[01:17]  * poolie boggles at https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/launchpadlib/+bug/541637
[01:21] <wgrant> poolie: *Away* from using Triaged?
[01:21] <wgrant> Why?
[01:22] <wgrant> But yes, it will be a little unstable.
[01:22] <wgrant> Since it retrieves batches.
[01:22] <spiv> wgrant: for bzr, it means the same as Confirmed.
[01:22] <poolie> at the moment we have a random meaningless division between confirmed and
[01:22] <poolie> triaged
[01:22] <wgrant> spiv: I thought everyone was meant to be moving from Confirmed to Triaged.
[01:22] <wgrant> Not vice-versa.
[01:22] <poolie> i thought they were going to be combined
[01:23] <wgrant> A year or so ago LP people wanted to remove Confirmed.
[01:23] <poolie> to me the main functional difference is that plebians can't set Triaged
[01:23] <poolie> for bzr we don't want that
[01:24] <wgrant> Have you talked to Bugs about this?
[01:24] <thumper> personally I'd prefer to keep confirmed
[01:24] <thumper> but I'm apparently not normal
[01:24] <wgrant> Doing that before breaking all of your data seems like a good idea.
[01:24] <poolie> how is it broken?
[01:24] <thumper> I guess triaged in this case it means that the importance has been set by someone with the authority
[01:24] <thumper> I'd like a status to say 'we know how to fix this'
[01:25] <spiv> wgrant: or, we could talk to them after, and say "hey Triaged seems unnecessary, and to prove it we don't have any bugs that use it" ;)
[01:25]  * thumper goes back to work
[01:25] <poolie> but importance is already limited access
[01:25] <wgrant> thumper: But importance can only be set by someone with the authority.
[01:25] <poolie> wgrant: anyhow, yes, i did talk to them, and i got various stories
[01:25] <thumper> wgrant: yeah
[01:25] <thumper> wgrant: I know
[01:25] <wgrant> So it being set means that it has been set.
[01:25] <poolie> thumper: to me Confirmed means "we could fix this given enough effort"
[01:26] <wgrant> Nobody knows how to use status or importance properly.
[01:26] <poolie> if it seems like a bug but you don't know how to begin, it's Incomplete
[01:26] <wgrant> LP itself uses it badly.
[01:26] <poolie> wgrant: so to me removing meaningless variation is positive
[01:26] <thumper> poolie: well the bug could well be confirmed, and you just don't know how to fix it
[01:27] <thumper> poolie: setting to incomplete in that sense seems bad to me
[01:27] <poolie> bumping the bug mtimes and generating bug spam is a negative, but i think it's still probably worth it
[01:27] <spiv> poolie: definitely worth it for your karma ;)
[01:27] <poolie> thumper: iswym but what are you going to do with this bug? hope that someone provides a clue?
[01:28] <poolie> spiv, yes i thought of that afterwards :)
[01:28] <thumper> poolie: sometimes it requires someone to spend time investigating
[01:28] <thumper> to me triaged seems obsolete as if importance is set, it is triaged
[01:28] <thumper> I'd rather have something meaning 'we have enough info to fix it'
[01:28] <wgrant> thumper: But importance is useless too.
[01:29] <thumper> or we have figured out how to fix it
[01:29] <poolie> me too, i think 'triaged' is a poor name for that reason
[01:29] <thumper> wgrant: importance gives you a way to categorise :)
[01:29] <wgrant> There is something seriously wrong if the only action a new LP bug ever gets is 'Triaged/Low'
[01:29] <poolie> thumper: like 'this bug requires hard thinking' vs 'requires pounding a keyboard'?
[01:29] <thumper> poolie: we often mark things triaged even if we haev no idea
[01:29] <thumper> poolie: perhaps we just use tags :)
[01:29] <poolie> agree about that also 'requires banging peoples' heads together til they agree'
[01:30] <thumper> poolie: I was considering tagging bugs based on hardness and length of time to fix
[01:30] <thumper> so 'short trivial'
[01:30] <thumper> 'easy long'
[01:30] <thumper> 'hard medium'
[01:30] <thumper> I used this classification during my programming competition days
[01:30] <poolie> mm
[01:30] <thumper> we had trivial, easy, medium, hard
[01:30] <thumper> and short, medium, and long for duration
[01:31]  * thumper is not really going to do this
[01:31] <poolie> also something like 'discussion' 'intermittent'
[01:31] <poolie> tags are getting better but not quite strong enough yet
[01:31] <thumper> 'fix-known'
[01:32] <poolie> like jml's 'braindead' tag
[01:32] <poolie> hm, that could be a bugtag naming scheme
[01:32] <poolie> 'feeble'
[01:32] <poolie> 'bad-taste'
[01:33] <mwhudson> 'weak'
[01:34] <poolie> oh i was following Peter Jackson films :)
[01:34] <mwhudson> ah
[01:34] <spiv> mwhudson: you fail as a NZer
[01:34] <thumper> heh
[01:34] <thumper> surely 'meet-the-feebles' then
[01:34] <mwhudson> i'm not sure what tagging a bug 'heavenly-creatures' would imply
[01:36] <thumper> :)
[04:44] <magn3ts> I can't access the packages of a PPA
[04:45] <wgrant> magn3ts: as I said in #ubuntu, the PPA index currently lists source packages.
[04:45] <wgrant> This is about to change, however.
[04:49] <magn3ts> Yeah, wgrant was totally right. Sorry to uh, raise any flags. thanks again!
[06:56] <idnar> I upgraded my trunk branch to 2a, renaming the old pre-2a branch to oldtrunk-pre-2a, and for some reason it still shows up as one of the "suggested" merge targets when I propose a branch for merging
[06:56] <idnar> any way to get rid of that?
[06:57] <wgrant> idnar: It shows the branches that you've proposed a merge to.
[06:57] <wgrant> So, not at the moment. But there was an idea going around a while ago that it should e limited to those which have *recent* merge proposals.
[06:57] <idnar> ah, oh well
[06:57] <wgrant> So if you file a bug to that effect, it might happen soon.
[06:57] <idnar> at least the right one is selected by default
[06:57] <spiv> idnar: you could always rename it to "oldtrunk-dont-use" :/
[06:58] <spiv> It would be nice for that to be fixed.
[06:58] <wgrant> It's trivial.
[07:00] <idnar> I filed #541713
[07:00] <wgrant> Bug #541713
[09:03] <glen> hi, is it possible to turn off answers for a project? https://answers.launchpad.net/eventum
[09:25] <glen> as nobody follows them, people should use mailing list rather for reporting bugs
[09:26] <glen> in fact i see "[ ]  People can ask questions in Launchpad Answers" not checked in edit page (https://launchpad.net/eventum/+edit)
[10:09] <pietro> Hello. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/474734 is private, but the bug in itself has nothing private at all if, as it seems, it is a dup of bug 482914
[10:10] <pietro> uhm, well, ubottu suggests that the dup state is just wrong (judging by the description of the "not allowed" bug)
[10:10] <pietro> pietro: uhm, again, sorry, I see ubottu is having troubles, not reporting the name of the bug :-)
[10:15] <Laney> pietro: you can un private it and mark it as a dupe then
[10:29] <pietro> Laney: all I get there is "Not allowed here"
[10:29] <pietro> (that's what I mean by "private")
[10:32] <Laney> alright I changed it
[10:36] <pietro> thanks
[11:59] <zekopeko_> hey is anybody else having problems after you click the Submit Bug Report button and it simply forgets the entire report you've written?
[13:10] <mok0> I have a package the fails to build on the PPA for the following reason: Warning: In order to build Atlas under i386, you need the CPU extension sse3 available on your CPU
[13:27] <bjsnider> is anything wrong with the ppa system? i'm getting connection failed, aborting.
[13:28] <Daviey> bjsnider: retrieving ppa content via apt?
[13:28] <bjsnider> no, adding via dput
[13:47] <aquarius> Can I get notified somehow when a new release of a project in LP is done?
[14:11] <lfaraone> https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~sugarteam/turtleart/debian is stacked on lp:turtleart for some reason, yet they contain completely different code.
[14:11] <lfaraone> (unrelated code, that is)
[14:11] <lfaraone> So when I pull, I get the follwoing: "lfaraone@stone:~/Projects/ppt/turtleart$ bzr branch lp:~sugarteam/turtleart/debian"
[14:11] <lfaraone> bzr: ERROR: Not a branch: "bzr+ssh://bazaar.launchpad.net/~lfaraone/turtleart/trunk/".
[14:12] <lfaraone> How can I fix this?
[14:28] <Elleo> is there a known problem with PPA ftp server at the moment?
[14:28] <getxsick> Elleo: dunno, but i have the same
[14:28] <Elleo> ah right, probably the ftpd has crashed or something then
[14:28] <getxsick> yeah
[14:35] <bigjools> we're restarting the ftp daemon, one sec
[14:35] <NCommander> Is there an issue with PPA uploads? I'm getting connection refused when I try to do a PPA upload
[14:35]  * NCommander thinks bigjools just answered my questoin :-)
[14:35] <bigjools> well - starting, it crashed :)
[14:35] <bigjools> with any luck we'll get an sftp one soon
[14:37] <NCommander> bigjools: \o/
[14:38] <bigjools> NCommander: the guy who's writing it is sat next to me right now
[14:38] <NCommander> bigjools: where are you?
[14:39] <bigjools> NCommander: at my house
[14:39] <NCommander> bigjools: heh :-)
[14:39] <bigjools> but I am having a sprint here
[14:40] <bigjools> FTP server for PPAs is back up
[14:40] <NCommander> bigjools: thanks :-)
[14:59] <Elleo> bigjools: great, thanks :)
[14:59] <bigjools> NP.  it crashed again though :( just restarted it
[14:59] <Elleo> heh
[15:00] <Elleo> well my packages uploaded, so I'm happy ;)
[18:46] <cjwatson> I'd like to try to figure out what's going on with the Launchpad code import of openssh (https://code.launchpad.net/+branch/openssh), which is failing to import any new revisions despite there being plenty of new stuff in CVS
[18:47] <cjwatson> Would it be possible to get a temporary change applied to crank up debugging levels on the code import machines?  Or is it worth just cranking up debugging levels across the board?
[18:50] <cjwatson> The change I'm thinking of (albeit untested - I'm not set up to run the Launchpad tests here and would appreciate help) would be something like http://paste.ubuntu.com/397948/
[19:06] <getxsick> my package doesn't support lpia/amd64 is it possible to disable building process for these platforms?
[19:37] <geser> specify Architecture: i386 in debian/control
[19:39] <getxsick> geser: i use i386 for those debs, and 'all' for indep (e.g. -doc)
[19:40] <geser> doesn't it work?
[19:53] <getxsick> geser: no
[20:02] <RoAkSoAx> hi guys! Is it possible to retrieve a GPG key using lpapi?
[20:03] <jpds> RoAkSoAx: Yes.
[20:03] <RoAkSoAx> jpds, heya!! How, I've been trying to get it but no luck so far :)
[20:04] <jpds> RoAkSoAx: https://edge.launchpad.net/+apidoc/devel.html#team
[20:04] <jpds> gpg_keys_collection_link
[20:05] <RoAkSoAx> jpds, awesome. will give it a try
[20:50] <xnox> https://edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/lucid/+source/xiphos
[20:50] <xnox> has an "x" next to bug supervisor
[20:50] <xnox> how do I set myself to be bug supervisor?
[20:50] <xnox> I'm upstream, debian/ubuntu maintainer
[20:56] <manish> any person inthis channel has used launchpad API ?
[20:58] <wgrant> manish: Hi. Did you end up having any luck with your C# implementation?
[20:58] <manish> wgrant: thanks for remembering
[20:58] <manish> I made one small mistake IIRC
[20:59] <manish> pointed it to api.staging.launchpad.net instead of api.edge.launchpad.net
[20:59] <wgrant> That should still work.
[20:59] <manish> wgrant: you want to have a look at the code?
[20:59] <wgrant> Unless you were requesting a token from edge and trying to use it on staging immediately.
[20:59] <wgrant> If it's still broken, sure.
[21:00] <manish> anyway putting it on pastebin. Here is the 401 error I am getting --- Invalid nonce/timestamp: Timestamp appears to come from bad system clock
[21:00] <manish> wgrant: here it is http://pastebin.com/Dd6KW8ez
[21:02] <manish> wgrant: the first two steps of the code is also written by taking help
[21:08] <manish> wgrant: you want the fiddler's output too for easy understanding of  what can go wrong?
[21:09] <wgrant> manish: I'm trying to get it working locally.
[21:09] <manish> wgrant: thanks for the help :)
[21:11] <wgrant> Aha, got the 401.
[21:12] <manish> wgrant: yeah. If you look at the payload, it says "Invalid nonce/timestamp: Timestamp appears to come from bad system clock"
[21:12] <manish> now what on earth does it mean to make bad system clock when this is a valid timestamp
[21:12] <wgrant> How do you examine the payload? I haven't used C# in perhaps 5 years.
[21:13] <manish> i am using FIddler
[21:13] <manish> it is a local proxy for windows
[21:14] <manish> I installed it, enabled HTTPS traffic decryption
[21:15] <manish> added TO_NOT_TRUST_FiddlerRoot to list of trusted certificates http://www.fiddler2.com/Fiddler/help/httpsdecryption.asp
[21:15] <manish> and then looking at it without any problem
[21:17] <wgrant> manish: One thing that jumps out to me is that you never tell the user to authorize the token -- but that should result in a different error message.
[21:18] <manish> wgrant: I go to the web interface and authorize it
[21:18] <manish> I set a breakpoint before sending the second request
[21:18] <manish> and then point my browser to https://edge.launchpad.net/+authorize-token?oauth_token={oauth_token}
[21:19] <manish> wgrant: authorize the token and them move to 2nd and 3rd steps
[21:19] <manish> but still it does not work
[21:22] <manish> wgrant: any progress?
[21:25] <wgrant> manish: Sorry, was just hacking it up so I could authorize it and see what was happening.
[21:25] <wgrant> manish: Your .Ticks thing appears to be local time.
[21:25] <wgrant> It needs to be UTC.
[21:26] <manish> wgrant: HMm. FIxing it
[21:26] <wgrant> Also, have you considered using a pre-build OAuth library for .NET?
[21:26] <manish> wgrant: I am thinking of using it
[21:27] <manish> wgrant: the only problem being that LP's signing process is proprietary
[21:27] <wgrant> Signing, or authorizing?
[21:27] <manish> as I read the docs, the signing part
[21:28] <wgrant> I don't believe so.
[21:28] <wgrant> The only special bit is using an empty consumer key.
[21:29] <wgrant> We use a stock OAuth Python library on both ends.
[21:29] <manish> wgrant: You know one thing?
[21:29] <manish> YOU ROCK!
[21:29] <manish> wgrant: it works :)
[21:30] <wgrant> Nice!
[21:30] <wgrant> Timezones suck :(
[21:31] <manish> wgrant: anyway checking the .NET wrappers for OAuth from oauth.net/code
[21:31] <manish> yeah. Timezones! It made me freak out
[21:31] <wgrant> manish: They should hopefully make it much easier.
[21:31] <geser> is there a document describing the differences between the beta API and the 1.0 API? or do I have to compare the +apidoc pages for both manually?
[21:32] <tseliot> is there any launchpadder here who can edit posts on launchpad, please?
[21:32] <tseliot> posts = comments
[21:32] <manish> wgrant: checking this http://code.google.com/p/oauth-dot-net/
[21:32] <manish> let's hope it saves my time
[21:32] <manish> anyway guy.. logging off. it's 3night here at my place
[21:32] <wgrant> geser: I think the only difference is that which is in the descriptions -- beta -> 1.0 just drops mutator methods that are meant to be transparently used by setting attributes, and I don't think there are any 1.0 -> devel changes yet.
[21:33] <manish> special thanks to wgrant for the help
[21:33] <wgrant> np
[21:35] <wgrant> mbarnett: ^^
[21:35] <mbarnett> wgrant: sorry, i am not sure what the question is.
[21:36] <wgrant> mbarnett: See tseliot's question a few lines up.
[21:38] <mbarnett> tseliot: we don't have a mechanism for that.. we can hide spam comments, or we can hand edit via sql existing comments, but that is relatively intensive.  If you need to protect some personal data, you can file a "question" and it will get assigned to our team.
[21:38] <tseliot> wgrant: thanks for pointing me to him
[21:39] <tseliot> mbarnett: let talk in private, please
[21:39] <mbarnett> tseliot: or if there is any other data in a ticket that shouldn't be made public.
[21:39] <mbarnett> tseliot: sure, dm me
[21:40] <tseliot> mbarnett: yes, let's use canonical's node for this
[22:32] <c_korn> hello. I get an error on this page: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/hdparm/+bug/396837 http://www.ubuntu-pics.de/bild/47907/screenshot_001_zqwtyp.png
[22:37] <wgrant> c_korn: I don't think there are any Bugs developers around at the moment to look at that, but you can append /+text to the URL to get all the information out of it.
[22:39] <c_korn> wgrant: ok, thanks