[00:11] <qengho> I'm accustomed to having branches inside a project in bzr, say lp:~team/proj/kode
[00:12] <qengho> Suppose I have a project that has two unrelated git repositories. Can I upload Git branches lp:~team/proj/trunk and lp:~team/proj/proj-dependency ?
[00:13] <qengho> The second is hosted somewhere else altogether, upstream.
[00:13] <qengho> On LP, the second might also be a packaging branch or something.
[00:14] <qengho> Or the build-recipe skeleton.
[00:14] <wgrant> qengho: lp:~OWNER/TARGET/+git/NAME is the full URL to a git repository. Similar to bzr, one can be given an lp:TARGET alias, but there is also the lp:~OWNER/TARGET alias.
[00:15] <wgrant> Since most people only need one repo per project, they can just ignore that the long URLs exist at all.
[00:15] <wgrant> But if you want multiple you can push them to a new full URL by tacking /+git/NAME on the end.
[00:16] <wgrant> (but in git you can also just have multiple branches in the same repo, of course)
[01:38] <qengho> One can't make packaging recipes from git branches, can one?
[01:39] <qengho> I have a remote git branch that I want to automatically package. It has GPG-signed commits so I can't import to bzr branches. I can't seem to recipe-package if it's in git.
[01:39] <qengho> Le sigh.
[01:40] <wgrant> qengho: They're currently in beta.
[01:40] <qengho> Ooo! beta team.
[01:40] <wgrant> If you join the beta team you can use them.
[01:40] <qengho> Done!
[01:40] <wgrant> There are some minor known bugs which I'm rolling out fixes for today, but the basics work fine.
[01:41] <qengho> wgrant: Upi
[01:41] <qengho> wgrant: You're pretty great. I'm glad you're with us.
[01:41] <qengho> Thank you.
[01:41] <wgrant> Let me know if you run into any issues.
[11:17] <bapoumba> ping any Launchpad admin please :)
[11:19] <wgrant> bapoumba: Your account was probably caught in spam crossfire yesterday. #canonical-sysadmin can help you.
[11:19] <bapoumba> OK thanks wgrant :)
[11:19] <bapoumba> I thought so, next time I’ll leave the wiki spam alone ^^
[11:19] <wgrant> It's best not to remove spam yourself.
[11:20] <wgrant> If it sticks around then let someone know, but if our automated scripts detect it after you've been playing with it, they might decide you look like the spammer yourself.
[11:20] <bapoumba> OK I’ll not remove any more, I just do not like people ruin community work ..
[11:20] <wgrant> Yeah, it's not a good situation.
[11:21] <bapoumba> thanks again :)
[14:34] <bookwar> hi, can anyone ban the user and remove the blueprint here https://blueprints.launchpad.net/mos/+spec/jhjg ?
[19:16] <tpham3783> on LP git import; is it possible for it to import all branches (from a project on github ie)... then write 3 recipes, one for each branch?
[19:28] <dobey> you can import to different bzr branches
[19:29] <dobey> or wait for git->git imports
[19:29] <dobey> or mirror to git manually
[19:51] <tpham3783> dobey, thank you....i'll just build one branch then..
[20:24] <teward> uhm... so a bit of a huge issue, i'm getting a lot of FTBFS on ppa uploads about ftpmaster.internal not being available
[20:24] <teward> so it's causing a good portion of my PPA uploads jsut now to explode
[20:24] <teward> also a chroot problem
[20:25] <Logan> ^ this, just came here to say it
[20:25] <Logan> seems to be transient
[20:25] <Logan> depends on the buildd, I think
[20:25] <Logan> cjwatson?
[20:31] <teward> it's also hitting quite a lot of my PPA uploads for nginx 1.9.11
[20:31] <teward> so i'll have to rerun the builds that failed
[20:31] <teward> (7 and counting)
[20:31] <dobey> yeah i just had some recipes fail because of it
[20:34] <beuno> teward, Logan, we're rebooting all our services due to the gcc bug announced
[20:35] <beuno> I'm raising this though in case it's not known
[20:35] <beuno> but there will be a bit of instability for a little while
[20:35] <Logan> thanks for the clarification!
[20:41] <teward> beuno: thanks for the clarification.
[21:17] <cjwatson> teward: investigating, I don't think this is pure instability
[21:19] <teward> cjwatson: yeah, it didn't appear to be
[21:19] <teward> cjwatson: thanks
[21:38] <cjwatson> teward: should be fixed now, I'll give back failures
[21:47] <teward> cjwatson: thanks; should I be OK to rerun the failed builds?
[21:47] <cjwatson> teward: I'll do it
[21:48] <teward> thanks
[21:48] <cjwatson> prefer doing this kind of cleanup en masse
[21:48] <teward> indeed :)