[00:53] <soren> I've been wondering this for too long now: What the heck is the "Review type" field for in code reviews?
[00:54] <spiv> soren: Launchpad uses it to request "ui" reviews and the like
[00:54] <jpds> soren: code / db / ui / foobar.
[00:54] <soren> OH!
[00:55] <soren> Err.. oh.
[00:55] <soren> So if a patch touches a bunch of areas, you use the "review type" to say that you've only looked at the UI bits of it, or what?
[00:56] <soren> It's a field you fill in as the reviewer, not the person requesting the review.
[00:56] <jpds> Or leave it blank and individual people can do different review types.
[00:56] <jpds> soren: eg, https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~jpds/launchpad/fix_361650/+merge/16749
[00:56] <spiv> soren: you can use it when requesting reviews too, I believe
[00:58] <soren> jpds: Great, an example was exactly what I was hoping for. :) Thanks.
[04:46] <nuclear_eclipse> hi, I uploaded a package to my PPA about an hour ago (or more), but my PPA page still looks "empty", and I didn't get any error messages during the upload process?  Is this sort of latency to be expected, or should I be trying to further investigate why it's not showing up?
[04:53] <wgrant> nuclear_eclipse: You should receive an email within five minutes, as long as you signed the package with a key known by Launchpad.
[04:53] <nuclear_eclipse> hmm
[04:54] <nuclear_eclipse> it was signed with my gpg key that (afaik) Launchpad knows about already... =\
[04:54] <nuclear_eclipse> didn't get an email though, so I'll double check that
[04:54] <nuclear_eclipse> thank you
[04:55] <nuclear_eclipse> ah ha, I must have regenerated my key sometime in the past 4 years... :P
[05:00] <nuclear_eclipse> wgrant: ok, I uploaded my new gpg key to launchpad and confirmed it, will my PPA upload automatically get queued now, or do I need to reupload it?
[05:04] <wgrant> nuclear_eclipse: You'll need to upload it again.
[05:06] <nuclear_eclipse> yay! I got the email
[05:07] <nuclear_eclipse> thanks wgrant
[05:07] <wgrant> nuclear_eclipse: excellent.
[05:09] <nuclear_eclipse> wgrant: how long do pending builds usually take?
[05:09] <wgrant> nuclear_eclipse: Most of the time they should start within a couple of seconds.
[05:10] <wgrant> nuclear_eclipse: If you click on a pending build, it should give you an estimate of the start time.
[05:11] <nuclear_eclipse> lol, "Start in 1 hour (2505)"  :P
[05:12] <wgrant> nuclear_eclipse: Ah, you're stuck behind lots of daily builds.
[05:12] <wgrant> You've picked just about the worst time of the day.
[05:12] <nuclear_eclipse> heh, figures
[05:12] <wgrant> If you look at https://launchpad.net/builders you can see what's going on.
[05:18] <nuclear_eclipse> wgrant: guess I should have come in here to complain sooner :P
[06:35] <Peng> Loggerhead appears to be down.
[06:36] <Peng> Well...it gives Internal Server Errors. Which means Loggerhead itself is running, which is good, I guess.
[06:36] <Peng> I've tried a few different branches. None of them work.
[06:39] <spm> Peng: ta; I got an alert earlier; but it all checked green. so left as is; but apepars no, it was really futzed in an infrequent way. Bounced.
[06:40] <Peng> spm: <3
[06:41] <spm> heh
[06:41] <Peng> Wonder what the logs say?
[06:42] <spiv> Peng: "TIMBER!" perhaps
[06:45] <spm> "please. help."
[06:46] <Peng> "help, I'm trapped in a Python factory!"
[06:46] <spm> wow. that's a cool error. (what's in the logs) logging that as a bug....
[06:46] <spm> logging a loggerhead bug - sorry - no pun intended; but spelled out JIC you missed it.
[06:47] <Peng> I'm tired, so I totally missed the pun. :P
[06:47] <Peng> I mean, I missed that it was a pun, and just interpreted it normally. :P
[06:47] <spm> probably a good thing when all's said and done
[06:48] <Peng> Thanks for filing a bug. :)
[06:48] <spm> nearly....
[06:49] <spm> hmm. must be friday evening; can't think of a decent bug report title....
[06:49] <Peng> You're lucky; I can't ever think of good bug titles. :P
[06:50] <spm> ha
[06:50] <spm> https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/launchpad-code/+bug/517418 for the terminally curious
[06:51] <Peng> Oh, that looks hideous wrapped to 80 characters.
[06:51] <spm> yeah...
[06:51] <Peng> Hmm, lru_cache KeyError? I think there's a bug open about that.
[06:52] <spm> yes; I was under the impression we had a fix for that tho. perhaps not.
[06:52] <Peng> Looks like I was thinkig of https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/loggerhead/+bug/420738
[06:52] <Peng> Maybe.
[06:59] <spm> Ahh this is the one I was thinking of. https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/launchpad-code/+bug/514090
[06:59] <Peng> Oooh.
[06:59] <Peng> Jeepers, how many lru_cache issues do we have? >.>
[07:00] <spm> yeah....
[07:00] <Peng> Wait, that looks like a dupe too.
[07:01] <Peng> Am I too sleepy, or are bug #420738, bug #514090 and bug #517418 the same thing?
[07:01] <Peng> Yes, thank you, ubottu.
[07:03] <spm> probably; I personally prefer to load up new info in a new bug report; oft the circumstances are different in some way. And I'm not familair enough with the code (read, at all) to make a call one way or the other.
[07:03] <Peng> Well, as you can see, I marked 517418 as a dupe of 420738. Hopefully I'm not wrong.
[07:03] <Peng> :P
[07:04] <wgrant> Odd that nobody noticed 420738 when 514090 was discovered.
[07:04] <wgrant> They do appear to be dupes.
[07:04] <Peng> 514090 is happening to a different LRUCache, but it should still be the same base issue.
[07:05] <spiv> spm: I agree, it's easier to mark a bug as a dupe than split a one bug report's conversation into two bugs.
[07:06] <spiv> (Although arguably that it's harder to split is a bug in itself)
[09:37] <appiah> ...
[09:44] <nigel_nb> thanks niko
[09:44] <niko> np
[09:47] <wgrant> How do I add an SSH key to my account?
[09:48] <wgrant> I cannot find documentation.
[09:48] <wgrant> (I know how to do it, but I would like to link to existing docs)
[09:49] <nigel_nb> wgrant, https://help.launchpad.net/YourAccount/CreatingAnSSHKeyPair ?
[09:50] <wgrant> nigel_nb: Ah, yes, that works. Odd that it's not linked from the Codehosting docs.
[09:50] <nigel_nb> wgrant, :)
[09:51] <Daviey> wgrant: There is a link on https://edge.launchpad.net/~USER/+editsshkeys in the intro paragraph
[09:52] <wgrant> Daviey: I don't know how to get there. I'm just reading through https://help.launchpad.net/Code/UploadingABranch.
[09:52] <nigel_nb> wgrant, it probably assumes that you've set up SSH keys by then
[09:53] <wgrant> nigel_nb: That's probably not a valid assumption.
[09:54] <nigel_nb> wgrant, time to update documentation then :)
[12:52] <d1b> hi question can i have a private bzr repo on launchpad?
[13:01] <noodles775> d1b: you can, there are commercial subscriptions (more info here: https://answers.edge.launchpad.net/launchpad/+faq/208). Does that help?
[13:02] <noodles775> (It's normally for non-open source licenses - not sure what license you're using).
[13:10] <d1b> noodles775: im not. just keep comp society documents in git atm.
[13:10] <d1b> trying to find a way to host them. would be public *but* there are emails and other stuff that spammers might like
[13:21] <falktx> hi there
[13:21] <falktx> I (or we) have a problem
[13:21] <falktx> i uploaded a package to my PPA and it doesn't stop building
[13:21] <falktx> it's on a error loop
[13:21] <falktx> https://launchpad.net/~falk-t-j/+archive/lucid/+sourcepub/953608/+listing-archive-extra
[13:22] <noodles775> looking
[13:32] <noodles775> falktx: I'm just watching them now... up to 7minutes... I'm hoping to get the log before it's redispatched (but that's unlikely as the queue is currently empty).
[13:33] <noodles775> I'm assuming the builder itself is returning BUILDERFAIL or GIVENBACK, which just put the build back in NEEDSBUILD, but I'm not sure why yet.
[13:34] <wgrant> noodles775: We don't yet clean the build log from the record, do we?
[13:34] <wgrant> Or did that get fixed in the refactoring?
[13:34] <noodles775> wgrant: no, not until it's re-dispatched I think?
[13:35] <noodles775> (and what are you still doing up??, but great that you're here :) ).
[13:35]  * noodles775 checks.
[13:35] <wgrant> It's not even 1am.
[13:35]  * wgrant is grepping around.
[13:35] <noodles775> *even*, ah to be a uni student again ;)
[13:36] <wgrant> Heh.
[13:36] <wgrant> I can't see where it would be set back to None, unless it was manually retried.
[13:36] <noodles775> Yeah, it's actually the buildqueue record's logtail that is set back to None during the reset().
[13:37] <noodles775> So we should be able to get it via the api (even though it's not displayed on the web ui because the builder is in BUILDING state.
[13:38] <wgrant> It's None.
[13:38] <noodles775> And the builds are back to NEEDSBUILD :/
[13:38] <wgrant> Huh. So they are.
[13:38] <noodles775> Actually, one of the is failed...
[13:38] <noodles775> https://edge.launchpad.net/~falk-t-j/+archive/lucid/+build/1486042
[13:39] <falktx> i just saw that
[13:39] <falktx> you guys cancelled it?
[13:39] <noodles775> Nope.
[13:39] <wgrant> The amd64 got SIGKILLed somehow.
[13:39] <wgrant> OOM-killer, perhaps.
[13:39] <noodles775> So maybe a losa did something?
[13:42] <falktx> the i386 build just restarted
[13:45] <wgrant> I wonder if a similar thing happens to the i386 build, except that one of the more critical build processes gets killed, so buildd-manager fails to communicate with the slave and resets the build.
[13:45] <wgrant> GIVENBACK and BUILDERFAIL should result in a stored build log.
[13:52] <noodles775> I just checked the logs, and it always seems to be on the same builders (samarium and osmium).
[13:54] <wgrant> That could just be a scheduling quirk.
[13:54] <wgrant> I don't see how it would remember.
[13:54] <noodles775> Sure, I was just wondering whether it could be related to the builders themselves, rather than the job.
[13:55] <wgrant> Ah, right.
[13:55] <thekorn> is it just me or is staging down?
[13:56] <noodles775> Down for me too. losa^^ ?
[13:56] <nigel_nb> thekorn, me too!
[13:56] <thekorn> phew, good ;)
[13:58] <doctormo> How would I do a bug search using the launchpadlib?
[14:00] <wgrant> Could it be restoring?
[14:01] <wgrant> successful-updates.txt suggests that it might finish in about four minutes.
[14:02] <noodles775> Yep, there's a staging update in progress.
[14:02] <bac> doctormo: a bugtarget has a 'searchTasks' method exported
[14:03] <doctormo> bac: I might need a recap on how that works, because I don't understand what a task is or a bug target.
[14:04] <bac> doctormo: a bugtarget is anything that can have a bug.  a project, distro, etc
[14:04] <doctormo> bac, so the idea is to have an exact bug number and check that, but if you do have a project / distro etc then you can do a bug search?
[14:05] <bac> and a bug task is the bug assignment to a bug target -- a bug can have multiple bug tasks if it affects say firefox and gtk
[14:05] <doctormo> bac: I think I understand, yes.
[14:05] <bac> doctormo: if you already have the bug number you don't need a search, you can get it directly using lp.bugs[123]
[14:05] <doctormo> Yes
[14:05] <wgrant> There we go, staging is back.
[14:05] <doctormo> But there is no way to do a search outside of a project or distro?
[14:05] <bac> but you can search on a given project using the searchTask method
[14:06] <bac> doctormo: that i don't know
[14:06] <doctormo> OK, I'll assume not.
[14:06] <wgrant> doctormo: There is no way to do that on the API at the moment, no.
[14:06] <bac> i've been stymied in the past trying that.  we may need to ask intellectronica or another bug genius
[14:06] <doctormo> lp.bugs.has_key(123) would work right?
[14:07] <intellectronica> genius? me?
[14:07] <bac> bug123 = lp.bugs[123] is easier to grab it
[14:08] <bac> intellectronica: sorry, i meant "super genius"
[14:08] <intellectronica> huh
[14:08] <intellectronica> so, what did you want to ask?
[14:08] <bac> doctormo: this page has examples.  there is nothing for searching bugs.  perhaps you can contribute a snippet when we figure it out.
[14:09] <bac> intellectronica: doctormo has questions about searching for bugs using launchpadlib
[14:09] <bac> i mentioned bugtarget.searchTasks()
[14:09] <intellectronica> yes, that's how you search for bugs using launchpadlib
[14:10] <bac> intellectronica: but there is no site-wide search...you have to know the project/distro you're interested in, right?
[14:10] <intellectronica> doctormo: why don't you look at the documentation for IHasBugs.searchTasks() and ask me if you have any specific questions?
[14:10] <bac> doctormo: i meant to paste: https://help.launchpad.net/API/Examples
[14:10] <intellectronica> yes, searchTasks is a method you call on something like a distro or a project. you can't search across launchpad as a whole
[14:12] <doctormo> Thanks intellectronica and bac
[14:13] <intellectronica> doctormo: anytime
[14:31] <hfz> hello
[14:31] <hfz> anybody here?
[14:31] <hfz> i need help on lp open id
[14:31] <nigel_nb> hfz, what is your issue?
[14:32] <hfz> this is the first time i'm experience it
[14:32] <hfz> when i want to use my open id to post comment in blogger, it says that my open id is not authorized/unauthorized open id
[14:32] <hfz> before this can
[14:36] <hfz> hello
[14:36] <hfz> anybody here?
[14:38] <bac> hi hfz
[14:39] <hfz> hi bac
[14:39] <hfz> need yr help
[14:39] <hfz> about my problem posted at the current log
[14:39] <bac> hfz, it may be that the blog site does not recognized launchpad as an openid provider
[14:39] <hfz> what?
[14:39] <hfz> before this i can post it as usual
[14:40] <bac> what site exactly?
[14:40] <hfz> blogger
[14:42] <nigel_nb> hfz, LP open ID integration seems to be broken
[14:43] <hfz> just now happen?
[14:43] <hfz> what's wrong with the integration?
[14:43] <hfz> that makes me weird is i can log in at lp website
[14:43] <hfz> even i can open my open id
[14:43] <hfz> but, still can't log in through blogger
[14:44] <bac> hfz: i am looking into it
[14:44] <hfz> ok
[14:46] <bac> hfz: i experienced the same problem trying to use LP openid at blogger.com.  i was, however, able to authenticate at livejournal.com
[14:46] <hfz> it might be a prob at blogger
[15:09] <bac> hfz: when was the last time you successfully logged in to blogger.com using launchpad.net as an openid provider?
[15:10] <hfz> didn't remember
[15:10] <hfz> passed few days ago
[15:18] <bac> hfz: we're looking into it.  nothing has changed on our side that would cause the problem.
[15:18] <hfz> ok
[15:19] <bac> hfz: do you get an error like: http://people.canonical.com/~bac/openid-blogger.png
[15:19] <hfz> yes
[17:14] <doctormo> Are there svg versions of the bug icons used in launchpad's ui?
[17:21] <bac> doctormo: there are.  but all of the images in the tree have copyright and aren't licensed for re-use.  you'd need to talk to someone, probably karl, if you wanted to use them.
[17:27] <doctormo> bac: Interesting, so someone implimenting launchpad would have to strip all the graphics out?
[17:27] <bac> doctormo: yes
[17:31] <doctormo> Facinating, I wonder why that was done for things like bug icons, but I supopse it's all about keeping the style of the thing unique
[17:32] <doctormo> In any way, I wonder if you have a sanitised branch with all that removed.
[17:32] <beuno> doctormo, we don't
[17:33] <doctormo> beuno: So launchpad is sort of kind of possible to get open source, but not actually in release?
[17:33] <beuno> doctormo, right
[17:33] <beuno> it was open sourced to allow people to contribute
[17:33] <beuno> but our focus isn't really other people deploying Launchpad
[17:34] <doctormo> !Forking is an important part of FOSS, checks and balances. Lesson 102.
[17:34] <beuno> sure, anyone can fork it
[17:34] <doctormo> beuno: but I can see where you've come to that conclusion.
[17:34] <beuno> but we don't want to invest in it
[17:34] <doctormo> beuno: Anyone can sanitise and then fork it.
[17:35] <maxb> I'm guessing Canonical's commercial subscriptions are a rather potent reason not to make it easy
[17:35] <beuno> maxb, commercial subscriptions don't really pay for... well... anything  :)
[17:35] <davidstrauss> For some reason, Launchpad thinks there is a conflict in this: https://launchpadlibrarian.net/38679967/r6NJAaENBgAFikHWDtg3Wm76Xpu.txt
[17:35] <davidstrauss> This is the merge request: https://launchpadlibrarian.net/38679967/r6NJAaENBgAFikHWDtg3Wm76Xpu.txt
[17:36] <beuno> the reason is more that if the information fragments across open source, it defeats the purpose of creating another hosting system
[17:36] <maxb> beuno: Huh. If it's not abotu protecting that revenue, I don't understand why Canonical don't let people run their own instances.
[17:36] <beuno> maxb, the above reason  ^
[17:36] <beuno> a lot of Launchpad's not talking to eachother is a lot of lost opportunities to fix problems
[17:36] <maxb> I'd love to run an instance for closed-source stuff in my office :-/
[17:36] <jamalta> doctormo: i think there's a few people thinking/working on a copyright-free branch of launchpad
[17:37] <davidstrauss> maxb: nothing stops you from doing so
[17:37] <maxb> davidstrauss: Actually, the Launchpad licence does stop me from doing so ... legally, anyway
[17:37] <doctormo> jamalta: You mean "totally copyleft" as it will still have copyrights on it.
[17:37] <davidstrauss> maxb: No, it does not.
[17:37] <davidstrauss> maxb: You're not allowed to use the branding
[17:38] <jamalta> doctormo: Huh? I mean a branch with all the copyrighted material stripped
[17:38] <davidstrauss> maxb: But that's no different from how Firefox is licensed
[17:38] <maxb> davidstrauss: Right.... but rebranding launchpad is a sufficiently arduous task that it makes it infeasible
[17:38] <doctormo> jamalta: Yes I know, but that would strip everything, even the open source stuff, since open source is copyrighted.
[17:38] <doctormo> jamalta: You mean "Strip the all rights reserved stuff"
[17:38] <jamalta> doctormo: well, right, :P
[17:39] <jamalta> doctormo: that's exactly what i meant, sorry
[17:39] <davidstrauss> Just to be clear, *all* the material is copyrighted. Applying the AGPL does nothing to remove copyright.
[17:39] <doctormo> davidstrauss: Firefox is slightly different in that they enforce it with trademark law, not with copyright (if I remember correctly)
[17:39] <davidstrauss> doctormo: that's correct
[17:39] <davidstrauss> doctormo: but the effect is the same
[17:40] <doctormo> Yes
[17:40] <maxb> Well, not really... I'm allowed to run my own copy of Firefox for actual work
[17:40] <davidstrauss> maxb: You're not allowed to build and distribute your own "Firefox"
[17:41] <davidstrauss> anymore than you're allowed to host your own "Launchpad" with Canonical's icons and branding
[17:42] <maxb> I can
[17:42] <maxb> oops
[17:43] <maxb> I can *use* an unmodified Firefox for private purposes. I can't *use* an unmodified Launchpad for private purposes
[17:43] <maxb> However similar the legal structures are, the net usefulness to me is very different
[17:45] <davidstrauss> maxb: OK
[18:24] <Italian_Plumber> so I commented on this bug: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/502433
[18:25] <Italian_Plumber> Will it be usedful for me to dowonload and try the alpha3 release to see if the problem is fixed?
[18:26] <persia> You may find #ubuntu-bugs or #ubuntu-testing a better forum for this class of question.
[18:27] <Italian_Plumber> oh... sorry
[18:27] <persia> No problem, I just thought you'd get a better faster answer there :)
[18:31] <Italian_Plumber> cool.  Thanks!
[21:39] <Deaner> hi, I'm looking for help with switching administrative privs with someone who no longer works on a project
[21:40] <Deaner> the maintainer listed is out of contact with us: https://launchpad.net/pculture
[21:41] <Deaner> kfogel: hey, I see you're listed as a help manager
[21:41] <Deaner> or help desk manager
[21:43] <kfogel> Deaner: hey there.  Have you mailed feedback {at} launchpad.net?
[21:43] <kfogel> Deaner: we've run into this before; that's the best route to resolve it.
[22:27] <paki> hi at all
[22:27] <paki> i have a problem
[22:28] <paki> anyone help me?
[22:28] <paki> *please?
[22:29] <paki> i have created my PPA on launchpad
[22:29] <paki> but i cannot upload my py files
[22:30] <paki> how can I do to create file for upload my files?
[22:37] <maxb> paki: Your PPA page contains a link "(Read about uploading)" - have you read it?
[22:38] <paki> yes
[22:38] <paki> but i have py file
[22:39] <paki> and there isn't any config or make file
[22:40] <paki> one moment..i now explain..
[22:40] <paki> (excuse my english)
[22:40] <paki> i have problem with packing
[22:41] <paki> how can i do packing correctly??
[22:41] <maxb> What is it that you are packaging?
[22:42] <paki> if i try "debuild binary"
[22:43] <paki> error show in a terminal
[22:43] <paki> because i don't know how to set file in debian folder