/srv/irclogs.ubuntu.com/2012/08/17/#launchpad-dev.txt

=== skaet_ is now known as skaet
StevenKwgrant: I thought bug supervisor turned up on IProduct:+edit ?02:16
StevenKAh02:17
StevenKConfigure bug tracker02:17
StevenKIE, UI trainwreck02:17
cjwatsonNCommander: but the trend in Launchpad itself is to start trying to split things out into microservices where possible, rather than embedding them all in a single giant webapp03:11
cjwatson(and for those to be affiliated to Launchpad in the necessary ways)03:12
NCommandercjwatson: er, wasn't one of the motivations of writing launchpad in the first place to prevent having a million microapps (i.e., bugzilla+dak)03:52
NCommanderI don't personally care one way or another, but having centralized one-stop place for packages/images/builds/archives makes a lot of sense to me03:53
lifelesswhat did I miss ?03:55
wgrant13:10:00 -!- lifeless [~robertc@125.7.18.100] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]03:57
wgrant13:11:24 < cjwatson> NCommander: but the trend in Launchpad itself is to start trying to split things out into microservices where possible, rather than embedding them all in a single giant webapp03:57
wgrant13:12:18 < cjwatson> (and for those to be affiliated to Launchpad in the necessary ways)03:57
wgrant13:23:44 -!- lifeless [~robertc@125.7.18.100] has joined #launchpad-dev03:57
lifelesswgrant: thanks04:02
lifelessNCommander: separate codebase != separate UI || siloed behaviour04:03
lifelessNCommander: LP set out to create an integrated set of behaviours04:03
NCommanderWhich it succeeded at04:03
lifelessNCommander: separate services provide natural scaling and HA boundaries, assuming the services are well defined04:03
lifelessNCommander: bugzilla vs dak is not the same as microservices making up the whole product.04:03
NCommanderFair enough04:04
lifelessNCommander: for an example of another microservice approach, look at s3 + ec2 + cloudscaling etc04:04
NCommanderTHat being said, I stilla rgue that ISO mastering would fall under Launchpad; image builds are already dependent on the LP service and this provides ways for flavors to control their own respins/etc.04:04
lifelessconsistent feel, integrated management consoles and so on, but very focused facilities that are orthogonal04:04
lifelessI think iso mastering should move onto the regular buildds.04:05
cjwatsonNo.04:05
cjwatsonThe live filesystem component should move onto the regular buildds.04:05
cjwatsonIt doesn't make sense for the whole of ISO mastering to do so.04:05
lifelesscjwatson: whats the difference there, and why?04:06
cjwatsonThe line I'm drawing is the part that can be run architecture-independently, and that benefits from being on a machine with a full local mirror etc.04:06
cjwatsonThe live filesystem component is the part that must be run on a system of the target architecture.04:07
cjwatsonAnd that certainly belongs on the buildds.04:07
lifelesscjwatson: you need to run the arch indep part one per arch though, right ?04:07
cjwatsonYes, but there are useful economies of scale.04:08
lifelesscjwatson: from bandwidth access to the mirror ?04:08
cjwatsonFor example.04:08
cjwatsonMore like same filesystem, since some ISOs use hardlink trees.04:09
lifelesscjwatson: ah, interesting. I haven't climbed into that code.04:09
lifelesscjwatson: thanks.04:09
cjwatsonMaybe the importance of this will change as more things move to live CDs, but I don't want that to entirely dominate the design.04:09
lifelesscjwatson: do you reuse the hardlink trees for things on different days ?04:10
cjwatsonI'm not sure I understand the question.04:10
lifelessIIUC you build N > 1 ISOs using hardlink trees for common content  ?04:10
cjwatsonWe reuse the mirror.  But hardlink trees are cheap to build so we just do that afresh for each image build.04:11
lifelessWhen you build the same targets the next day, do you build fresh hardlink trees, or evolve the prior one ?04:11
cjwatsonThe former, then.04:11
lifelessanyhow. I'm actually arguing for horizontal scalability and automated from-scratch provisioning of the build system, rather than 'use the buildds' per se.04:12
lifelesscloser to stateless etc etc etc04:12
cjwatsonIn terms of scaling, building live filesystems massively dominates; we're a long way off the point where the central system has any trouble keeping up with the extra bits and pieces of ISO mastering it does at the rate that separate builders can deliver live filesystems.04:13
cjwatsonObviously that changes at some point horizontally but it's quite some distance away.04:14
lifelesskk04:14
NCommanderI was more considering the possibility of removing squashfs builds are a seperate step and merely master an entire ISO in a single go on a buildd04:16
NCommander*/2 cents*04:16
cjwatsonI know you were, but I don't think that's desirable at this point.04:16
lifelesscjwatson: what downside do you see?04:17
cjwatsonSee above.04:17
cjwatsonIn any case I don't think this should even need to be considered for livefs-in-LP work.04:18
cjwatsonAs far as that's concerned, the build job should be calling BuildLiveCD or some equivalent.04:18
lifelesscjwatson: above you discussed efficiencies, but unless you hit a bottleneck that doesn't translate to a specific or even necessary downside.04:18
cjwatsonWhat it outputs is the business of the job and the consumer, not of LP.04:18
cjwatsonlifeless: The downside is that we should be moving to livefs-in-LP without having to refactor the entire cdimage build system along the way.04:18
cjwatsonAnd it's actually really quite a considerable amount of code to move around.04:19
lifelesscjwatson: so, two separate [potential] migrations, rather than one that moves + rearranges? If so I concur.04:19
* NCommander agrees with that, as moving the squashfs building is considerably less diserpative ATM04:20
NCommanderand as I said in the beginning, long-term [potential] goal04:20
lifelesscjwatson: also, wth are you awake?04:21
cjwatson*You're* asking me that? :-)04:22
* NCommander is dealing with a rather mysterious issue that the buildd complains UNKNOWNSUM04:22
NCommanderWOrks with a precise chroot sha1sum, breaks with a lucid one04:22
cjwatson(Random insomnia)04:22
NCommandergrep "No URL" -r *04:23
NCommanderer04:23
NCommanderoh04:24
NCommanderthe only reason my trigger code worked was the precise chroot was cached in the filecache for the buildd04:24
NCommandercjwatson: do we have any images that still require livecd.sh? (I have a handler that calls that, live-build, and ubuntu-defaults-image)04:28
=== jtv1 is now known as jtv
StevenKlifeless: I see your iwl is as stable as ever.04:50
lifelessStevenK: I'm on ethernet04:53
lifelessStevenK: Hotel ethernet.04:53
StevenKThat's as stable as iwl04:53
StevenKwgrant: What sort of cruft is sinzui talking about it bug 1036189?04:54
wgrantStevenK: eg. if I set my project to only use Proprietary bugs and branches, and I change all the Private and Private Security artifacts to Proprietary, there's no need to keep Private and Private Security around05:02
wgrantThe APs and APGs can be deleted.05:02
StevenKThat sounds more like a job Job rather than a garbo05:04
wgrantStevenK: We'd have to trigger it on every transitionToInformationType05:05
wgrantSo no05:05
StevenKRight05:06
StevenKwgrant: So if it's a garbo what do I search on?05:06
wgrantStevenK: Hm?05:06
StevenKwgrant: So if I want to pick products that need AP{,G}s deleted, how do I do it?05:08
wgrantStevenK: Find APs that are forbidden, and then find the subset that are unused05:09
StevenKwgrant: Right, so find APs that do not make sense given what the product is set up for.05:10
wgrantStevenK: Right05:11
lifelesswgrant: StevenK: and you won't let folk file bugs that noone-can-see?05:25
wgrantlifeless: We will, but the project owner would have to explicitly revoke the permission05:26
wgrantThe default is always that the owner can see each type05:26
lifelessnote too the race conditions at the time of revoking05:26
wgrant(and the owner gets a warning on +sharing if they do that)05:26
wgrantOh?05:26
lifelessnew bug of the type the permission is being revoked for05:27
lifelessowner may think there are none, but \/ races05:27
wgrantWe don't prevent filing a bug that nobody can see05:27
lifelesssure05:27
wgrantIf the project owner wants to do stupid things, we let them do stupid things, but they can easily recover05:27
lifelesssaying that doesn't mean humans won't assume ...05:27
lifelesssame race exists for setting the project to only proprietary, if you do stuff inline, of course.05:28
wgrantChanging the allowed types (eg. setting the sharing policy to Proprietary only) doesn't affect existing artifacts.05:29
wgrantBut it does stop you from making new ones of the illegal types05:29
lifelesscool05:29
* StevenK tries to cook a query05:29
StevenKwgrant: So I'm looking for projects where bug_sharing_policy or branch_sharing_policy isn't PUBLIC and they have APs for PRIVATESECURITY and USERDATA. I'm guessing it's a little more complicated, but it seems those are the only policies that are excluded.05:40
StevenKwgrant: Right?05:52
wgrantStevenK: If you look near the top of lib/lp/code/model/branchnamespace.py you'll need the dict of allowed types05:53
wgrants/need/see/05:53
StevenKDoes that also follow through for bugs?05:54
wgrantThere's a similar one for bugs in a branch that I haven't landed yet. It's basically identical.05:54
wgrantwallyworld_: In the sharing_policy = PUBLIC garbo branch, would it be better to check that the project is set to public already (ie. not private_bugs and not exists branchvisibilitypolicy) rather than checking for the lack of a commercial subscription? If we're landing this now, it'll also mean that commercial project setup changes now.05:56
wgrantI'd suggest we defer landing it until new projects are being set up using sharing_policy05:56
wallyworld_wgrant: i'm not sure why commercial project setup would change? the job only updates non commercial projects05:57
wallyworld_we discussed the need to do this in the call - we wanted to ensure that the many projects were migrated for people before beta05:58
wgrantwallyworld_: If a project happens to accidentally be created non-commercial and only made commercial later, the old commercial setup procedure will appear to work, but do nothing05:58
wgrantprivate_bugs will be set, but bugs will be public05:59
wallyworld_sure, but if a project is made commercial, it would need to have it's sharing policy set at the same time05:59
wgrantRight, so we'd need to advise the people who do commercial setup (probably just czajkowski and us nowadays?) to unset sharing policies06:00
wgrantThat may be acceptable, but we need to say that first :)06:00
wallyworld_yes, curtis is all over it06:00
wgrantSounds good, then. But we do need to check that the project is actually configured to be public, not just that it has no commercial subscription.06:01
wgrantOr we may be in for a nasty surprise if anything's misconfigured.06:01
wgrantSince commercial admins can set private_bugs and BVPs without a commercial sub06:01
wgrantSo who knows what madness lies out there today...06:01
wallyworld_by "public" you mean check the licence?06:01
czajkowskiwgrant: morning06:01
spmheya czajkowski06:02
wgrantwallyworld_: Needs to have private_bugs = false, and there must be no BranchVisibilityPolicies at all06:02
wgrantczajkowski: Hi06:02
spmgentles all; is it still possible for people and/or teams to have name aliases? I can't seem to find any such UI modification for same any more? possibly it was only for projects??06:02
wallyworld_wgrant: so theoretically only commercial projects can have private_bugs = true right?06:02
wgrantspm: People/teams never could06:02
wgrantspm: Projects can06:02
czajkowskiI believe myself and mrevell will be talking to people who have commercial projects next weeek and going over the new setup with them once myself and mrevell know more and know fully about the set up06:02
spmwgrant: right. ta. I misrecall. thanks mon06:03
wgrantwallyworld_: Sort of06:03
wgrantwallyworld_: "theoretically" in that "in an ideal world, there's no reason for it to be any other way"06:03
wgrantwallyworld_: But it's by no means enforced or even suggested anywhere in LP that that should be the case06:03
wgrantAs a commercial admin, I can go over to Random Open Source Project and set private_bugs and make all branches private only to canonical.06:03
wgrantIn the old model06:04
wallyworld_and that would be a mistae, no?06:04
wgrantBy policy, yes.06:04
wgrantBut it will work absolutely fine.06:04
wgrantAnd LP won't warn you that you've done something that doesn't make sense.06:05
wgrantAnd isn't meant to be supported.06:05
wallyworld_so if it's not supported then the garbo job can do what makes sense, or?06:05
wgrantwallyworld_: It's not supported, but it may well exist and if it does then the current garbo algorithm will cause private stuff to become public.06:06
wallyworld_"unsupported" private stuff06:06
wgrants/it may well exist/there is no reason it wouldn't exist/06:06
wgrantSure06:06
wgrantBut someone making a silent misconfiguration when touching privacy is not a valid reason to make all their stuff public quietly :)06:07
wallyworld_ie if people don't have a commercial subscription, can they reasonably expect their stuff to be private?06:07
wgrantwallyworld_: If they set private_bugs to true and created private BVPs and LP didn't complain and it worked for 5 years, then yes.06:08
wallyworld_how would they set private bugs to true? i thought only an admin could do that?06:08
wgrantwallyworld_: We have admins all over the company06:08
wgrant(commercial admins, not just full admins)06:08
wgrantOEM, HWE, and even non-Canonical groups like Linaro have commercial admins06:09
wgrantLP doesn't make the supposed rules clear, so assuming that they've been followed is... not exactly reliable.06:09
wallyworld_hmmm, ok. i initially saw the issue as "freeloaders" no longer getting something they hadn't paid for06:10
wgrantWell, there's that side of the issue.06:10
wgrantBut that's relatively minor06:10
wgrantcompared to the risk of making confidential information public without telling anyone06:11
wallyworld_i can do a followup branch then to tighten the rules for what projects are migrated. custis seemed happy with the current approach when we discussed it during the call06:11
wgrantlaunchpad_dogfood=# SELECT COUNT(*) FROM product WHERE private_bugs AND NOT EXISTS (SELECT 1 FROM commercialsubscription WHERE commercialsubscription.product = product.id);06:14
wgrant count06:14
wgrant-------06:14
wgrant     806:14
wgrant(1 row)06:14
wgrantThat branch is dangerous :)06:14
wallyworld_fsvo06:14
wgrantThey're all canonical/linaro projects06:15
wgrantSo by definition not freeloaders06:15
wallyworld_do i really need to check bvp or is private_bugs sufficient?06:15
StevenKwgrant: I've been staring at this query for like ten minutes and still doesn't make sense. I know what I'm trying to say, but not how to say it. :-(06:17
czajkowskiwelcome to my world StevenK :)06:18
wgrantStevenK, wallyworld_: gimme a sec06:19
wgrantwallyworld_: There are 30 projects with private, private only, or forbidden BVPs and no commercial subscription06:20
StevenKczajkowski: Haha06:20
wallyworld_wgrant: ok, i'll add in bvp checks also06:20
czajkowskibvp?06:20
wgrantwallyworld_: Thanks.06:20
wgrantwallyworld_: I didn't think there'd be this many, tbh :/06:21
wallyworld_branch visibility policy06:21
czajkowskiahh yes *headdesk*06:21
wallyworld_czajkowski: they're going away soon so don't even bother to try and understand them :-)06:21
wallyworld_wgrant: i'd be ok to ignore bvp = public?06:36
wgrantwallyworld_: Yeah, projects that have become public afterwards can't have their BVPs removed, so they're just all set to public06:37
wgrantwallyworld_: A project behaves as if it has no BVPs if it only has public BVPs06:37
wallyworld_ok, so bvp > 1 in my query06:37
wgrantA single Private, Private Only or Forbidden rule means it's not public06:37
wallyworld_yep06:37
czajkowskihave folks come acorss liciencing choices/discussions  before on LP https://bugs.launchpad.net/launchpad/+bug/103768506:58
StevenKwgrant: So no help for me? :-(07:03
wgrantStevenK: Sorry, what do you have so far?07:04
StevenKwgrant: Roughly 'store.find(Product).find(Product, ' because I've trying to figure out how the next bit should look. :-(07:05
StevenKczajkowski: So project licensing we don't really tend to care about -- we really only care is it an open source license or not?07:06
wgrantStevenK: So, one thing you could do is batch through the products, grab their APs, compare them to the set07:07
czajkowskiStevenK: cant really reply with I don't care now can I :007:07
czajkowski:)07:07
wgrantStevenK: It's only going to be garbo-daily, so it doesn't need to be a stunningly fast single query07:07
StevenKwgrant: Right, I figured that bit07:08
wgrantStevenK: Then you compare the information types from the access policies with the ones allowed by *_sharing_policy. Any that don't match the sharing_policy, you query accesspolicyartifact to see if there are any artifacts using it. If not, you delete the APG and AP07:13
wgrants/APG/APGs/07:13
StevenKwgrant: Yes, I understand that bit, what I've been stuck on is how to tackle the query that finds if there is work to do.07:15
wgrantI'd just iterate through all the products07:16
wgrantThere's not very many in the scheme of things.07:16
wgrantAnd we only need to do this dailyish07:16
cjwatsonNCommander: no, livecd.sh is historical interest only.07:48
NCommandercjwatson: well, we still use it for old images, and generally, I think we want the capability to respin those until they leave support, no?07:48
adeuringgood morning07:56
cjwatsonNCommander: so the way it works is that we always build live images in a chroot of the relevant series, with the relevant series' livecd-rootfs installed08:13
cjwatsonNCommander: the only piece that's series-independent is BuildLiveCD08:13
cjwatsonNCommander: if at all possible I'd strongly recommend that you simply call BuildLiveCD08:13
NCommanderI'm aware. I'm re-implementing BuildLiveCD into the buildd slave.08:13
cjwatsonIs there a reason to do that rather than calling it?08:14
cjwatsonIt has quite a bit of distro-specific logic.08:14
NCommanderBuildLIveCD can't be series-independent because the chroots are always presisene unles syou want to pull it in from a PPA or other location08:14
cjwatsonBuildLiveCD isn't stored in the chroot.08:15
NCommanderIn addition, there isn't a lot of distro-specific logic, and by having the interface one level up, its easier to pass new options to build images or other engineering fun08:15
NCommandercjwatson: so then we want to install it on every buildd by hand? (or make it part of launchpad-buildd?08:15
cjwatsonIt's installed on every buildd by hand at the moment.08:15
cjwatsonI guess I can see the logic in reimplementing it.  If you do, you need to keep all the things it does, including, yes, livecd.sh.08:16
cjwatsonDamn, now that bizarre failure I was seeing in EC2 has infected buildbot.08:18
wgrantcjwatson: Which?08:22
wgrantI don't see one08:22
cjwatsonlp.soyuz.browser.tests.test_archive_webservice.TestArchiveWebservice.test_getAllPermissions_constant_query_count08:23
cjwatsonon db-devel08:23
=== almaisan-away is now known as al-maisan
wgrantcjwatson: It's odd that it's doing both cookie-based sessions and OAuth08:23
wgrantBut what's the extra query?08:24
cjwatsonMaybe; but the test is that there are the same number of queries for one perm vs. two.08:24
cjwatsonTrying to reproduce locally at the moment.08:24
wgrantI tend to just decrease the limit in the test to get it to give me a dump08:24
cjwatsonYeah.08:25
wgrantThen compare to the buildbot failure, and fail to work out what has changed :)08:25
cjwatsonI'm mostly waiting for my beard to grow while make runs, at the moment.08:25
wgrantHeh08:25
wgrantmake compile is pretty fast08:25
wgrantand usually sufficient for non-launchpadlib tests08:26
cjwatsonThis is a launchpadlib test.08:26
wgrantlaunchpadlib, or the test suite's webservice client thingy?08:26
cjwatsonLaunchpadWebServiceCaller plus launchpadlib_for, apparently.  I was slotting into the existing TestArchiveWebservice.08:27
wgrantAh08:27
cjwatsonBut I specifically wanted to ensure there was no late evaluation hidden in lazr.restful.08:27
wgrantWebServiceCaller doesn't need WADL, launchpadlib_for does08:27
wgrantRight08:27
cjwatsonIt must be at least slightly random, because my second attempt to get uefi-ppa-no-unapproved through EC2 succeeded.08:29
wgrantcjwatson: Right, this sort of thing often depends on whether you're the first webservice test in the process or not08:31
wgrantOh08:31
wgrantThis is probably complaining there's one too few queries.08:32
* wgrant counts..08:32
wgrantNo, one too many :(08:32
wgrantThere goes the session secret theory08:32
cjwatsonMm, it's expected != other.08:34
cjwatsonOh.  If I put another list(self.main_archive.getAllPermissions()) at the start of the test, that triggers the failure.  So that suggests it's something a bit like what you're suggesting.08:38
cjwatsonAlso, is lp.buildmaster.tests.test_builder.TestSlave.test_status_after_build a known-flaky test?08:39
cjwatsonThe extra query in the second run is "134-2193@SQL-main-master SELECT Component.id, Component.name FROM Component WHERE Component.id = 1 LIMIT 1".  Oddly, it's listed at the start.  I wonder if it's a leftover from the first run somehow08:46
cjwatsonAlso odd because there's already a "134-138@SQL-main-master SELECT Component.id, Component.name FROM Component WHERE Component.id = 1 LIMIT 1" in the first run.08:50
* cjwatson discovers record_two_runs, whose purpose seems to be to deal with this.09:04
=== mrevell_ is now known as mrevell
jmlwe'd like to get https://code.launchpad.net/~james-w/udd/binary-scanning-series/+merge/119248 landed, but I've forgotten how to do it for udd (tarmac? pqm? merge & hope?)09:10
maxbPlain old bzr09:45
cjwatsonwgrant: https://code.launchpad.net/~cjwatson/launchpad/testfix-getallpermissions/+merge/12009409:46
cjwatson(or any other reviewer really, but I was talking to wgrant about this above)09:46
wgrantcjwatson: Looking09:46
wgrantWell, once the diff is there09:47
wgrantAh, it won't be there for a while09:48
wgrantfdt09:48
* wgrant looks at loggerhead09:48
wgrantcjwatson: r=me. I didn't know about that nice helper.09:50
cjwatsonnor did I before grep happened to turn it up :)09:50
bachi adeuring are you reviewing today?12:26
=== bac changed the topic of #launchpad-dev to: http://dev.launchpad.net/ | On call reviewer: bac | Firefighting: - | Critical bugs: 4.0*10^2
adeuringbac:sorry, forgot to change the toipic..12:26
=== adeuring changed the topic of #launchpad-dev to: http://dev.launchpad.net/ | On call reviewer: bac, adeuring | Firefighting: - | Critical bugs: 4.0*10^2
bacadeuring, quite a few branches on +activereviews.  hope we can knock those out today.12:27
adeuringbac: ok, i'll start with "fix-.pocket-queue-admin-series"12:29
=== al-maisan is now known as almaisan-away
=== almaisan-away is now known as al-maisan
* deryck switches work locations, back online shortly14:28
cjwatsonadeuring: Thanks for your review of fix-pocket-queue-admin-series.  While I don't object to making the change you mentioned for clarity's sake, you said that it was in LP's style guide, and I can't find it anywhere in https://dev.launchpad.net/PythonStyleGuide or in at least the first few linked pages I looked through.  Could you point me to what I missed?15:16
adeuringcjwatson: let me see (actually, I claimed that this rule exists, but I haven't looked at our style guide for longer time...)15:17
adeuringcjwatson: https://dev.launchpad.net/CodeReviewChecklist?highlight=%28elif%2915:20
cjwatsonaha, thanks15:20
adeuringthough that might be cruft...15:20
adeuringcjwatson: the idea idea of the rule is that it should be clear that all possible cases of the if/elif/elif... are covered -- just prevent "casual" errors15:21
cjwatsonaye15:22
cjwatsonI've put it back now15:22
sinzuijcsackett: do you have time to discuss the IBranchEditableAttributes interface. Project maintainers don't have permission to use change the attrs. This is a problem since the branch is shared with the project, and they cannot respond to cases where data is disclosed, or the branch owner is no longer associated with the project.15:34
sinzuijcsackett: I want you to read the interface before we talk because I was surprised by some of the attrs in it15:35
=== salgado is now known as salgado-lunch
jcsackettsinzui: i'll put up the file now, and ping you in a few.15:41
jcsackettsinzui: short read. g+?15:44
sinzuiyes15:45
jcsackettsending invite momentarily.15:45
=== al-maisan is now known as almaisan-away
=== salgado-lunch is now known as salgado
=== matsubara is now known as matsubara-lunch
=== deryck is now known as deryck[lunch]
=== matsubara-lunch is now known as matsubara
sinzuibac: do you have time to review https://code.launchpad.net/~sinzui/launchpad/project-branch-permissions/+merge/12021918:57
=== deryck[lunch] is now known as deryck
cjwatsonIs there some way to get my testfix from devel earlier merged over to db-devel so that its buildbot can start working again?20:19
cjwatsonActually, isn't buildbot-poll supposed to do that?20:21
wgrantcjwatson: buildbot-poll will do it if the db-devel builder isn't in proper testfix mode20:37
lifelessbenji: added21:23
benjilifeless: thanks21:32
cjwatsonwgrant: I fear it may be in testfix mode, though22:36
cjwatsonSo does it need somebody to merge manually?22:36
wgrantcjwatson: Not sure if codehosting's still up, but indeed.22:41
wgrantYou can either merge the testfix branch, or just say the whole stable merge is a testfix.22:42
cjwatsonwgrant: with bzr lp-land or something more arcane?22:45
wgrantcjwatson: I'd just pqm-submit stable directly22:47
wgrantbzr pqm-submit -m '[testfix][r=foo] Merge db-stable rWHATEVER' --public-location=bzr+ssh://bazaar.launchpad.net/~launchpad-pqm/launchpad/stable --submit-branch=bzr+ssh://bazaar.launchpad.net/~launchpad-pqm/launchpad/db-devel22:48
wgrantor so22:48
cjwatsonok, will have a look in a bit, modulo whatever bits of LP are still alive22:48
cjwatsonwgrant: not being a reviewer, can I use r=wgrant?23:00
wgrantcjwatson: Be my guest23:00
cjwatsondone23:09
wgrantThanks.23:10
* cjwatson slightly freaked out by glimpsing "bzr: ERROR: no such option: -0" in PQM output23:10
wgrantI thought I'd removed that check.23:10
wgrantMaybe not23:10
wgrantIt's pointless and doesn't work any more, anyway23:11
NCommandercjwatson: ok, now that I slept on it. WHy do we want to keep BuildLiveCD? The API I have for Launchpad lets the client choosing the build choose the chroot and the series its building (by default, whatever series you choose to build will be built in said chroot aka; lucid build in lucid using livecd.sh, precise build in precise using live-buid (or ubuntu-default-image)23:14
NCommanderIs there another piece of functionality I'm overlooking?23:14
cjwatsonIt may not be too outrageous to replace BuildLiveCD with something equivalent, indeed.23:14
cjwatsonNow that I've thought about it, our process for modifying that involves RT.  Changing that to involve landing an LP branch might actually be an improvement.23:15
cjwatsonWould be easier to see what's currently running.23:15

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!