[01:02] <poolie> it's driving my batty that malone wraps bug comments at ~70 characters
[01:03] <poolie> this really screws up tracebacks
[01:16] <lifeless> poolie: amen
[03:12] <twb> When using malone's mail UI, do I need to indent commands by exactly one space?
[03:12] <twb> Ah, must start with a space.
[03:12]  * twb tries again.
[04:23] <coolbhavi> hello when I upload to a PPA its getting rejected that it cannot build on any arch requested
[04:24] <coolbhavi> I m building for natty
[04:26] <bac> hi spiv, the latest failure for your excellent loggerhead branch is a known ec2 issue that is not raised by buildbot or cause problems in production.  i've sent your branch directly to PQM.
[04:27] <wgrant> coolbhavi: Natty isn't enabled for PPAs yet.
[04:37] <StevenK> bac: Out of interest, the same failure as I brought up on the -dev list?
[04:37] <bac> StevenK: yes, test_network
[04:37] <bac> StevenK: thanks for starting the discussion
[05:04] <napster> I get "Page not found error" when I click on my name (I've merged my two accounts yesterday)
[05:04] <napster> How can I fix this?
[05:08] <napster> hello
[05:09] <napster> can anyone help me?
[05:11] <bac> spiv: but i didn't notice we were in [testfix].  argh.
[05:11] <bac> napster: what is the account you are using?
[05:11] <napster> bac: Could I put the URL here?
[05:12] <bac> napster: sure, or just the account name, ~whatever
[05:12] <napster> bac: https://launchpad.net/~subinsebastien
[05:14] <spiv> bac: haha
[05:14] <spiv> bac: thanks :)
[05:14] <bac> spiv: your branch is cursed
[05:15] <spiv> bac: it's certainly one of those days around here
[05:16] <spiv> Sick baby, two hard drives apparently failing within hours of each other... a cursed branch is just a minor inconvenience, really ;)
[05:23] <bac> ugh, sorry spiv
[05:26] <lifeless> spiv: 2 drives? wheeee
[05:27] <lifeless> spiv: same batch?
[05:31] <spiv> lifeless: same make/model at least, haven't taken the time to check the batch yet.
[05:31] <spiv> The 2 new ones are different makes.
[05:33] <spiv> I'm still quite sceptical that they really both started failing together, if only because their use patterns have been different.
[05:33] <spiv> But we've plugged them both into a completely different system and encountered read errors in both...
[05:35] <bac> spiv did the baby throw up on them?
[05:36] <spiv> Haha, no, we have a baby fence to keep him away from the hardware :)
[12:56] <persia> Is there a way to see which blueprints have been proposed for a sprint, but not yet either accepted or denied?
[13:13] <alopenerp> Hello, is it possible to buy a voucher for a private project on launchpad ?
[13:17] <persia> Yes.
[13:17]  * persia forgets the question number though, and encourages waiting for someone with more information to provide it.
[13:17] <zyga> hi, why does lauchpad tries to verify email signatures? It keeps bouncing my emails when they are signed my thunderbird
[13:18] <persia> zyga, So that I don't change all your bugs claiming to be you.
[13:18] <zyga> persia, bzz, not true, if I drop the signature the email gets accepted
[13:18] <persia> Less snarkily, send yourself a message, and try to gpg-verify it.
[13:18] <persia> As you?
[13:19] <persia> Without GPG signature?
[13:19] <zyga> persia, (I complain only because the feature is not working, lauchpad says it cannot verify that signature, this is totally broken IMHO if a signed email is rejected but unsigned is sent as intended)
[13:19] <persia> No, signed emails are supposed to be accepted, and grant you extra permissions that you would have if you provided your password.
[13:19] <zyga> persia, note that lauchpad _has_ my key :D
[13:19] <persia> Do check to make sure that you can verify the text of the message as sent.
[13:20] <alopenerp> persia: How can i buy it ?
[13:20] <alopenerp> persia: seems to be absent from the canonical store
[13:20] <zyga> persia, I don't care, I just want to reply to a comment by email, which I _still_can_after_disabling_the_signature_
[13:20] <persia> alopenerp, I don't recally, but I've seen the question asked here before, and people give positive answers.  I recommend waiting.
[13:20] <zyga> persia, if lauchpad cannot process thunderbird signature that's a LP bug, if it can but cannot find my key (despite being stored on LP) it's a LP bug
[13:21] <alopenerp> persia: thanks are you a prince ?
[13:21] <persia> zyga, Yes, but "cannot verify signature" implies your signature isn't considered valid.  Whether it should check for unprivileged actions is an interesting question, but there's something else happening.
[13:21] <zyga> persia, but that is irrelevant, the fact that removing the signature makes the message pass is the crazy bug here :)
[13:21] <zyga> persia, perhaps
[13:21] <persia> zyga, Only for unprivileged actions would that work.
[13:21] <zyga> persia, that's the action I'm doing
[13:21] <zyga> persia, I was not ever aware you could do other actions via email
[13:22] <persia> I'd say, file a bug that it shouldn't verify the signature for unprivileged actions.
[13:22] <zyga> persia, nor does the 1-line email I get in response contain any helpful hints
[13:22] <spiv> You can change bugs' statuses etc via email
[13:22] <persia> But I'd also spend some time trying to be sure that you have confirmed your signature is valid.
[13:22] <geser> zyga: https://help.launchpad.net/Bugs/EmailInterface
[13:22] <zyga> geser, this is not about bugs
[13:22] <zyga> geser, this is about merge reviews
[13:24] <persia> zyga, Same email interface.
[13:24] <spiv> zyga: https://help.launchpad.net/Code/Review#Email%20interface
[13:25] <spiv> (not that there's much difference: unauthenticated emails can add comments, appropriately authenticated emails can e.g. change statuses)
[13:25] <zyga> spiv, that's true
[13:26] <spiv> It seems like a reasonable request that LP could be more helpful when an email a) is signed but fails validation, and b) would be accepted without being authenticated
[13:26] <spiv> Perhaps by just accepting it, perhaps by sending back a more helpful error.
[13:27] <spiv> I can imagine arguments either way.
[13:28] <persia> I don't think it's an either way thing.  I think both are issues.
[13:28] <persia> But I think there is a third issue, which is why zyga's signature isn't considered valid.
[13:28] <zyga> persia, I'm checking that now
[13:31] <zyga> persia, gpg claims the message is signed correctly
[13:31] <alopenerp> How can i buy a launchpad voucher to make a project private ? It seems to be absent from the canonical shop where it used to be before.
[13:32] <persia> zyga, Hrm.  I presume you round-tripped it somewhere, and didn't use thunderbird to verify?
[13:32] <zyga> persia, I saved the sent message to a text file, ran gpg < message.txt
[13:32] <persia> Maybe double-compare the data LP has to your public key?
[13:32] <zyga> persia, gpg printed my keys and confirmed this is good
[13:32] <zyga> persia, did that too
[13:33] <zyga> persia, I'm not sure what's wrong really
[13:33] <persia> OK.  Two bugs.  1) LP shouldn't verify signatures when it doesn't affect permissions, 2) LP should be helpful when telling users it couldn't verify, and a question: Why can't LP verify your key?
[13:34] <persia> File all that, and you'll probably be in best shape.  I'd recommend attaching a sample signed message to the question.
[13:34] <zyga> persia, my key according to LP: http://keyserver.ubuntu.com:11371/pks/lookup?search=0xA2C9EB19E937897573BB3113A911E21401448FA5&op=index
[13:34] <zyga> persia, will do
[13:35] <persia> zyga, I believe you.  I don't actually know how LP works except for about two bits of code, and both are separate from your issues,  I'm just familiar with requesting LP support.
[13:41] <zyga> persia, filed
[13:41] <zyga> thanks
[13:43] <tumbleweed> if I'm rotating GPG keys, must I deactivate my CoC signature before I can re-sign it (it's currently signed with an expired and revoked key)
[13:59] <ScottK> persia: There is at least one bug open about LP failing signature verification when it shouldn't, so it may not be the user's fault.
[14:10] <persia> ScottK, Ah, good to know.
[14:16] <napster> Hello launchpad admins, please redirect this link https://launchpad.net/~subinsebastien-gmail-merged to https://launchpad.net/~subinsebastien please!
[14:17]  * napster after an account merge, totally f**ked up!
[14:22] <bigjools> split their news arm out and I'd agree with him
[14:22] <bigjools> echan, oops
[14:58] <vish> hi,  http://svn.gnome.org/ says GNOME has changed to using Git for version control. Current GNOME sources can be found on git.gnome.org. All content on this site is obsolete
[14:58] <vish> if the svn is obsolete then https://code.launchpad.net/~vcs-imports/dasher/trunk might be a waste ?  why does that keep trying there?  maybe we should close/stop that?
[14:58] <benste> hi, tried to register a new project which is hosted on Google Code, but LP doesn't accept the issues link as bug URL - what can I do ?
[14:59] <vish> and if it needs syncing , http://git.gnome.org/browse/dasher/ might be a better place..
[15:01] <benste> is there a possibility to leave bug URL empty ?
[15:02] <maxb> vish: You're welcome to register a new import.
[15:03] <maxb> benste: So just leave it blank for now
[15:03] <vish> maxb¦ hmm, well, i'm not interested in an import , but rather wondering why we are importing..
[15:03] <bigjools> sinzui, can you help benste?
[15:04] <maxb> vish: Well, anyone can ask launchpad to import anything public
[15:04] <sinzui> benste, I think you are saying you are trying to import a branch for a project you have already registered
[15:04] <vish> maxb¦ but that seems to have been started in 2005 , and do we need to be running imports? isnt it a waste?
[15:05] <persia> vish, If someone requested the import, makes sense to leave it (but it ought be up-to-date)
[15:05] <sinzui> benste, sorry, you are trying to register a bug tracker for registered project
[15:05] <persia> We can't know that nobody is using bzr to work against the package on LP and pushing to somewhere private.
[15:05] <vish>  oh!
[15:05] <benste> sinzui:  no I'm about to register the project itself
[15:05] <benste> as it didn't exists yet
[15:06] <sinzui> benste, form does not ask for a URL
[15:07] <sinzui> oh, benste are you on a bug page trying to report an upstream bug & register a project?
[15:07] <benste> sinzui: yes
[15:07] <vish> oh well, thought I'd be saving the planet a bit ;p , but if it is needed sure, I was just curious
[15:08] <sinzui> benste, the form is trying to locate a matching bug tracker or to register one, but it cannot identify the type.
[15:08] <benste> don't know
[15:08] <benste> issues for the projrct are
[15:08] <benste> here
[15:08] <benste> http://code.google.com/p/eid-mw/issues/list
[15:08] <sinzui> benste, I think you may need to try registering the bug tracking in an other browser tab, then try registering.
[15:09] <benste> and I thought i could simply enter this URL in the bug url label
[15:09] <benste> ah :-)
[15:09] <benste> where can I register it ?
[15:09] <sinzui> benste, gmb, allenap, deryck: I do not think Lp has bug watch support for google so it will not be possible to register a project & link the bug to upstream
[15:10] <allenap> sinzui: Right, no support for Google yet.
[15:10] <benste> and If i want to link it upstream only possibility is to add the url in the description ?
[15:10] <deryck> sinzui, that's correct.
[15:11] <benste> k
[15:11] <benste> thanks for you help
[15:11] <gmb> benste, deryck, allenap, sinzui: Ah, but...
[15:11] <gmb> Accoring to the code, we should be able to at least register google code bug watches (we just don't update them).
[15:11] <deryck> right
[15:12] <deryck> so you can register a useless watch against Google code :-)
[15:12] <gmb> deryck: Well, it's not useless to say "This LP bug is actually this Google Code bug"
[15:12] <deryck> right, was being inappropriately sarcastic.
[15:12] <gmb> benste: Ah, sorry, just read the scrollback. That's what you've already discovered. Ignore me then.
[15:12] <deryck> Just meant it's not obvious it won't be a completely working bug watch.
[15:13]  * gmb in trying-to-answer-question-that-was-already-answered shocker
[15:13] <gmb> deryck: That's true. We should probably actually tell people that when they're registering the bug watch.
[15:13] <benste> wouldn't it be possible to add a message in upstream LP if google - give following error strin ?
[15:13] <benste> g
[15:14] <benste> gmb: guess we're talking about the same idea :-)
[15:14] <benste> btw. why not asking google for an API and implement Google Code as uptream bug watch ...
[15:14] <deryck> gmb, and in order to do full syncs... we would need some support from Google code for that, i.e. and API or some such?
[15:15] <gmb> benste: Ah, no we're not.
[15:15] <gmb> So, carry on ignoring me.
[15:15] <benste> :-P
[15:16] <gmb> deryck: Well, we could screen scrape. That worked for Sourceforge for about six months.
[15:16] <benste> wishing you all the best for your discussion, enjoy your evening - and thanks for your help - see you next time :-)
[15:16] <gmb> deryck: But logically, yes, an API is what we need. Though a CSV or XML export wouldn't be the worst starting place.
[15:16] <deryck> gmb, right.  And yeah, I'd like to never do screen scraping again if we can help it :-)
[15:17] <gmb> Indeed.
[15:43] <ivoks> in mercurial import, it says that only 'tip' branch will be imported
[15:43] <ivoks> what can we do if there's no 'tip' branch?
[15:50] <bigjools> abentley: can you help ivoks please?
[15:50] <ivoks> bigjools: :) thanks
[15:51] <abentley> ivoks: you could create a new mercurial repository that has a tip branch.
[15:51] <ivoks> abentley: that's was my plan
[15:51] <ivoks> abentley: thanks
[15:51] <abentley> ivoks: np.
[16:36] <maxb> ivoks: Every mercurial repository has a tip branch by definition, unless it contains zero revisions.
[16:38] <ivoks> well, those that i'm interested in, don't
[16:38] <ivoks> they have a tip, which is a snapshot of the tree, but default branch is called 'default'
[16:38] <maxb> ivoks: They either contain a tip, or zero revisions. That's an invariant of being a Mercurial repository
[16:39] <ivoks> maxb: http://hg.clusterlabs.org/pacemaker/1.1/ <- then i'm missing something
[16:39] <maxb> The 'tip branch' is the branch whose ancestry descends from the tip revision
[16:41] <ivoks> anyway, i can't import this repository
[16:42] <maxb> no?
[16:43] <ivoks> maxb: http://launchpadlibrarian.net/57675304/ivoks-server-daily-builds-trunk.log
[16:46] <maxb> Indeed. Seems like bzr-hg must have a bug
[16:49] <ivoks> or that :)
[17:30] <alopenerp> How can i buy a launchpad voucher to make a project private ? It seems to be absent from the canonical shop where it used to be before.
[17:36] <bigjools> mrevell: can you help? ^
[17:37] <mrevell> bigjools: I can but alopenerp has gone. I'll email her/him.
[17:37] <bigjools> ah d'oh
[20:05] <SEJeff_work> deryck, ping
[20:05] <deryck> SEJeff_work, pong
[20:22] <shadeslayer> hi, its been about 4 hours, and im still having download issues with lp, bzr is branching at 1-5 KBps and pull-lp-source downloads at 10 KBps
[20:24] <shadeslayer> everything else is downloading at 70 KBps
[20:25] <shadeslayer> pushing branches seem to be doing fine
[21:27] <JanC> hm, how long is it supposed to take before succesfully built packages get published in a PPA ?
[21:28] <JanC> 5 hours still normal?
[21:35] <micahg> JanC: before it starts building or how long once completed?
[21:35] <wgrant> JanC: Should be <5 minutes.
[21:35] <wgrant> Do you have a counterexample?
[21:46] <paultag> Hey LP-ers. I just filed a group project request, and since it's EST almost 5 on a Friday, wondering if I could get some love on it before everyone leaves over the weekend
[21:47] <paultag> https://answers.launchpad.net/launchpad-registry/+question/129666 <-- for those at home keeping score
[22:00] <JanC> wgrant: https://launchpad.net/~janc/+archive/ppa/+packages --> build finished 3 & 5 hours ago
[22:00] <JanC> (those are packages I copied from another PPA, if that matters)
[22:01] <wgrant> JanC: Is the Publish flag on https://launchpad.net/~janc/+archive/ppa set?
[22:02] <wgrant> JanC: You'll need to hit "Change details"
[22:02] <JanC> you mean in https://launchpad.net/~janc/+archive/ppa/+edit ?  no?
[22:02] <wgrant> That, yeah.
[22:02] <wgrant> I meant to type that originally, but forgot.
[22:03] <JanC> it was never set, that didn't stop things from getting published AFAIR ?
[22:03] <wgrant> It should, since the publisher skips archives without that flag set.
[22:04] <JanC> eh, what's the point of archives that can't be used?
[22:05] <wgrant> The flag is useful internally, but I'm not sure why it's exposed to normal users.
[22:06] <JanC> I don't remember changing that, but always possible it happened accidentally  ☺
[22:06] <JanC> thanks for pointing at the meaning of that setting  ;)
[22:07] <JanC> I would have thought it was related to publishing it on the site instead
[22:07] <JanC> (for other users, I mean)