my local copy of devel, I get much better stats for translations :)
[11:48] <wgrant> (also, conversions.html doesn't belong on devpad)
[11:48] <bigjools> danilos: the report does not lie, you're slackers!
[11:49] <danilos> bigjools: heh, that much is true as well, but I've got the code from mars $HOME and tweaked it a bit so it displays good results for translations
[11:49] <bigjools> lol
[11:49] <bigjools> if project=translations: done=100%
[11:50] <danilos> wgrant: that was exactly what I was thinking while I was typing this, but Launchpad team is not used to having publicly accessible accounts
[11:50] <danilos> wgrant: I'll raise it with the team
[11:50] <danilos> bigjools: heh, exactly :)
[11:51] <bigjools> geez, what is this zc.tracelog spam in my "make run" output now ...
[11:51] <wgrant> bigjools: I wondered that...
[11:51] <danilos> bigjools: that's what wgrant loved yesterday, 9124 or 9224 or something :)
[11:51] <bigjools> should be DEBUG not INFO
[11:52] <wgrant> danilos: Note I also loathed it, though.
[11:52] <wgrant> 'cause it's all eggs.
[11:52] <danilos> wgrant: heh, I know, I know
[11:52] <danilos> wgrant: I've got about the same feelings about eggs/buildout combination
[12:12] <danilos> adeuring: hey
[12:12] <adeuring> hi danilos
[12:12] <danilos> adeuring: did you by any chance ask for some hwdb parsing runs on staging yesterday?
[12:13] <adeuring> danilos: no. what's the problem?
[12:13] <danilos> adeuring: if you did, I got some logs in my email, but didn't get the logs I actually asked for :)
[12:13] <danilos> adeuring: ah, never mind then, it seems Chex ran the wrong script for me then
[12:32] <beuno> EdwinGrubbs, ping
[12:48] <henninge> beuno: ping
[12:49] <beuno> henninge, hi
[12:50] <henninge> beuno: did you notice this bug I assigned to you? bug 418610
[12:50] <mup> Bug #418610: New translate page needs new icons <Launchpad Translations:New for beuno> <https://launchpad.net/bugs/418610>
[12:50] <beuno> henninge, I did not
[12:51] <henninge> beuno: do you think you can get something done with that before you're gone?
[12:51] <beuno> henninge, could you please attach a ascreenshot of where those icons would go?
[12:51] <henninge> beuno: sure
[12:51] <beuno> henninge, I will try
[12:51] <henninge> beuno: cool, thanks
[13:03] <gmb> wgrant: Your branch passed its tests and is now in the PQM queue.
[13:04] <wgrant> gmb: Thanks.
[13:04] <gmb> np
[13:05]  * wgrant shall prepare the other two pieces tomorrow.
[14:03] <henninge> beuno: I attached the screen shot.
[14:04] <beuno> henninge, thanks
[14:37] <deryck> barry, ping
[14:41] <barry> deryck: pong
[14:53] <barry> beuno: ping
[14:54] <beuno> barry, pong
[14:54] <barry> beuno: hi, two things.  first, can you come to the ameu reviewer's meeting in 6m?
[14:55] <barry> beuno: second, i'd like to talk about what to do about link display on the page the link points to
[14:57] <barry> reviewers, lurkers and beuno -> #launchpad-meeting in 3m
[14:57] <beuno> sure
[15:00] <beuno> barry, lets see about the second after the meeting
[15:00] <barry> beuno: sounds good
[15:00] <barry> reviewers, lurkers and beuno -> #launchpad-meeting
[15:19] <beuno> barry, sorry I wasn't very useful
[15:19] <beuno> was on a call  :)
[15:20] <barry> beuno: no, it was cool :)
[15:21] <mrevell> kfogel: ping, not urgent
[15:21] <barry> beuno: so, about menu links.  currently, navmenus (and only those i think) hide links for the page that you are viewing.  i don't like this :).  i've heard that in breadcrumbs the link to the page your viewing is still shown, but it is dimmed and not clickable.  i personally don't like that either (i'd rather the link be active but otherwise visually indicative).  we're looking for some ui pronouncement on
[15:21] <barry> and fix the tests
[15:22] <kfogel> mrevell: pong placeholder -- on phone, but will ping when off
[15:23] <beuno> barry, could you tell me more about why you want them clickable?
[15:24] <barry> beuno: i'm sure it's not a good reason, but i very often use it as a cheap reload.  usually the active link is way closer to my cursor than that leeeettlleee teenie browser reload button way up there in the upper left
[15:25] <beuno> barry, I understand
[15:25] <beuno> the problem is, it may misslead you to think it will take you somewhere else
[15:25] <beuno> or "different"
[15:25] <barry> beuno: do you think we could do something visual to indicate it's the page your one, but leave the link active?  like grey it down a bunch or something?
[15:26] <beuno> barry, I'm thinking
[15:26] <beuno> I'm trying to weigh in the cost/benefit
[15:26] <beuno> "make barry happy" weighs quite a bit, but, OTOH, we have like 500k users...
[15:27] <barry> beuno: :)  okay, so here's the scenario...
[15:28] <barry> beuno: i just clicked on "View all sprints" and i'm transported to /sprints/+all.  now i kind of remember i'm on that page because i clicked it recently, but maybe someone pinged me in irc that they just added two new meetings.  i need to reload the page.  what are my options?  (note this happens fairly often with merge proposals and bug comments)
[15:29] <beuno> that's a great scenario to address
[15:29] <beuno> now
[15:29] <beuno> barry, do you use gmail?
[15:29] <barry> beuno: no
[15:29] <beuno> ok, what gmail does
[15:29] <beuno> as a web application
[15:29] <barry> well, i have a gmail account, but... ;)
[15:29] <beuno> is that if something changes while your on the page
[15:29] <beuno> it tells you
[15:29] <beuno> or it just updates it
[15:30] <beuno> depending on the scenario
[15:30] <beuno> *that* is the proper solution
[15:30] <beuno> of course, that's a month's worth of work right there
[15:30] <barry> beuno: agreed!  that would be awesome, and yep, it's a lot of work
[15:30] <barry> beuno: i have another use case, but it's very launchpad developer centric, so i don't expect accommodation for it ;)
[15:31] <beuno> barry, I still think the potential confusion out-weighs the benefits
[15:31]  * beuno nudges mpt 
[15:31] <beuno> have any thoughts? ^
[15:33] <barry> beuno: so, do you agree that the link should still be displayed (i.e. not hidden)?
[15:33] <barry> beuno: it feels like a bug when the link disappears
[15:34] <beuno> barry, this is the las breadrumb?
[15:34] <barry> beuno: my current concern is the navmenus
[15:34] <mpt> beuno, barry: I don't think pages should contain a link to reload themselves unless it's probable that the page contents will have changed since you loaded it. (E.g. Gmail's link to reload the Inbox, or Twitter's "121 more results since you started searching. Refresh to see them.")
[15:34] <beuno> barry, what's a navmenu on the UI these days?  :)
[15:34] <mpt> beuno, barry: And where that's true, it should be more prominent than any global navigation will ever be. :-)
[15:35] <barry> beuno: it's what i'm calling the menu on the top level collections and their +all pages
[15:35] <beuno> barry, ah, top right?
[15:35] <barry> beuno: on the right portlet
[15:35] <beuno> barry, I see
[15:35] <beuno> the link should not go away, no
[15:36] <barry> mpt: yes. i (mostly) like the way e.g. facebook does it
[15:36] <barry> beuno: cool.  so it sounds like you and mpt want the link to deactivate (i.e. not be clickable)
[15:37] <beuno> barry, yes, I think that's the right thing to do
[15:37] <barry> beuno: okay.  so, if the link has an icon, and you're sitting on its page, the icon stays and we put unclickable link text instead of the <a href>.  sound about right?
[15:38] <beuno> barry, it does
[15:38] <barry> beuno, mpt fab!  thanks very much, i'll make that happen
[15:39] <barry> bac: ^^ (summary: page you're on will show an unclickable link in the navmenu)
[15:46] <bac> barry: that sounds great.
[16:10] <adeuring> where should a right side portlet go in the 3.0 layout that is not an action, or an notification or anything else mentioned on the conversion page? My specific problem: the "Current details" portlet of pages like this: https://code.staging.launchpad.net/~bjornt/launchpad/dont-flash-overlay-on-bug-page/+bug/107247/+delete
[16:10] <mup> Bug #107247: Launchpad bug pages trigger caret browsing in Firefox and other Gecko browsers <mt-postupstream> <Mozilla Firefox:Confirmed> <Launchpad Bugs:Fix Committed by bjornt> <firefox (Ubuntu):Won't Fix by asac> <firefox-3.0 (Ubuntu):Triaged> <firefox-3.5 (Ubuntu):Triaged> <https://launchpad.net/bugs/107247>
[16:12] <mpt> adeuring, if any of that information is relevant to your decision whether to delete it, move it to the main body. Otherwise, nuke it. That sound right, beuno?
[16:13] <mpt> Actually it's rather alarming that that page isn't telling you *what* branch you're about to unlink from *what* bug...
[16:14] <adeuring> mpt: deleting the portlet is too simple and straightforward ;) I think it does not contain anything interesting
[16:17]  * beuno reads back
[16:17] <beuno> correct
[16:17] <beuno> if it's relevant information, it should go in the main body
[16:18] <beuno> as mpt says, that page should *really* tell you what's being deleted
[16:19] <adeuring> beuno: right; I added explicit links to the bug and the brnach to make that absolutely clear ;)
[16:20] <beuno> adeuring, so the information about the branch  (ie "Merged") is not interesting, I agree
[16:20] <beuno> the portlet should die
[16:20] <beuno> just be sure that we don't loose important information
[16:27] <jtv> intellectronica, got a moment to help with a structural-subscriptions.txt failure?  If it turns out to be hard, we can drop it but I'd at least like to shake this tree and see if anything falls out.
[16:27] <jtv> structural-subscription-target.txt, rather
[16:37] <jtv> by the way, why do we have anything in lib/canonical/launchpad/interfaces/ftests?  That directory should be not once but twice gone.
[16:40] <intellectronica> jtv: sure (sorry, was on the phone until now so didn't notice your ping)
[16:40] <jtv> intellectronica: cool, thanks.  In wgrant's branch, the very last line of that test fails.
[16:41] <jtv> intellectronica: the test files a bug, and then compares the set of indirect subscribers to the set of structural subscribers.
[16:42] <jtv> It expects the difference between those sets to be empty, but now suddenly no-priv is in that set difference.
[16:42] <intellectronica> i'm not sure i'm looking at the same test as you. can you please paste me the full path again, maybe even the failure?
[16:42] <jtv> intellectronica: File "lib/canonical/launchpad/interfaces/ftests/structural-subscription-target.txt", line 131, in structural-subscription-target.txt
[16:43] <jtv> Differences (ndiff with -expected +actual):
[16:43] <jtv>     - set([])
[16:43] <jtv>     + set([u'no-priv'])
[16:45] <intellectronica> jtv: it's important to remember that this test is run several times, with target being different each time
[16:46] <jtv> intellectronica: remember?  I don't think I knew it in the first place.  :)
[16:46] <intellectronica> jtv: but you will remember it from now on, right?
[16:46] <intellectronica> jtv: see lib/canonical/launchpad/interfaces/ftests/test_structuralsubscriptiontarget.py
[16:47] <jtv> intellectronica: I'll have dreams about it for the rest of my life.  :)
[16:47]  * jtv sees lib/canonical/launchpad/interfaces/ftests/test_structuralsubscriptiontarget.py
[16:52] <jtv> intellectronica: can approval of a bug nomination cause someone to become structurally subscribed to the bug?
[16:53] <intellectronica> definitely not
[16:53] <intellectronica> but maybe it makes the approver indirectly subscribed? i don't remember
[16:56] <jtv> I'm asking since my prime suspect here is that wgrant's branch moves the automatic approval of bug nominations from the model code to the view.
[16:58] <intellectronica> jtv: that doesn't make much sense. is this branch the one for exposing the functionality via the api?
[16:58] <jtv> intellectronica: yup
[16:58] <intellectronica> if yes, then i think we want to retain that behaviour
[16:59] <jtv> The behaviour is still present, but explicitly in the view.  I think it was pre-imped with gmb.
[17:00] <intellectronica> oh ok, maybe the tought of something i didn't, then
[17:01] <gmb> intellectronica, jtv: Hang on, let me try to remember. There was a reason for doing it.
[17:01] <intellectronica> anyway, to debug that failure, start with determining which target type it's failing on
[17:02]  * jtv starts determining that
[17:03] <gmb> intellectronica, jtv: So, we decided to make so that the API required explicit approval due to bug https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/malone/+bug/253597 (the idea being that the UI should eventually change to require this, too).
[17:04] <mup> Bug #253597: Not possible to nominate a bug if you have permission to approve it <Launchpad Bugs:Triaged> <https://launchpad.net/bugs/253597>
[17:04] <jtv> gmb: yes, it made sense to me as a Bugs outsider at least.  But something in the branch is breaking this test.  May be a forgotten .approve(...) somewhere.
[17:07] <jtv> intellectronica: wouldn't you know it, it's the very last one: Hoary.
[17:22] <jtv> intellectronica: so a new bug for Hoary seems to have lost an indirect subscriber
[17:23] <intellectronica> who did you expect will have been indirectly subscribed?
[17:24] <intellectronica> also, is it a private bug? those don't have indirect subscribers?
[17:31] <jtv> intellectronica: I don't see anything that'd make it private.  The test doesn't say why it expects that particular result to be empty.
[17:32] <jtv> intellectronica: but the unexpected subscriber seems to be the person filing the bug
[17:32] <jtv> What kind of subscription do you get to bugs you file?
[17:32] <intellectronica> yeah, it's a bit of a mystery. i wonder who's the idiot who wrote this
[17:33] <jtv> intellectronica: well bzr only shows your name, but the code looks older than you.  :)
[17:33] <intellectronica> jtv: direct
[17:33] <intellectronica> jtv: ill take that as a compliment
[17:33] <jtv> fine by me
[17:34] <intellectronica> i mean, the test makes sense, i just don't remember why i added it
[17:35] <intellectronica> i think i'll need to look a the branch to be able to help. what's the url?
[17:35] <jtv> Actually, "structural_subscribers" is just the name of the variable.  It's really bug_target.bug_subscriptions.
[17:35] <jtv> https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~wgrant/launchpad/export-bug-nominations/+merge/10715
[17:36] <intellectronica> jtv: well, bug_subscriptions is just a shortcut for structural subscriptions to bug mail
[17:36] <intellectronica> (in theory, structural subscriptions can be for mail from other modules, though none of them implement this)
[17:39] <jtv> intellectronica: at one point I knew a bit about structural subscriptions, but it's been a while...  It's basically being subscribed all bugs in something (say, a product) that gets bugs attached, right?
[17:40] <intellectronica> yes
[17:48] <rockstar> Is canonical_url_examples.txt failing for anyone else?  I don't see how my branch could have broken it. https://pastebin.canonical.com/21514/
[17:52] <jtv> rockstar: danilo ran into that one as well... there was a mailing list thread about it.
[17:52] <rockstar> jtv, oh, I was searching for buildbot emails.
[17:52] <jtv> rockstar: also, I see the vaunted sample-data change in there; see earlier thread, probably from karl
[17:53] <rockstar> jtv, you would think that ec2 would use the sample data from the branch that provides the sample data, so I wouldn't have that problem.
[17:54] <jtv> you know, someone's irc nick was to be removed from the sample data to avoid making his irc client play The Entertainer using a single tone
[17:54] <jtv> (Not saying who, or it'll beep again :)
[17:54] <rockstar> jtv, yeah, I know.
[17:54] <jtv> intellectronica: I've got it: in the Hoary case, the test creates a bug nomination without approving it.
[17:55] <intellectronica> jtv: right, and that causes the bug reporter to be indirectly subscribed?
[17:55] <jtv> intellectronica: I think it was what previously caused the bug reporter to be directly subscribed—and therefore indirectly as well.
[17:56] <jtv> Now that doesn't happen any more, but the test also subscribes that same person structurally, and assumes that the indirect subscriptions are a superset of the structural ones.
[17:56] <intellectronica> ah, i see
[18:15] <jtv> intellectronica: that's it for me tonight.  Thanks for walking me through this!
[18:18] <intellectronica> no problem. and if you ever find who wrote that silly test slap him on my behalf, please
[18:32] <james_w> how does LP feel about the OAuth session fixation attack that it is vulnerable to?
[18:33] <james_w> We need to fix python-oauth to allow fixed clients to be written, and this requires API changes
[18:34] <james_w> so I'll want to fix that in lazr.restfulclient, but I'm not sure how that fits with lp's build system
[18:34] <james_w> would you need to land a fixed python-oauth at the same time?
[18:39] <beuno> barry, https://dev.launchpad.net/ReviewerSchedule?action=diff&rev2=46&rev1=45
[18:39] <beuno> does that complete my task?
[18:41] <barry> beuno: fantastically so!  thanks.  i'll add a line for you as the current sole ui mentor
[18:42]  * beuno is alone
[18:44] <EdwinGrubbs> salgado: ping
[18:45] <beuno> EdwinGrubbs, hi
[18:45] <EdwinGrubbs> beuno: hello
[18:45] <salgado> hi EdwinGrubbs
[18:45] <beuno> EdwinGrubbs, about your email, I think that we should only highlight joining the team, not leaving it
[18:45] <beuno> I can put together the bg graphic for joining
[18:46] <EdwinGrubbs> salgado: I was wondering if you thought it was sane to move canonical.launchpad.browser.branding to lp.registry.browser.branding. The only non-registry objects that use that are sprints.
[18:47] <salgado> EdwinGrubbs, sounds ok to me
[18:48] <EdwinGrubbs> beuno: the graphic would be helpful. How long do you think that will be and will I be holding off on landing until then?
[18:49] <beuno> EdwinGrubbs, maybe 30 minutes, if you tell me that it's easy to just show that format when you haven't joined, and the
[18:49] <beuno> "leave team" link can go in the actions portlet
[18:49] <EdwinGrubbs> beuno: yes, it will be easy.
[18:50] <beuno> EdwinGrubbs, ON IT
[18:50] <EdwinGrubbs> beuno: thanks
[19:04] <james_w> ok, the API change doesn't affect lplib's usage, so there's no need to change it
[19:10] <barry> beuno: when you have a chance; re: navmenu links to the page you're viewing.  i have two screenshots for your approval: https://devpad.canonical.com/~barry/sprints-index.png and https://devpad.canonical.com/~barry/sprints-all.png
[19:21] <beuno> barry, ui=me
[19:22] <barry> beuno: awesome!  the unlinked text has a class so we can tweak the style later if we want
[20:08] <beuno> EdwinGrubbs, take this baby out for a spin: http://people.canonical.com/~beuno/bg-action-add.png
[20:09] <EdwinGrubbs> beuno: awesome.
[20:13] <dobey> hola!
[20:13] <dobey> anyone around to talk about oauth?
[20:41] <beuno> wgrant, http://people.canonical.com/~beuno/conversions.html
[20:43] <james_w> dobey: the launchpad-dev might be the best place for this
[20:44] <dobey> james_w: i thought that's where this is
[20:44] <james_w>                    ^ mailing list
[20:44] <james_w> sorry
[20:53] <dobey> perhaps. was hoping to get a more immediate response though :)
[21:03] <beuno> dobey, leonardr is your man
[21:04] <leonardr> dobey, what's your question? (salgado knows more about oauth than i do)
[21:08] <dobey> leonardr: so oauth.py has a lot of problems (which have become ever apparent over the last 1.5 months since i started trying to fix some of them)... and i was wondering what launchpad's opinion is on having a fork of it
[21:09] <leonardr> are the original maintainers unresponsive?
[21:10] <dobey> yes
[21:10] <dobey> it takes forever to get any response out of upstream
[21:12] <dobey> and aside from the code being ugly, the 'fixes' that did go in for 1.0a are still incomplete
[21:12] <leonardr> dobey: i don't think there'd be a problem with creating a launchpad project that keeps a code import of the official code. then you could keep your own branches there. i think that's a pretty common pattern
[21:13] <leonardr> but i don't really know anything about how launchpad is used in such situations, i could be wrong
[21:13] <dobey> well i was more interested in whether launchpad would want to switch to using the fork for oauth, instead of continuing to use the broken/undermaintained oauth.py
[21:14] <dobey> as i understand it, launchpadlib and the server use it, for doing things via the API
[21:21] <leonardr> launchpadlib uses it, i don't think the server does
[21:22] <dobey> leonardr: i guess salgado would be the person to answer that more concretely?
[21:23] <leonardr> salgado could answer about the server side, but i don't think oauth.py even deals with the server side
[21:24] <leonardr> no, i guess that's not true. anyway, i dunno about the server
[21:24] <leonardr> but for the client, the package needs to be as easy to install as python-oauth is now, so that people can actually use it
[21:25] <leonardr> you'll either need to convince whoever currently maintains python-oauth, or we'll need to include the fork as code inside launchpadlib
[21:25] <leonardr> that would be james_w
[21:26] <james_w> I couldn't find oauth.py used on the server
[21:26] <salgado> Launchpad itself only uses OAuthRequest._split_header()
[21:26] <leonardr> there you go
[21:27] <salgado> which is a trivial 5-line method, so we should probably roll our own version of that and get rid of contrib/oauth.py
[21:27] <leonardr> james_w, how would you handle it if oauth forked and we wanted to use the new fork? what would dobey have to do to convince you?
[21:27]  * salgado files a bug
[21:27] <james_w> well, python-oauth is only there to satisfy these two projects currently
[21:27] <james_w> if they switch to something else then we package that instead
[21:28] <leonardr> which two projects? launchpadlib and what?
[21:28] <james_w> I'd just rather they do if *soon* if they are going to
[21:29] <leonardr> i don't think i can promise it soon, so maybe in the next release?
[21:30] <james_w> if it happens soon I'd even write the patch myself
[21:32] <leonardr> well, i believe the workflow changed somewhat for oauth 1.0a, so it would be a fairly big production in which we coordinated client and server. i don't think we can do that on your timeframe and i doubt that's a patch you'd want to write
[21:32] <leonardr> (salgado definitely knows more about this part)
[21:32] <dobey> well if launchpadlib just uses one 5-line method, that sounds like an easy fix
[21:32] <leonardr> dobey: *launchpad* uses one 5-line method
[21:32] <leonardr> launchpadlib uses a lot more
[21:32] <dobey> oh
[21:32] <dobey> what does launchpadlib use?
[21:32] <leonardr> all the request signing stuff
[21:33] <leonardr> if there's no change in the workflow then if you put up your branch now and salgado and james_w and i understand it, then maybe james_w could write the patch and i could update launchpadlib and we could get everything into karmic, but i don't know what the deadline is
[21:34] <leonardr> and i question whether a recent version of launchpadlib is going to be in karmic anyway
[21:34] <james_w> why's that?
[21:34] <leonardr> because there's an old version in there now
[21:34] <james_w> and I've been working to fix that for months now
[21:34] <leonardr> and upgrading to a new version would require adding a whole new package (lazr.restfulclient)
[21:35] <james_w> that's why I've been complaining on bugs about lazr issues and the like
[21:35] <james_w> lazr.restfulclient is sat in NEW
[21:35] <james_w> I'm about to upload the new launchpadlib
[21:35] <dobey> hmm
[21:36] <leonardr> james_w, are there any outstanding bugs that are causing you problems?
[21:36] <james_w> no, we should be good to go now
[21:36] <james_w> famous last words
[21:37] <leonardr> ok
[21:37] <dobey> so i don't have a branch yet. but i can definitely spend all day tomorrow/friday on it if we can do it for karmic
[21:37] <dobey> though hopefully i can get it all done in one day
[21:38] <leonardr> dobey: how different is it going to be, what will the benefit be, and if part of the benefit is "1.0a", are there workflow changes?
[21:38] <dobey> 1.0a requires changes to the server also
[21:38] <leonardr> so there are workflow changes
[21:39] <dobey> yes. since the security issue in 1.0 was "the workflow allows you to steal auth" they changed the workflow to fix it :)
[21:39] <dobey> but i can have the client pieces continue working with 1.0 for launchpadlib, until we can get that changed
[21:39] <james_w> it's not too important for most current uses of LPs API
[21:40] <james_w> but I suggest you fix it anyway
[21:40] <leonardr> well, we're gonna fix it, but until 10 minutes ago it wasn't considered important enough to get a fix in for karmic
[21:40] <leonardr> i'm trying to figure out if it is now that someone else is doing some of the work
[21:41] <leonardr> dobey: the server's going to continue to support the 1.0 workflow just so old clients don't break
[21:42] <leonardr> launchpad doesn't use python-oauth for the server side, so any improvements you make to the server-side code we can't use
[21:42] <dobey> hrmm, so unless the server will bail on 1.0a requests, it's probably fine for the client to send the 1.0a stuff anyway
[21:42] <dobey> because i'm guessing it will just get ignored on the server, until the server supports 1.0a
[21:42] <leonardr> dobey: probably. what's the difference between a 1.0 request and a 1.0a request?
[21:43] <james_w> that depends on whether the client allows the server to only talk 1.0
[21:44] <leonardr> without wanting to step on salgado's toes, i can say with a fair degree of certainty that launchpad will not support 1.0a by the karmic deadline
[21:44] <dobey> 1.0a sends a callback in the request token request, expects oauth_callback_confirmed in that response, and expects an oauth_verifier unique id from authorization that is sent back in the access token request
[21:44] <leonardr> so the karmic launchpadlib will have to allow a server to talk 1.0
[21:45] <leonardr> if we can implement 1.0a on the server side and have our karmic installed base start talking 1.0a immediately, that'd be a win
[21:45] <leonardr> and it sounds like implementing 1.0a wouldn't require any change to launchpadlib itself, only to the oauth library
[21:45] <dobey> either way, launchpadlib isn't using a lot of the API, and should be an easy patch, and it's easy to test
[21:45] <leonardr> does that sound right?
[21:46] <dobey> yeah, launchpadlib probably doesn't need any changes to do 1.0a
[21:46] <dobey> i have to read over the code entirely and see
[21:46] <leonardr> dobey: ok, go ahead and make the change, give it to james_w who will evaluate it on its own terms as a patch to python-oauth
[21:48] <leonardr> once it's released, i can make a change to launchpadlib as long as the change is no more complicated than telling oauth "use 1.0a if it's available, but don't fail if it's not."
[21:49] <dobey> i'm looking at the lplib code... it might be that the only change necessary is "change the import lines"
[21:50] <james_w> it will want to have a way for the caller to specify a callback won't it?
[21:51] <dobey> yes but lplib doesn't use callbacks
[21:57] <dobey> i'll evaluate what lplib is doing with the API and take that into consideration, and if it's necessary to do any extra changes to it, i'll make them as well
[21:58] <dobey> sound good?
[22:05] <james_w> leonardr: launchpadlib 1.5.1 is now in karmic
[22:06] <leonardr> dobey: if lplib doesn't use callbacks, and we need to specify one to implement 1.0a, i don't see the point of rushing to get this into karmic
[22:07] <dobey> leonardr: hrmm?
[22:07] <leonardr> dobey: you said lplib doesn't use callbacks, and you also dais that 1.0a sends a callback in the token request
[22:07] <leonardr> are those the same callback?
[22:08] <leonardr> if they are the same callback, i don't see how implementing 1.0 on the server side will make launchpadlib start working just because we applied your patch to oauth
[22:08] <dobey> leonardr: 1.0a specifies the value to be either an http callback which the server will use later (after the authorization request i think), or to be oob, if you aren't using callbacks
[22:10] <leonardr> so you can implement 1.0a without using a callback, and it's secure? or are you really just falling back to 1.0 behavior?
[22:10] <dobey> the callback itself doesn't make the communication secure
[22:11] <leonardr> but can it be secure if there's no callback?
[22:11] <dobey> and yeah, for lplib, i think it would just be the 1.0 behavior until the server starts doing 1.0a
[22:12] <james_w> there's a new "verifier" which also plays a role
[22:12] <leonardr> i'm really getting the impression that there are 3 steps here. 1) apply dobey's patch to python-oauth. 2) implement the server side. 3) change launchpadlib to accommodate the new workflow with its callbacks and verifier
[22:12] <dobey> leonardr: it depends on what your definition of secure is i guess
[22:12] <leonardr> each of those being a fair amount of work
[22:13] <leonardr> if #3 was trivial, i could see an argument for rushing to get #1 into karmic--so that everything would start working once we put #2 in place
[22:13] <leonardr> but if i have to do a lot of work to implement #3, that's not going to make it into karmic anyway
[22:13] <dobey> #3 should be trivial
[22:14] <leonardr> ok, take care of #1 and ping me once you're done. we'll figure out #3
[22:14] <dobey> leonardr: heh, i just said you wouldn't have to do any work for lplib to do this. :)
[22:14] <leonardr> i'm ok with doing a small amount of work
[22:15] <dobey> ok
[22:21] <rockstar> beuno, do you know how often the conversion page updates?  It seems out of date.
[22:24] <dobey> leonardr: ok, i'll bug you tomorrow, thanks
[22:30] <beuno> rockstar, I'm setting one up on my people.c.c account
[22:30] <beuno> and I'll get it to update every hour or so
[22:31] <beuno> http://people.canonical.com/~beuno/conversions.html
[22:31] <beuno> that's db-devel
[22:32] <beuno> up tod ate
[22:35] <beuno> rockstar, I can run against devel
[22:35] <rockstar> beuno, okay, that'd be much better.
[22:36]  * beuno branches devel
[22:36] <rockstar> I'm hoping to get the last answers ones reviewed tonight.
[22:36] <beuno> awesomeness
[22:57] <jml> thumper, skype is up, but other difficulties compel a short outage. I'll join the call a little late
[22:58] <thumper> jml: ok
[22:58] <beuno> rockstar, http://people.canonical.com/~beuno/conversions.html
[22:58] <beuno> that's based on devel
[23:02] <thumper> jml: ping when you're ready
[23:05] <wgrant> jtv: Damn.
[23:14] <lifeless> jml: https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~lifeless/testtools/startTestRun/+merge/10773
[23:15] <lifeless> jml: (also see #bzr re subscribing to your own branches ;P)
[23:15] <jml> lifeless, I've already reviewed it.
[23:15] <lifeless> oh, cool
[23:15] <lifeless> totally my bad
[23:15] <jml> heh
[23:15] <lifeless> jml: you own trunk
[23:15] <lifeless> so I can't make it so
[23:15] <jml> oh right.
[23:15] <jml> I'll merge it in then
[23:16] <lifeless> thanks
[23:22] <lifeless> jml: you might want to ping whoever packages it too
[23:22] <lifeless> FF is about-to-or-just-has happened
[23:23] <jml> lifeless, ahh, good call.
[23:30] <wgrant> intellectronica, jtv: Thanks for looking at that. Fixed.
[23:32] <Ursinha> rockstar, could you give me a little help on template migration, pretty please?
[23:32] <rockstar> Ursinha, sure, what's up?
[23:33] <Ursinha> rockstar, I'm changing the template of a page that has an admin link on it, but when changing to the main_side template, as described here -> https://dev.launchpad.net/VersionThreeDotO/UI/Conversion#Mechanical%20changes, the link is gone even if my user has the right permissions
[23:33] <Ursinha> rockstar, what can I be possibly missing?
[23:38] <rockstar> thumper, on the phone with Ursinha right now, gimme a sec.
[23:38] <thumper> k
[23:40] <mwhudson> Ursinha: are you turning into a developer!?
[23:40] <mwhudson> (if so, commiserations!)
[23:50] <barry> mwhudson, thumper, jml, rockstar sorry, had some stuff to deal with.  do you guys want to have a meeting?
[23:50] <rockstar> barry, yessir
[23:50] <Ursinha> rockstar, thank you thank you thank you
[23:50] <Ursinha> mwhudson, it seems so :)
[23:50] <mwhudson> barry: i think it would be a good idea
[23:50] <rockstar> thumper, chat after the reviewer's meeting?
[23:51] <barry> rockstar, thumper, mwhudson, jml -> #launchpad-meeting in 2m
[23:52] <intellectronica> wgrant: np. thanks for fixing this bug. i know for sure that it will make many people very happy!
[23:53] <wgrant> intellectronica: We can hope.
[23:54] <wgrant> I thought I had run the whole lp.bugs suite over it, but I must have been confused by the other Bugs branches I was working on at the time...
[23:54] <wgrant> jtv: /win 4
[23:54] <wgrant> Gah.
[23:55] <pochu> I'm getting timeouts when reporting bugs in Ubuntu, can somebody look at what's going on?
[23:55] <pochu> e.g. OOPS-1334H2895
[23:55] <pochu> (both in edge and production)
[23:56] <wgrant> jtv: All lp.bugs tests now pass with r9238.
[23:57] <mwhudson> pochu: this sort of thing is better talked about in #launchpad btw
[23:57] <mwhudson> pochu: i imagine it's the dup search query
[23:57] <wgrant> Easy way to work around it is use fewer terms initially, then correct the summary on the second page.
[23:57] <pochu> mwhudson: oh okay, it's been a long time since I come here :)