[02:23] <poolie> sinzui, so did bug expiry actually get reenabled?
[02:23] <poolie> post bug 333521
[02:23] <_mup_> Bug #333521: Enable bugs expiration for Ubuntu <qa-ok> <Launchpad Bugs:Fix Released by adeuring> <https://launchpad.net/bugs/333521>
[02:46] <wgrant> poolie: There has been no screaming, so I doubt it.
[02:46] <wgrant> The plan fortunately seems to have vanished.
[02:47]  * thumper needs more coffee
[02:49] <lifeless> wgrant: what, you don't like bug expiration?
[02:49] <wgrant> lifeless: Not the latest proposal.
[02:50] <wgrant> of switching it on without unsetting the flag globally.
[08:07] <adeuring> good morning
[09:08] <mrevell> Morning
[10:25] <jml> good morning
[11:02] <deryck> Morning, all.
[11:12] <adeuring> morning deryck
[11:21] <bigjools> zope.configuration.config.ConfigurationExecutionError: <type 'exceptions.ValueError'>: /var/tmp/launchpad_mailqueue is not a Maildir folder
[11:21] <bigjools> wtf
[11:33] <bigjools> sigh, why does /var/tmp/launchpad_mailqueue get created with root ownership, yet "make" wants to remove it etc.
[11:33] <bigjools> (as my local user)
[14:05] <wgrant> It would be interesting and not too difficult to calculate the actual buildd utilisation at times like this.
[14:06] <wgrant> I suspect it's well under half of the 100% that it appears to be.
[14:16] <wgrant> It's a bit concerning that one can actually watch buildd-manager's progress through a single cycle over several minutes by refreshing /builders.
[14:22] <bigjools> We know.  It's getting fixed.
[14:37] <bigjools> wgrant: so still 261k where date_started is null and status != 0;
[14:37] <bigjools> mmm
[14:38] <wgrant> bigjools: Er, really?
[14:38] <bigjools> really
[14:38] <wgrant> But that is the same as the number you quoted without the filte.
[14:38] <wgrant> And there are somewhere around 20k builds pending.
[14:38] <wgrant> And probably tens of thousands more suspended.
[14:39] <wgrant> So it does not compute.
[14:39] <bigjools> well I am using staging's DB
[14:39] <bigjools> which is a little out of date but near enough
[14:39] <bigjools> oh, meh
[14:39] <bigjools> we blitz all pending jobs on staging now
[14:39] <bigjools> it has a buildd-manager
[14:40]  * bigjools dodges the bird that just flew into the office
[14:40] <wgrant> What if you say status NOT IN (0, 5)?
[14:40] <wgrant> (5 being superseded)
[14:40] <wgrant> staging has a build farm now? Handy.
[14:41] <bigjools> 120k
[14:41] <bigjools> well if you count one machine with two builders on it as a farm ...
[14:42] <wgrant> Aha.
[14:43] <wgrant> OH~!
[14:43] <wgrant> gina.
[14:44] <wgrant> 22:14 < wgrant> No date_started but successfully built is fine.
[14:44] <wgrant> 22:14 < wgrant> No date_started, but successfully built *and with date_finished or builder* is not.
[14:44] <wgrant> I got my issues from that day mixed up :/
[14:44] <wgrant> There were 9 builds in this state at that time.
[14:44] <wgrant> It should be the same now.
[14:46] <bigjools> gror
[14:48] <bigjools> hardware failures....awesome
[14:48] <wgrant> Bird-related? :P
[14:52] <bigjools> no, the machine I was just running queries on :/
[14:53] <wgrant> Oh, excellent.
[14:53] <bigjools> not exactly
[15:06] <bigjools> wgrant: can you clarify that clause again?
[15:07] <bigjools> oh nm
[15:07] <jml> little bit distracted today, going to see what breaks when I run the tests with no branch sample data.
[15:09] <bigjools> wgrant: http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/456906/
[15:09] <bigjools> gnargh
[15:11] <bigjools> oh nm there's only 9, stray clause table
[15:11] <wgrant> Ah, good.
[15:11] <wgrant> I was WTFing a bit there.
[15:12] <bigjools> def just 9
[15:12] <bigjools> ok, now, what shall I poke in the start date
[15:12]  * bigjools ponders
[15:12] <wgrant> The 'builder IS NOT NULL' disjunct was only required when there may have still been incomplete builds.
[15:12] <wgrant> You could poke in something just around the rollout time.
[15:13] <bigjools> yeah
[15:13] <wgrant> Or if you're feeling adventurous actually grab the start time from the logs.
[15:13] <wgrant> But that's probably pointless.
[15:23] <EdwinGrubbs> henninge_: did you see my email about caching the message count?
[15:24] <bigjools> wgrant: have you got any idea why someone would write that first line of code in IArchive.checkArchivePermission()
[15:24] <bigjools> maybe they were on a low IQ day
[15:25] <wgrant> bigjools: Ah, that's why it's OOPSing?
[15:26] <bigjools> yes
[15:26] <bigjools> words fail me
[15:26] <wgrant> Well, it's not terribly unreasonable if one assumes it's only used for checking upload permissions.
[15:27] <bigjools> it should just return False FFS
[15:27] <wgrant> Well, if you're checking whether a source should be accepted into a copy archive, you probably want to crash.
[15:27] <wgrant> But this method is used elsewhere, so...
[15:27] <bigjools> no I never want to crash
[15:27] <bigjools> returning False is entirely appropriate
[15:28] <wgrant> If you get to the stage where you are verifying permissions for a copy archive, you probably want to let someone know.
[15:28] <wgrant> Because something is seriously broken.
[15:28] <bigjools> there's too much of that paranoia in Soyuz
[15:28] <henninge> EdwinGrubbs: yes I saw it but have not read it yet.
[15:28] <henninge> sorry ;)
[15:29] <wgrant> bigjools: I think it's a handy defensive tactic, given how badly things can go wrong.
[15:29] <wgrant> Just... not when applied incorrectly.
[15:29] <bigjools> the latter is my beef
[15:30] <wgrant> That line has been there for a while.
[15:30] <wgrant> i wonder why it hasn't been problematic before.
[15:31] <wgrant> I guess maybe canUpload wasn't actually used for that before :/
[15:32] <wgrant> It is a reasonably novel method.
[15:38] <bigjools> it's used when ascertaining retry availability
[15:38] <bigjools> if you can upload you can retry
[15:38] <wgrant> I know why it's used now.
[15:39] <wgrant> I'm just wondering why it never appeared before, when that code has been there for ages.
[15:39] <wgrant> And those pages worked a few months ago.
[15:46] <bigjools> you have to hit the build in a certain state
 if you can upload you can retry <--- I can upload to ~launchpad/+archive/ppa but I can't retry
[15:47] <bigjools> maxb: it only applies to the main archive :)
[15:47] <maxb> consistency? What's that? :-)
[15:47] <bigjools> maybe it should not
[15:48] <wgrant> I've been meaning to fix that for copy archives for a while.
[15:48] <wgrant> I didn't realise it affected PPAs too.
[15:49] <bigjools> well for copy archives it should only let the owner and admins
[15:49] <wgrant> Or custom uploaders, if they are added.
[15:49] <wgrant> No reason to forbid it, and it's handy.
[15:49] <bigjools> custom uploaders are sorta evil at the moment
[15:49] <wgrant> eg. MOTU should be able to retry builds in the rebuild archive, without having to poke doko.
[15:50] <bigjools> I want to move all upload permissions to explicit ArchivePermissions rather than relying on the ownership of the PPA
[15:50] <wgrant> Yes yes yes.
[15:50] <wgrant> All this implicit permission stuff is silly.
[15:51] <wgrant> Although I guess we won't see those ACLs for a while now.
[15:51] <cakofony> Does the launchpad api have a sleep type thing built in, or am I going to get banned from the site for using the api too much?
[15:52] <bigjools> cakofony: not unless we can see it grossly affecting performance
[15:53] <cakofony> bigjools: I'm working on an opensource project that collects as much data as possible from forge sites -- we pull a lot of data :-s
[15:53] <bigjools> cakofony: is that a one-off or ongoing?
[15:54] <cakofony> bigjools: we do a run every month or so (it probably takes a day or two)
[15:54] <cakofony> bigjools: before I found the api, I was downloading about 100,000 html pages per run, this should speed things up quite nicely
[15:55] <bigjools> okay - I might put you on to someone else like, errr, mrevell perhaps
[15:55] <bigjools> and jml might be interested too
[15:55] <jml> what
[15:56] <jml> cakofony, there's no built in sleep
[15:56] <jml> cakofony, if you become a problem, we'll let you know :)
[15:56] <jml> cakofony, what's the website?
[15:56] <cakofony> jml: flossmole.org
[15:56] <jml> cakofony, thanks.
[15:57] <cakofony> jml: thank you!  I'm calling the client in my program "python-flossmole"
[15:58] <jml> cakofony, are you syncing bug data, or just projects & developers?
[15:58] <cakofony> jml: only projects teams and developers
[19:27] <Z-RAY_> after amateur tries to update MLT to 0.5.6 i have left without ffmpeg modules and even ffpmeg is installed, kdenlive says that some not installed at all. also it says that some sound module is not installed. i spent all day to make "lines and dots" bug dissappear (white lines and dots - was promised to be fixed in MLT 0.5.5) and i couldn't make it, even worse - now modules "avformat module", "Quimage module", "Title module" are missing and reinstallin
[19:27] <Z-RAY_> g of the program and ffmpeg does not helping.
[19:27] <Z-RAY_> help me please to make this thing work correctly. my skype is "woanerges", or write me here. please, bro's, come on, i need some support here!
[19:27] <Z-RAY_> white dots and lines examples:
[19:27] <Z-RAY_> http://kdenlive.org/sites/default/files/shot1_0.png
[19:28] <Z-RAY_> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrFXr_bx2a0
[21:26] <rockstar> abentley, would you object if I factored out the sourcepackagerecipebuild views in browser sourcepackagerecipebuild.py ?
[21:27] <abentley> rockstar, I don't understand.
[21:28] <rockstar> abentley, so lp.code.browser.sourcepackagerecipe has views for sourcepackagerecipebuilds in them.  I want to move them out.
[21:28] <abentley> rockstar, alright.
[21:29] <rockstar> abentley, cool, thanks.
[22:14] <thumper> morning
[23:02] <lifeless> hiya thumper
[23:02] <thumper> hi lifeless