[02:33] <spiv> mhall119: yes this is a good place to ask, although it tends to be quiet on the weekend
[02:34] <spiv> mhall119: to clear the revision history of a branch you could probably just call your_branch.set_last_revision_info(0, bzrlib.revision.NULL_REVISION)
[02:34] <spiv> mhall119: although I'm guessing you want to change the workingtree as well as the branch?
[02:36] <spiv> mhall119: which IIRC is wt.set_parent_ids([])
[02:50] <mhall119> spiv: thanks for the reply, I want to keep the working tree
[02:51] <mhall119> basically I'll have a branch I want to use as a "template"
[02:51] <mhall119> when starting a new project, I want a copy of the latest of that "template" to be the start of my project's branch, but I don't want the template's revision history to be included in my project's revision history
[02:57] <mhall119> spiv: those worked perfectly, thanks!
=== nixness is now known as foocraft
[15:25] <maxb> jelmer: Hi. If you have a moment, could you outline the motivation for switching to cython? (Mainly to help in assessing whether the switch is applicable for PPA builds for older Ubuntus)
[15:28] <jelmer> maxb: It wasn't really an important change - cython is required by e.g. meliae, and is supposed to generate quicker code.
[15:29] <maxb> right - take the "try it and see" approach, then, do you think?
[15:29] <jelmer> maxb: with python-pyrex you mean?
[15:30] <maxb> I mean, we might as well see if the cython versions in older Ubuntus will work
[15:30] <maxb> And if they don't, we can switch back to pyrex for those
[15:32] <jelmer> ah
[15:32] <jelmer> yeah, I think that makes sense
[15:39] <Peng> Cython isn't as useful if you maintain backwards compatibility with archaic Pyrex.
[15:39] <Peng> s/\./ versions./
[16:28] <cyberkilla> <3 Bazaar
[17:34] <naoki> bzr source archive is distributed with generated c sources.
[17:34] <naoki> So I don't feel compatibility with old Pyrex is big issue.
[17:43] <naoki> http://docs.cython.org/src/userguide/pyrex_differences.html
[22:59] <lamont> any plans for a 2.4.0 backport to hardy/lucid that doesn't require newer-than-lucid python?
[23:01] <lamont> 2.4.0~beta2-2~bazaar1~lucid1 happens to build-depend on a slightly-newer-than-maverick python, and therefore is FTBFS
[23:06] <maxb> lamont: hmm. it's not FTBFS
[23:06] <maxb> It may, however, not be particularly useful :-)
[23:09] <maxb> lamont: I see no issue with the lucid build
[23:10]  * jelmer waves to lamont, maxb
[23:11] <maxb> lamont: Oh, but you're trying to rebuild it in a secret Canonical IS archive aren't you
[23:11] <maxb> Without including our builddeps PPA
[23:44]  * maxb blinks
[23:45] <maxb> I'm getting a test failure for 2.4b2 on hardy
[23:45] <maxb> NotImplementedError: <bound method SilentUIFactory.get_password of SilentUIFactory()>
[23:45]  * maxb wonders how that managed to behave differently there