[00:31] <Jacky> annnd nothing
[07:27] <work_alkisg> Hi, we've configured our project to use launchpad translations, but we see daily commits of .po files instead of commits only when there are actual translation changes...
[07:29] <alkisg> Example: http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~ltsp-upstream/ltsp/ltsp-trunk/revision/2439
[07:29] <alkisg> With another project (epoptes), we only had automatic launchpad commits when the translations were actually changed
[07:30] <alkisg> Did launchpad get any update wrt translations that could have caused this behavior?
[12:13] <satoris> The staging launchpad has been down for several hours. Any ETA on when it will be back up?
[12:14] <czajkowski> let me go and see
[12:17] <satoris> Thanks.
[12:36] <czajkowski> satoris: abotu an hour or so
[12:37] <satoris> Check. Thanks for the info.
[13:56] <alkisg> Hi, we're getting daily translation commits even when we shouldn't:
[13:56] <alkisg> http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~ltsp-upstream/ltsp/ldm-trunk/revision/1462#po/el.po : "POT-Creation-Date: 2013-01-15 04:34+0000\n"
[13:56] <alkisg> http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~ltsp-upstream/ltsp/ldm-trunk/files/head:/po/ :      ldm.pot 1394  2011-07-13 04:47:23 UTC
[13:56] <alkisg> Why does launchpad think our .pot file has been changed?
[13:58] <czajkowski> alkisg: has this just started?
[13:58] <alkisg> I think we have some recipes that publish daily builds of ltsp, could that be related?
[13:58] <alkisg> czajkowski: I don't know, we've only enabled translations 4 days ago
[13:58] <alkisg> So I don't have enough data to judge
[13:59] <czajkowski> Gwaihir: is this normal for transaltions?
[13:59] <alkisg> I have another project that does _not_ do that
[13:59] <alkisg> As far as I can see, epoptes has the same translations configuration as ltsp, and epoptes doesn't have the problem, while ltsp does
[14:18] <shadeslayer> deryck: the package built fine on actual arm hardware btw
[14:19] <shadeslayer> ( sorry for disappearing abruptly last night )
[14:24] <deryck> shadeslayer, no worries. And other that that, I'm not sure.  wgrant would be a good person to ask about it, though he's not around not most likely.
[14:25] <shadeslayer> okay :)
[14:52] <satoris> Staging is still down. Any updates on it?
[14:52] <czajkowski> satoris: no there are updates going on and that machine is down until the work is complete.
[14:54] <satoris> Understood. Is there any sort of estimate on how long it is going to take?
[15:00] <czajkowski> satoris: within the next hour
[15:01] <satoris> Roger that. Thanks.
[21:41] <computa_mike> I have a question about the downloads option for a Launchpad project.  So I set up a project yesterday with code hosting.  I got the source recipe working, so it's building a deb file, but can't really see the point of the downloads section (for ubuntu projects anyway)
[21:42] <computa_mike> yeah - I suppose that's actually missing the question part... So what's the point of the downloads section?
[21:44] <dobey> computa_mike: it's for publishing source code releases of a project in tarball form, and such
[21:45] <dobey> computa_mike: launchpad != ubuntu, although it is used heavily for it. lots of projects on launchpad work on other versions of linux, and also other platforms.
[21:46] <computa_mike> dobey: yeah good point... as an ubuntu user it does seem so tightly integrated into the ubuntu project that you forget that it supports multiple platforms
[21:48] <computa_mike> dobey: thanks for the information.  I think I need to separate that launchpad / ubuntu framework.  I might try hosting some windows apps on there.  Might help reinforce that separation.
[21:50] <computa_mike> dobey: when I say separate launchpad / ubuntu - i meant like in my mind :)
[23:44] <leonel> Hello, does launchpad has ARM builders ?
[23:50] <xnox> leonel: yes.
[23:51] <xnox> but they are not enabled by default for PPAs, sparse resource.
[23:52] <maxb> *blink*
[23:52] <maxb> wha? I just did a copy of a package, copying binaries, and the i386 binary copied, but the amd64 one has been marked for rebuild
[23:53] <xnox> oh the classical pre-midnight 18th January Easter egg?! =)
[23:54] <xnox> but honestly, sounds scary.
[23:54] <maxb> I suppose the amd64 binary *might* have still been barely just pending publishing
[23:54] <wgrant> maxb: Were there any deletions involved?
[23:54] <maxb> No deletions
[23:54] <wgrant> Hm, so not bug #682692
[23:56] <maxb> The UI didn't say the amd64 build was pending-publishing, I was only looking at the summary field, and it may have not been shown because LP considered telling me that the lpia build was pending-build was more important than telling me about pending-publishing?
[23:56] <wgrant> That is correct
[23:57] <maxb> I guess we just call this an unfortunate case of bad timing, then
[23:57] <wgrant> It could be a very similar bug
[23:57] <wgrant> That case should be rejected
[23:58] <wgrant> It may only check if it's still in Accepted if it thinks the builds are done
[23:59] <wgrant> But if the lpia build was pending then it should have rejected the copy, shouldn't it?