[00:05] <ovnicraft> so i get working bzr send but i want to know if there is any web tool to scan the email or mail list check the patches and manage it  ?
[00:21] <spiv> ovnicraft: bundlebuggy
[00:23] <ovnicraft> yes i am trying to install, but last update was in 2009
[00:23] <ovnicraft> is not a good signal
[00:33] <ovnicraft> i can't install it
[00:33] <ovnicraft> there is any another tool like it?
[07:03] <vila> hi all (and a special hi to 7 digits lp bugs ;)
[08:03] <mgz> morning all!
[08:12] <mgz> bug 1000000
[08:12] <mgz> ehehhee
[08:14] <fullermd> Who knew apple was causing so many problems?
[08:18] <bob2> if it's the same price, it doesn't really address the listed problems (but of course: FREEDOM)
[08:23] <vila> mgz: hehe, too bad you don't have IRC logs ;O)
[08:29] <fullermd> Of course an iPad is, what, like 400 bucks?  So fixing a bug on LP should be worth...  $26,800...
[08:29]  * fullermd gets hacking.
[08:30]  * bob2 kicks in $5
[09:34] <fullermd> The sad part of getting a mail from PQM on -commits is that it underlines how few mails have come from PQM on -commits of late...
[09:40] <mgz> indeed.
[10:15] <bob2> fullermd, otoh, PQM LIVES
[10:17]  * fullermd dives for a shotgun.
[10:23] <mgz> ha, christian perrier complaining about inflated launchpad bug count,
[10:24] <jam> mgz: because of the 1M rollover?
[10:24] <mgz> and too many dupes of bug 728840 on samba4... which jelmer fixed!
[10:24] <bob2> the ipad one above seemed to have used spamming to get the round number
[10:25] <mgz> yeah, flooding bug reports to get the magic number is a little silly, but it's not unusual
[10:25] <mgz> I remember peeps doing it to get a magic number wikipedia article
[10:25] <fullermd> Is that supposed to be a _supporting_ argument?  :p
[10:26] <bob2> tl;dr some people are lame, film at 11
[10:26] <jelmer> mgz: I don't think bubulle is really complaining about the bug numbers
[10:26] <jelmer> mgz: more about the fact that there are so many bug reports that aren't particularly useful
[10:26] <mgz> jelmer: but the whol point of errors.ubuntu.com and related work for precise was to improve this
[10:26] <bob2> making bug reporting very easy isn't without downsides :)
[10:26] <mgz> and the samba4 thing he's complaining about isn't even new
[10:27] <jelmer> mgz: for precise, we still good a flood of duplicate bug reports
[10:27] <jelmer> mgz: all of which had to be marked as dupes
[10:28] <mgz> right, the crash deduping stuff isn't perfect, but it's (mostly) a big improvement
[10:28] <mgz> there's only one 9-series bug in that impressive dupe list.
[10:28] <jelmer> mgz: it doesn't seem to be working for the samba4 package
[10:29] <jelmer> mgz: the bug only occurs for the upgrade to oneiric afaik
[10:32] <mgz> certainly the crash stuff on precise has mostly worked for me, pointed at (already fixed) bug reports where they existed
[10:33] <mgz> though didn't do anything useful for one with a smashed stack (unsuprisingly)
[10:33] <jelmer> I've been doing a lot of manual bug duping for samba4 in precise too, so it certainly doesn't seem to work for that
[10:34] <jelmer> related, opening the stracktraces attached to those automated bug reports in chromium/firefox (often the only way to see what the bug is about) has quite a bit of overhead
[10:35] <jelmer> I do think we have made progress, but I also agree with bubulle that (at least for the samba4 package) the automated bug reports are more of a nuisance than really useful at this point.
[10:35] <mgz> right, launchpad attachments aren't the best way of looking at that info
[10:36] <mgz> really they need to link back to the new fancy stuff
[10:43] <jelmer> mgz: hmm, errors.ubuntu.com is interesting
[10:44] <mgz> it's a mini version of the really nice crash stuff mozilla have had for ages
[10:44] <jelmer> mgz: it seems it has only reports for specific packages though
[10:44] <mgz> which is great for analysing crash frequency and causes
[10:44] <jelmer> mgz: so it's not apport based then?
[10:44] <mgz> I'm not sure on all the details, it's Evan's baby
[10:45] <jelmer> ah
[14:06] <bialix> hi all
[14:11] <jelmer> hi bialix
[14:19] <mgz> hey alexander
[14:28] <vila> hey bialix
[14:28] <vila> ha, too late ;)
[14:29] <mgz> just missed, vila :)
[14:30] <vila> hey bialix
[14:30] <bialix> hi bzr-core guys!
[14:30] <vila> darn, sound broken again...
[14:30] <bialix> what is your plans about new releases?
[14:30] <jelmer> vila: *piiiing*
[14:30] <mgz> bialix: well, we really need to release 2.5.1 with the various fixes
[14:31] <bialix> it seems all you are very busy last months, it's very quiet in ML/merge proposals
[14:32] <mgz> right, we've not been working on bzr
[14:42] <bialix> mgz: can I ask why?
[14:43] <mgz> meh, we should have posted something to the list ages back
[14:43] <mgz> so, I'm still not sure what we're going to be working on next month
[14:44] <mgz> but we're not on bzr feature work for the forseeable future.
[14:45] <mgz> jam is doing sprint hand-off this week of the U1 work he was doing on rotation since the autumn
[14:46] <mgz> then hopefully we can get a few things better sorted out.
[18:38] <bjp> is something wrong with this revisionspec: -rbefore:date:2012-05-03,11:34:00
[18:39] <bjp> i'm getting 'requested revision does not exist in branch' but there are plenty of revisions and the last one is from before that
[18:44] <james_w> bjp, "bzr help revisionspec" reads like there has to be a revision after the date in question for that to work
[18:45] <bjp> for -rdate:, but i read (somewhere) that -rbefore:date:  grabs one before that date
[18:45] <james_w> bjp, it probably grabs the revision before the one pointed to by the date thing
[18:45] <bjp> ooh
[18:46] <james_w> before(date) rather than (before date)
[18:46] <bjp> so i need to do a special case for last revision older than date? (i'm trying to batch some bzr commands)
[18:47] <james_w> bjp, that's what it reads like, but I'm not positive
[20:41] <thopiekar> hello. Using "bzr branch ftp://<user>:<pass>@<ip>/<dir>/<branch>/ " gives me the error that the connection has been refused and using bzrlib in a python script gives the same error: http://pastebin.com/mb6aPK7p
[21:11] <lifeless> thopiekar: that suggests that the ftp server isn't running or is firewalled
[21:41] <thopiekar> but the link is working as you put it into a browser or connect to it via ftp client
[21:41] <thopiekar> lifeless: ^
[21:43] <thopiekar> and I get the same error when using the local ip in my private network (no firewall)
[22:06] <thopiekar> something similar when pushing code via ftp: http://pastebin.com/WiEv4FHk