[01:53] <RFleming> Hi!  Anyone from support here?
[09:13] <voldyman> i am getting bugs older than the date specified in searchTasks(modified_since=<date>) any idea why
[09:13] <voldyman> the date is datetime.utcnow()
[09:18] <voldyman> also curl responds with Object: <lazr.restful.declarations.GET_IHasBugs_searchTasks_beta object at 0x2b69f1dec690>, name: ''
[09:18] <wgrant> voldyman: Lots of operations on the bug update the modification date.
[09:18] <wgrant> What is the URL you're giving to curl?
[09:19] <voldyman> https://api.launchpad.net/1.0/elementary/searchTasks?status=Fix%20Released
[09:19] <wgrant> That's not a valid URL
[09:19] <wgrant> https://api.launchpad.net/1.0/elementary?ws.op=searchTasks&status=Fix%20Released
[09:20] <voldyman> ahh
[09:20] <voldyman> wgrant: i was fetching all bugs before and checking release_data, is that better or modified_since
[09:20] <wgrant> release_data?
[09:21] <voldyman> release_date
[09:21] <wgrant> It depends what you want
[09:22] <wgrant> If you want the date of last modification use modified_since
[09:22] <voldyman> i want bugs that were marked fix released since the last check
[09:22] <voldyman> earlier i was using https://github.com/voldyman/elementary-fixes/blob/83d7fc176ffdd95de42b40a6cbdefbb0ef08bef9/bot.py#L56
[09:22] <voldyman> now i am using https://github.com/voldyman/elementary-fixes/blob/master/bot.py#L56
[09:22] <wgrant> modified_since will give you a superset of those bugs, so it's probably what you want.
[09:23] <voldyman> but i got older bugs
[09:23] <voldyman> as you can see here https://twitter.com/elementaryfixes it tweeted older bugs
[09:27] <voldyman> wgrant: whats the best way to specify the date to the python api ?
[09:33] <wgrant> voldyman: Bugs can change in ways other than having their status set to Fix Released. You need to filter the list to those bugs that have had their status set to Fix Released in the interesting window.
[09:33] <wgrant> voldyman: launchpadlib takes datetime.datetime
[09:35] <voldyman> wgrant: so i'll ask for bugs modified since, then check the date and status
[09:36] <wgrant> voldyman: Right, I'd check status and date_fix_released.
[12:16] <thomasberends> I get a lot of timeout errors while translating. Is this a known problem?
[13:27] <eagles0513875> hey guys I have a few questions is it possible for canonicals build machines to pull from a github repo instead of bzr on launchpad?
[13:30] <wgrant> eagles0513875: No, for security reasons that's not directly possible. You'd need to ask Launchpad to import the GitHub repositoriry into a Launchpad bzr branch first.
[13:31] <eagles0513875> wgrant: ok will bzr have issues if we are using git submodules?
[13:34] <dobey> eagles0513875: yes
[13:35] <eagles0513875> ok basically it wont import whats in a submodule?
[13:36] <dobey> it won't import a git branch that has ever had submodules in its history
[13:36] <eagles0513875> :O
[13:36] <eagles0513875> even if they are removed from being used
[13:37] <dobey> yes
[13:41] <wgrant> eagles0513875: bzr-git can't represent submodules, so it's not possible to import any commit that contains submodules. Due to the nature of git repositories, that also means it's not possible to import any branch that has submodules anywhere in nits history.
[13:43] <eagles0513875> ok :( what could we use instead of submodules that would work
[13:43] <eagles0513875> with bzr
[13:43] <eagles0513875> is it required to build packages for releases using canonical build bots?
[13:44] <wgrant> Which releases?
[13:44] <eagles0513875> future releases
[13:45] <wgrant> What kind of releases?
[13:45] <wgrant> Launchpad's builders build for PPAs, and PPAs must be built on Launchpad's builders.
[13:45] <wgrant> If you don't need packages in Ubuntu or in a PPA, you don't use Launchpad's builders.
[13:46] <eagles0513875> i thought you could upload a package to a ppa that isnt build by the LP build machines
[13:46] <wgrant> No, all PPA binaries must be built by Launchpad.
[13:46] <wgrant> But you can build a *source* package locally an dupload that
[13:46] <eagles0513875> wgrant: then from that source package something can be built for a ppa
[13:46] <wgrant> You don't have to use recipes; they're an optional extra.
[13:47] <eagles0513875> im just trying to see our best alternatives at this point
[13:56] <eagles0513875> wgrant: lets say you have a package in a ppa and you want to get it into the next release what would one have to do ?
[14:00] <dobey> what are you trying to do exactly? generally the maintainer builds a new source package and uploads it to the distro, there is no PPA involved
[14:01] <dobey> launchpad is also just the hosting platform, it doesn't make policy for how ubuntu handles packaging
[14:02] <eagles0513875> dobey: i just want to be clear would canonical accept an ubuntu package which was built ones hardware compared to their own.
[14:02] <dobey> it has nothing to do with canonical
[14:03] <dobey> you cannot upload binary packages to ubuntu
[14:03] <dobey> you only upload source packages
[14:03] <eagles0513875> ok so as long as the source package is available on ones LP page then we can request that be pulled into the next release?
[14:03] <dobey> what release?
[14:04] <dobey> 14.10?
[14:04] <dobey> why are you not discussing this with israel?
[14:12] <eagles0513875> I am discussing this with him, but im just researching options at this point
[14:17] <cjwatson> I can be absolutely clear on this from Ubuntu's point of view: we do not accept binaries that were built on other hardware.
[14:17] <cjwatson> Not negotiable.
[14:24] <dobey> indeed
[16:14] <eagles0513875> cjwatson: you wont even accept source packages from others hardware to then send to the build machines for a ppa and that package in a ppa for a main stream release
[16:15] <cjwatson> eagles0513875: Where did I say that?
[16:15] <cjwatson> eagles0513875: Of course we accept *source* packages from other people's hardware; all the source packages in Ubuntu are that way ...
[16:16] <cjwatson> eagles0513875: We don't pull straight from external git repositories, but Ubuntu packages don't build straight from git anyway, they build from source packages
[16:16] <eagles0513875> cjwatson: ok. my question is this if we have nightly builds in a ppa for example, for a release cycle can a package be pulled from a ppa
[16:17] <eagles0513875> reason im asking is we are going to run into an issue with our master branch which is using submodules
[16:17] <cjwatson> We don't pull nightly builds into Ubuntu - you should get an Ubuntu developer to upload releases
[16:17] <cjwatson> The submodules issue matters for recipes but is entirely irrelevant for uploads to Ubuntu
[16:18] <eagles0513875> cjwatson: im not saying nightly builds but can we request a stable release be pulled from a ppa?
[16:18] <cjwatson> That's occasionally possible but not recommended
[16:19] <cjwatson> It would have to be rebuilt on the Ubuntu build farm anyway (which is distinct from PPAs) so it doesn't buy you much
[16:19] <cjwatson> And either way it needs an Ubuntu developer to actually do it, so you might as well let them do it in a more normal way
[16:31] <dobey> eagles0513875: you can't have nightly builds in a ppa any more anyway
[16:31] <eagles0513875> so I guess we need to migrate away from using submodules
[16:31] <dobey> and what cjwatson said. the maintainer should just upload the new package
[16:31] <dobey> eagles0513875: no, you can't just do that either
[16:32] <eagles0513875> dobey: ok so basically just upload it and that is it
[16:33] <dobey> eagles0513875: the commits that depend on submodules would have to be completely removed from all history in the branch, to be able to import in bzr again
[16:33] <dobey> yes, that is the only way you should get a new package version into ubuntu
[16:33] <dobey> create a source package of the new version, and upload it
[16:33] <eagles0513875> ok.
[16:33] <eagles0513875> ok
[16:34] <eagles0513875> so if we need a new package the  package is pulled from the uploaded source
[16:34] <cjwatson> Submodules or not make no difference for Ubuntu uploads, as I say
[16:34] <cjwatson> We would never just copy directly from a recipe-constructed source package in any case
[16:34] <eagles0513875> ok
[16:35] <eagles0513875> perfect :)
[16:35] <eagles0513875> thanks