[02:32] <lifeless> hmm, the iranian firewall change on the 14th  might explain the user having trouble
[08:06] <mrevell> Hi
[08:30] <bullgard4> http://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/mountall/+bugs writes: "59 New bugs" and "90 Open bugs". What are "new bugs"?
[08:32] <wgrant> bullgard4: Bugs where the status is "New".
[08:32] <bullgard4> wgrant: Ah! Thank you very much for explaining.
[08:33] <wgrant> LP is about to go down for a couple of minutes of DB upgrades.
[08:36] <sagaci> did lp just die?
[08:36] <nigelb> Yes
[08:36] <shadeslayer> hi, when i try to access https://code.launchpad.net/~kubuntu-packagers/kubuntu-packaging/digikam i get  OOPS-2085AP414
[08:36] <nigelb> A few minutes
[08:36] <sagaci> righteo
[08:36] <wgrant> shadeslayer, sagaci: We'll be back in about 30 seconds.
[08:36] <shadeslayer> ah alright
[08:36] <wgrant> Just a database upgrade, with a pretty ugly error page for now.
[08:36] <shadeslayer> hehe :)
[08:37] <shadeslayer> i'm guessing this is due to the new ' small and fast upgrades ' policy
[08:37] <wgrant> This new upgrade process is a week old today, so we are still working stuff out.
[08:37] <wgrant> Yep.
[08:37] <wgrant> 2 minutes of downtime, instead of 90.
[08:37] <wgrant> And we're back.
[08:37] <shadeslayer> right :)
[08:38] <sagaci> so in a nutshell, it's shorter but more frequent downtimes than previously
[08:38] <wgrant> Hopefully next week we will acquire a better error page.
[08:38] <wgrant> And we'll get the downtime under a minute in the next month or so.
[08:44] <bullgard4> wgrant: The downtime was very short indeed.
[08:45] <wgrant> bullgard4: 2-3x longer than we are aiming for, but 45x better than it used to be :)
[08:45] <bullgard4> :-) Thank you.
[14:11] <deryck> adeuring, I'll take IRC now.
[14:11] <adeuring> deryck: thanks!
[17:51] <cirwin> I'm trying to package a mercurial-based project, and wondering whether I should do the development of the debian directory in mercurial, and then import the branch with my changes already; or import the base project and make changes in bzr? (I have no experience with either version control system)
[18:01] <flacoste> cirwin: both can work really
[18:01] <flacoste> cirwin: but
[18:01] <flacoste> if you want to use the udd tools
[18:01] <flacoste> you might be better off working in bzr
[18:01] <flacoste> since they are bzr-based anyway
[18:02] <cirwin> ok
[18:02] <cirwin> I'd quite like to use the source-packages feature of launchpad to build the same package for multiple versions
[19:37] <lamont> Needs building on shedir (armel panda) <-- when did launchpad start doing that?
[19:55] <abentley> lamont: I don't think anyone's around who could answer that.  It's Saturday for Antipodeans.
[20:06] <dobey> abentley: how does one register a distribution on launchpad btw?
[20:06] <abentley> dobey: I think you have to ask sinzui.
[20:06] <dobey> ok
[20:07] <dobey> sinzui: ^^ do you know?
[20:07] <abentley> dobey: (I mean, I think you have to request sinzui to register the distribution)
[20:08] <dobey> ah right, ok
[20:08] <sinzui> dobey, you ask at answers.launchpad.net/launchpad where you will be quiz about needs one. distros are broken for most use cases, so only admins can create them
[20:09] <sinzui> dobey, Unless you are very special, it cannot have packages or translations. you cannot fully configure the bug-traker too
[20:09] <sinzui> we are considering deleting all but a handful of the distros in the db since they are unhelpful
[20:10] <dobey> sinzui: ok. my use case is that i want to be able to have a distribution for ubuntu one PPAs, where each series is one of the PPAs (stable, beta, nightlies, etc), and so we can manage bugs for our PPA packaging, separately from upstream bugs, and separately from ubuntu bugs
[20:10] <dobey> yeah, i'm fine with that. a distribution just seems to be the best way to do what i want; though i am certainly open to alternatives as well :)
[20:11] <sinzui> that is a new use. I am sure you can push branches to each package if it matches an ubuntu package name
[20:11] <sinzui> You are going to use recipes to do the build?
[20:12] <dobey> we are using recipes to do the builds yes
[20:12] <sinzui> I think that will work.
[20:12] <dobey> the builds are already well managed. i'm looking for a better way to manage the bugs
[20:13] <sinzui> I think you want someone to fix the old bug about reporting bugs in archives
[20:13] <dobey> oh?
[20:14] <sinzui> When I say fix. I mean implement, and when I say someone, I mean lots of people
[20:16] <sinzui> dobey, i am sure an admin can set of a distro for you.
[20:16] <dobey> ok, i'll see about that on monday i think. thanks :)
[20:19] <sinzui> dobey, to be clear about the bug reporting case. you must link a branch to each package your want to report bugs against. It is not possible to report a bug without an official package set either by a branch or by soyuz
[20:22] <dobey> sinzui: link as in like the links on https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libubuntuone for example?
[20:23] <sinzui> dobey, correct
[20:25] <dobey> sinzui: btw, how the hell do i edit those links, so that i can change it from trunk to a stable branch, when we make a stable branch for the release?
[20:25] <sinzui> dobey, https://bugs.qastaging.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gedit-class-browser/+filebug is an example url where it is impossible to file a bug because no package was ever published and there is not official branch
[20:26] <sinzui> dobey, use the enigmatic yellow pencil icon next to "trunk"
[20:27] <sinzui> on that same page
[20:27] <dobey> sinzui: there is no such icon for trunk. i am only seeing it next to non-trunk series
[20:28] <sinzui> dobey, I see https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libubuntuone and edit and remove icon next to
[20:28] <sinzui> Ubuntu One ⇒ libubuntuone ⇒ trunk
[20:29] <dobey> sinzui: i don't. :(
[20:29] <sinzui> are you anonymous? any logged in user can change packages
[20:29] <dobey> no, i'm logged in
[20:30] <dobey> in fact, oddly enough, i do see them on https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubuntuone-client
[20:30] <pinterface> Apparently the secret to getting launchpad to report something other than "your page was stale" after filling in the captcha for the forgot-password form is to enable referers.
[20:31] <sinzui> dobey, this is very odd, I see them on libubuntuone and I see trunk, stable-0-10, stable-0.4, and stable-lucid
[20:31] <sinzui> which one do you want me to choose?
[20:31] <dobey> sinzui: for oneiric it should be trunk
[20:32] <dobey> sinzui: for maverick stable-0-4, and for natty stable-0-10
[20:32] <sinzui> okay and it is because the DSP page shows the development series
[20:33] <dobey> ?
[20:34] <sinzui> 1. I also see the edit and remove icons next each Ubuntu version in the list at the bottom of the page: https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libubuntuone
[20:35] <sinzui> I can visit each distroseries source package and also see the icons:
[20:35] <sinzui> https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/natty/+source/libubuntuone
[20:35] <sinzui> https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/maverick/+source/libubuntuone
[20:35] <sinzui> https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/lucid/+source/libubuntuone
[20:35] <dobey> right; but i don't see the icons in any of those places on libubuntuone
[20:36] <dobey> i'd be happy if it gave me an OOPS instead of nothing, at least :)
[20:36] <sinzui> This is very odd, not one shows you icons for libubuntuone
[20:38] <sinzui> maybe this is a cache issue? I will change the package links and you can verify if you see the new series I linked too
[20:38] <dobey> ok
[20:38] <sinzui> I think the series are fixed on https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libubuntuone
[20:38] <dobey> i see the series change for maverick
[20:39] <dobey> but still no icons
[20:39] <dobey> i *DO* see icons next to lucid series, but not next to any of the others
[20:40] <sinzui> dobey, which browser. This could be a sprite issue. The browser does not allocate enough information for the background so the link is there in the page, but it was not rendered
[20:40] <dobey> firefox
[20:41] <dobey> 6.0.2
[20:42] <dobey> and 7.0
[20:42] <dobey> it also happens on my oneiric laptop, as well as my natty workstation
[20:42] <sinzui> :( webkit browsers are usually the issue. I see this fine in firefox 7 and the oneiric version of chrome
[20:43] <dobey> hah, and in chrome on natty, i don't see any of them
[20:43] <sinzui> These link also have hidden text to work around the webkit issue.
[20:43] <dobey> but also in chrome they don't show up on ubuntuone-client
[20:44] <sinzui> The monkey god does not want you touching this package. Were you bad in a previous life. Did you covet someone's parrot?
[20:44] <dobey> haha
[20:44] <dobey> it gets better
[20:45]  * sinzui thinks unity is going belly up again
[20:45] <dobey> i get the exact same behavior in chrome on natty now, logged in as me; but logged in as my bot user is when it didn't show any of the icons; but as me it behaves the same as firefox there
[20:46] <dobey> wtf.
[20:47] <dobey> and midori does the same thing
[20:47] <sinzui> dobey, my previous experience with missing icons found bad lp css to be the primary cause, and bad markup as a secondary. I really thought we fixed most of these issue a year ago.
[20:48] <dobey> if i knew of anything else to help debug, i would do it
[20:48] <sinzui> midori/epiphany/chrome/safari/webkit are one group, firefox/gecko are another. Opera is still it's own world.
[20:49] <sinzui> dobey, I have another machine I can play with. I think I need to review changes to lp's css rules. I have not been following changes
[20:50] <dobey> well, sometimes chrome/safari are different from the others, because they have weird proprietary hacks in there too
[20:50] <dobey> sinzui: maybe you need to take out the .dobey {} rule ;)
[21:06] <lamont> abentley: no worries