[08:37] <pstolowski> rvr, ping
[09:29] <rvr> pstolowski: pong
[09:33] <pstolowski> rvr, hey, have you seen the emails I sent this morning? can we reconsider silo 1?
[09:33] <rvr> pstolowski: Nope, let me read them
[09:33] <pstolowski> rvr, flickr scope was flaky imo, the new one Enwei included works fine for me
[09:37] <rvr> pstolowski: Ah, I see.
[09:38] <rvr> pstolowski: But, are we sure this scope is going to land in OTA12?
[09:38] <pstolowski> rvr,  that's what Enwei said.. it's under control of his team
[09:43] <mardy> trainguards: can you help me understand this problem? https://requests.ci-train.ubuntu.com/static/britney/ticket-1497/landing-059-xenial/excuses.html
[09:45] <robru> mardy: did you stop building the package named there?
[09:46] <sil2100> robru, mardy: I think I know what's up
[09:46] <sil2100> It's probably because some old accounts-plugin package was built there
[09:46] <sil2100> https://launchpad.net/~ci-train-ppa-service/+archive/ubuntu/landing-059/+packages?field.name_filter=account-plugins&field.status_filter=&field.series_filter=
[09:46] <robru> sil2100: I think delete superceded uploads in that PPA
[09:46] <sil2100> mardy, robru: let me fix that ^
[09:46] <sil2100> Yeah
[09:47] <sil2100> That's what I wanted to do, we had that once already
[09:47] <sil2100> mardy: should be good with the next britney run
[09:48] <robru> sil2100: yeah, thanks for taking care of that 😉
[09:53] <mardy> sil2100, robru: thanks guys! Let me know, if I should add a Conflicts for that old package, to force its removal
[10:31] <rvr> mzanetti_: How can I test that libertine-scope can directly activate things?
[10:32] <mzanetti_> rvr, installing that scope and launching something :)
[10:32] <mzanetti_> hmm... actually, I'm not 100% sure if the scope does that already...
[10:32] <mzanetti_> rvr, I've tested it by looking at the debug prints in the scope backend
[10:45] <dbarth_> jibel: ping? can you check silo 19; i still can't find it in trello
[10:46] <dbarth_> it contains a high prio fix for webrtc apps
[10:48] <dbarth_> thanks
[10:50] <robru> dbarth_: you should probably find a core dev to hit retry on the unity8 regression in that silo, if it's a flaky/transient failure
[11:22] <mzanetti_> robru, you still on hols?
[11:25] <robru> mzanetti: yes
[11:25] <robru> mzanetti: all week
[11:26] <mzanetti> robru, ok, where should I report bugs for bileto in the meantime?
[11:26] <robru> mzanetti: file against lp:bileto
[11:26] <robru> mzanetti: if it's totally critical blocker I'll take a look
[11:26] <mzanetti> ack, now the other question, what the hell are you doing here?
[11:26] <robru> mzanetti: if it's just annoying / has a workaround, I'll look next week
[11:26] <robru> mzanetti: it's 42 degrees in greece so I'm enjoying some AC until it cools off this evening
[11:26] <mzanetti> have a nice day!
[11:27] <robru> mzanetti: thanks
[11:38] <rvr> pstolowski: Silo 1 approved. Let's make sure that the new flickr scope arrives to images.
[11:38] <pstolowski> rvr, awesome, thanks!
[11:39] <pstolowski> mzanetti, ^
[11:56] <mzanetti> rvr, pstolowski, thanks
[11:56] <mzanetti> bregma, hey, the direct activation branch for the libertine scope is about to land, just got QA approved
[12:15] <Wellark> trainguards: what should I do with this: https://requests.ci-train.ubuntu.com/#/ticket/1342
[12:15] <Wellark> the code got merged a while back
[12:15] <Wellark> but the ticket remained
[12:15] <Wellark> so, should I hit Finalize or Abandon?
[12:17] <robru> Wellark: so you're saying the code was merged even though the silo was never published? Why did that happen?
[12:18] <Wellark> robru: I don't know, it might have been published, I was on holiday and dobey did some magic
[12:18] <robru> Wellark: was that MP included on a different ticket?
[12:19] <jgdx> rvr, hey, are you testing s41?
[12:19] <rvr> jgdx: It is not in trello
[12:20] <Wellark> robru: oh, might be
[12:20] <Wellark> robru: so this one can just be cancelled
[12:20] <Wellark> *abandoned
[12:20] <jgdx> rvr, okay
[12:21] <rvr> jgdx: Wasn't marked as Ready for QA
[12:21] <rvr> jgdx: Automated sign-off was running this morning
[12:21] <jgdx> rvr, it failed? /me looks
[12:21] <jgdx> still running
[12:21] <jgdx> okay
[12:22] <robru> Wellark: yeah trunk looks like it was released,so just abandon please
[12:26] <Wellark> robru: thanks!
[12:26] <robru> Wellark: you're welcome
[12:26] <abeato> sil2100, has the transition from pd finished? should I use a different channel for flashing frieza these days? (instead of ubuntu-touch/rc-proposed/bq-aquaris-pd.en)
[12:43] <sil2100> abeato: not finished yet, the tarball testing didn't finish
[12:46] <abeato> sil2100, ok, thanks
[13:17] <alex-abreu> robru, ping
[13:17] <robru> alex-abreu: hi
[13:17] <alex-abreu> robru, hi
[13:18] <alex-abreu> robru, I have a signoff failure in silo 19, it seems to be related to https://requests.ci-train.ubuntu.com/static/britney/ticket-1503/landing-019-yakkety/excuses.html unity8 timing test
[13:18] <robru> alex-abreu: so you need a core dev to hit retry on that
[13:18] <sil2100> o/
[13:19] <alex-abreu> alex-abreu, not sure if it is a glitch
[13:19] <alex-abreu> seems to be
[13:19] <alex-abreu> robru, arent you one?
[13:20] <robru> alex-abreu: no
[13:20] <sil2100> Retried
[13:20] <alex-abreu> sil2100, thx
[13:20] <sil2100> yw
[13:33] <alex-abreu> sil2100, hmm, did it fail again or hasnt run yet?
[13:34] <sil2100> alex-abreu: hm, hard to say, maybe it still didn't run yet
[13:43] <alex-abreu> sil2100, sorry, can you retry again? mzanetti seems to confirm that the unity8 test failure for Y is a glitch
[13:43] <sil2100> alex-abreu: sure
[13:43] <mzanetti> yeah... sorry :/
[13:43] <sil2100> Done
[13:53] <alex-abreu> sil2100, mzanetti it seemed to have failed again, jibel could QA force it through ? (silo 19)
[13:53] <mzanetti> tbh I'm struggling to believe it would be so fast :D
[13:54] <alex-abreu> mzanetti, ah possibly, ... I just check the ticket timestamp https://requests.ci-train.ubuntu.com/static/britney/ticket-1503/landing-019-yakkety/excuses.html
[14:07] <robru> alex-abreu: mzanetti: sil2100: be sure to check the URL that the word 'regression' points to in order to tell if it's actually changed to a new failure or if it's still the old result. the excuses page is currently updating every 15 minutes.
[17:46] <dobey> trainguards: how does one build only one of the source packages in a silo? in the jenkins build i could specify which packages to build in a text entry
[17:46] <robru> dobey: is this your first build of the ticket?
[17:47] <dobey> robru: no. found a bug in something else, and there's a branch for it now, so i want to add it to the ticket, but build only that
[17:47] <robru> dobey: ok so you don't see the checkboxes on the build job that allow you to just check off which packages to build?
[17:47] <dobey> with jenkins i could tell it to only build that source package
[17:47] <dobey> oh ok
[17:48] <dobey> robru: ah no, because the source package wasn't in the silo already
[17:48] <robru> dobey: there's a "bug" where it only offers that for the second and later builds because at the time of the first build it doesn't know what packages are there.
[17:49] <robru> dobey: anyway if it's not offering the checkbox edit the ticket and put the source package name in the sources field. that's where it gets the checkboxes from
[17:49] <dobey> yeah, did that and i see it now
[17:49] <dobey> robru: i guess this is a slightly different 'bug' from that, since the source package didn't previously exist in the silo
[17:50] <robru> dobey: no it's the same. the checkboxes are just drawn from what's written in the sources field, and the sources field is auto-populated by builds / scanning the PPA. so it's a chicken-and-egg thing
[17:50] <dobey> right
[17:52] <robru> dobey: I'm a bit annoyed with that, because in theory clicking the checkboxes is easier than typing the name in that jenkins field, but not if the checkboxes don't appear
[17:53] <robru> I'll have to make it scan the MPs at the time the ticket is created/updated or something, rather than waiting for builds. not sure how that'll work exactly...
[17:54] <dobey> robru: also maybe indent the checkboxes, and insert a <br/> or whatever, so they're on separate lines? :)
[19:58] <Wellark> trainguards: this claims regression, but I can't find anything in the log: https://requests.ci-train.ubuntu.com/static/britney/ticket-1324/landing-080-vivid/excuses.html
[19:58] <Wellark> two times in a row now
[19:59] <tedg> Wellark: I think it's still "in-progress" no?
[19:59] <tedg> Wait, that's armhf
[20:00] <Wellark> i386 shows regression
[20:00] <tedg> qmluitests.sh        FAIL timed out
[20:01] <Wellark> oh..