[00:00] it's funny how 1000+ code commits gets second place in karma to asking 1 question in Answers :D [00:01] ianm_: Karma is (for historical reasons) weighted evenly between each category. [00:01] @ianm_ replying, not asking :) [00:02] ianm_: So if few people are using Answers, and lots of people are using Code, Code karma is worth a lot less. [00:03] * BUGabundo why the heck did i use and '@' in there ??!?! [00:03] * BUGabundo slaps him self [00:04] RT @BUGabundo slaps him self [00:07] wgrant: by "using code" do you mean bugs or should commits count? [00:08] ianm_: Code and Bugs are separate categories. [00:08] ianm_: Commits count as Code, bug changes count as Bugs. [00:08] I don't see Code on the Top Contributors page ( https://launchpad.net/luz/+topcontributors ) [00:09] ianm_: Karma is only updated daily. [00:10] That branch probably just missed it. [00:11] wgrant: I've been committing code there for years :) [00:11] btw this is not a problem, I'm just curious [00:12] same thing happens in other projects eg https://launchpad.net/audioverse/+topcontributors [00:12] ianm_: Oh, you're right, just all the recent commits were yesterday. [00:12] ianm_: The problem is that it can't attribute the karma to anybody, because the email address you've used doesn't match any that Launchpad knows about. [00:12] oh I see [00:12] ianm_: You should run 'bzr whoami Your Name ' [00:13] ianm_: Er, with quotes around the name and email address." [00:14] it matches against the email address? so just the launchpad user name alone is not wnough? [00:14] zsquareplusc: That's right. Most revisions don't reference the Launchpad username at all. [00:15] wgrant: done. so will this fix past commits or only going forward? [00:15] ianm_: Only going forward. commits are immutable. [00:15] wgrant: ok thanks for the help [00:16] ianm_: np [00:17] hi, i sem to have problems with signing the code of conduct. I did all the steps., but i get 'bad signature' anyway [00:18] ace_suares: and this is on ubuntu? [00:19] yep [00:19] https://launchpad.net/codeofconduct/1.0.1/+sign [00:20] strange! [00:20] ohhhhh [00:20] i just got it. [00:20] did your mail client mangle the file or something ? [00:21] I cat Code...txt.asc and I didn't see before 9like three times) that the whole message comes before the signature, and only copied and pasted the signature. [00:21] It's working now. Sorry to bother :-) [00:21] hehe ;-) [00:34] bazaar.launchpad.net poorly? [00:35] Daviey: Yes. [00:35] spm ^^ [00:36] :( [00:43] been yoyo'ing all morning [00:54] The web UI for code review offers me a "Needs Information" vote, but https://help.launchpad.net/Code/Review#Email%20interface doesn't seem to have an equivalent option. [00:54] Does anyone know if " review needs-info" or similar will work? [00:55] spiv: yes [00:55] spiv: yes I know, and yes, it'll work [00:55] thumper: yes "needs-info" works, or yes something similar will? ;) [00:55] as will needs-information, needsinfo, needsinformation [00:55] Great, thanks. [00:55] (p.s. update your help :P) [01:23] i have 2 bzr branches converted from CVS. should i push each one separately or is there a way to get them both at once uploaded (i assume cvsps-import created a repo) [01:25] zsquareplusc: separately [01:25] ok. thanks [01:31] mmh. can i directly push w/o registering the branch in the web interface beforehand? [01:32] zsquareplusc: yes [01:32] zsquareplusc: in fact it is preferable [01:33] yeah i always had errors about pushing to an existing branch and hd to use "force" :-) [01:33] the problem is just, how to figure out the name lp:... :-) [01:36] zsquareplusc: I have my locations.conf set up so I just say "bzr push" and it works [01:40] thumper: but you still have to figure out the location once. lp:~user/project/name or something like that [01:40] yes [01:40] push_location = lp:~thumper/launchpad [01:41] push_location:policy = appendpath [01:41] then if I havea branch "bob" [01:41] and go push [01:41] it goes to lp:~thumper/launchpad/bob [01:42] mwhudson: I'm confused [01:42] d'uh wrong channel [02:59] There is an obsolete glchess project in LP: https://edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/glchess. glchess was merged into gnome-games, should this LP project be removed? [03:00] I ask as people keep reporting bugs against the old project [03:01] robert_ancell: sounds like a good idea in that case. I assume that's a semi formal request to "pls make it so? [03:01] hold on [03:01] spm, I just wanted to check if it needs to remain in the database as there is a hardy package for it [03:02] robert_ancell: oh hang a sec. I just missed par tof that. that's under ubuntu [03:02] where is the package in hardy? [03:02] yeah [03:02] it's in ubuntu [03:02] https://edge.launchpad.net/glchess M== is already obsoleted. [03:03] is there a way to close it for bug reporting? [03:03] robert_ancell: where is the package in hardy? [03:03] But I guess in theory a hardy user might want to report against it [03:03] exactly [03:03] 20 more months :) [03:03] :) [03:03] * micahg has the same problem with the firefox package which is EOL [03:04] robert_ancell: maybe we should move this to #ubuntu-bugs [03:17] bug 151129 :-) [03:17] Launchpad bug 151129 in malone "Can't subscribe to a tag" [Medium,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/151129 [03:17] On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 01:13:43PM -0000, Matthew Paul Thomas wrote: [03:17] > I don't think this has anything to do with having official tags. That's because you don't know what the implementation will look like. [03:17] heh [03:17] Who owns the python-opengl package: https://edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/python-opengl, I want to update the info but it doesn't seem to have any edit links [03:18] robert_ancell: that's in ubuntu again [03:18] micahg, yeah, how do I link it to the PyOpenGL project? [03:19] the equivalent gcalctool page has more info.. [03:19] robert_ancell: That's difficult, because the package doesn't exist. [03:19] it doesn't exist :) [03:20] It did in Warty. [03:20] But that's all. [03:20] hello robert_ancell [03:20] poolie, hey [03:21] robert_ancell: The source is now just 'pyopengl' [03:21] Ah, ok [03:21] And it's already linked. === ripps_ is now known as ripps [07:45] thumper/jml, do i understand correctly that https://code.edge.launchpad.net/bzr/+activereviews now contains all non-closed reviews? [07:45] if so, great [07:46] poolie, I believe so. [07:46] that is a really good step [07:46] the contents are a bit baffling though [07:46] poolie, please comment on my blog. [07:47] poolie, and surely they can't be baffling to you after all these months! [07:47] in that i have 20+ "Other reviews I am not actively reviewing" [07:47] heh [07:47] I'm pretty sure we changed that text on your suggestion :P [07:48] poolie, that section is a bit hard to deal with though. [07:48] i think the problem is this page is sorted by overall state, but it doesn't actually show the overall state? [07:49] that seems orthogonal to me. [07:49] poolie, or rather, that sounds like a solution to me, not a problem :) [07:50] poolie, all of the reviews other than the "Approved" ones have the same overall state of "Needs Review" [07:51] hm [07:52] what's the difference between 'reviews i can do' and 'other' then? [07:52] it seems like they are 'reviews i can't do' :-) but why? [07:53] jml, anyhow, comment posted [07:53] i'm not totally sure we should do this on random blog posts [07:53] but maybe we should! [07:54] poolie, well, it's not that much better than random IRC channel discussions [07:55] at least on my blog, Americans can participate in the discussions [07:56] poolie, my blog ought to be on planet launchpad too. [07:57] poolie, first up, do you really not understand the categories? [07:57] Nobody knows about Planet Launchpad, though. [07:58] there is a planet launchpad? me googles [07:58] ?? [07:58] It's very new. [07:58] jml, i'm not being intentionally thick [07:58] I thought Launchpad was part of Planet Ubuntu [07:58] to be clear, the issues are [07:58] Planet Launchpad would be Magrathea, presumably ;) [07:58] 1- i'm not sure how to get something out of 'reviews i'm doing' when i've said my piece === jml changed the topic of #launchpad to: There is a Planet Launchpad | Launchpad is now open sourced: https://dev.launchpad.net/ | Help contact: - | Join https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-users | Channel logs: http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/ | irc://irc.freenode.net/#launchpad-dev is the developer channel [07:59] and 2- i'm not sure what qualifies as 'other' and what action i should take on them [07:59] i guess in practice i can just pick any one of them and finish it [07:59] micahg: "Planet" just is a term for a blog aggregator (both for some software that runs it, and for specific instances). [07:59] or keep mental state as to which ones still matter [07:59] poolie, ok. I'll explain and then we can figure out what to do to prevent future confusion. [07:59] but it is not quite as gtd-ish as it could be [08:00] poolie, wrt 1-, it sticks until the proposal is Approved, Rejected, Merged or otherwise finished. [08:00] spiv: I know :) ... I just thought it was part of the Ubuntu Planet...where is this LP Planet? [08:00] poolie, there's no state in the system for whose court the review ball is in [08:00] micahg: http://planet.launchpad.net/, of course :) [08:01] ha :) [08:01] ok [08:01] poolie, wrt 2-, they are all the reviews on bzr that have nothing to do with you, basically. [08:01] poolie, but are "Needs review" [08:01] thanks spiv [08:02] ok, so they seem to typically have been reviewed by someone else, but not have been set to a conclusive status [08:03] poolie, that's exactly the case. [08:03] but https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~vila/bzr/releasing-clarified/+merge/10854 is strange [08:03] presumably i should review it but it hasn't requested review from anyone [08:03] poolie, yes, that's odd. I don't know how that happened. [08:05] the review i just did for ian was like that too [08:05] maybe it's a recent change in behaviour? [08:06] poolie, I don't know, tbh. [08:06] poolie, if so, I'd consider it a regression [08:06] maybe you changed the default review team or something like that? [08:06] hey, this thing gives me a internal server error (and has for the latest 12 hours): http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~trond-norbye/libmemcached/memcapable/revision/572 [08:06] the plural "you" [08:06] mm, we did change it [08:07] ok [08:07] so now i understand better [08:07] i'm not sure quite what to change [08:07] me neither [08:08] We could hide the "other section" by default [08:08] but we'd still need to link to it [08:08] i think part of it is a model question about review requests vs just taking reviews for the project [08:08] perhaps we need [08:09] reviews requested from me; reviews being done by others; reviews i can do; reviews i can't do [08:09] and perhaps rather than 'i am doing' have 'i'm involved in' or something [08:09] to convey that i may not actually be doing or able to do anything much else [08:09] not sure [08:09] "reviews i can't do"? [08:09] yeah [08:10] I think "Reviews being done by others" is clearer than the heading we have now [08:10] does that even make sense [08:10] I don't think it does, no. [08:10] if i'm not allowed to even comment on it, i probably shouldn't even see it [08:10] right [08:11] but there is some kind of other heading [08:11] which is reviews nobody has done anything on yet [08:11] the initial comment by the proposer doesn't count [08:11] that's the "reviews I can do", atm. [08:11] probably they should be lumped in with those i can do [08:11] right [08:11] not lumped in -- that's what they are [08:12] so the question then is, do you want to separate 'reviews people specifically asked me to do' from 'reviews i can do' [08:12] well, that's what we do right now. [08:12] and I think "yes" [08:12] possibly i should prioritize the first category [08:12] ok, so 'reviews requested from me' vs 'reviews i can do' [08:12] yeah, those categories exist [08:13] for the first category to be small enough to matter it probably needs to only count those where they asked for me personally, not the project team? [08:13] yes, and that's what we do right now. [08:14] so if 'reviews nobody is doing' is 'requested reviews i can do' then where is 'reviews specifically requested from me'? [08:14] poolie, it's not shown if it's empty [08:14] oh, maybe it exists but isn't shown because there are none? [08:14] i see [08:14] poolie, I was just about to say, maybe we should show it even then [08:15] with (none) [08:15] zaro boogs [08:15] and have some text saying "No one has asked you specifically to review anything, but maybe you want to review one of the branches below" [08:15] or words to similar effect. [08:16] it could get a bit awkward, though. [08:16] poolie, have you looked at https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~mbp/bzr? [08:20] poolie, we could also add some more explanatory text to the page, or popup help or something. [08:20] i think just simple links to a wiki page would help a bit [08:21] poolie, I think if there were controls for setting the status from Needs Review, that would help too. [08:21] i think my personal page looks ok [08:21] right [08:21] some of this is an artifact of people not setting that field [08:21] poolie, at least that way one could blunder about on that page and learn that setting the status changes the way a thing is displayed [08:21] the only thing i would say about my personal page is that it looks a bit odd that the 'approved reviews ready to land' are not my branches [08:22] it's almost like they should be 'reviews i'm involved in that are ready to land' [08:22] as opposed to my own branches [08:22] yeah, I mentioned that to thumper [08:22] there's an interesting use-case there though [08:23] because you also want to have something telling you to land approved patches from contributors without commit rights. [08:24] jbergstroem, there's been some instability with the code browsing section... I've asked a sysadmin to look into it. [08:25] right, that's getting into 'you touched it, you're responsible for it' [08:25] which makes some sense if it's a non-core patch; less so for a core dev patch [08:25] poolie, yeah [08:25] poolie, at this point, I start wondering exactly how smart this thing should be. === BjornT_ is now known as BjornT [08:25] i'm not sure [08:26] particularly for PQM managed projects, where we can't infer if you have write permissions! [08:26] s/if/whether/ [08:29] I guess we could derive that information from the review team. [08:29] jml: ok, thanks for the info [08:29] Again, I think that the UI would be clearer if we had a control that could land the branch. [08:30] as it is, it's too static, and gives you little idea of the flow of the thing. [08:31] * jml is now officially late for dinner. [08:31] see you :) [09:01] staging seems to be down? [09:21] ~[6~[6~[6~[6~[6~[6~[6~[6~[6~[6~[6~[6~[6~/c [09:22] oops [09:22] Hello. I copied dnsmasq 2.50 from the karmic ppa to my ppa: https://launchpad.net/~ts.sch.gr/+archive/ppa Now it shows that it's published there, even with no signer. [09:23] The problem is that the users that have my ppa in their sources don't see the update [09:23] I.e. sudo apt-get update && sudo apt-get dist-upgrade still leaves them with the stock dnsmasq 2.47 [09:24] "no signer" is expected behaviour for a package synced from debian [09:24] alkisg: I will look [09:24] alkisg: you copied it from the ubuntu archive, not a PPA, BTW [09:25] alkisg: I suspect you have a problematic proxy between you and ppa.launchpad.net === Ng_ is now known as Ng [09:28] bigjools: I'm experiencing this myself, from my laptop while I've moved to 3 different ISPs, and also some users reported that back to me from different ISPs, so I suspect it isn't a proxy problem... [09:28] alkisg: ah, did you notice the binary name has changed? [09:28] dnsmasq-base vs dnsmasq [09:28] bigjools: these are 2 different packages [09:29] Both are supposed to be in 2.50 version now... :-/ [09:29] oh I see, sorry, I missed the other one [09:29] dnsmasq-base is in main, dnsmasq in universe [09:29] ummm interesting [09:30] Ummmmmmmmm. [09:30] Yes. [09:30] Very interesting. [09:30] Thanks for your feedback. I'll try to manually upload a jaunty version with a new changelog to immediately fix the problem for my users, and I'll leave the hardy/intrepid versions for you to look :) [09:30] alkisg: what sources.list entry are you using [09:30] one with main only? [09:30] deb http://ppa.launchpad.net/ts.sch.gr/ppa/ubuntu jaunty main [09:30] deb-src http://ppa.launchpad.net/ts.sch.gr/ppa/ubuntu jaunty main [09:30] Ooops [09:30] however, !main is not supposed to exist for PPAs [09:30] :) ah, so if I put universe there I'll be ok, eh? [09:31] * alkisg tries... [09:31] Yup that explains it all. My users got dnsmasq-base 2.50, but not dnsmasq 2.50 [09:31] bigjools: you're a genious :) [09:31] i thought every ppa package was built as "main", if you liked it or not? [09:31] yet another reason why using +copy-packages is BAD [09:31] (with primary archive I mean) [09:32] Daviey: it's a bug :( [09:32] ah, i thought it was as designed :) [09:33] I mean it's a bug that it's not all main [09:33] it's because it was copied with binaries [09:33] OK. Lesson learned, *don't copy packages from the primary archive. rebuild sources* :) [09:34] Thank you bigjools, thank you all :) [09:34] alkisg: welcome, sorry for your troubles [09:35] (and don't copy sources, rebuilding binaries, either) [09:35] well, copying from main will be ok [09:35] anything else will leave you with problems [09:35] The main reason I've seen it used is to get debhelper 7 in hardy. [09:35] And for that it works. [09:36] yup, done that :-) [09:36] but then I needed 7.0.50 [09:37] Should I not be revolted upon seeing lp.soyuz.scripts imports in webapp code? [09:37] wgrant: err, ew? [09:37] So, is manual uploading the only way to fix it now? Or would deleting the packages + copy/w/rebuild from the karmic archive work? [09:37] bigjools: The IArchive.syncSource(s) and the archive copy view use lp.soyuz.scripts.packagecopier [09:38] alkisg: Copy with rebuild would work if you hadn't already copied it. [09:38] alkisg: But you have, so you must upload to get a new version. [09:38] Ah. Manual it is, then :-/ Thanks, wgrant :) [09:38] wgrant: there's probably more than that as well... :( [09:38] Ah, final question, so now I'll need 2.50+ppa1, right? [09:39] alkisg: never copy with rebuild into previous series [09:39] bigjools: I just happened to stumble upon them, so probably. [09:39] Or 2.50-0ubuntu1~ppa1 ? [09:39] Both of those are wrong. [09:39] 2.50-1~something [09:39] maxb: I'll copy with rebuild to my repository for karmic, then copy binaries to previous versions - will that work? [09:40] wgrant, thanks [09:40] Best to do a manual upload. [09:40] OK. Thank you all. [09:40] alkisg: well, that's a bit more permissible, but I doubt whether LP will let you reuse the version [09:40] alkisg: no, once a version exists in an archive, it can never be rebuilt or re-uploaded [09:40] Unfortunately there is now NO version you can use which is both correct and allowable by LP [09:40] maxb: it allows me to copy binaries between versions, but not to copy/w/rebuild [09:41] bigjools: Binaries can so... [09:41] *between ubuntu series [09:41] wgrant: I am scared :-/ [09:41] wgrant: eh? [09:41] bigjools: Multiple binaries with the same (bpn, version) can exist in one archive. [09:42] *blink* [09:42] ewww [09:42] Not the same (bpn, version, PUBLISHED), of course. [09:43] I'm not sure how that can happen [09:43] (11:39:48 πμ) wgrant: 2.50-1~something ==> but that's a lower version than the already uploaded dnsmasq - will launchpad allow me to use that version? [09:43] bigjools: It has happened in the primary archive at least once, and it broke the a-f cache. [09:43] wgrant: how would such a situation come about? [09:43] bigjools: Related to a version being uploaded to -proposed, then deleted, then a later security update reused the version, IIRC. [09:44] ah right, it's a bug :) [09:44] But it can happen within one pocket if a binary moves between sources. [09:44] yeah I remember that [09:44] And it doesn't cause any problems except confusion. [09:44] (and a-f archive corruption, but stuff the primary archive) [09:44] alkisg: If you are evil, yes. Delete the package, wait until it's removed... voila. [09:45] Nice :) [09:45] I think it's OK here, since nobody should have the binary anyway. [09:45] Yeah, I understand [09:45] Normally that is very bad. [09:45] wgrant: the upload will be refused [09:46] bigjools: Which? The conflicting binary, or older source? [09:46] older source at least [09:46] and probably the conflicting binary [09:46] I don't believe so. Not if the previous source is gone. [09:46] I've seen it done, [09:46] it's not gone though, it's still in the publishing history [09:47] Right. [09:47] * wgrant checks the code. [09:47] if it can happen, it's a bug [09:49] bigjools: It (getSourceAncestry) quite deliberately only looks for PENDING/PUBLISHED. [09:49] ummm ew [09:49] Perhaps. [09:49] I wonder if that breaks overrides. [09:49] see if you can re-create it then [09:50] You mean upload the same version? [09:50] same or older should not work [09:51] Argh. So many methods on Distribution/DistroSeries that should be on Archive. [09:52] bigjools: You can't ever upload a conflicting source version. [09:52] bigjools: No problem with an older one AFAICT, though. [09:52] wow [09:52] ok [09:53] I guess apt won't complain too loudly about that [09:53] (the check for the same version is based on file content check, which uses IDistribution.getFileByName to track down the file. That doesn't care about the status.) [09:53] Now, I would have thought that same thing would be used for binaries. [09:53] Maybe it is now. [09:53] * wgrant looks. [09:54] wgrant, bigjools: isn't this conversation more suited to #launchpad-dev? [09:54] thumper: Indeed, it did rather mutate. [10:11] anyone use launchpad.dev ? i have some problem with team mailing list [10:11] i don't receive the mail for the creating request [10:37] Hi, ~doctiese6 is spamming bug 323239. Can somebody disable his account? [10:37] Launchpad bug 323239 in foxyproxy "foxyproxy would not funcion at all no matter what I did" [Undecided,Invalid] https://launchpad.net/bugs/323239 [10:41] Intriguing. That comment clearly exists, but doesn't have a karma entry. [10:51] wgrant: Do you have an idea how to block him? [10:53] simon-o: That needs a sysadmin. Is it just the one recent comment? [10:54] wgrant: No, all his comments are spam, but the bug is not. [10:54] Are there sysadmins here or do I need to ask in launchpad-dev? [10:55] simon-o: There are probably no sysadmins around at the moment. Probably best to ask at https://answers.launchpad.net/launchpad/+addquestion. [11:00] wgrant: thanks, I filled question 82215 [11:01] filed [11:58] Why my ppa not build packages that I upload? [11:59] rithy: which PPA and package? [11:59] ~/moonos-dev [11:59] I uploaded 1 hour ago [12:00] which package? [12:00] moonassistant, mooncontrol, moondomain, moongrub, moonmetacity, moonslim, moonsoftware and moonusplash [12:01] rithy: you need to be patient I'm afraid, there's a large queue of builds today [12:01] look at your build pages and it gives you an estimate of when it will start building [12:01] e.g, https://edge.launchpad.net/~moonos-dev/+archive/ppa/+build/1208018 [12:03] I can't wait for this. In 1 hours ago it say in 3 hours but now it 4 hours [12:04] Maybe it can up to 5 or 6 hours [12:04] I need it very much for now [12:05] Yes but all the other users of the PPA service also want their builds now. So you queue. [12:05] :) [12:07] Thank for all [12:08] rithy: another interesting page if you want to know more: https://edge.launchpad.net/builders [12:08] The non-edge version is probably more accessible [12:08] :D [12:09] maxb: is there something you think we can do to make the new one better? [12:09] :) [12:10] The only things I can think of are in conflict with the future plans for blurring the distinctions between architectures and virtual/non-virtual builders [12:11] The problem with the edge page is that it's hard to see at a glance exactly which builders are capable of building the specific build you're interested in [12:11] Also, has gold got stuck? It's been idle for a while despite the queue [12:12] maxb: The stats on the right are pretty useful, though. [12:13] Hmm. gold has apparently not built anything since the 12th of August [12:13] a while is a nice understatement, it's not built anything for a month! [12:13] It could have been Enabled for much of that time. [12:13] wgrant: yeah, I really like the new stats, it's a good indication of how loaded the farm is [12:14] bigjools: It's much nicer to look at than the old one which needed scrolling. [12:14] I have a feeling gold is one of the permanent ones? [12:14] Although it would be nice if empty queues were faded. [12:14] It certainly doesn't vanish often [12:14]