[02:33] <Guest19873> does anyone know what "Disabled for Enablement" means?  (on one of the builder pages)
[02:38] <wgrant> Guest19873: Most of the PPA build machines are just on loan from their normal jobs.
[02:38] <wgrant> Guest19873: That means they've been returned to their assigned task, for now.
[02:39] <Guest19873> and they drop the build they're working on to do so, huh
[02:44] <wgrant> Guest19873: Yes. They can be taken away at any time. It retried it automatically, didn't it?
[02:49] <Guest19873> yea, another node took over, but the original one was in the middle of a 2+ hour build
[02:49] <Guest19873> which is strange, too, because the other two arches finished in ~1 hour
[03:42] <HFSPLUS> !ops
[06:13] <MFen> when i've merged a branch, it sticks around with its comments
[06:14] <MFen> if i clean it up, the comments go with it. they really ought to go into the bug or something. why don't they?
[06:32] <spiv> MFen: a merged branch is hidden by the default searches, though.
[06:34] <spiv> MFen: so removing it isn't really any cleaner, because it's not in anyone's way.  And leaving alone leaves the comments intact, as you say.
[06:35] <MFen> well, i needed to delete a branch which this branch depended on
[06:35] <MFen> so it's not inert.
[06:35] <spiv> Depended on in which sense?
[06:36] <spiv> As in, a prerequisite branch of a merge proposal?
[06:36] <MFen> yes
[06:36] <MFen> and you can't do that when the other branch still exists
[06:36] <spiv> Hmm, and deleting the prerequisite removes that merge proposal?  That does sound suboptimal.
[06:37] <spiv> The merge proposal should probably be deactivated, but I agree with you that it should still exist.
[06:37] <spiv> Sounds like something it's worth filing a bug about.
[06:37] <spiv> I'm curious about why you needed to delete that branch, though?
[06:40] <MFen> i made a mess of several branches and needed to start over
[16:01] <hit^> hi, can anyone explain me this: No translation activities recorded for <team name here>.
[16:02] <hit^> why doesn't translations show up there?
[18:28] <limcore> hi
[18:28] <limcore> the topic of #canonical points to a web page... and this web page is private (not accessible) please fix that
[18:29] <limcore> 2) I found a bug n launchpad website layout, but whilre reporting it I get oops: Error ID: OOPS-1470H2771
[18:32] <limcore> anyone?
[18:35] <ScottK> !weekend
[20:24] <hendrik> hi, i am trying to register an account on bugs.launchpad.net. But after clicking on "register" i can an Oops: OOPS-1470L3116
[20:28] <limcore> hendrik: I get OOPS all the time, it seems something is broken today
[23:45] <benedikt> Where on launchpad should I file a bug report about a laptop not being able to resume from standby?
[23:47] <crimsun> against linux; ubuntu-bug linux
[23:47] <benedikt> bugs.launchpad.net/linux ?
[23:48] <RAOF> No; run “ubuntu-bug linux".  That'll grab lots of useful information, then file the bug.
[23:49] <benedikt> i would prefer to file the bug report manually and attach relevant information
[23:50] <RAOF> Why?
[23:50] <benedikt> because last time i used ubuntu-bug i submitted tons of irrelevant information that just made my report look messy.
[23:51] <RAOF> The Ubuntu project would like you to use ubuntu-bug; the kernel team have a bunch of scripts to grab information that they need before you submit the bug.
[23:52] <RAOF> It's easy to filter out the irrelevant stuff from an apport-filed bug; it's much more annoying to have to ask for information that would have been attached.