[05:50] <lotuspsychje> what is the use for this channel? can one paste a bug in here?
[05:53] <lifeless> its for discussion and mutual support by launchpad.net users
[05:54] <lotuspsychje> lifeless: well i have a bug thats been unsolved for years now, can i paste this in here?
[05:56] <lifeless> if you want
[05:56] <lifeless> if its an ubuntu bug, #ubuntu-bugs may be a better channel for doing that.
[05:56] <lotuspsychje> lifeless:oh tnx for info mate
[08:38] <Daviey> Hey.. https://code.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-cdimage/debian-cd/ubuntu seems stuck, wedged.  The Forbidden it reports is not accurate from my local test :/
[08:41] <czajkowski> ah  This branch may be out of date, because Launchpad has not been able to access it since 2012-08-17.
[08:42] <czajkowski> wgrant: how does one prod the branch?
[08:42] <StevenK> I'm not sure where the puller runs, but that machine may not have access to lillypilly, which is probably the first thing to check
[09:04] <czajkowski> jelmer: could you loook into the above please?
[09:06] <jelmer> Daviey: alternatively, you can remove this branch and reregister that mirror which will likely fix this
[09:07] <jelmer> Daviey: this is an old-style bzr branch mirror - a new one would use the code import system, which uses different code and machines
[10:44] <ricotz> wgrant, hello, do you mind resetting/restarting https://launchpad.net/~ricotz/+archive/ppa/+build/3758126
[10:55] <Daviey> jelmer: Hey, confirmed deleting and re-creating resolved the issue.  Odd that the old system suddenly broke.. Oh well, it's good now. Thanks
[10:59] <wgrant> Daviey: Not really odd. A deprecated, little-used, obscure service broke when a service was moved from one DC and network to another in a few hours :)
[10:59] <wgrant> In this case I suspect squid.internal isn't letting the codehosting server talk to anything.
[11:01] <wgrant> ricotz: This isn't really a viable solution...
[11:04] <jelmer> wgrant: I was hoping to spend some time this maintenance cycle to finally kill off the code mirror system, but alas
[11:04] <wgrant> jelmer: You got most of the way :)
[11:04] <ricotz> wgrant, i know, reducing the size is really not possible currently to make it fit on any builder, the workaround while reducing the language packs is also an option imo
[11:05] <czajkowski> ricotz: why cant the size be reu
[11:05] <czajkowski> ricotz: why cant the size be reduced?
[11:06] <Daviey> wgrant: Maybe i'm old-fashioned, but i find seemingly undeclared deprecated services to remain operational :)
[11:06] <Daviey> find it odd*
[11:06] <ricotz> czajkowski, i guess if it were that easy it would be done already, but i am not that familiar with the internal buildsys
[11:06] <wgrant> Daviey: Sure, but it's not unsurprising that it was missed
[11:07] <wgrant> Daviey: Given just about nobody uses it any more (it's been replaced by imports, and most of the old mirrors have been replaced)
[11:07] <ricotz> wgrant, czajkowski, but please dont cancel it since the i386 is done
[11:09] <ricotz> wgrant, e.g. "king" or "louvi" will work for sure
[11:15] <Daviey> wgrant: yeah.. i'm not even quite sure why we are doing it this way around.. Anyway.. thanks.
[12:19] <ricotz> wgrant, i am not sure if i missed a message while it is seems i got disconnected -- do you dont like to reset the mentioned build?
[12:27] <karni> How do I grab sinzui to talk about product release manager? He seems not to have been around recently (or it's the timezone)
[12:42] <wgrant> karni: He was on leave last week, but should be back today. What's the issue?
[12:44] <karni> wgrant: Cool. Product release finder seems not to work for me. https://launchpad.net/ubuntuone-android-files/trunk -- Release URL pattern is http://people.canonical.com/~karni/android/u1f/u1f-1.*google.apk - and the u1f-1.2.4-google.apk has been there since august 22, but hasn't made it to lp
[12:44] <karni> wgrant: I was trying to set this up for the first time, but either I'm doing something wrong, or it's not catching on.
[12:44] <karni> see: http://people.canonical.com/~karni/android/u1f/
[12:44] <wgrant> Oh, release finder, not release manager :)
[12:45] <karni> wgrant: sorry
[12:46] <wgrant> I'm not quite sure why that wouldn't work
[12:46] <wgrant> I don't know that code as well as sinzui, sadly
[12:46] <wgrant> Be should be around soonish
[12:46] <karni> wgrant: Thank you.
[14:51] <mpt> Huh
[14:51] <mpt> I wasn't expecting "Hide comment" to do that
[14:52] <mpt> not hide it, but make it dark grey
[14:53] <jelmer> mpt: it doesn't actually hide the comment for users who cam modify comment visibility
[14:53] <jelmer> mpt: but it does hide it for the rest of the world
[14:53] <mpt> I see
[14:54] <mpt> I wonder if that could be more obvious
[14:54] <czajkowski> mpt: how more obvious than dark grey ?
[14:55] <mpt> Maybe that does need text, "Other people won't see this comment"
[14:57] <mpt> czajkowski, something like div.boardComment.hidden .boardCommentBody {opacity: 20%}
[14:58] <mpt> i.e. fade it out
[15:00] <czajkowski> mpt: npt sure I know on day one when I tried it as I do it a lot for spam it was very clear to me that nobody else would see it
[15:00] <czajkowski> mpt: if you feel that strong about it file a bug and it'll get looked at
[15:00] <czajkowski> it might be an easy fix
[15:00] <jelmer> mpt: fading it out seems reasonable
[15:10] <mpt> czajkowski, jelmer, ok, reported bug 1045380
[15:15] <jelmer> mpt: thanks
[16:12] <TheLordOfTime> timeouts on certain source package pages: OOPS-f00eb5ead4b58472c250c3751f979d4e
[16:14] <czajkowski> bah the bot has the old url
[16:14] <TheLordOfTime> czajkowski:  i still gave you the OOPS :P
[16:14] <czajkowski> I am looking
[16:14] <czajkowski> on the new one two ticks
[16:14]  * czajkowski kicks the server...
[16:15] <TheLordOfTime> its a timeout, like the dozens of other timeouts i get when accessing certain source packages
[16:15] <TheLordOfTime> and sometimes it randomly times out on the ubuntu project page, but you know, i'm just used to that happening
[16:15] <czajkowski> TheLordOfTime: aye but we do log a bug about them matsubara reviews the oops the next time
[16:16] <TheLordOfTime> if i posted every OOPS i got in a week, the channel would have a page of just my OOPS posts :P
[16:16] <czajkowski> TheLordOfTime: well indeed
[16:31] <ricotz> czajkowski, hello
[16:31] <czajkowski> ricotz: hi
[16:32] <ricotz> czajkowski, sorry for bothering
[16:32] <ricotz> but there is still this build https://launchpad.net/~ricotz/+archive/ppa/+build/3758126
[16:32] <ricotz> could you please get it restarted without canceling it
[16:33] <czajkowski> ricotz: yes wgrant didnt answer that so I assume yuo couldnt
[16:33] <czajkowski> I just checked back the logs of chat here.
[16:34] <ricotz> czajkowski, i see, but i know it is possible to do
[16:35] <czajkowski> I'm sure wgrant has a good reason not to recommend doing it
[16:35] <czajkowski> he's been around a lot longer than I have ricotz
[16:36] <ricotz> czajkowski, the reason it that this build takes about 25gb+, but there are many builders capable of it
[16:36] <ricotz> but it is kind of a 50:50 chance to get the working one
[16:37] <ricotz> i have 8 working builder in my list and 6 which will fail
[16:37] <czajkowski> ricotz: 12:01 < wgrant> ricotz: This isn't really a viable solution...
[16:38] <czajkowski> ricotz: so again I'll say that if wgrant says it's not a good ideas I'm not as experienced as he is and I'll wait for him to come up wth something else .
[16:39] <ricotz> czajkowski, he is aware of the size problem and probably like the idea of "trying"
[16:39] <ricotz> but leaving the current builder occupied is not what i want
[16:40] <ricotz> so simply resetting it, and giving it free with the chance to get a working builder, is IMO a reasonable step knowing the i386 build already successfully finished
[16:41] <czajkowski> ricotz: right but you suggested that this morning and wgrant said not a viabale solution
[16:42] <ricotz> czajkowski, ok, but my only option here would be to cancel the build and upload another one to get some progress :\
[16:42] <czajkowski> yes as the last time I requested a restart it ended up being canceled
[16:42] <ricotz> and this is what i want to avoid since the i386 is there already
[16:44] <ricotz> czajkowski, ok, but i know it is possible, and has been done several times
[16:44] <czajkowski> I've asked
[16:45] <ricotz> thanks
[16:45] <czajkowski> ricotz: just because it's been done doesn't make it correct either :)
[16:45] <ricotz> czajkowski, i see, but it is a better solution than building i386 again
[16:46] <ricotz> if this works out i have another libreoffice build on a problematic builder (which failed in the past)
[17:01] <czajkowski> ricotz: I've asked and no it's not possible to do as you request
[17:02] <ricotz> czajkowski, alright, thanks