[01:28] <micahg> skellat: -release isn't a good venue to ask for sponsorship, the patch pilot in -devel would be a good place
[08:45] <tumbleweed> grumble. I can't reproduce this failure https://jenkins.qa.ubuntu.com/job/saucy-adt-beets/. Ideas?
[08:51] <xnox> tumbleweed: i have seen in the past jenkins mirror be behind, such that it'd test new .dsc againt out-of-date .deb. And the logs don't spell out clearly which version of package under test got installed =(
[08:52] <tumbleweed> I wish there was an easy way to make ADT run tests without building from source
[09:02] <xnox> tumbleweed: you are using lp:auto-package-testing scripts right? (they download ubuntu cloud image & run tests in there against a package from archive/ppa/bzr/local)
[09:05] <tumbleweed> xnox: no, adt
[09:07] <tumbleweed> ok, let me try that. but maybe not here at debconf...
[09:07] <xnox> tumbleweed: so two scripts in auto-package-testing under bin/ is exactly the same way the tests are running in the lab. one is setup test-bed to create one and the other one is run-adt-test to run a test on a snapshot of the test bed under qemu.
[09:08] <xnox> tumbleweed: right. Well i'll arrive on sunday and we can poke it then and there =) i can easily run adt tests on my remote server for you.
[11:46]  * cjwatson starts deploying the phased-updater
[11:51] <cjwatson> Seems to take a long time to start up without doing very much, although it has got past the point of logging into Launchpad
[11:51] <cjwatson> Ah, just as I say that it starts sending mail
[11:52] <cjwatson> 2013-08-07 11:51:47,417 - INFO - [u'ps-jenkins@lists.canonical.com'] mailed about [raring/nux] Possible Regression
[11:52] <cjwatson> 2013-08-07 11:51:48,174 - INFO - [u'ps-jenkins@lists.canonical.com'] mailed about [raring/compiz] Possible Regression
[11:52] <cjwatson> that might not get much attention ...
[11:55] <cjwatson> All SRU team members: please update your ubuntu-archive-tools checkouts to at least r764
[12:04]  * yofel just got a bunch of mail with that topic, so it seems to work ^^
[12:11] <cjwatson> I hope it's useful.  If it's wrong, though, complain to bdmurray, I'm just playing sysadmin here :-)
[12:20] <mdeslaur> cjwatson: how do I check the phased update status of a package?
[12:20] <mdeslaur> cjwatson: I just got a bunch of emails for security updates that say the phased update has been stopped
[12:21] <cjwatson> mdeslaur: Like I say, I'm just operating this, but I think it only actually decreases the phased update percentage if there was already one (other than "everyone") set
[12:21] <mdeslaur> cjwatson: ok, I'll wait for bdmurray then, thanks
[12:21] <cjwatson> So the e-mails are probably wrong in that detail, but right about there being a regression to look at
[12:22] <cjwatson> mdeslaur: You can see the phased update percentage on https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/<series>/<arch>/<binarypackage>
[12:22] <cjwatson> (Which is bloody hard to find by navigation so I suggest memorising the pattern)
[12:22] <cjwatson> It should normally be the same for all binaries in a source
[12:23] <mdeslaur> there's...nothing in the column
[12:24] <mdeslaur> https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/raring/amd64/libdns95
[12:24] <cjwatson> Yes, that means "everyone"
[12:25] <cjwatson> My understanding is that this is a transitional period, because the things that have been published to -updates haven't had a PUP set
[12:25] <cjwatson> But that was why I was asking SRU team members to update to ubuntu-archive-tools r764
[12:26] <cjwatson> I recall we talked about what to do with security updates at the client sprint but I don't remember what we agreed
[12:28] <mdeslaur> I don't recall the exact outcome either...I believe we discussed a maximum time for security updates and having the urgency field work to bypass it or something
[12:31] <cjwatson> At any rate I'm reasonably sure that at the moment security updates just won't have phasing applied
[12:31] <cjwatson> But hopefully Brian can clarify
[14:24] <bdmurray> mdeslaur: I'm still investigating but the email notifications were in errors, as cjwatson indicated the phasing has not been stopped.
[14:25] <mdeslaur> bdmurray: ok, so I can disregard for now?
[14:26] <bdmurray> mdeslaur: Yes, for now
[14:27] <mdeslaur> bdmurray: thanks
[14:32] <seb128> bdmurray, it would be nice to send an email to ubuntu-devel@ about what's going on maybe?
[14:33] <bdmurray> seb128: yes, I'll be doing that today.  Nothing was supposed to happen yet as no packages in -updates have a phased update percentage set.
[14:44] <cjwatson> ubuntu-archive-tools> make that r765
[16:28] <bdmurray> cjwatson: one more phased-updater change https://code.launchpad.net/~brian-murray/ubuntu-archive-tools/pu-no-email/+merge/179013
[17:03] <cjwatson> bdmurray: done
[17:05] <bdmurray> thanks
[19:48] <Ampelbein> Can someone accept the libpar2 binary packages in saucy NEW? Or do they need to get reviewed first?
[19:51] <ScottK> They need to get reviewed.
[19:52] <Ampelbein> Ah, ok. Thought that was only for new source packages. Learn something new every day ;-)
[19:57] <ScottK> No, new binary packages too.