[00:30] <robru> Saviq: slangasek: ok I have a fix in staging, just have to clean up the unit tests then I can roll it out
[00:41] <veebers> robru: you still around perchance? Query re: tree. Have tested ready to approve/release/something. Which button should I push :-)
[00:42] <robru> veebers: tree?
[00:42] <veebers> hah that was odd, train
[00:42] <veebers> robru: sorry miss typed that, the train :-)
[00:43] <robru> veebers: ok, so you want to release autopilot? just click 'publish', then 'build' on the jenkins job that opens. if any action is needed the jenkins log will guide you
[00:45] <veebers> robru: awesome, thanks for clarifing
[00:45] <veebers> clarifying*
[00:45] <veebers> friday is hard
[00:45] <robru> veebers: thursday here mate ;-)
[00:47] <veebers> robru: Hah, it's hard living in the future ;-)
[00:47] <robru> veebers: there is a certain hilarity to "ugh, friday is hard" "it's thursday tho"
[00:48] <veebers> heh true ^_^. I think there is a Homer Simpson quote along those lines. "Not like stupid _fake_ Saturday that almost got me fired."
[00:49] <robru> veebers: oh man you're right! homer's even better though, it was more like "ahhh, I love saturdays" "homer, it's wednesday" "doh!"
[00:49] <veebers> robru: ^_^ hey, i suspect the error" ERROR Publish failed: Silo has bad status.:" is due to the QA Apprval needed? How can I change that to approved?
[00:50] <robru> veebers: oh you didn't get qa approval? bad! bad veebers!
[00:50]  * robru swats with newspaper
[00:51] <veebers> robru: lol I am QA and I have it approved ;-)
[00:51] <sil2100> Did I hear some QA sign-off infringement here?!
[00:51] <robru> veebers: wait, what silo?
[00:51] <veebers> robru: 034
[00:51] <robru> veebers: no it's complaining because your silo status is 'needs rebuild'
[00:52] <sil2100> veebers: didn't you hear self-approving is bad?! It's like liking/+1'ing your own posts on FB/G+
[00:52] <veebers> sil2100: hah :-) The MP wasn't self approved, but I did do the testing
[00:53] <robru> veebers: looks like you did a direct trunk commit? you should probably rebuild to incorporate that into the silo
[00:53] <veebers> robru: oh, why does it need rebuilt?
[00:53] <sil2100> ;)
[00:53] <veebers> robru: trunk is our development, we release into 1.5 branches etc.
[00:54] <veebers> robru: nothing has changed since I originally built the silo
[00:54] <sil2100> o/
[00:55] <robru> veebers: let me dig in a bit
[00:55] <veebers> robru: cheers
[00:57] <robru> veebers: i can't even
[00:58] <veebers> o_0 ?
[00:58] <robru> veebers: https://ci-train.ubuntu.com/job/ubuntu-landing-034-0-status/177/console so here's the debug log where it shows the raw 'bzr missing' output that makes it think there's new commits
[00:58] <robru> veebers: there's a bunch of commits from CI bot <ps-jenkins@lists.canonical.com> that have it very confused
[00:59] <robru> veebers: I think this is the same problem Saviq was experiencing earlier, I have an experimental fix ready but I'm just writing unit tests for it. can you wait a couple hours to publish or are you in a big hurry
[00:59] <robru> ?
[00:59] <veebers> robru: I can wait :-)
[01:00] <robru> veebers: ok thanks, hopefully I can get this finished before my appointment at the gym...
[01:00] <robru> (1.5 hours)
[01:00] <veebers> robru: sweet. You need to make an appointment for the gym?
[01:01] <robru> veebers: well the appointment is with my personal trainer ;-)
[01:01] <veebers> ah I see, sweet
[02:25] <robru> veebers: https://ci-train.ubuntu.com/job/ubuntu-landing-034-0-status/183/console well, that exploded. I'll investigate when I get back, ~2hrs
[02:26] <robru> Saviq: fix is looking good on your silo
[02:26] <veebers> robru: ack, thanks :-)
[04:27] <veebers> robru: FYI I'm EOW, If you need any feedback re: autopilot landing, jibel or nuclearbob should be able to help :-) Hve a good one o/
[05:59] <Mirv> mornings
[06:00] <Mirv> en route to sprint
[08:11] <tvoss> Mirv, O/
[08:11] <tvoss> Mirv, o/ even :) https://requests.ci-train.ubuntu.com/#/ticket/629
[08:11] <tvoss> Mirv, qtbase failed to build on ppc64el
[08:14] <Mirv> tvoss: ok, rebuilding, seems like temporary ICE, ppc64el builders have had those lately
[08:15] <tvoss> Mirv, yeah, my #ICE/day went up recently, too, to something like 5
[10:45] <Saviq> Mirv, http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/13665814/
[10:50] <Saviq> Mirv, looks like oxide grew 17MB?
[10:52] <Saviq> liboxideqtcore0
[10:52] <Saviq> Installed-Size: 76604
[10:52] <Saviq> Installed-Size: 60408
[10:52] <Saviq> any chance it's built with debug?
[11:00] <Saviq> Mirv, all the .pak files grew two orders of magnitude http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/13666052/
[11:00] <Saviq> oSoMoN, any idea about that ↑? that's oxide compiled against Qt 5.4 vs. Qt 5.5
[11:01] <Saviq> liboxideqtcore0a grew 16MB :/
[11:04] <oSoMoN> Saviq, let me check
[11:08] <jibel> popey, I added a comment on the reminders app card
[11:08] <jibel> popey, no results of automated tests essentially
[11:08] <popey> that's new, we've never had to do that before.
[11:09] <jibel> popey, because I was not reviewing your clicks before :)
[11:09] <jibel> it's the first time I look at reminders
[11:10] <popey> Ok, why are we getting inconsistent QA requests ?
[11:10] <popey> I don't think i should have to provide different things depending on who reviews it :(
[11:10] <jibel> if there are automated tests it is good to run them and have the results. and there are qml and ap tests
[11:11] <jibel> popey, true, we also have to review our own rules. But we request results of AP tests for non core app, there is no reason core apps would be an exception
[11:12] <popey> Right. Just news to me.
[11:12] <jibel> sorry
[11:12] <Mirv> Saviq: sorry, lunching. great catch, interesting!
[11:12] <Mirv> Saviq: it's a no-change rebuild as such
[11:13] <Mirv> Saviq: probably filing a bug is a good idea to study it
[11:14] <Mirv> Saviq: if that was 16MB and proposed new packages otherwise were 4MB and I think there were one or two smaller new deps, that's starting to be the total number you saw. but Oxide practically explains all of it, plus probably Qt really did grow a bit itself too.
[11:16] <oSoMoN> Saviq, Mirv: where can I find packages for oxide compiled against Qt 5.5 ? I’d like to compare the contents of the pak files that grew so much in size
[11:19] <Mirv> oSoMoN: launchpad
[11:19] <Mirv> oSoMoN: https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/oxide-qt/1.10.3-0ubuntu0.15.10.2
[11:20] <oSoMoN> Mirv, thanks
[11:24] <Saviq> Mirv, yeah, actually parts of Qt reduced in size (like qtgui), I'm not looking at anything else, this one is the culprit
[11:28] <Saviq> oSoMoN, yikes, it's like a whole book ended up in plain text in there
[11:28] <oSoMoN> Mirv, it looks like the larger pak files contain chromium browser strings, no idea how they ended up there (they don’t seem to be there in the amd64 package)
[11:29] <oSoMoN> chrisccoulson, any idea what happened here? ^^
[11:31] <oSoMoN> only the armhf build is affected, i386 and amd64 have lightweight pak files as expected
[11:41] <chrisccoulson> oSoMoN, not sure. But this looks suspicious:
[11:41] <chrisccoulson> ninja: warning: multiple rules generate gen/repack/am.pak. builds involving this target will not be correct; continuing anyway
[11:41] <boiko> Mirv: hi, is the new Qt landing just blocked on autopkgtest? we have a silo fixing telephony-service (the mediarole thing), can we mark it as ready for QA or do we need to wait for Qt to land in xenial first?
[11:42] <oSoMoN> chrisccoulson, yes, although this happens also on the amd64 build, and the pak files are correct there
[11:43] <Mirv> boiko: it's not really blocked anymore since yesterday evening's two fixes, but the autopkgtest infra is very overloaded due to glibc upload
[11:43] <boiko> Mirv: ah ok
[11:43] <Mirv> boiko: the silos are building against -proposed, so yes it's ok to mark it as ready for QA
[11:43] <boiko> Mirv: great! thanks
[11:49] <oSoMoN> Mirv, can you retry the armhf build for oxide-qt in silo 59, see if the issue goes away by any chance?
[11:49] <Mirv> oSoMoN: ok
[11:50] <Mirv> oSoMoN: oh, no, it's a) succeeded (can't be retried), b) published, so shouldn't be touched
[11:50] <Mirv> oSoMoN: we can of course compile it somewhere again
[11:50] <Mirv> let me use 032 where I'm currently dumping all kinds of testing stuff since we're low on silos
[11:50] <oSoMoN> Mirv, ok
[11:51] <Mirv> oSoMoN: building at https://launchpad.net/~ci-train-ppa-service/+archive/ubuntu/landing-032/+sourcepub/5747666/+listing-archive-extra
[12:07] <chrisccoulson> oSoMoN, something's pulling in stuff under chrome/, but I'm not entirely sure what
[12:08] <chrisccoulson> http://paste.ubuntu.com/13667048/
[12:08] <chrisccoulson> that definitely shouldn't be there
[13:46] <tvoss> robru, you around?
[13:48] <rvr> Mirv: renatu: Silo 31 approved.
[14:03] <tvoss> Mirv, you around?
[14:08] <Mirv> tvoss: not really anymore
[14:08] <tvoss> Mirv, ack
[14:08]  * tvoss wonders if a train guard is around
[14:08] <Mirv> tvoss: just hilight train guards and ask for the action always :)
[14:09] <tvoss> trainguards, can I haz silo for https://requests.ci-train.ubuntu.com/#/ticket/748 ?
[14:11] <Mirv> tvoss: right, yes soon, I'll handle a few more little things quickly
[14:11] <ChrisTownsend> trainguards: Could you please do a merge & clean for https://requests.ci-train.ubuntu.com/#/ticket/726 ?  I guess I don't have permission to do that...
[14:12] <Mirv> ChrisTownsend: sure, but it hasn't migrated to release pocket so please keep an eye that it migrates as part of the Qt landing later succesfully. we're low on silos so I'm happy to clean it now.
[14:12] <Mirv> autopkgtests seem fine for it
[14:13] <ChrisTownsend> Mirv: Oh, is that the reason I don't have permission to do the merge, because it hasn't migrated out of proposed?
[14:14] <Mirv> ChrisTownsend: yes, and if it was migrated it would have already automatically merged
[14:14] <ChrisTownsend> Mirv: Oh, ok, thanks for the info!
[14:14] <ChrisTownsend> Mirv: And thanks for going ahead and doing the merge.
[14:15] <Mirv> sil2100: please handle the 026 publication as it has a main package
[14:15] <Mirv> ChrisTownsend: you're welcome
[14:17] <Mirv> tvoss: you've a silo
[14:17]  * Mirv EOS (end-of-sprint)
[14:17] <tvoss> Mirv, thanks :)
[14:17] <pete-woods> trainguards: hi folks, and chance of an assign for my silo request? (https://requests.ci-train.ubuntu.com/#/ticket/749)
[14:34] <bfiller> robru: what is issue with silo 20? status says diff missing
[14:34] <bfiller> salem_: ^^^^
[14:34] <dobey> Mirv: oh, should i go ahead and merge/clean my silo that's blocked in release pocket becasue qt5.5 too?
[14:34] <bfiller> sil2100: also can you force merge silo 48 please, been stuck in proposed for over 1 day now and we need to release
[14:37] <salem_> trainguards: can any of you trigger a rebuild of telephony-service on silo 24 for i386 only?
[14:47] <boiko> trainguards: any idea what is the diff missing status on silo 20?
[14:47] <dobey> bfiller: is that some sort of standard practice to do?
[14:48] <bfiller> dobey: is what a standard practice?
[14:49] <dobey> bfiller: merging things when stuff is stuck in proposed?
[14:50] <bfiller> dobey: you can ask sil2100 about that, not standard but we need to be ublocked so either we figure out the root cause quickly or it needs to get merged regardless
[14:51] <bfiller> it's blocking further changes against trunk as these changes need to be merged first
[14:54] <dobey> bfiller: the root cause is almost certainl qt5.5
[14:55] <bfiller> dobey: ok, how do we fix that?
[14:56] <dobey> bfiller: last i knew mirv and pitti were working on getting it fixed, but i guess mirv at least was at a sprint, and i don't know what the current status is other than "still blocked in proposed"
[14:56] <sil2100> bfiller: looking
[14:56] <sil2100> salem_: on it
[14:56] <salem_> sil2100, thanks
[14:56] <sil2100> Sorry guys, had some problems with my cat, but I'm back now
[14:56] <dobey> sil2100: hi. is force merging in these situations acceptable/standard?
[14:57] <sil2100> salem_: done, but I see the package failed on all archs on xenial anyway
[14:58] <salem_> sil2100, yes, silo 20 fixes that
[14:58] <sil2100> dobey: well... I need to see, since if a package is blocked not because of its own reasons (so, failing because something else is failing autopkgtests), then it's acceptable
[14:58] <salem_> sil2100, qt on proposed breaks the build.
[15:00] <dobey> sil2100: ok, i have an ubuntuone-credentials silo blocked because qt5.5 is causing various kde libs/apps autopkgtests to fail, but the u1-credentials tests pass. and not having it landed is blocking me getting another critical bug fix built in a silo (first silo is to fix a compile issue with new qt5.5)
[15:01] <dobey> silo 10 is the one blocked in proposed still
[15:06] <sil2100> dobey: hmmm, yeah, qt 5.5 might indeed cause trouble for now
[15:06] <sil2100> I'll take a look into that as well
[15:09] <sil2100> Mirv: once you're around (and back from the sprint) - could you take a look into the autopkgtest regressions caused by qt 5.5?
[15:17] <boiko> sil2100: any idea on what is the diff missing status on silo 20?
[15:20] <dobey> boiko: that looks like the last job was aborted at the "diff missing" message is inaccurate due to some race condition.
[15:20] <Mirv> dobey: bfiller sil2100 landing Qt and resolving autopkgtest failures is what I did at the sprint. all is ready, just test infra lagging with queue.
[15:20] <sil2100> \o/
[15:21] <sil2100> Ok, let's wait in that case
[15:21] <sil2100> If it doesn't migrate, I force merge some of the ones that are blocked for obvious reasons
[15:21] <boiko> dobey: yeah, I accidentally triggered a rebuild of that silo, and when I realized it was the wrong silo, I cancelled it
[15:22] <sil2100> boiko: looks like dobey figured it out ;)
[15:23] <boiko> sil2100: but what should I do? just publish it?
[15:26] <dobey> ok
[15:26] <dobey> boiko: do a watch only rebuild maybe, to get status back in sync
[15:27] <sil2100> boiko: there's a DIFF_ONLY flag
[15:27] <sil2100> You can use that now
[15:27] <dobey> or that :)
[15:27] <sil2100> WATCH_ONLY has been deprecated (or really renamed ;p)
[15:29] <boiko> sil2100: nice!
[15:33] <abeato> trainguards, hey, getting an error when assigning due to low number of silos, is it possible to grab one?
[15:34] <sil2100> abeato: let me take a look
[15:34] <abeato> sil2100, thanks
[15:36] <abeato> sil2100, :)
[15:36] <dobey> oh awesome
[15:36] <dobey> now there's a new gcc in proposed too!
[15:53] <pete-woods> trainguards: hey guys. not wanting to nag, but could really do with a silo assigned for me (https://requests.ci-train.ubuntu.com/#/ticket/749)
[15:54] <sil2100> pete-woods: hey! Ok, let me see if I can assign our very last silo to you
[15:54] <sil2100> ;)
[15:57] <pete-woods> sil2100: that would be very much appreciated
[15:57] <pete-woods> quite the backlog we seem to have today
[15:58] <pete-woods> maybe silos should expire after 5 days of no activity or something ;)
[16:14] <jibel> sil2100, once silo 26 is in the archive can you rebuild an image?
[16:16] <sil2100> jibel: sure, will finish the packaging review in a moment
[16:19] <sil2100> ehhh
[16:19] <sil2100> jibel: so, I'm not sure if I can publish silo 26
[16:20] <sil2100> pete-woods: hah ;) So, not sure if I can assign a silo for you, after the rtm meeting we have a priority landing happening
[16:20] <sil2100> pete-woods: but there might be one more free
[16:20] <sil2100> Since I think we have 61 silos, not 60
[16:20] <pete-woods> sil2100: okay, well thanks for considering it at least :)
[16:21] <sil2100> Grrrr
[16:22] <sil2100> jibel: I need to rebuild a package there
[16:22] <sil2100> hmmm
[16:22] <sil2100> This is complicated, eh
[16:27] <davmor2> awe__, abeato, morphis: silos 9 and 46 are approved
[16:27] <abeato> davmor2, great :)
[16:36] <awe__> thanks davmor2!
[16:38] <awe__> thanks davmor2; saw that you approved silo-26, but it hasn't landed yet...
[16:39] <davmor2> awe__: one for others than me I have no control over it once I hit qa granted
[16:39] <awe__> right
[16:39]  * awe__ crosses his fingers
[16:40] <davmor2> sil2100: ^
[16:40] <sil2100> Yeah, 26 is in progress, need to rebuild a package there
[16:40] <sil2100> Will require a quick re-test
[16:41] <awe__> ok; let me know if you need any help sil2100
[16:41] <davmor2> sil2100: what there is no quick retests for 26 it touches the whole universe ;)
[16:41] <sil2100> davmor2, jibel: switched silo 26 to 'Ready for QA' so that robru or anyone else doesn't publish it by mistake
[16:42] <sil2100> mediascanner2 rebuilding
[16:43] <jibel> davmor2, it's mediascanner only
[16:43] <sil2100> A no-change rebuild
[16:44] <davmor2> shuggin fashin shuggin fashin dick dastardly
[17:50] <dobey> i wonder how long it's going to take for migration to catch up
[18:05] <jibel> sil2100, how long for a rebuilt of 26?
[18:06] <jibel> d*
[18:23] <jibel> kenvandine, 2 AP tests failed for system settings in 44, the same 2 tests that failed in previous landing in silo 14, could you have a look?
[18:26] <kenvandine> jibel, those were the same 2 tests that have been failing for a while
[18:26] <kenvandine> the fix just landed in trunk, but since the last CI run for that
[18:27] <sil2100> jibel: almost done, I guess you guys can start now
[18:27] <sil2100> jibel: the arm64 build is still ongoing
[18:27] <sil2100> It takes a while
[18:28] <sil2100> jibel: but the armhf packages are already built
[18:29] <sil2100> robru: hey! Just so you know, I'll take care of silo 26 once it's done
[18:30] <sil2100> robru: oh, and ubuntu/landing-014 - this is a 'special' hack silo, don't worry about it - it won't be published, everything will be handled manually by me
[18:32] <kenvandine> jibel, the stub-update-server branch fixed those tests, which was just merged this morning
[18:33] <kenvandine> correction, yesterday :)
[18:34] <jibel> kenvandine, ah good, the tests ran 2 days ago, no next run should be fine.
[18:34] <jibel> so*
[18:34] <kenvandine> yeah
[18:34] <kenvandine> the other branch in that silo passed, it ran since the fix merged :)
[18:35]  * kenvandine is thankful to have more reliable tests now
[18:52] <jibel> sil2100, ^
[18:52] <jibel> 26 is good to land
[18:52] <sil2100> \o/
[18:52] <sil2100> Ok, re-trying
[18:53] <jibel> we seem to love busy Friday nights :/
[19:02] <sil2100> ;/
[19:02] <sil2100> Yeah
[19:03] <sil2100> hm, still wasn't super happy with 26, but well... good enough for the emergency case we have here
[19:04] <sil2100> jibel: once this is published I will go AFK for a bit, but will be back after an hour
[19:05] <jibel> sil2100, np. We just need a build then, nothing else?
[19:05] <sil2100> Yeah, all copy-package calls we'll do next week
[19:05] <pmcgowan> did we get renatos fix?
[19:06] <jibel> no
[19:06] <jibel> pmcgowan, the silo is still not marked ready for testing
[19:07] <jibel> pmcgowan, if it's ready today we can land it first thing on Monday
[19:07] <pmcgowan> yeah sure
[19:07] <pmcgowan> bfiller, is that close?
[19:16] <bfiller> pmcgowan: testing it now
[19:30] <dobey> hmm
[19:31] <dobey> would be nice if there was a better live view of migration "excuses"
[19:32] <dobey> sil2100: seems qt is still not processed yet. i wonder how much longer it will be?
[19:32] <dobey> :-/
[19:32] <davmor2> dobey: more than a minute less than a decade as a ball park figure ;)
[19:34] <dobey> davmor2: i wouldn't be surprised if it takes a decade :)
[20:28] <dobey> so tempted to just force merge
[21:22] <dobey> trainguards: seems qt5.5 is *still* blocked in proposed migration, and thus blocking my silo 10 landing as well, which in turn is blocking another silo with a critical fix. is it acceptable to force merge silo 10 so i can make further progress here?
[21:25] <sil2100> dobey: hey, let me look
[21:25] <sil2100> I'll probably force merge it
[21:26] <sil2100> dobey: hmm, it looks like test in progress
[21:27] <dobey> sil2100: on the excuses page?
[21:27] <sil2100> Yeah
[21:27] <dobey> sil2100: yeah, the autopkgtests keep getting re-run again and again for lots of things, because there's new qt5.5, glibc, and gcc-5 in proposed, and it's been going pretty insane the past few days
[21:28] <sil2100> Anyway, force merging, it depends on Qt and it seems it'll still stay there for a while
[21:32] <dobey> sil2100: ok, great, thanks!