[00:57] <poolie> hi all
[01:11] <spiv> Good morning.
[01:57] <poolie> hi there spiv
[02:47] <poolie> spiv does https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/bzr/+bug/620684 suggest anything obvious to you?
[02:50] <spiv> poolie: huh, no.  Strange upgrade, maybe?
[03:41]  * poolie is writing up a mail of annoyances in ppa updates
[04:05] <mwhudson> did i just dream that there was a bzr init --standalone option?
[04:28] <fullermd> mwhudson: There's a *branch* --standalone.  Maybe that's what you're dreaming of?
[04:28] <mwhudson> fullermd: ah, probably
[04:28] <fullermd> Me, I'll stick with dreaming of Cindy Crawford, but...
[07:19] <poolie> GaryvdM: hi, can you tell me which branches you used for your bzr-gtk packages
[07:24] <poolie> nm
[08:04] <vila> hi all !
[08:05] <fullermd> Wassat?  Morning again already??
[08:05] <vila> fullermd: yeah, and end of vacations too, wake up NOW :)
[08:06] <fullermd> Vacations?  Heck, I don't even REMEMBER what those are...
[08:06] <vila> fullermd: You really should, there are nice places around the world you really should visit while you still can ;)
[08:06] <fullermd> That would require leaving home.  To say nothing of putting on pants.
[08:06] <fullermd> Well.  I guess the REALLY nice places don't need the pants...
[08:07] <vila> fullermd: yup, including the under water world...
[08:08] <poolie> hi vila
[08:08] <vila> poolie: heya !
[08:09] <poolie> i'm going to change tack on the ppa and try to get everything just at least working on maverick
[08:10] <vila> poolie: what isn't working so far ?
[08:10] <poolie> a bunch of litle annoyances
[08:10] <poolie> one being that in the debian bzr packaging, they've cut out python-configobj
[08:10] <poolie> because of a sensible policy that packages should not ship their own copies of libraries
[08:11] <poolie> but that's not packaged on hardy, and it's a little hard to make it work there
[08:11] <poolie> it could all be fixed but it just seems like a time sink
[08:12] <vila> well, not shipping copies of libraries shouldn't apply if the said libraries aren't available methinks...
[08:12] <vila> hm, restart required bbib
[08:12] <fullermd> Yeah, if we shipped testtools, I could run selftest  ;>
[08:14] <poolie> it's completely fixable it's just one thing after another
[08:14] <poolie> separated by long pauses for soyuz to decide
[08:14]  * fullermd is unpleasantly familiar with such tasks...
[08:15] <poolie> anyhow istm the main thing is to get it all working on lucid
[08:15] <poolie> you might think it would make sense to start with the oldest one and work forward
[08:15] <poolie> but i now think this is probably wrong
[08:25] <vila> poolie: waitaminute, I thought we modified configobj lightly but enough to not be able to use the stock version no ?
[08:25] <poolie> oh, really?
[08:25] <poolie> that's such a bad idea
[08:26] <poolie> i hadn't heard of that
[08:26] <vila> IMBW or the changes may just be cosmetic...
[08:30] <GaryvdM> Hi poolie
[08:30] <GaryvdM> poolie: lp:~bzr/bzr-gtk/packaging-$DISTRO
[08:31] <GaryvdM> I may not have push up all my changes yet, as I've not finished the hardy build. Let me push up the rest.
[08:32] <GaryvdM> poolie: I've also merged them with the debian unstable branch :-)
[08:32] <GaryvdM> That's why hardy is failing...
[08:32] <poolie> GaryvdM: got it now
[08:34] <vila> poolie: hmm, scratch that, if we used a modified version and debian deleted it, we would have heard about bugs
[08:34] <poolie> vila, that's what i thought too
[08:34] <poolie> i don't feel like going to look for trouble there; i have enough already
[08:35] <vila> poolie: ok, but may be we should file a bug about using our own copy only if none is available
[08:36] <spiv> There is at least one bzr-local change to ours, to improve import speed :/
[08:37] <spiv> (It imports the 'compiler' module for a feature we never use)
[08:37] <poolie> hm, that's just the kind of thing we wouldn't get bugs about too
[08:37] <poolie> hello spiv, btw, you've been a quiet mouse :)
[08:38] <vila> hi spiv, I was just seeing your comment in configobj.py :D
[08:38] <poolie> spiv, i we should file a bug against bzr, debian, and ubunut
[08:38] <poolie> and maybe try to send the patch upstream to configobj
[08:39] <spiv> AFAIK we'd run ok with stock configobj, I think most of the other changes that bzr log reports are cosmetic.
[08:43] <spiv> poolie: I've been chipping away at old todo items before they go entirely stale... I'm currently looking at a draft of a LEP about logging (and contemplating how e.g. 'bzr serve' could change to do it better).
[08:45] <vila> poolie, spiv: even comparing with actual configobj-4.7 (we have a copy of 4.6) I see nothing worth worrying. As spiv said, there is the compiler loading and then 4.7 differs slightly for some errors handling
[08:46] <spiv> vila: that's a relief :)
[09:21]  * bialix waves at GaryvdM
[09:23] <GaryvdM> Hi bialix.
[09:33] <poolie> hi bialix
[09:33] <poolie> ppas should be all ok once the packager finishes updating
[09:33] <poolie> well, by that i mean the lucid proposed ppa
[09:33] <bialix> hi poolie
[09:35] <bialix> does anybody know which version of bzr-explorer is packaged in ppa and lucid?
[09:35] <poolie> https://edge.launchpad.net/~bzr/+archive/proposed?field.series_filter=lucid has 1.1.0~beta1
[09:35] <poolie> and lucid itself has
[09:36] <poolie> 1.0.1-0ubuntu1
[09:36] <bialix> why not 1.0.2...?
[09:36] <poolie> and maverick also has 1.1.0~beta1
[09:37] <poolie> i don't know
[09:37] <bialix> rhetorical question
[09:37] <poolie> i would guess that nobody updated it
[09:37] <poolie> if it's only bugfixes, it still could go in
[09:37] <bialix> sorry, I've meant maverick
[09:37] <bialix> 1.0.2 has released after lucid
[09:37] <poolie> maverick of course is the one that's coming out in october
[09:38] <bialix> yep
[09:38] <GaryvdM> bialix: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates
[09:38] <bialix> that's fine then
[09:38]  * bialix notes
[09:38] <GaryvdM> bialix: It's quite a process to get it updated in an existing release.
[09:38] <poolie> we should do something about the sru policy
[09:38] <bialix> yes, I understand
[09:39] <poolie> spiv it would be nice if you could do that next week
[09:39] <bialix> I'm not ready to force SRU right now
[09:39] <poolie> we'll try to keep the ppa up to date
[09:40] <GaryvdM> bialix: The ppa will have 1.1.0~beta soon.
[09:40] <bialix> GaryvdM: thank you!
[09:41] <GaryvdM> poolie: the latest bzr-explorer, and qbzr are compatible with bzr 2.1.0, so I may as well copy them to the main ppa now.
[09:41] <poolie> ok
[09:41] <poolie> so i think we're now all done
[09:42] <GaryvdM> poolie: what about git, svn loggerhead?
[09:43] <GaryvdM> git has new version for lucid, but not other distros.
[09:43] <GaryvdM> Same for dulwich
[09:43] <GaryvdM> Same for svn
[09:44] <GaryvdM> poolie: I think we still have some way to go.
[09:44] <poolie> GaryvdM: i was wondering if we should have some enlightened lazyness about builds on old distros
[09:45] <GaryvdM> :-)
[09:45] <poolie> i found i was bogging down a lot
[09:45] <poolie> trying to get them all through, and once i focussed on just lucid it was much easier
[09:45] <GaryvdM> I know the feeling.
[09:45] <poolie> it ought to be mechanical but there are proportionally more snags across the old ones
[09:45] <poolie> i'm going to try to get some data on how much people actually use them, or want upgrades there
[09:46] <poolie> both from the download logs, and perhaps we'll see if anyone objects on the list
[09:46] <GaryvdM> poolie: Lets copy for lucid now, and not copy for the others...
[09:46] <poolie> my sense is that people mostly do not stick with old ubuntu releases for a long time (except for lts)
[09:46] <poolie> unless they specifically want the machine not to move very much
[09:46] <poolie> but this is ... wishful thinking :)
[09:50] <GaryvdM> poolie: How come your uploads show as no signer?
[09:54] <vila> poolie: the reasoning sounds fine, if I want a newer bzr I'm likely already tracking a newer Ubuntu. But even if I track an older Ubuntu *and* I've subscribed to the bzr ppa, I still prefer stability over new features so I may accept fewer updates on the bzr ppa. I.e. we can start proposing an up-to-date ppa for lucid and maverick and update hardy/jaunty/whatever when time permits (including when our process become more automatic)
[09:57] <bialix> I can't remember the name of the plugin to run test suite on each commit, aka poor-man pqm. anyone?
[09:58] <bialix> testrunner
[09:59] <poolie> GaryvdM: i copied the binaries from the main archive; i guess that's why
[10:00] <GaryvdM> poolie: Ah - ok
[10:00] <GaryvdM> poolie: I just read your mail.
[10:00] <poolie> vila, are you talking about maybe having a 2.1, 2.2,  etc ppa?
[10:01] <GaryvdM> poolie: This was the frustration I was trying to describe at uds - You described it much better than I could...
[10:01] <vila> hmm, no I was thinking about just the stable and proposed ones
[10:02] <poolie> i'm just glad it's done; the combination of lags plus tiny failures is so annoying y
[10:02] <poolie> you can't concentrate and just get it done but you can't concentrate on anything else
[10:02] <poolie> or at any rate i can't
[10:02] <poolie> vila: oh you're saying people on hardy may be happy to just stay on 2.0 or whatever?
[10:02] <poolie> i agree
[10:02] <poolie> i agree they may
[10:03] <GaryvdM> I upload, play a game of solitaire, and then go and check if it succeeded. :-0
[10:03] <poolie> exactly
[10:03] <poolie> nice for 20m, not a good way to spend two days :-{
[10:03] <poolie> or more :{
[10:04] <vila> poolie: yes, they may accept to upgrade to 2.2 later
[10:04] <vila> err, they may accept that the upgrade is delayed
[10:04] <GaryvdM> poolie: I'm going keep at it though. Next up - for me: bzr-builddeb
[10:04] <poolie> ?
[10:04] <poolie> i think they're all done
[10:05] <poolie> assuming the publisher runns...
[10:05] <lifeless> awesome
[10:05] <GaryvdM> poolie: For all distros
[10:05] <poolie> oh, ok
[10:05] <poolie> if you really want to
[10:06] <poolie> wow, launchpadlib pulls in a bunch of stuff
[10:06] <poolie> i think it's used by builddeb
[10:06] <poolie> including a mail server
[10:06] <poolie> strace
[10:07] <GaryvdM> poolie: The other thing is that merging the debian unstable packaging branches as caused more complication, but I think it will make it easier in the long term. Packages for which I did this when I did 2.1 were easier this time round.
[10:10] <bialix> poolie: q about pad.lv: why you've used .lv domain for it?
[10:16] <poolie> it's cheap, and it sounds like "pad love"
[10:16] <poolie> i'm not latvian
[10:16] <poolie> i think spiv is ½ latvian though, or lithuanian
[10:19] <bialix> funny
[10:20] <poolie> good night and good luck!
[10:20] <GaryvdM> Good night
[10:20] <bialix> :-)
[13:50] <GaryvdM> i386 ppa build queue > 4hrs :-(
[13:50] <jelmer> vila: Thanks for the review, very much appreciated!
[13:52] <vila> jelmer: as is your work in this area, you're definitely on something here and I was just wondering if the factory idea shouldn't be pushed even more to clearly define how one create repo/branch/wt for a given format
[13:53] <vila> jelmer: they are all created from the format or its associated dir so far and without looking into the details, I wonder if we have inherited that from the early days of bzr...
[13:54] <vila> jelmer: I was quite surprised that you were able to produce such a clean patch there, I would have swear that things were too mixed-up for that... So, well done ! ;)
[14:37] <jelmer> vila: Thanks :-)
[14:37] <jelmer> vila: History shows there indeed, although I think it's a slightly disconnected problem.
[14:38] <jelmer> I'll followup to the branch tonight and see if I can get some of the plugins working with this new API then :-)
[14:38] <vila> great !
[14:46] <GaryvdM> jelmer: My I ask you some debian packaging questions?
[14:46] <jelmer> GaryvdM, yeah, sure
[14:48] <GaryvdM> jelmer: I would like to submit a patch to the packaging config for qbzr. Should I submit a branch with just the change, or should I also merge the upstream, and update the changelog?
[14:49] <GaryvdM> Making the change, and updating the changelog with out merging upstream feels odd.
[14:49] <jelmer> GaryvdM: You should definitely update the changelog to mention what you've fixed
[14:50] <jelmer> merging upstream isn't necessary, but you might as well while you're there
[14:50] <GaryvdM> Also one of the changes I want to make is specific to the upstream version (minimum bzr version)
[14:51] <GaryvdM> jelmer: And then push to lp, and send mail to pkg-bazaar-maint@lists.alioth.debian.org ?
[14:53] <jelmer> GaryvdM: yep
[14:53] <GaryvdM> Ok :-)
[15:19] <starenka__> hi, sorry for noob question but is there a way how to show all modified files since rev x?
[15:20] <vila> starenka__: bzr status -r x
[15:20] <starenka__> neat
[15:20] <starenka__> thanks
[15:51] <mgz> garyvdm: re your pretty html table of package versions on the mailing list
[15:51] <GaryvdM> Yhea - sorry about the html.
[15:51] <mgz> I think testtools really wants to be at either 0.9.2 or 0.9.5
[15:52] <mgz> we probably can't do much about debian unstable, but who would need bugging about maverick?
[15:53] <mgz> ^needing to do a table is a good reason for html email, the mess people make trying to do them is plain text is worse
[15:54] <GaryvdM> mgz: Why not do any thing about debian unstable. We have 2 dd's amongst us!
[15:54] <mgz> well, they're deeper in freeze than ubuntu is I believe
[15:55] <mgz> but sure, jelmer/lifeless, if you can find a way to get the release managers to take the next testtools version, that'd be great
[15:56] <GaryvdM> mgz: I don't think that would be required for sid, only for squeeze.
[15:57] <mgz> yup.
[15:58] <GaryvdM> mgz: Ok - so we should try get sid/mavrick updated to 0.9.5 before updating the others in the ppa.
[15:59] <GaryvdM> Thats ok, because I want to get the more user facing packages updated first.
[15:59] <mgz> great, thanks.
[15:59] <mgz> my busy week is over now so I should be around if you need help with anything
[16:04] <jelmer> hi Gary, Martin
[16:04] <jelmer> mgz, GaryvdM: Rob is the person to talk to, he's the only maintainer of testtools in Debian.
[16:05] <mgz> thanks jelmer, I'll bug him later.
[16:40] <zyga> hello
[16:40] <zyga> is 2.2 officially released ?
[16:41] <jelmer> yeah
[16:42] <zyga> jelmer, then why does the website state that 2.1 is stable release?
[16:43] <jelmer> zyga: That's a good point..
[16:43] <jelmer> jam, vila: ^
[16:44]  * zyga-afk needs to go away for a few hours :/
[16:44] <vila> jelmer: I think we wait for the installers before releasing officially
[16:45] <vila> jelmer: and also an updated ppa but this should be good now thanks to poolie and garyvdm
[16:45] <vila> zyga-afk: so 2.2 is really *close* to be officially released
[17:45] <MTecknology> I tried doing this --> bzr pull lp:pressflow --remember  and got this --> bzr: ERROR: Cannot lock LockDir(lp-70598736:///~pressflow/pressflow/6/.bzr/branchlock): Transport operation not possible: readonly transport
[17:45] <MTecknology> why?
[17:47] <vila> MTecknology: bzr info ?
[17:48] <vila> MTecknology: may be your branch is bound to lp:pressflow ?
[17:50] <MTecknology> vila: that'd explain it :D
[17:50] <MTecknology> thanks
[18:25] <rocky> jelmer, what's the latest version of bzr-rebase/rewrite i should use with bzr 2.2.x ?
[18:26] <jelmer> rocky, the latest version f bzr-rewrite (not sure off the top of my head what that is)
[18:26] <rocky> well baseically i need rebase that works with bzr-svn and bzr 2.2.0
[18:26] <rocky> so what do i get? :)
[18:28] <rocky> jelmer, ^^
[18:29] <jelmer> rocky: as I said, the latest version of bzr-rewrite
[18:29] <rocky> jelmer, oh sorry i misunderstood... the reason i'm asking is because the latest download on http://wiki.bazaar.canonical.com/Rewrite?action=show&redirect=Rebase says it's for bzr 1.13 and higher... hwich makes it seem old
[19:09] <MTecknology> Is there any easy way to take one branch abd run bzr pull lp:newbranch --remember --ignore-conflicts ?
[19:10] <MTecknology> The only way I can think of is to move the directory, then grab a fresh copy - but not ideal
[19:35] <jelmer> rocky: the APIs it uses haven't changed, so there's no reason to change the minimum bzr version
[19:35] <rocky> k
[20:20] <MarcWeber> I dowloaded two blender branches. How can I visualize when one was forked off and how many commits are different?
[20:20] <dash> MarcWeber: 'bzr missing' will tell you the differences between the branches.
[20:21] <dash> 'bzr vis' or 'bzr qlog' can show you a pretty view of the history, if you have the gtk or qt extensions installed
[20:22] <MarcWeber> dash: I prever pretty views :) Are those extensions included in the main source ?
[20:22] <dash> they're plugins.
[20:30] <MarcWeber> Does bazaar store multiple branches in one directory as git does?
[20:31] <MarcWeber> I have a blender branch on lp I'd like to compare with current unstable.
[20:31] <dash> MarcWeber: no, it doesn't
[20:32] <dash> you can use a shared repo so that branches don't have duplicate copies of the revs they have in common
[20:32] <MarcWeber> So I checkout twice and then use diff ../other-dir or such ? or diff lp-url ?
[20:33] <dash> MarcWeber: sure
[20:33] <MarcWeber> or missing ../other-dir etc?
[20:33] <dash> yep
[20:33] <dash> if you start with 'bzr init-repo .' then it'll create a repo in the current directory
[20:33] <dash> and so checking out a second branch in that dir will only fetch the extra revs
[20:34] <MarcWeber> branch 'lp:~diresu/blender/blender-command-port-002'
[20:34] <MarcWeber> and branch lp:blender
[20:41] <MarcWeber> Can I make a shared repo out of a checked out one?
[20:42] <dash> MarcWeber: to do that you do init-repo as above, then clone your existing branch into it
[20:42] <dash> so 'bzr init-repo .; bzr branch mybranch mybranch_new' will do it.
[20:43] <MarcWeber> ( --trees) ?
[20:44] <dash> if you like :)
[21:32] <eydaimon> if I do a bzr up -r 123 and then a bzr revno, it shows the head revno, not the one the repo is at. How can I get the revision the repo is at?
[23:18] <maxb> eydaimon: You don't mean repo, you mean tree. Use bzr revno --tree