[09:25] <oSoMoN> sil2100, hey, would you mind publishing silo 80 on my behalf? it has (approved) packaging changes, so I won’t be allowed to do it myself
[09:33] <sil2100> oSoMoN: let me take a look
[09:36] <sil2100> oSoMoN: ok, looks good, wanted to ask you (or actually Kaleo) to mention packaging changes in the changelog but! Actually you guys did that, but the train just truncated the commitmessage
[09:36] <sil2100> oSoMoN: so all good
[09:36] <sil2100> :)
[09:36] <sil2100> (we just need to poke robru about this)
[09:45] <oSoMoN> sil2100, thanks!
[09:47] <sil2100> yw!
[13:49] <rvr> lpotter: ping
[14:59] <rvr> lpotter: jhodapp: Silo 55 approved
[14:59] <jhodapp> rvr, nice thanks!
[15:01] <jhodapp> sil2100, would you mind publishing: https://requests.ci-train.ubuntu.com/#/ticket/1533
[15:05] <sil2100> jhodapp: on it!
[15:06] <jhodapp> thanks sil2100
[15:31] <robru> morphis: Hiya.
[15:32] <morphis> robru: hey
[15:32] <robru> morphis: I see you have a trio ticket with an MP targetted at a branch with 15.04 in the name
[15:32] <robru> morphis: that sounds wrong
[15:33] <morphis> robru: it failed to build otherwise
[15:33] <morphis> look at the changelog in that branch
[15:33] <morphis> looks like it was released for yakkety last time too
[15:33] <robru> morphis: right. I also saw you fail to build it for just vivid
[15:33] <morphis> robru: I tried to build is just for vivid as that is what the branch is for
[15:34] <morphis> but actually citrain wasn't happy with that
[15:34] <robru> morphis: what you need to do is make sure your vivid target branch has a vivid version number
[15:34] <morphis> because of the changelog
[15:34] <morphis> robru: ah
[15:35] <robru> morphis: then you can build just vivid. It deliberately prevents you from doing a vivid landing on the normal trunk because going backwards with version numbers isn't allowed
[15:35] <morphis> right
[15:35] <morphis> robru: let me change that
[15:36] <robru> morphis: but in this case your vivid target branch is misconfigured
[15:36] <morphis> in which way?
[15:40] <robru> morphis: I just mean the wrong version is in the changelog so it isn't really a vivid branch at all
[15:40] <morphis> ah ok
[15:41] <morphis> robru: I think this branch was created from a previously used triple-landing branch and then never correctly setup
[15:41] <robru> You just need to change the version on the first line of the changelog to be a vivid one
[15:43] <robru> dbarth: same to you. If you want to do a vivid only click landing you need to fork trunk and fix the changelog to have a vivid version. You can't do a vivid landing targetted at trunk because that will break the trunk changelog
[15:45] <robru> morphis: dbarth: and when I say fix the changelog I mean you need to commit the fix directly to the target branch, it won't work to include the fix in your MP,  I don't think
[15:45] <morphis> robru: aye
[15:46] <robru> Well it might work in the MP now that I think about it. But it'll definitely work if you fix the target first so that's safer
[16:17] <dbarth> robru: ack (just reading the logs)
[16:18] <dbarth> alex-abreu: ^^ fyi just in case
[16:23] <dbarth> robru: btw, we're preparing that SRU silo with mardy: https://requests.ci-train.ubuntu.com/#/ticket/1669
[16:24] <dbarth> ie, targetting 16.04 specific branches; hope we're doing that the right way
[16:26] <robru> dbarth: well if it's wrong you'll see the same error about failing to add the changelog message
[16:26] <robru> So just keep an eye for that
[16:26] <dbarth> ok
[16:26] <dbarth> robru: well, after spinning around for a bit, i'm trying to do a bileto hook for that click silo; which changes build deps in the control file
[16:27] <dbarth> robru: if i do that in a 3-release silo, i assume i can count on the changelog to be updated in one go and be proper, right?
[16:30] <robru> dbarth: yes, a trio silo targetting trunk will always work
[16:30] <robru> dbarth: the thing is you can't target trunk with vivid because vivid version numbers are lower than yakkety, which is what's in trunk. so you just need a separate lp:click/vivid with a modified changelog for it to work
[16:30] <robru> dbarth: but anyways yeah, the hook idea in a trio silo would be better anyway
[16:31] <dbarth> ok
[17:31] <dobey> robru: i think we have a problem when things want to be SRUs
[17:32] <robru> dobey: the PPA dependency you mean?
[17:32] <dobey> robru: yeah
[17:32] <dobey> things still get built against the overlay
[17:33] <robru> dobey: yes https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1600188
[17:35] <dobey> hmm, and i don't see a good way to solve this, without ephemeral PPAs
[17:36] <dobey> because, even Y has the PPA still
[17:36] <robru> dobey: yeah but stable overlay shouldn' have any yakkety packages so it doesn't hurt anything
[17:36] <robru> dobey: is there a specific ticket you want the PPA dependency changed on?
[17:39] <dobey> robru: just saw the backlog and dbarth talking about an SRU silo; and realized that Wellark had one as well for an indicator-power change (but he already ran publish on it, so i'm not sure if it's broken or not)
[17:39] <robru> hm
[17:40] <robru> well if there's an issue I'm sure they'll find it during SRU verification
[19:43] <fginther> dobey, did you get your jenkins-launchpad-plugin question resolved?
[19:44] <dobey> fginther: not yet. put that issue in the background for now
[19:44] <fginther> ok