[02:32] <michi> robru: ping
[02:33] <robru> michi: pong
[02:33] <michi> With the new requests page, how to I abandon (completely remove) a silo?
[02:33] <robru> michi: is the silo assigned?
[02:33] <michi> Yes, silo 10
[02:33] <robru> michi: click 'Merge & Clean' and then check ONLY_FREE_SILO
[02:34] <michi> OK, cool, thanks. Might be good to update the doc page. It still talks about the “Abandon” link
[02:34] <robru> michi: where? I went through and updated the docs recently
[02:34] <michi> Under “Abandon a landing” on the LandingProcess page
[02:35] <robru> michi: lol, the answer to your question was right there
[02:36] <michi> “The CI Train REquests page has alink on each landing request called ‘Abandon’"
[02:36] <michi> I don’t think that link still exists?
[02:36] <michi> Or am I blind?
[02:36] <robru> michi: reload the page or something? you must be seeing something cached since last week
[02:36] <michi> Ah
[02:36] <michi> Yes, that’s what’s happened.
[02:36] <michi> Sorry for the noise.
[02:36] <robru> michi: no worries
[02:43] <michi__> robru: Not sure what to do with this one: https://ci-train.ubuntu.com/job/prepare-silo/6018/console
[02:44] <robru> michi__: your request contains a branch, you need a merge.
[02:44] <michi__> Aargh, wrong URL.
[02:44] <michi__> Any chance of getting a more informative error message there?
[02:44] <robru> michi__: also please file a bug against lp:cupstream2distro asking to make that error more understandable and assign it to me
[02:44] <michi__> :)
[02:44] <robru> michi__: can do, just have other priorities.
[02:45] <michi__> About to create the bug, NP!
[03:05] <robru> infinity: cjwatson: anybody around? I need help testing some train changes you'll like
[04:09] <robru> "CI Airline will be ready ~July 2014"
[04:09] <robru> kek
[06:22] <infinity> robru: Not really, no.  Heading to bed.
[06:22] <infinity> robru: Also, that was hours ago, so I assume you're not around either. :P
[06:23] <robru> infinity: just watching tv. I sent an email with details
[07:00] <Mirv> infinity: still around? there'd be new binary packages at https://launchpad.net/~ci-train-ppa-service/+archive/ubuntu/landing-024/+sourcepub/5314531/+listing-archive-extra - indicator-transfer-download-manager, libindicator-transfer-dev, libindicator-transfer0
[07:01] <Mirv> probably not as heading to bed 40mins ago. any other archive admin around?
[07:04] <Mirv> hmm, maybe RAOF or pitti could be awake?
[07:04] <RAOF>  I could be.
[07:04] <RAOF> But new binary packages aren't my thing; no AA hat here.
[07:05] <Mirv> RAOF: oh, would there be a better list to use than https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-archive/+members ?
[07:05] <pitti> what about these?
[07:05] <Mirv> pitti: train bypasses binary NEW queue, so we need preNEW review
[07:05] <RAOF> Mirv: Sadly, no. I'm there because I need a subset of those powers for SRU work.
[07:05] <Mirv> RAOF: ah, ok, that explains it
[07:09] <pitti> it could really do with a symbols file
[07:12] <pitti> Mirv: looks okay otherwise, but please add .symbols for tracking API
[07:12] <Mirv> I'll file bugs about all comments and if they're a blocker, set it as critical priority
[07:12] <Mirv> pitti: ok. a blocker or not blocker?
[07:12] <pitti> not a blocker
[07:12] <Mirv> ok.
[07:14] <Mirv> thank you, I filed a bug about it for the next release.
[07:16] <pitti> cheers
[12:46] <doko> currently not accepting new binary library packages ...
[12:54] <cjwatson> doko: Why not?  I would normally wave through mosquitto and sdformat
[12:57] <doko> cjwatson, ok, only one binNMU needed
[15:23] <slangasek> arges: will fix lsvpd and reupload today, thanks.  fwiw procedurally, I recommend that when an SRU is rejected for cosmetic/mechanical issues that the SRU team member fix/reupload/accept
[15:24] <infinity> I certainly do that sometimes, depends on if I'm using the queue as a teaching tool, as well.
[15:25] <infinity> And, clearly, slangasek needs tutoring on packaging.
[15:25] <arges> slangasek: good point, I wasn't sure there needed to still be separation between uploading and accepting, but in the future for minor stuff like this I'll fix it
[15:26] <infinity> arges: IMO, if the issue you find is minor and, in your mind, 100% unlikely to be contested by the uploader, just fix and reupload.
[15:26] <infinity> arges: Things like version numbers or bug ref typos fit that, for instance.
[15:27] <infinity> arges: If it's a question of "I don't like how you fixed this bug", then a round-trip is saner.
[15:27] <arges> infinity: Makes sense. and obviously the teaching bit is moot for steve
[15:33] <cyphermox> arges: ^ if you feel like reviewing more SRUs. :)
[15:33] <arges> cyphermox: i'll catch that later... gotta head out for a bit
[15:34] <cyphermox> sure
[15:34] <cyphermox> I'm about to head out to get lunch, too
[16:01] <slangasek> infinity, arges: 'sright, I'm a manager and therefore unteachable ;P
[16:05] <infinity> slangasek: See, I was avoiding making that joke.
[17:37] <robru> cjwatson: do you know if there's been any changes to launchpad/the archive lately that would affect the way the train publishes NEW packages? I had thought there was some long standing issue that the train somehow bypassed the NEW queue but there's been a couple silos I've seen recently that went into NEW and I have no idea why. I sure haven't changed
[17:37] <robru> anything train-side regarding publishing NEW packages.
[17:42] <coreycb> arges, could I get you or another sru team member to review some openstack-related uploads when you get a chance?
[17:42] <arges> coreycb: i can handle it
[17:43] <coreycb> arges, great, thanks.  for trusty: software-properties, cinder, python-keystoneclient.  and for vivid: python-keystoneclient
[18:14] <bregma> is there a formal process for getting my NEW package (currently in the queue) accepted or is it now a matter a matter of patiently waiting for someone with the right rights to get around to it?
[18:19] <infinity> bregma: The latter.  Which package?
[18:21] <infinity> bregma: Ahh, libertine?
[18:21] <bregma> infinity, yes, sorry, I'm a slow typer
[18:22] <bregma> we're really targeting the vivid overlay for the phone, but want to avoid breaking anything on upgrades later
[18:23] <infinity> bregma: I'm unconvinced that backdooring the NEW process with the overlay is a sane workflow, but...
[18:24] <bregma> it's not in the overlay until it's in WIly first, and we'll be doing dual landings
[18:24] <bregma> that's why I want it in Wily
[18:24] <infinity> Okay, if it's not allowed in the overlay until it's in wily, then I retract my backdoor comment.
[18:25] <infinity> bregma: I'm grabbing it to see if it looks like an easy review.  If it is, I'll knock it out, if it's not it might wait a bit, as I'm pretty busy right now.
[18:25] <bregma> sure, thanks
[18:26] <infinity> bregma: You missed a chance for silly naming here.  I'm disappointed.
[18:26] <infinity> Assuming you're upstream, I'm still downloading. :P
[18:26] <bregma> believe me, we discussed silly names
[18:26] <infinity> Heh.
[18:27] <bregma> there was a ted involved
[18:27] <infinity> See, you could either be -lertine, thus libertine.so, or go the iberty route with -libertine and ibertine.so
[18:27] <infinity> liblibertine is so boring. ;)
[18:28] <bregma> hmmm, -latrine ....  I need a new project
[18:30] <infinity> bregma: PasswordHelper{.h,.cpp} are missing copyright headers, FWIW.
[18:31] <infinity> (Not a blocker, since the project as a whole has an obvious license, but you might want to fix upstream)
[18:34] <infinity> bregma: Also not a blocker, but line-wrapping in Description fields doesn't work the way you think it does.
[18:35] <infinity> bregma: The first line (up to the first \n) is the short description, the rest is the long description, so where you've wrapped a too-long short, you've dumped the end of it into the beginning of the long.
[18:35]  * bregma kicks wrap-and-sort to see if it's still working
[18:36] <infinity> bregma: Even weirder, liblibertine1 starts the long description with a blank line. :)
[18:36] <infinity> Ditto for a few of them, actually.
[18:37] <infinity> That might get filtered out, but it's still silly regardless.
[18:37] <infinity> bregma: The only one that makes sense is libertine.  Short on 1 line, no blank '.' starting the long.
[18:38] <bregma> yeah, that's a bad habit I picked up years ago, adding the blank line
[18:38] <infinity> bregma: You probably want to fix the rest.  The wrapping issue in tools could be sorted by just s/command-line //
[18:42] <infinity> bregma: My only other complaint would be that /usr/bin/dbus-session-bridge is a super generic and namespace-pollutey name for a binary not shipped by dbus.
[18:43] <infinity> bregma: I might ask you to fix that one (or argue why it's a good idea) before you go writing other things that depend on that path.
[18:44] <bregma> well, it's a replacement for the D-Bus stuff inside our little container so the actual name doesn't matter (just the socket passed at runtime)
[18:45] <infinity> bregma: Right, so libertine-session-bridge or something might be more appropriate.
[18:45] <bregma> we can certainly change it, but wit the next upload if possible
[18:46] <infinity> bregma: I'd prefer to see it changed before I accept (or at least see a commit upstream), since I know how well everyone (me included) delivers on IOUs once the ACCEPT happens. :P
[18:46] <bregma> heh
[18:47] <infinity> bregma: Fix the descriptions in VCS and, more importantly, that generic binary path, and I'm happy.
[18:47] <infinity> bregma: Point me at both, or just shove a new upload in the silo, and we're good to go.
[18:47] <infinity> (The new upload would be nicer)
[18:48] <bregma> we'll want to go the new upload route
[18:48] <bregma> OK, thanks for the review
[18:48] <arges> coreycb: software-properties, the .5 upload you have, does that fix the issues with the current .4 version in proposed?
[18:48] <arges> coreycb: bug 1381050 is verification failed
[18:48] <coreycb> arges, ah, yes I think I based off of that
[18:48] <infinity> bregma: Other than the nitpicks, though, nice clean packaging, so yay for that.
[18:49] <infinity> bregma: And kudos on the insanely simple public interface for the library.  I was questioning the -dev having a single .h until I read it.
[18:49] <arges> coreycb: perhaps we can pick up that change too since it looks like there was a MP with a fix for that
[18:50] <coreycb> arges, ok do I just need to include the bug # for that in the most recent changelog?
[18:50] <infinity> bregma: I'll reject that so no one else is tempted to re-review.  As soon as a fresh upload hits the silo, ping me directly, and I'll check the diff and give you a thumbs-up.
[18:51] <bregma> infinity, thanks
[18:52] <coreycb> arges, ah... verification-failed on that one..
[19:02] <coreycb> bdmurray, I have a trusty sru for software-properties that I based off the version in -proposed.  do you know what the state of the -proposed version is?
[19:05] <bdmurray> coreycb: http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/pending-sru.html one of the bugs failed to verify
[19:06] <coreycb> bdmurray, how would you recommend I go about my sru?
[19:12] <bdmurray> slangasek: coreycb wants to SRU software-properties for Trusty and the previous SRU has a v-done and v-failed bug. I'd suggest just dropping the v-failed change and adding his fix. Does that seem reasonable?
[19:16] <infinity> bdmurray: Either fix the v-failed bug, or back it out, yeah.
[19:18] <bdmurray> infinity: okay, thanks
[19:18] <bdmurray> coreycb: are you in a hurry? I'm looking at the v-failed bug but not making much progress
[19:19] <coreycb> bdmurray, yeah I think we should probably get it in.  it enables the cloud archive shortcut for add-apt-repository for liberty.
[19:19] <coreycb> we need to start cranking on testing, and the charms need it
[19:22] <bdmurray> coreycb: okay the parts to remove are the changelog entry for fix importing keys and readd the lines removed from "def add_key(" https://launchpadlibrarian.net/210981282/software-properties_0.92.37.3_0.92.37.4.diff.gz
[19:23] <coreycb> bdmurray, ok, so just to verify.  I assume I need to revert 0.92.37.4 changes as part of my 0.92.37.5 version.  sound right?
[19:24] <coreycb> rather than just upload a new 0.92.37.4
[19:27] <bdmurray> coreycb: yes, I'd be happy to review it (or sponsor it).
[19:27] <coreycb> bdmurray, thanks
[19:37] <coreycb> bdmurray, would you mind rejecting software-properties from the trusty review queue?
[19:54] <coreycb> bdmurray, thanks.  I uploaded a new one if you could review when you get a chance.
[20:25] <infinity> bregma: Diff in the PPA looks good to me.  Except for this (which I don't need another upload for, obviously):
[20:25] <infinity> + and other software interacting wit hthe Libertine container, such as scopes
[20:26] <infinity> bregma: ^-- Yay, typo. ;)
[20:26] <bregma> I feel I should boycott the word "the" it is my greatest nemesis
[20:26] <infinity> Hahaha.
[20:26] <infinity> bregma: Add "with" to the list.  Really, I think it's the spacebar that hates you.
[20:27] <bregma> grep -sr 'teh' *
[20:27] <infinity> bregma: Anyhow, publish away when the train is done choo-chooing or whatever.
[20:27] <infinity> bregma: I'll re-review in the queueue for sanity, but all looks good to me.
[20:28] <bregma> infinity, yes, it needs a wizzard to ack it before it uploads to the queue
[20:28] <infinity> Wow, how did my queue get an extra ue?
[20:28] <infinity> I guess my fingers got excited.
[20:29] <infinity> queueueueue!
[20:31] <bregma> teh queueueue
[20:34] <infinity> robru: bregma's silo is ready (27)
[20:35] <robru> infinity: yeah I tried publishing it but apparently launchpadlib's checkUpload is horribly broken in python3, can you manually copy the package from the PPA for now? I'm working on a workaround
[20:35] <infinity> Erm, yeah, can do.
[20:36] <robru> infinity: thanks
[20:38] <infinity> robru: Done (for ubuntu/wily, I'll leave the overlay bit to you to sort out after I let this through NEW)
[20:38] <robru> infinity: oh right, thanks
[20:43] <infinity> bregma: ^--- Accepted, thanks for indulging my nitpicking.
[20:43] <bregma> pleased to receive constructive criticism
[22:15] <cjwatson> robru: Copies bypass binary NEW due to an LP bug, but not source NEW.  This hasn't changed in quite some time.
[22:31] <slangasek> bdmurray: yes, seems reasonable to me to back out the change to bug #1381050 for software-properties
[22:33] <robru> cjwatson: ah, I forgot binary NEW is different than source NEW
[22:34] <cjwatson> This is https://bugs.launchpad.net/launchpad/+bug/993120, for which I once had half a fix but it's been overtaken by events and needs to be reworked
[23:42] <robru> cjwatson: you may enjoy: https://launchpad.net/~ci-train-staging-area/+archive/ubuntu/landing-000/+sourcepub/5366429/+listing-archive-extra
[23:44] <robru> (scroll down a bit)