[06:14] <Gr4cchus> hello, is anyone here?
[12:20] <rajeevs> hi..Can you "fork" an existing project in launchapd?
[12:24] <wgrant> rajeevs: What exactly do you want to do? Launchpad models things in a rather different way than say GitHub.
[12:24] <wgrant> Normally people don't want to create a whole separate project -- they just want to create their own branch that the project maintainer can then merge.
[12:25] <wgrant> To do that in Launchpad, you just 'bzr branch lp:someproject', make your changes, then 'bzr push lp:~yourusername/someproject/whateverbranchname'
[12:25] <wgrant> So your branch shows up in the existing project.
[12:25] <rajeevs> ok, what if I am developing a submodule?
[12:25] <wgrant> I'm not quite sure what you mean.
[12:26] <rajeevs> i am developing an independent addon to an existing project as part of GSoC 2014
[12:26] <rbasak> rajeevs: on Github, there's this concept of repositories, and each repository has multiple branches. But it doesn't really work like that - each branch is (relatively) independent.
[12:26] <rajeevs> to the GNU Mailman project
[12:26] <wgrant> Is it going to be part of the same codebase?
[12:26] <wgrant> I aw you created mailmancli earlier.
[12:27] <rbasak> rajeevs: on Launchpad, each branch is independent in its own right (effectively). So you just push the branch to your own space, and that's a fork in itself.
[12:27] <wgrant> In general, each Launchpad project represents all the branches of a particular codebase.
[12:27] <rajeevs> the code would eventually end up with the mailman.client project
[12:27] <wgrant> If it's a separate codebase, it should usually be a separate project.
[12:29] <rajeevs> how does this sound: I push my work to the mailmancli i have created and when the project is completed I push it to the mailman.client project?
[12:31] <wgrant> rajeevs: You'd want to talk to your mentor and the project maintainers about that.
[12:31] <wgrant> From a Launchpad perspective it probably makes sense to put it in a branch of mailman.client from the start, but it's really up to how the project maintainer's want to do things.
[12:34] <rajeevs> fine :) that should do it :) mentor too would want to do it the launchpad way :) thanks for the help
[12:35] <rajeevs> One more question, what does "Link to a Bazaar branch already on Launchpad" feature mean?
[12:37] <wgrant> It's for setting the trunk branch to a branch that already exists. Normally you'd just push to lp:someproject to create the trunk branch directly.
[16:44] <shadeslayer> is launchpad processing uploads normally?
[16:44] <shadeslayer> ah there we go
[16:44] <dobey> yes
[16:44] <dobey> :)
[20:14] <mark06> when adding downloads to a project, what's the diff between code release tarball and installer?
[20:15] <mark06> is code release tarbal meant to be a binary zip or source code zip?
[20:27] <dobey> mark06: ideally source, but i don't think there is any validation for it, so it can really be any file type afaik
[20:28] <dobey> mark06: at least, it can be any file, as long as the licensing allows redistribution of the file and all its contents.
[20:42] <mark06> if the license doesn't allow redistribution, then I should go for installer? I don't get how licensing relates
[20:43] <mark06> I always get confused for binary tarballs, they're neither 'source code tarballs' nor 'installers'
[20:44] <dobey> if licensing doesn't allow redistribution, you are not allowed to host it on launchpad, unless you are the owner of the code and have a commercial subscription
[20:44] <dobey> mark06: a tarball of binaries is an "installer"; it installs to wherever it is extracted
[20:52] <mark06> ah I see, however I don't notice any place where that option makes any difference....
[20:52] <mark06> and it can't be changed anywhere for the download.... possibly it's not even stored?
[20:52] <mark06> thanks anyway!
[20:53] <dobey> it's stored, but may be immutable. it's just used in display on the downloads page
[21:04] <mark06> II don't see it anywhere in downloads page: https://launchpad.net/screenwrite/+download
[21:07] <dobey> oh, i thought it was
[21:36] <mark06> ok thanks anyway