[00:38] hi all [00:39] hellø! [00:43] hi jelmer [00:49] jelmer are you still here? [00:50] knighthawk: yeah, though not for much longer [00:51] In my bzr branch I ran 'bzr rebase' [00:52] it was pointing to my svn repo [00:52] but this was *after* I did the push with append_revisions_only = False [00:54] so I'm worried now that I can't recover the history in svn with --overwrite. Also mind you several other people have made commits to the svn repo since I did all this. [00:54] so I'm thinking that history might just be lost. [00:55] knighthawk: the history is still there - see 'svn log ' [00:56] knighthawk: it will be tricky to get both the old revisions and the new revisions though [00:56] k jelmer thanks I'll try to figure it out. [01:01] Morning. [01:05] hey spiv, how's your morning? [01:07] Pretty good considering V woke up at least 4 times last night! [01:07] hi spiv, ocuh [01:07] *ouch [01:08] We think it's his molars coming through [01:08] Well, we can see that they are, but we're guessing that's why he's waking up so often. [01:13] hm, we probably need jubany to be upgraded to something with 2.6 if we require that in 2.5 [01:13] bzr *2.4 [01:14] spiv: :-/ [01:21] what's the planned release date for bzr 2.4? [01:22] for the final one? [01:22] yup. [01:22] lp currently has 4 august [01:22] the general thing is, about 2 months before the ubuntu release [01:23] it can be flexible [01:27] Regarding jam's comment on https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/267296, I wonder if we should have a "needs-piloting" tag? Patch pilots could search for that bug tag in addition to scanning the +activereviews page. [01:27] Ubuntu bug 267296 in Bazaar "utf16 file detected as binary file" [Medium,Confirmed] [01:28] Ideally LP would have some way of bringing partial work to our attention, but that might be an ok workaround. [01:34] spiv, well, that's kind of what the 'has patch' thing is meant to track [01:34] but it is not a very good match for a few reasons [01:34] well, not a perfect match [01:34] Right [01:36] I suppose that particular branch can been seen on https://code.launchpad.net/~bzr-pqm/bzr/bzr.dev/+merges?field.status=WORK_IN_PROGRESS too [01:37] It'd be nice to see that list of w-i-p branches ordered by the importance of the bug they are linked to (if any). [01:39] (Or perhaps if advanced bug search could specify “show only bugs with linked merge proposals with status X”) [01:43] mm [01:43] i don't think i touched any code yesterday [01:43] hope to do better today === may-be is now known as SPitbag === SPitbag is now known as Spitbag [06:19] spiv is it possible that bug 390745 would be covered by your repack refactoring? [06:19] Error: Launchpad bug 390745 could not be found [06:25] poolie: hmm! [06:25] i realize it's a bit hard to say since we don't know exactly what leads up to it [06:25] poolie: it might, but it's hard to be certain [06:25] It's probably the best hypothesis we have so far [06:52] poolie: bug 664242 may not be one you want closed [06:52] Launchpad bug 664242 in Bazaar "want a way to locally mirror many branches, similar to source packages" [Medium,Expired] https://launchpad.net/bugs/664242 [06:53] thanks [06:53] i wonder how it even got incomplete [06:53] you filed it that way [06:53] mm so it seems [06:53] i don't normally do that [06:54] did launchpad just decide to start catching up on expiry? [06:54] we just fixed a bug [06:54] oh a bug was fixed that was blocking it? [06:54] yeah [06:54] jolly good [06:54] thats why it worked for a week or so [06:54] then broke [06:54] the bug is fixed [06:54] the bug that stopped us knowing is also fixed. [07:08] oh, lifeless, is the maverick-proposed bzr working out ok? [07:08] i didn't hear any screaming [07:08] i've had one of those days [07:09] with no code? [07:09] sorry to hear that [07:09] let me know if anything does break [07:10] 6am starts make me a little slow [07:10] I spent a ridiculous chunk of time tracking down some test failures in my branch to store INCOMPLETE_WITH_RESPONSE in the db [07:11] culminating with finding that we expire bugs to which the user has replied - https://help.launchpad.net/Bugs/Expiry#Old, unattended and incomplete? [07:11] ouch [07:12] I had naively assumed that replying prevents expiry [07:12] i would have too [08:26] hi jam! [09:32] morning [09:32] there is no bzr-svn for bzr-2.3? [09:42] hi gour [09:42] i think there is [09:42] but not released? [09:42] 1.0.3? [09:43] "1.0.4 (works with Bazaar 2.2)" [09:44] http://wiki.bazaar.canonical.com/ForeignBranches/Subversion#releases [09:49] ah, yes [09:49] it is 1.0.4 and it is not released yet [09:49] i think jelmer is planning to make one soon, but he should be online in a bit [09:51] ok, good night [09:52] 'night poolie [12:21] hi jam [12:37] hi jelmer [12:37] by the way, I was agreeing with you on bug #317357 [12:37] Launchpad bug 317357 in Bazaar "pointless commit message now ugly" [Low,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/317357 [12:37] I was just also letting Federico know that his patch had landed [12:38] jam: Ah, thanks. I read the emails out of order, that must be what confused me. [12:39] Hi everybody! how can i get an old version from bzr? "$bzr co lp:appname1.0" wont work! [12:39] Bersam: you can use tags - "bzr branch -rtag:bzr-1.0 lp:bzr bzr-1.0" [12:40] jelmer: thanks :) === mrevell is now known as mrevell-la-comid === mrevell-la-comid is now known as mrevell === JasonO_ is now known as JasonO === deryck is now known as deryck[lunch] === JasonO_ is now known as JasonO === zyga is now known as zyga-reconfigure === deryck[lunch] is now known as deryck === beuno is now known as beuno-lunch === beuno-lunch is now known as beuno [21:49] Whenever I try to "bzr branch" from one of the branches I recently created it creates a branch without any checkout and I need to run "bzr checkout" to actually work with the files. Why is this happening but when I for instance "bzr branch lp:grub2" I get a branch with a checkout? [22:05] Jordan_U: Please could you run "bzr info" within the problem branch and pastebin the result? [22:08] maxb: http://pastebin.com/ymzLpshR [22:09] Jordan_U: A shared repository, amongst other things, contains a flag to set whether new branches default to having working trees or not [22:09] As your info shows you are indeed within a shared repository, I imagine that that setting is to not create trees at present [22:10] maxb: Ahh, indeed I always use shared repositories. How can I change this flag? [22:10] bzr reconfigure --with-trees / --with-no-trees [22:11] maxb: Thank you. [22:11] The odd thing is the default is with trees, so something or someone must have switched it off explicitly [22:13] I only installed bzr on this machine recently, from Ubuntu 10.10 repositories. I don't remember ever changing this setting. It's possible I had bzr installed some months / years ago and removed it again but these repositories and branches were all created recently. [22:16] At one time init-repo defaulted to no-trees. [22:17] That was a loong time ago though. [22:17] grep of release notes says it went --trees in 0.15. [22:18] (i.e., 4 years and a month ago) [22:21] Maybe I do remember specifying --no-trees, though i can't remember why. [22:22] A little deforestation is good for the soul. [22:22] Ahh, I was in a hurry and just followed the example in "bzr help init-repo" which uses --no-trees. [23:05] moin [23:39] oh man [23:39] you know what I *love* about bzr? [23:39] "bzr: ERROR: Unable to create symlink 'standard_test_template.py' on this platform" [23:40] so instead of doing the sane thing, you just fail. And leave me with a .bzr dir. [23:44] Patches gratefully accepted? :-) [23:47] hasn't NTFS supported symlinks since like 1994? [23:49] magcius: That support isn't exposed in the Python API IIRC [23:53] or in windows. [23:53] the failure mode sucks, but so do most of the reasons people version symlinks. [23:54] You can just copy the file instead of leaving me with ".bzr", though [23:54] I would if I could, magcius. [23:55] checking out from within cygwin is the best workaround I've found.