[00:10] <achiang> poolie: i'll play with that idea. in the meantime, i'd like to land that other branch... the change was pretty trivial http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/721188/
[00:12] <poolie> achiang: yep that's fine, please do
[00:12] <poolie> i hope to add a 'land it!' button to lp soon
[00:12] <achiang> heh
[00:56] <vadi2> I can't submit a 130mb crash report - it says "Cannot connect to crash database, please check your Internet connection. HTTP Error 502: Bad Gateway". Is anyone else having this issue? I tried twice so far.
[01:00] <kees> I have an account that triggers an Oops when attempting to log into SSO. any thoughts on how to debug it? (can't even do a password reset)
[01:06] <wgrant> kees: We have just about nothing to do with SSO these days :/ https://forms.canonical.com/lp-login-support/ is probably your best bet.
[01:07] <kees> wgrant: okidoky :)
[01:07] <kees> this report is going to be comedy gold
[01:08] <wgrant> Oh?
[01:08] <vadi2> I had someone who could no register for a launchpad account at all recently. It told them to reset the password after registration, and that wasn't working either, so they gave up.
[01:09] <kees> lol. form fails too. "This does not appear to be a valid email address"
[01:10] <wgrant> What sort of strange email address is it?
[01:10] <kees> it's extremely long.
[01:11] <wgrant> My guess is "perfectly valid, but sufficiently odd that SalesForce hates it"
[01:11] <kees> 104 characters
[01:11] <wgrant> Hah
[01:11] <kees> that form is sales-force driven? weird
[01:11] <kees> can you look up Oopses?
[01:11] <kees> 2127carambolalaunchpad57
[01:11] <wgrant> We can't see SSO OOPSes, no.
[01:11] <kees> ah, dang
[01:11] <wgrant> Perhaps I will harass a LOSA to get it for me, though.
[01:12] <spm> hola kees!
[01:12] <kees> heya spm! :)
[01:18] <spm> kees: you have a really odd email address. just sayin'
[01:18] <kees> spm: heheh it's an old test account
[01:18] <kees> I created it before SSO was attached to LP
[01:18] <spm> uh huh. :-)
[01:19] <kees> spm: should I just open a bug for it? (if so, which project?)
[01:19] <spm> we're just getting the oops pasted internally atm; so I suspect we'll be able to get a bug for you.
[01:19] <spm> can id provider? smething like that. one sec.
[01:20] <spm> https://bugs.launchpad.net/canonical-identity-provider/
[01:20] <kees> spm: do you mean you're opening a bug ("get a bug for you") or should I open one?
[01:21] <spm> get, as in open. yes.
[01:21] <kees> okidoky. :) thanks!
[01:26] <wgrant> kees: Did you know that Django's EmailField has an unoverridable maxlength of 75 characters? :)
[01:26] <spm> he should know. it sounds like a security feature.
[01:26] <kees> wgrant: heheh
[01:27] <kees> "unoverridable" as in my browser limits the POST that I can intercept? ;)
[01:27] <lifeless> djangos code ignores attempts to overrid
[01:27] <kees> lifeless: truncation?
[01:28] <lifeless> kees: assertion
[01:28] <kees> neato
[02:27] <smoser> ugh.
[02:27] <smoser> $ bzr push  --overwrite
[02:27] <smoser> Using saved push location: bzr+ssh://bazaar.launchpad.net/%2Bbranch/ubuntu/oneiric/cloud-init/
[02:27] <smoser> bzr: ERROR: Revision {smoser@ubuntu.com-20110923132433-90y1d9yfuzwnalsz} not present in "Graph(StackedParentsProvider(bzrlib.repository._LazyListJoin(([CachingParentsProvider(None)], []))))".
[02:28] <smoser> anyone know what is up there?
[02:28] <smoser> maxb, (you've helped me with similar issues before)
[02:32] <smoser> i seem to have a full and valid repo locally, but launchpad's branch doesn't fair so well.
[02:34] <smoser> maybe a less destructive example:
[02:34] <smoser> $ bzr branch lp:ubuntu/oneiric/cloud-init
[02:34] <smoser> bzr: ERROR: Revision {smoser@ubuntu.com-20110923132433-90y1d9yfuzwnalsz} not present in "Graph(StackedParentsProvider(bzrlib.repository._LazyListJoin(([CachingParentsProvider(None)], []))))".
[02:37] <lifeless> bzr check ?
[02:38] <wgrant> This is probably fallout from the failed branch-distro.
[02:40] <wgrant> Hm, although cloud-init seemed to pass the subsequent check successfully.
[03:54] <smoser> lifeless, bzr check output at http://paste.ubuntu.com/721290/
[08:18] <danhg>  
[08:37] <danhg> Anyone using Colloquy and having issues with it today?
[13:32] <Mez> Any of the commercial team here? I can't see Mr Revell
[13:56] <allenap> bac: Can you field commercial enquiries? Mez is asking.
[13:56] <bac> allenap: yes, i'm the new mrevell until after UDS
[13:56] <bac> hi mez
[13:56] <allenap> bac: Awesome :)
[13:57] <nigelb> heh
[14:43] <janimo> jelmer, hi, do you know how a tag list is to be passed to the searchTasks API call? a string with a certain separator between the tags?
[14:51] <tumbleweed> janimo: IIRC it's a list
[14:51] <janimo> tumbleweed, how is that passed in a GET?
[14:52] <janimo> the docs indeed say a list
[14:52] <janimo> I just do not know how to send it
[14:52]  * tumbleweed doesn't know lplib in that detail :) do a query in python, with httplib2's debug flag enabled
[14:55] <janimo> tumbleweed, thanks. I try to use the Go lpad libs, I do not know lplib at all. But grepping it I could not find searchTask, so I assume it creates requests from ws_ops you give it?
[14:55] <janimo> on the fly without providing explicit wrappers?
[15:04] <bigjools> janimo: just pass a Python list
[15:04] <janimo> bigjools, ok I'll try. thanks
[15:28] <Renegade15> good day
[15:28] <Renegade15> I have come with another question regarding the XML bug import
[15:29] <Renegade15> does the order of comments inside the XML file actually matter, or are the comments reordered by date anyway? (either during import or during DB-output later)
[15:37] <allenap> Renegade15: I'll look...
[15:44] <allenap> Renegade15: It's assumed that the first comment is the bug description, in absence of an explicit description. After that there does not seem to be any assumption made in the *importer*. However, I suspect that comments are sometimes ordered by id because that is ordinarily guaranteed to be date order. So, my advice would be to ensure that the comments are sorted oldest to newest.
[15:44] <Renegade15> I see
[15:45] <Renegade15> thank you
[15:50] <allenap> Renegade15: Also, note the advice about comments in https://help.launchpad.net/Bugs/ImportFormat: "A bug has one or more comments. The first comment duplicates the reporter, datecreated, title, description of the bug." This means that the first comment is essentially the initial bug report, and must always be present. If a description is provided it overrides the first comment's text; that's what has happened when "View original description
[15:50] <allenap> " appears in the web UI.
[15:50] <Renegade15> yeah, I've got the first comment hardcoded
[15:51] <Renegade15> the particular issue I'm having is that Mantis attaches attachments to the bug, whereas LP attaches them to comments
[15:51] <Renegade15> so now I have to build a timeline of comments and attachments in order to have them appear correctly
[15:52] <Renegade15> could I be sure the system would order by date, I could just have dumped them by type and let the system figure it out ^^
[15:54] <allenap> Renegade15: You could attach them all to the first comment, or we could fix the bug importer to sort comments by date.
[15:54] <Renegade15> yeah, the former would be the easy way out...but also the ugly one
[15:54] <Renegade15> the latter would probably be overkill
[15:55] <Renegade15> I'm currently trying to let Mantis's database sort it out via full outer join
[18:25] <stgraber> hey everyone, currently at the LTSP hackfest, would be great if someone could process https://answers.launchpad.net/launchpad/+question/176650, thanks!
[18:26] <TheEvilPhoenix> i hate to be an ass, but...
[18:26] <TheEvilPhoenix> stgraber:  you need patience :P
[18:27] <TheEvilPhoenix> i take it you only posted it  about 5 minutes ago or something :P
[18:27] <TheEvilPhoenix> yep
[18:27] <TheEvilPhoenix> stgraber:  as i said, patience P