[01:42] <ardchoille> I'd like to layoutmy Homepage Content area using html <br><a> and <ul>. How can I do that?
[01:43] <wgrant> ardchoille: it is not possible at the moment.
[01:44] <ardchoille> Is there any way to layout things in paragraphs? carriage returns don't seem to work
[01:45] <wgrant> ardchoille: Works fine for me...
[01:46] <ardchoille> wgrant: Doesn't work here:  https://launchpad.net/~ardchoille42
[01:46] <ardchoille> carriage returns there
[01:48] <ardchoille> Oh, I just added "About me:" and a link,and the link isn't parsed either.
[01:48] <wgrant> Ah, it's probably because you have no karma.
[01:49] <wgrant> Users without karma don't get formatted, due to spam concerns.
[01:49] <ardchoille> That's just plain silly, IMHO
[01:49] <Peng> File a bug about it. Then you'll have karma and it'll work! :D
[01:49] <ardchoille> I had lots of karma, must have been taken away since I didn't have much input lately
[01:49] <ardchoille> Peng: hehe
[01:49] <wgrant> Right, it should probably instead detect whether you have any karma actions, not whether you have any karma.
[01:49] <ardchoille> KArma decreases over time so that'd be a waste of time
[01:49] <wgrant> https://launchpad.net/launchpad-registry/+filebug
[01:50] <ardchoille> Thanks folks.
[01:50] <Peng> Is he going to file a bug?
[01:50] <wgrant> Probably not.
[01:50] <wgrant> If I don't see one soon, I will file it.
[01:51] <Peng> <3
[05:08] <mrooney> is anyone else seeing staging.launchpad.net as down?
[05:09] <wgrant> mrooney: It should be back in about 25 minutes.
[05:09] <wgrant> It's currently updating.
[05:09] <mrooney> oh I see, is that normal and happens every time it syncs?
[05:11] <mrooney> now that I've automated packaging and uploading to PPAs, I'm exciting to start LP API scripting and automating release process stuff as well!
[05:12] <wgrant> I don't know whether it's normal. But it has been the case for a few days now.
[05:12] <mrooney> I was thinking of something that you give a milestone, and it will create a release, mark all fix committed as fixed released, upload tarballs/debs, and such, make LP announcement
[05:12] <wgrant> That would be nice.
[05:12] <mrooney> though I don't want to reinvent anything, is there similar public stuff out there?
[05:12] <wgrant> (although announcements aren't yet exposed in the API)
[05:12] <mrooney> ah, alas
[05:13] <mrooney> though adding stuff to the API isn't that hard, right?
[05:13] <mrooney> maybe if I get up to that point, I can find a mentor and add that
[05:13] <wgrant> No.
[05:13] <wgrant> I think somebody's already working on it.
[05:13]  * wgrant looks.
[05:14] <wgrant> Bug #409090
[05:15] <mrooney> oh I wonder if quickly is doing some LP release automation?
[05:16] <wgrant> that appears to be the case.
[05:16] <mrooney> I shall ask in the appropriate channel!
[05:16] <mrooney> thanks for the bug link :)
[05:28] <mrooney> oh no, the instructions for launchpadlib on help.lp.net are quite broken in multiple ways
[05:28] <mrooney> should I file a bug somewhere?
[05:30] <wgrant> mrooney: Sure you're not just using an old version?
[05:35] <mrooney> wgrant: the first step of getting the latest launchpadlib is "bzr branch lp:oauth"
[05:35] <mrooney> at least for me that's quite an error
[05:37] <mrooney> can anyone else confirm or deny my sanity?
[05:39] <wgrant> Ah, yes, it has no default branch.
[05:39] <wgrant> Odd.
[05:39] <mrooney> yeah I looked at the branches and don't see an obvious "right" one
[05:40] <mrooney> I'll grab malept's he's a good guy :)
[05:50] <RAOF> How long does it take for Ubuntu uploads to get merged into the package branches?
[05:52] <wgrant> RAOF: That's probably more of an #ubuntu-devel question. It's not actually part of Launchpad.
[05:52] <RAOF> Really?  Launchpad isn't responsible for the package import service?
[05:53] <wgrant> No.
[05:53] <wgrant> it's run by james_w, using launchpadlib.
[05:53] <RAOF> Colour me surprised.
[05:53] <RAOF> Aaah.
[06:01] <mrooney> okay staging is back, albeit a few weeks at least out of date, odd
[15:30] <thopiekar> hi. got a question about packaging.. I have the package, called "foo", and want to create the same package with the unstable version, called "foo-testing".. but other packages are depending on "foo".. so what do I have to do?
[15:36] <qense> thopiekar: This channel is for Launchpad, which is a webapplication. I think you should ask your question in #ubuntu-motu.
[16:56] <paki> hi at all
[16:57] <paki> how can i compile a project with py file for upload to launchpad ppa?
[17:34] <kklimonda> is it possible to disable sending of the failed builds logs to all team members?
[18:30] <jgoppert> hey, would be nice if we could use launchpad ppa for lenny packages, would be a nice way to give back to debian
[18:57] <mok0> branching an LP branch doesn't work from a hardy machine
[18:57] <mok0> It says:  ERROR: Unknown branch format: 'Bazaar Branch Format 7 (needs bzr 1.6)\n'
[18:57] <mok0> :-(
[18:58] <idnar> I don't think that has anything to do with Launchpad, per se
[18:58] <mok0> oh?
[18:59] <jpds> bzr |    1.6.1-1 |      intrepid | source, amd64, i386
[18:59] <idnar> mok0: the branch format is determined by whoever put the branch there
[19:00] <idnar> or perhaps I should say, whoever created the branch
[19:00] <mok0> idnar: that was on a karmic system
[19:00] <mok0> idnar: but I need to branch onto servers that run hardy
[19:00] <mok0> idnar: and supposedly, hardy should still be supported
[19:01] <idnar> you need to pick a format that's supported by the version in hardy
[19:02] <mok0> idnar: Can I convert the already existing branch or do I need to zap it
[19:02] <mok0> ?
[19:02] <idnar> I'm not sure of the details; you might be better off asking in #bzr, though
[19:02] <mok0> idnar: ok, thanks, will do...
[19:03] <mok0> It is a bad idea to change the repo format to something that is not backward compatible
[19:03] <mok0> ...forward I should say
[19:18] <mok0> Heh. Now I have converted the LP branch so it is compatible with hardy. However, now I can't push to the repo from my karmic workstation. Bah
[19:23] <idnar> mok0: the repo on your karmic workstation probably needs to be in the same format
[19:24] <mok0> idnar: it is. I branched it from LP but can't push to it
[19:24] <mok0> idnar: conclusion is that you can't work across distributions with LP
[19:24] <mok0> idnar: which is _really_ bad given that hardy is supported for another 2.5 years
[19:31] <doctormo> What's the quickest way to get from a bug object to a project object using launchpadlib?
[19:31] <doctormo> Is it task = bug.bug_tasks; task.target ?
[21:37] <thopiekar> plpower
[21:38] <wgrant> mok0: What goes wrong when you push it? All version of bzr >= 0.92 can push to pack-0.92 branches, which is the hardy default.
[21:38] <mok0> wgrant: I got an error message
[21:38] <wgrant> doctormo: A bug can have multiple tasks, each on a different project, distribution or package. You would need to pick one of them.
[21:38] <wgrant> mok0: That's not terribly descriptive.
[21:39] <doctormo> wgrant: Aye, I got it working. Thanks.
[21:39] <mok0> wgrant: I know, but I got very annoyed and upgraded my hardy server to bzr-2.02
[21:39] <mok0> wgrant: so I can't reproduce sorry
[21:39] <mok0> wgrant: I'm in work mode, which means I become impatient :-)
[21:40] <mok0> wgrant: and Ubuntu doesn't seem to care about older releases anyway
[21:40] <wgrant> mok0: s/Ubuntu/Bazaar/, and only sort of.
[21:45] <mok0> wgrant: AFAIAC, it is outrageous to introduce a bzr version on LP that is not backwards compatible with hardy *without* making sure that there's a new version of bzr in -updates
[21:46] <mok0> wgrant: I wasted a lot of time on this today, but at least I was able to fix it for myself.
[21:46] <wgrant> mok0: It's nothing to do with Launchpad. It doesn't choose the format.
[21:46] <wgrant> The client chooses the format.
[21:46] <mok0> wgrant: then it shouldn't have been upgraded
[21:46] <wgrant> And I don't see how you got a 1.6 branch without explicitly upgrading to it, since IIRC the default was never 1.6.
[21:47] <mok0> wgrant: I have bzr on my mac to
[21:47] <mok0> too
[21:47] <mok0> wgrant: I don't know what version, I just made the repo and pushed it to LP.
[21:47] <wgrant> mok0: Anyway, this is entirely a #bzr problem.
[21:48] <mok0> wgrant: then I couldn't use that from hardy. Then I zapped the repo and made it from hardy, but that didn't work with the newer versions of bzr
[21:48] <mok0> wgrant: yeah I guess.
[21:48] <wgrant> mok0: It did work with newer versions of bzr.
[21:49] <mok0> wgrant: it didn't work the way  I described
[21:49] <wgrant> mok0: In the normal case, they interoperate fine.
[21:50] <mok0> wgrant: I don't know what the reason was. Creating a repo from hardy, pushing to LP, I couldn't branch that on karmic
[21:50] <mok0> wgrant: as I said, I was annoyed and not in debug-mode
[21:51] <mok0> wgrant: so I didn't make note of my steps
[21:52] <mok0> It was fortunate that bzr-2.0.2 builds fine as a hardy package
[21:52] <mok0> It should be pushed to backports ASAP
[21:53] <wgrant> That is difficult, because of the default incompatible format change.
[21:54] <mok0> wgrant: that seems to be an integral problem of bzr. You'll just have to make a new repo
[21:58] <wgrant> mok0: See ppa:bzr
[22:07] <mok0> wgrant: I hope the bzr devs will take note NOT to change the format again
[22:08] <wgrant> mok0: They will again. But it seems that they're going to be less insane about it.
[22:09] <mok0> wgrant: well, perhaps we should take care to properly test the bzr package before it's introduced in Ubuntu
[22:10] <wgrant> mok0: Why?
[22:10] <mok0> wgrant: we really can't upgrade bzr as long as there are supported releases that don't support the newest format
[22:11] <wgrant> mok0: But then we can never introduce a new bzr, because we can never introduce a new format.
[22:11] <wgrant> (also, further testing is unnecessary. the format changes are well documented,)
[22:11] <mok0> wgrant: not true, the new format will be rolled out at a slower pace
[22:12] <mok0> wgrant: I.e. when hardy goes away, we can move to the next level, when intrepid dies, the next, etc.
[22:12] <wgrant> mok0: So you mean that the *default* format should not be changed?
[22:12] <mok0> wgrant: right
[22:13] <wgrant> mok0: That would be the right solution, but LTSes live just about forever.
[22:13] <mok0> wgrant: I don't see git or the other VCSes have the need to update their formats at the same insane pace
[22:14] <mok0> wgrant: In fact, I can still access svn repos I created years ago
[22:14] <wgrant> Accessing old branches is fine.
[22:15] <mok0> wgrant: It failed for me
[22:15] <wgrant> mok0: I suspect that you did something slightly wrong. It normally Just Works.
[22:16] <mok0> wgrant: I can't say
[22:16] <mok0> wgrant: As I said, I was impatient and annoyed...
[22:17] <mok0> wgrant: But changing the format so that old (but recent) versions don't work anymore, is criminal
[22:17] <mok0> IMO
[22:18] <mok0> I have the most recent bzr on my mac, and it is 1.18
[22:18] <mok0> most recent from fink, that is
[22:18] <wgrant> Then Fink is six months out of date.
[22:19] <mok0> wgrant: so you mean, if you have a version 6 months old, it's just tough luck that it suddenly can't read the repos?
[22:19] <wgrant> mok0: I strongly disagree with how the 2a migration was done (making it the default before support was in any Ubuntu release, and right in the middle of the LTS cycle -- it could hardly have been worse timing).
[22:20] <mok0> wgrant: I agree with that.
[22:20] <wgrant> 2a is a very good thing.
[22:20] <wgrant> But the migration path is suboptimal.
[22:20] <mok0> wgrant: I doubt most users care
[22:21] <mok0> wgrant: it may matter if you maintain an extremely large repo
[22:21] <wgrant> mok0: It's an awful lot faster and smaller. That was probably the main complaint about bzr.
[22:22] <mok0> wgrant: most users have < 100 files, I don't think you can notice any speed difference there
[22:22] <mok0> wgrant: If I needed a VCS for a large project, I would choose git
[22:23] <wgrant> mok0: Why?
[22:23] <mok0> wgrant: it's better
[22:23] <wgrant> Apart from the bad release/format cycle, which is now history?
[22:23] <mok0> wgrant: faster
[22:23] <wgrant> Why?
[22:23] <mok0> wgrant: I don't know why, but it is
[22:24] <mok0> wgrant: great design perhaps
[22:24] <wgrant> mok0: 2.0+ narrows the margin immensely.
[22:24] <mok0> wgrant: hm ok
[22:24] <wgrant> It's a really, really big difference.
[22:24] <mok0> wgrant: I can try to upgrade my 0.92 repo now, and see if it makes a difference
[22:26] <mok0> wgrant: ah, I can't... I still need my mac to work
[22:28] <wgrant> mok0: I think 1.18 should support 2a.
[22:29] <mok0> wgrant: I wont risk it to try... I
[22:29] <mok0> wgrant: 0.92 is actually fast enough for me ;-)
[22:30] <mok0> wgrant: It works, which is #1
[22:30] <mok0> wgrant: ... but it would work with LP
[22:30] <mok0> would not
[22:31] <wgrant> It does.
[22:31] <wgrant> Lots of branches are still 0.92
[22:32] <wgrant> I work with 0.92 branches from bzr 2.1 RCs.
[22:32] <mok0> ah ok. But I don't want this repo on LP anyway... it's just my personal documents
[22:33] <mok0> wgrant: so what's the problem with bzr 2 on hardy again?
[22:34] <mok0> wgrant: the package builds w/o problems
[22:34] <wgrant> mok0: Right, backporting is no problem. It's all in the bzr PPA. But 2.0 changes the default format!
[22:34] <wgrant> Backporting something which will then start making incompatible branches is probably a seriously bad idea.
[22:35] <mok0> wgrant: perhaps that could be fixed in the backport?
[22:35] <wgrant> I don't know. You should ask #bzr.
[22:35] <mok0> (Like it should have been in the first place)
[22:36] <mok0> wgrant: yeah I will look at it
[22:38] <mok0> wgrant, how many times have they changed the format?
[22:41] <wgrant> mok0: I don't know.
[22:42] <mok0> wgrant: there's a whole bunch of them, I just don't know how many of them have been default at some point
[22:43] <wgrant> mok0: pack-0.92 was the last default before 2a.
[22:43] <mok0> wgrant: and knit was the default in 0.8
[22:45] <wgrant> mok0: dirstate-tags was the default until the end of 2007.
[22:46] <wgrant> So it was the default for nearly two years.
[22:46] <mok0> Heh
[22:46] <wgrant> Er, 'it' being pack-0.92.
[23:42] <Peng> Changing the default format is like one line of code, not counting imports. In fact, a plugin already exists to use an older default format.
[23:42] <Peng> IMO it would be confusing if Ubuntu had a 2.0 that used an older default format, though.
[23:42] <Peng> But probably still worth it.
[23:47] <spreadsheet> Why do all translations in launchpad have to be bsd-licensed?
[23:48] <mrooney> hey all, any API experts know if there is a faster alternative to: for bug in milestone.searchTasks(): bug.transitionToStatus(status="Fix Released") ?
[23:48] <mrooney> I assumed I could do bug.status = "Fix Released" but no matter what object I call lp_save on it doesn't get persisted or ends up with an error
[23:51] <wgrant> mrooney: You need to call lp_save on every object.
[23:52] <mrooney> oh, that results in an error, and probably wouldn't be faster anyway, right?
[23:52] <wgrant> Right.
[23:52] <mrooney> okay, I will stick with the transitionToStatus call then, thanks :)