[00:02] <phillw> TheLordOfTime: have a read of http://pastebin.com/h78pPf1Z I'm going to ask Brian as it seems accross areas
[00:05] <TheLordOfTime> phillw, erm, you may want #launchpad, bugsquad's got no real influence on the web interface side of things, nor bugcontrol, although bdmurray may want to comment
[00:05] <TheLordOfTime> (yes i did ping him)
[00:06] <phillw> TheLordOfTime: I was just sending him the email, It does need a higher overview of things than us mere mortals have :)
[00:07] <TheLordOfTime> include bugsquad in the list of mortals, it doesn't require much to *join* bugsquad
[00:07] <TheLordOfTime> but the actual interoperability of bugs and the backend and things would be understood by bdmurray, buggod
[00:09] <phillw> I have chatted with Brian in the past. Only in special circumstances, but if we have bugs via testing go vanish I do think I would be remiss in not bringing it to his attention. He's never 'bit my head off' in the past.
[00:11] <phillw> Oh, and to save you any confusion and actually cause a ping, https://launchpad.net/~brian-murray is to whom I refer.
[00:13] <phillw> TheLordOfTime: I do actually know who to ask when I have a question :)
[00:14] <TheLordOfTime> that's whom i pinged :P
[00:21] <phillw> I have emailed him via LP. As it was suggested -bugs may know the answer, but also may not. I do think it is a case of asking 'God' for his opinion for somwthing
[00:21] <phillw> something I've never come across before
[00:21] <phillw> and to which there seems several solutions,
[00:49] <hggdh> phillw: you still cannot see the bug?
[00:51] <phillw> hggdh: infinity unlinked the bug manually
[00:52] <hggdh> ok
[00:52] <phillw> hggdh: without flooding the channel, please read the convo we had...
[00:54] <hggdh> phillw: ah, OK, there was a private blueprint linked to it
[00:54] <phillw> it seems so, yes
[00:55] <hggdh> and yeah, this is a LP issue
[00:55] <phillw> so, as soon as it went 'fix-released' it went private,
[00:55] <hggdh> a, well, not quite a feature
[00:57] <hggdh> actually, as soon as the private BP was linked
[00:57] <phillw> hggdh: indeed not, s there may be circumstances to keep it quiet, what is asked is to whom the request should be made?
[00:57] <hggdh> and on this case we cannot do much, only those with access to the BP can unlink it
[00:57] <phillw> hggdh: and those people being?
[00:58] <hggdh> the problem is you will NOT know. You can _infer_, though
[00:58] <hggdh> if the bot resolves the bug, then the bug is public; if the bot does NOT resolve the bug, then the bug is private -- and bug-control can act on it
[00:59] <phillw> hggdh: I've never heard of BP, what / who are they?
[00:59] <hggdh> so: if the bot resolves the bug, but you cannot see it, then something else (a BP?) is making the bug private. Only someone with access to the BP can solve the issue
[00:59] <hggdh> BP == BluePrint
[01:00] <hggdh> so, this is a real bug on LP. LP should still render the bug, and mask out private data/links
[01:00] <hggdh> it does not make much sense to apply the *-property here, I think
[01:00] <phillw> And, who are these mystical beings that can make a public bug become so cloaked that it does no longer exist?
[01:00] <hggdh> whoever links a private blueprint, for example
[01:01] <hggdh> they do exist. LP is used by a lot of companies/projects
[01:01] <hggdh> (they, here, are the blueprints)
[01:02] <hggdh> so, there is a lesson here: do not link private crap to a public bug
[01:02] <hggdh> unfortunately, whoever did it is not here...
[01:02] <phillw> hggdh: excuse me while I try to get my head around this....
[01:02] <hggdh> hggdh: take your time :-)
[01:03] <hggdh> phillw: would you prefer that I re-explain it?
[01:03] <phillw> a public bug from ubuntu can vanish if someone makes it secret?
[01:03] <phillw> yeah, please re-explain to me.
[01:04] <hggdh> on your last question: yes, a bug can "vanish" if it is made private. It is quoted vanish, because whoever already had access keeps being able to look at it
[01:05] <hggdh> what cause the bug to vanish here was a different issue: the bug was public, by somebody linked a PRIVATE blueprint to it
[01:05] <phillw> hggdh: I know that, I only cover the stuff of making a bug public
[01:05] <phillw> and that the bot may make it private.
[01:05] <hggdh> then LP, probably due to the *-property, made the whole bug "private"
[01:05] <hggdh> no, not the bot
[01:06] <hggdh> the bot has the same permissions as a common user
[01:06] <phillw> what is a blueprint?
[01:06] <phillw> start at n00b stage :D
[01:06] <hggdh> it can read the bug data because it uses the API. It is not rendering the whole bug
[01:07] <hggdh> a blueprint, as the name suggests, is a recipe for future/ongoing work
[01:07] <hggdh> just a sec
[01:07] <phillw> brb, dog wants out for 'doggie' things
[01:07] <hggdh> phillw: see https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu
[01:16] <phillw> hggdh: it is timing out while trying to connect?
[01:16] <phillw> ah, 2nd time looky, What should I be looking at?
[01:16] <phillw> s/looky/lucky
[01:19] <hggdh> any of them. These are blueprints
[01:20] <hggdh> and they can be public, or private
[01:20] <hggdh> what happened on that bug is a private blueprint was linked with the bug
[01:21] <hggdh> and when you tried to render the bug via ffox, LP say no
[01:22] <phillw> I'm sorry, i still do not see the difference between those and https://launchpad.net/~lubuntu-dev/+archive/staging
[01:22] <hggdh> you mean you do not see a difference between a BP and a PPA?
[01:22] <phillw> Is it that our devs chose not to keep it secret?
[01:23] <phillw> no, I do not. Why keep things secret?
[01:24] <hggdh> because not everything is for public usage. And not everything is for Ubuntu. And not everything is free. And so on. You are forgetting that LP is used for more than Ubuntu
[01:25] <hggdh> You may want to create an easter egg, and not want people to see it before the correct time
[01:25] <hggdh> or whatever
[01:26] <phillw> So, what you are telling me is that the people who use and test *ubuntu will have their test results that they have made public for everyone, me then made private for corporate gain?
[01:27] <hggdh> no. I certainly am not saying that. Not even implying
[01:28] <hggdh> here is what happened (again): a private BP was linked to a public bug (that is an user error, BTW). As a result, due to a DIFFERENT bug, LP will not show you the bug if you ask for it
[01:28] <phillw> hggdh: then please, once again explain to me and every other tester: Why did our bug vanish
[01:29] <hggdh> can you see your bug?
[01:29] <hggdh> if you can, it idid not vanish.
[01:30] <hggdh> read the the explanation I just gave you, please
[01:30] <phillw> only after it being manually edited. So that does not even get near to the question
[01:31] <hggdh> phillw: givens: (1) a *private* BP was linked to a PUBLIC bug (this is an USER error. One whould NEVER do that). (2) LP itself has a bug when this happens.
[01:31] <phillw> hggdh: you seem to have lost the original question,
[01:31] <TheLordOfTime> he did answer phillw
[01:32] <hggdh> I did not lose it. I think you are fixed on one aspect of it, and disregarding the two conditions that caused you pain
[01:32] <TheLordOfTime> the problem is permissions: when a PRIVATE, RESTRICTED-ACCESS Blueprint is linked to the PUBLIC bug, the bug goes into restrictive state
[01:32] <phillw> TheLordOfTime: no, he did not.
[01:32] <TheLordOfTime> actually he did
[01:32] <TheLordOfTime> and he explained the problem
[01:32] <TheLordOfTime> as i just did.
[01:32] <TheLordOfTime> phillw, the bug disappeared from public view because of user error
[01:32] <TheLordOfTime> aka (1) from hggdh's last statement of givens.
[01:32] <phillw> TheLordOfTime: it was not a difficult question.
[01:33] <TheLordOfTime> the reason you are able to see it is because infinity unlinked the bug/BP
[01:33] <TheLordOfTime> if i'm reading the chat logs accordingly.
[01:33] <TheLordOfTime> the givens are the point of interest that hggdh has stated.  which is the problem that you ran into
[01:34] <phillw> TheLordOfTime: that bug was manually unlinked by some one on release team who had 'authority'
[01:34] <TheLordOfTime> i fail to see how hggdh failed to answer your question, and I fail to see how hggdh lost grasp of the question.
[01:34]  * antarus notes that every bugtracker has hidden bugs
[01:34] <TheLordOfTime> what antarus said
[01:34] <phillw> TheLordOfTime: who also stated that it is not their job to do so
[01:35] <hggdh> phillw: the BP was manually unlinked by someone that HAD ACCESS TO THE BP. It just happens that infinity is also in the release team (as I am, BTW)
[01:35] <TheLordOfTime> ^ that
[01:35] <phillw> TheLordOfTime: so, I came on here to find out to whom such a request should be made to, not for an explanation of how such errors occur ???!!!!
[01:36] <TheLordOfTime> that's not the question i saw initially
[01:36] <TheLordOfTime> the question i saw in your initial reason for coming here is "why did this happen"
[01:36] <TheLordOfTime> so unless lag caused me to miss your SUBSEQUENT OTHER question...
[01:36] <phillw> hggdh: so, again, to whom do we report this?
[01:36] <TheLordOfTime> hggdh never lost sight of the initial question
[01:36] <hggdh> phillw: and, as I was trying to explain to you, if you do not have access to the bug, how are you going to know what happened? Usually, in this case, only the folks on #launchpad can help
[01:36] <TheLordOfTime> which is what i initially suggested.
[01:36] <hggdh> indeed
[01:37] <hggdh> and also infinity, and cjwatson
[01:37] <antarus> I would hesitate to throw individual community members under the proverbial bus
[01:37] <antarus> isn't the some launchpad administrator list he can email ?
[01:37] <phillw> and so if we go to #launchpad and insist a bug is unlocked, that is enough>
[01:38] <TheLordOfTime> phillw, the bug itself wasn't locked on purpose as hggdh explained
[01:38] <hggdh> indeed. You had access to the bug; you not do not have access anymore. Only #launchpad can find out what happened (generically)
[01:38] <hggdh> phillw: no, you go to #lp and what what the hell happened with your bug
[01:38] <TheLordOfTime> and i'm preempted again on my statement(s) by others... :P
[01:38] <phillw> hggdh: thankyou for a simple answer.
[01:38] <hggdh> and let them find out, explain, and propose solutions
[01:38]  * TheLordOfTime glances at his computer, realizes he's got a rogue process, and goes to fix it
[01:39] <hggdh> but, if you do not have access to know what happened, you cannot propose a fix
[01:39] <antarus> hggdh: the solution, is to obviously join the launchpad administrative team ;p
[01:40] <hggdh> antarus: heh. That might help...
[01:40] <antarus> hggdh: it was made in jest ;)
[01:40] <phillw> hggdh: I've got some new testers following me, I need to ensure that the answers I give are 100% correct. I'm sorry for being a PITA, but I cannot afford to loose testers because they do no get answers.
[01:42] <hggdh> I agree. But what I was tryinig to to do was not only answer, but explain why. I understand now I should not have done so.
[01:43] <phillw> antarus: I have no desire to add any more admin  teams, I have enough with the present ones :D
[01:45] <phillw> hggdh: make  a wiki page or choose a classroom session, having this information about is good for people.
[01:47] <phillw> hggdh: TheLordOfTime it is only when new people ask questions that you realise that documentation is missing. I've fallen foul of 'assuming' stuff.7
[01:47] <hggdh> phillw: this is a BUG. I see no reason to have a classroom to explain one single bug
[01:47] <TheLordOfTime> <hggdh> phillw: this is a BUG. I see no reason to have a classroom to explain one single bug
[01:47] <TheLordOfTime> oops
[01:47]  * TheLordOfTime kicks his computer
[01:47] <TheLordOfTime> but yeah, it is a bug, doesn't need a ton of documentation nor a whole classroom session to id all the bugs in LP that could affect bugreporting
[01:47] <TheLordOfTime> actually, that reminds me to check on a different bug, in the builders...
[01:48] <phillw> hggdh: so, how is the bug to reported?
[01:48] <TheLordOfTime> and nope, its not fixed.
[01:48] <TheLordOfTime> :P
[01:49] <phillw> TheLordOfTime: a lot of doc bugs are not resolved, but we can report them. To what package should this bug report be made against?
[01:50] <TheLordOfTime> hggdh'd know, but i don't think its a matter of needing documentation of such bugs.
[01:50] <phillw> hggdh: ^^
[01:50] <TheLordOfTime> should I reemphasize that I don't think its a matter of needing documentation of all such bugs?
[01:52] <phillw> A bug causing  a failure to be able to follow a bug is actually a more than 'quiet' bug.
[01:52] <hggdh> first off, I would check on #launchpad to see it this is known. (one can also search the LP bugs). Then, if it is not known, I would open one against launchpad.
[01:53] <phillw> TheLordOfTime: of course, you can always go argue with http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2013/02/06/%23ubuntu-classroom.html#t17:00
[01:53] <phillw> I tend to keep quiet :D
[01:56] <phillw> hggdh: bdmurray has already been sent the question, I'll forward the question to Gema. It is better that these 'issues' are addressed.
[01:57] <hggdh> phillw: I still do not understand why you are sending it to bdmurray and gema. This is a LP issue. This is a bug on LP and on using LP
[01:58] <TheLordOfTime> in which case the LP devs need to look at it, not ubuntu's people.
[01:58] <TheLordOfTime> (although those two may overlap, it's LP's people who need to handle this)
[02:00] <phillw> hggdh: please read the log. I was told that it, as usual, falls between different teams. This is quite simple, each will blame the other and nothing will be none.
[02:01] <phillw> This is not accecptable for the people who actually spend their time testing.
[02:03] <TheLordOfTime> y'know, i'm done, you're perseverating on this now, go offline, go get some rest, come back in the morning with a clear head, then we can continue this discussion, preferably without aggravation of people's nerves.
[02:03] <TheLordOfTime> we agree: its not really acceptable
[02:04] <TheLordOfTime> short term: what the heck can we do about it? nothing.
[02:04] <TheLordOfTime> medium term: what should be done? whomever needs to should get together and figure out what went wrong.  then it gets fixed.
[02:06] <phillw> TheLordOfTime: +1
[02:06] <TheLordOfTime> can we influence the medium-term stuff? not at the moment.
[02:07] <phillw> hggdh: ? your vote?
[02:07] <TheLordOfTime> so what do we do: we go offline, let things REST for a while
[02:07] <TheLordOfTime> then we approach this with a clear head later.
[02:07] <TheLordOfTime> say, 6+ hours.
[02:07] <TheLordOfTime> just so that we can go from high-strung, DEFCON 1 responsiveness to an issue we can't do anything about, to DEFCON 3 "it's an issue we need resolved, lets approach it calmly" responsiveness.
[02:07] <TheLordOfTime> 'kay?
[02:08] <TheLordOfTime> (also hggdh told me he's going offline for a while, so he's likely AFK)
[02:08] <TheLordOfTime> everyone in maximum-defensive responsiveness will get nothing done, so lets approach this calmly after we've let it cool off a while.
[02:09] <TheLordOfTime> having said this, i'm going to go find a pint of ice cream, and enjoy my one night i don't have anything due for tomorrow.
[02:09] <phillw> TheLordOfTime: I've got some other work to do. I'll check in at 1200 UTC
[11:41] <warren-hill> If I think I have found an error in the following man page "man sudo root" what package do I report it against?
[13:15] <hggdh> oh hasty people...