[08:44] <adeuring> good morning
[09:48] <jml> wgrant: why should I upgrade to Python 3.3?
[09:50] <lifeless> jml: new unicode representation
[09:50] <czajkowski> lifeless: \o/
[09:50] <jml> ah.
[09:51] <lifeless> czajkowski: o/
[10:27] <wgrant> jml: yeah, what lifeless said
[10:32] <jml> hm
[10:32] <jml> what would be better is being able to express my query without O(N) roundtrips.
[10:33] <jml> *sigh*
[10:56] <wgrant> yeah :/
[14:03] <willcooke> hi czajkowski
[14:04] <czajkowski> willcooke: hiya adeuring will be able to help
[14:04] <willcooke> hi adeuring
[14:04] <willcooke> adeuring: I'm getting this:
[14:04] <willcooke> Write failed: Broken pipe
[14:04] <willcooke> ConnectionReset reading response for 'BzrDir.open_2.1', retrying
[14:04] <willcooke> Write failed: Broken pipe
[14:04] <willcooke> bzr: ERROR: Connection closed: Unexpected end of message. Please check connectivity and permissions, and report a bug if problems persist.
[14:05] <willcooke> I've checked my SSL keys
[14:05] <adeuring> I am not a bazzar expert... abentley,does this ^^^ ring a bell?
[14:07] <abentley> adeuring, willcooke: This sounds like the connection is being dropped prematurely.
[14:08] <abentley> I had a few connections dropped recently, but it's working fine for me right now.
[14:08] <willcooke> abentley: so you think network problem this end?
[14:09] <abentley> willcooke: Yes, that's most likely.  If we start getting this issue with more people, then it would be more likely on our end.
[14:10] <abentley> willcooke: What's the command you're issuing?
[14:10] <willcooke> abentley: kk - thx.  I'll try from a server somewhere and see what happens.
[14:10] <willcooke> cheers all
[15:17] <abentley> adeuring: Could you please review https://code.launchpad.net/~abentley/launchpad/transitive-confidential/+merge/135926 ?
[15:17] <adeuring> abentley: sure
[15:44] <adeuring> abentley: r=me, with some concerns about possibly bad user experience
[15:46] <abentley> adeuring: That is a fair point.  I can update it so that there is an actual form validation for information type, instead of handling CannotChangeInformationType exceptions.  Can it do it in the follow-on branch?
[15:47] <adeuring> abentley: sure, I did not expect that you wnated to do another round before landing the branch ;)
[15:47] <abentley> adeuring: Exactly :-)
[15:49] <abentley> adeuring: I'm going to try that idea for validation that I had, where you have a validation generator that yields exceptions.  The form validation will list the exceptions, but the storm validator will raise the first exception it encounters (if any).
[15:50] <adeuring> abentley: nice idea!
[15:51] <abentley> adeuring: Thanks.
[17:57] <apw> if i have a bug which is no longer spawning new nominations (it is suspected someone has deleted on in the past), is that bug forever hosed or can they be fixed
[18:02] <czajkowski> allenap: ^^^
[18:03] <mgz> gavin is soo weekended already
[18:03] <mgz> and the US is all off
[18:04] <mgz> apw: post the problem to the launchpad-users mailing list so it doesn't get forgotten by monday