[00:46] <mhall119> cjohnston: I think I know what's causing that
[00:47] <cjohnston> okie..
[00:51] <mhall119> lpupdate calls create_profile for new admins
[00:52] <mhall119> lpupdate now calls set_user_openid, so that admins who haven't logged in yet don't get ${username}2
[00:52] <mhall119> but if an admin has changed their username, then they are trying to set the same openid for the new username, which throws the unique constraint violation
[00:53] <mhall119> I'm testing my fix now
[00:57] <cjohnston> sweet
[00:57] <cjohnston> I've got an install ready to test it
[01:03] <mhall119> http://pastebin.com/dENi652v is the patch
[01:42] <cjohnston> Ronnie: ping
[02:00] <cjohnston> mhall119: Your patch works
[02:00] <cjohnston> (or atleast fixes the errors)
[02:01] <cjohnston> I can't test to see if it fixes the bug that the fr team has tho cause for some reason update-profiles threw an error on my name
[02:01] <cjohnston> Do you want to push your patch?
[02:14] <mhall119> what was the error it threw on your name?
[02:15]  * mhall119 doesn't want to replace one error with another
[02:15] <mhall119> my first attempt at a NattyWallpaper: http://www.flickr.com/photos/38053898@N02/5495416125/
[02:15] <cjohnston> rror updating openiduser183
[02:15] <cjohnston> u'openiduser183'
[02:15] <cjohnston> but chrisjohnston2
[02:16] <mhall119> :(
[02:16] <mhall119> did you run update-openids first?
[02:16] <cjohnston> der
[03:28] <nigelb> morning
[07:40] <YoBoY> good morning
[08:12] <dholbach> good morning
[11:00] <cjohnston> YoBoY: I think I have your bug figured out
[11:00] <YoBoY> great :)
[11:01] <YoBoY> but i know more or less why too, it doesn't ask my other teams when I log in and LD don't make the link i think
[11:06] <cjohnston> no
[11:06] <cjohnston> theres a bug in the lpupdate
[11:06] <cjohnston> it tries to create an admin profile for every admin
[11:06] <cjohnston> and if the profile is already create
[11:06] <cjohnston> d
[11:06] <cjohnston> it errors
[11:07] <YoBoY> ok
[11:50] <Ronnie> cjohnston: i think i have the fix for the team admin issue
[11:51] <Ronnie> mhall119: ping ^ (ill upload soon, doing one last test)
[11:54] <Ronnie> but it takes very long to do one lpupdate :(
[12:22] <mhall119> Ronnie: which issue?
[12:23] <Ronnie> the "edit team details" from YoBoY, which was caused by the lpupdate.py change
[12:24] <Ronnie> in lpupdate we should not blindly create a new profile, but first try to get a profile with that name, if not exists, than create the new one
[12:26] <mhall119> Ronnie: create_profile does a check if a profile for that name exists
[12:27] <mhall119> the problem was that it was now calling launchpad.set_user_openid, which was trying to create a duplicate openid entry
[12:27] <mhall119> I have a fix to that, which will remove old openid entries before adding the new one
[12:46] <Ronnie> mhall119: https://code.launchpad.net/~ronnie.vd.c/loco-directory/lpupdate-admin/+merge/52190
[13:44] <mhall119> glory/w 28
[13:44] <mhall119> bah
[13:44] <nigelb> lol
[15:45] <dholbach> Last day of https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDeveloperWeek starting in 15 minutes in #ubuntu-classroom
[18:03] <cjohnston_> mhall119: did you and Ronnie` come up with the same patch?
[18:03] <mhall119> cjohnston_: different approaches I think
[18:03] <mhall119> I haven't looked at his actual patch yet
[18:03] <Ronnie`> cjohnston_: indeed different approach
[18:04]  * mhall119 has been doing production deployments in between watching UDW sessions
[18:04] <Ronnie`> mine does not create new profiles if the profile already exists, but adds the profile to the admin list
[18:04] <cjohnston> production deployments?
[18:04] <mhall119> for moffitt, not LD
[18:05] <cjohnston> ahh
[18:05] <cjohnston> switch then
[18:05] <cjohnston> lol
[18:18] <cjohnston> aakshay: ping
[18:19] <aakshay> cjohnston, hi.. :)
[18:19] <cjohnston> hey..
[18:19] <cjohnston> We are going to try to push a release of LD today... 
[18:19] <cjohnston> If you look at the merge about the order of columns and fix it, I can get it in the release
[18:20] <aakshay> cjohnston, i have done it.. :)
[18:20] <aakshay> and mereged it..
[18:21] <cjohnston> ok..
[18:22] <aakshay> is it fine now? :p
[18:22] <cjohnston> Ronnie`: what do you do to make sure that we get email notifications
[18:22] <cjohnston> looks like it 
[18:22] <cjohnston> im merging it in
[18:22] <cjohnston> Ronnie`: when you submit an update to a merge
[18:22] <aakshay> thanks.. :)...yooo...
[18:23] <Ronnie`> cjohnston: what do you mean by the mail thing ^^
[18:24] <cjohnston> Ronnie`: you do a merge proposal.. it gets reviewed as needs work.. you fix and push your new code.. I normally get an email when you do that.. is that because you do the resubmit thing?
[18:25] <Ronnie`> i dont know how that works...
[18:25] <cjohnston> hmm
[18:25] <cjohnston> I guess when you submit an update we should maybe make a comment so that we get emails
[18:26] <Ronnie`> good idea, this is usually the case, but im not aware of the differences. We'll try that, see if that works
[18:27] <Ronnie`> mhall119: do you have some time to compare our fixes for the admin problem and merge this one?
[18:28] <mhall119> Ronnie`: I think cjohnston is already doing that
[18:29]  * Ronnie` looks at cjohnston
[18:29] <cjohnston> yup
[18:31] <cjohnston> I asked nigelb to email the translations team to try to get some translations done since there are some big changes to translations.. hopefully some of them will get done
[18:31] <mhall119> we never did decide on a policy for getting translations, did we?
[18:32] <cjohnston> as far as?
[18:34] <Ronnie`> the dutch translations are already up-to-date :D, but we need indeed some sort of a policy for this
[18:34] <mhall119> whether to regularly update the translation template during development, or institute a translation freeze before releases, or both
[18:35] <cjohnston> I don't know... here's my thing... Today.. we can push a critical bug that was discovered yesterday, so IMO obviously push what translations we have
[18:35] <cjohnston> even though most got pushed to trunk this morning
[18:36] <cjohnston> I don't see any reason to hold a critical patch for translations
[18:36] <mhall119> critical bugs we can always push, either from trunk or directly to the production branch
[18:36] <mhall119> I'm thinking more of a "normal process"
[18:37] <cjohnston> but for a normal release, I guess we could make a one week freeze or something... but to go with that, we should email translations team IMO when we freeze
[18:38] <mhall119> I was leaning more towards uploading new templates after we do reviews & merges, since we don't have strings change that often after they make it into trunk
[18:38] <mhall119> then we don't have to allow as much time for a freeze
[18:39] <mhall119> since most of the strings will have been available for translations prior to us packaging a release
[18:39] <cjohnston> http://paste.ubuntu.com/575633/
[18:39] <cjohnston> I normally try to push an update translations every few days
[18:40] <cjohnston> I also think that when we push a critical fix, we need to version bump for better tracking.
[18:44] <mhall119> don't we always get a new version when we release from trunk?
[18:44] <mhall119> or do you mean when we push a fix directly to the production branch?
[18:47] <cjohnston> when   a patch is pushed directly to production
[18:47] <cjohnston> Just to be a little more organized
[18:47] <cjohnston> It doesn't make sense to have a fix released on a release that isn't pushed
[18:50] <mhall119> cjohnston: so you want to add another .version number for bug fixes between releases?
[18:50] <mhall119> 0.3.1.1
[18:50] <mhall119> or 0.3.1-1
[18:57] <cjohnston> no.. currently 0.3.1 is live.. if we were just pushing out the fix to the admin profile thing, push out version 0.3.2 and then 0.3.3 would be the development version
[18:58] <mhall119> but then we wouldn't have 0.3.2 in trunk?
[18:58] <cjohnston> hmm
[18:58] <cjohnston> I guess it would have to be committed to trunk as 0.3.2 as well
[18:58] <cjohnston> I dunno
[18:59] <mhall119> so my thoughts are that we commit it to trunk for 0.3.2, along with anything else in trunk
[18:59] <cjohnston> cause there was a bug yesterday that I asked you if its already been released
[18:59] <cjohnston> thats fine
[18:59] <mhall119> then we also commit it to 0.3.1-1 as a "backported" fix, in production branch
[18:59] <mhall119> so it's officially fixed and released in 0.3.2
[18:59] <cjohnston> well.. but that doesn't provide a way to track in lp
[19:00] <cjohnston> without being fix released without a released release
[19:00] <mhall119> true, but only because we only track trunk
[19:01] <mhall119> so the question is, what do we mean by "Fix Released"?
[19:01] <cjohnston> i dunno
[19:01] <cjohnston> id like a better way to track
[19:01] <mhall119> usually that means we've made a package of our code that has that fix
[19:01] <cjohnston> so that the "changelog" reflects better
[19:01] <mhall119> but we've been taking it to mean "pushed to loco.ubuntu.com"
[19:12] <cjohnston> i dunno what is best mhall119, but i think that somehow the change log should reflect a push of code directly to production
[19:14] <mhall119> you mean the bzr changelog?
[19:15] <mhall119> or on launchpad?
[19:51] <cjohnston> mhall119: launchpad since thats what we use for our changelog
[19:54] <mhall119> cjohnston: doing a lighting talk in about 10 minutes, then I'm leaving for home, can we chat more about that tonight?
[19:54] <cjohnston> yup
[19:54] <mhall119> thanks
[19:54] <cjohnston> whats your lightning talk
[19:55] <mhall119> xdg-launcher
[19:55] <cjohnston> cool