[09:01] <cjwatson> pbek: Can you tell me whether (a) you checked the "Automatically upload to store" checkbox when you created the qownnotes snap in Launchpad to begin with or (b) you edited it later to check that?
[09:02] <cjwatson> Our logs don't quite tell me that.
[09:03] <pbek> cjwatson: if the question is if I the checkbox was checked and then an other manual and later an automatic build was initiated the answer is: yes
[09:03] <pbek> was that your question?
[09:05] <pbek> I cannot remember if I checked it while I was creating the launchpad configuration initially for that snap...
[09:05] <pbek> ..but defenitely before the builds were triggered
[09:06] <pbek> -defenitely +definitely
[09:07] <pbek> I'm 65% sure I didn't checked it to begin with :)
[09:11] <cjwatson> pbek: I don't care about when the builds happened relative to it
[09:11] <cjwatson> pbek: But it does possibly make a difference if it was checked when you initially created the snap vs. checked later
[09:14] <pbek> cjwatson: I'm sorry, I can't tell for sure, because I may have checked it to see if I can assign a store page and then turned it off again for the first build... I defenitely made the first builds with the checkbox off, because I turned it on later when the builds went through for the first time.
[09:14] <cjwatson> pbek: Working on the 65% option, I have a likely-looking theory for why this didn't get sorted out automatically.  However, you can fix it now by going to https://code.launchpad.net/~pbek/+snap/qownnotes/+authorize and following the prompts
[09:15] <cjwatson> pbek: This doesn't close the bug since you should have been sent through that when you checked the checkbox, but I can fix that for the future
[09:16] <pbek> cjwatson: thank you, I re-authorized now and requested a build
[09:18] <cjwatson> (Theory: the Snap:+edit page sends you through Snap:+authorize if you change the series or name, including setting them if they were previously unset.  However, it erroneously doesn't send you through that if you only checked store_upload and didn't change anything else.  It's quite possible that both store_series and store_name were initially set, especially for a git-based snap where we detect store_
[09:19] <cjwatson> name from the git branch.)
[09:30] <pbek> cjwatson: The builds that finished already issued a new revision in the store (thanks a lot!). But I still have to set a channel and publish each of them manually, right?
[09:33] <cjwatson> pbek: Right, the code to do that automatically will be part of our next rollout but isn't on production yet.
[09:34] <pbek> cjwatson: there are now 4 new revisions (for the 4 architectures I built for) in the store and I set the channel to `stable`  and released them one by one. I guess, `snap` will pick the right architecture by itself even not all architectures are in one snap, right?
[09:35] <pbek> and I wonder what https://uappexplorer.com/app/qownnotes.pbek will pick up...
[09:37] <cjwatson> pbek: I believe the client will pick up the right architecture, yes.  No idea about uappexplorer.
[09:39] <pbek> ok, thanks a lot cjwatson! do you know by any chance something about why the snap doesn't use the native Qt themeing even though the binary is called with `desktop-launch` and users `desktop/qt5`?
[09:39] <cjwatson> pbek: Way out of my field now, sorry.
[09:39] <pbek> ok, thanks a lot for your help!
[10:01] <cjwatson> pbek: Thanks for the report; I've posted a merge proposal to fix the underlying LP bug here.
[10:02] <pbek> cjwatson: great, thank you!
[10:30] <pbek> cjwatson: is it possible to also release regular deb packages from https://launchpad.net/~pbek/+archive/ubuntu/qownnotes/+packages to the store?
[10:31] <pbek> possibly even automatically?
[10:39] <cjwatson> pbek: No; the store is being moved to snaps and is in the process of phasing out accepting debs.
[10:39] <cjwatson> pbek: So that wouldn't be very worthwhile work to do in Launchpad.
[10:39] <cjwatson> pbek: You should have got mail about this a little while back if you have debs in the store.
[10:41] <pbek> cjwatson: No, I haven't debs in the store, but I am creating them with Launchpad, so I was wondering... Thanks for letting me know. So snaps will be the future in the Ubuntu store?
[10:42] <cjwatson> pbek: That is my understanding of the plan.
[10:42] <cjwatson> pbek: (Launchpad PPAs aren't going away though.)
[10:43] <pbek> I nope it will be possible to match the Qt themes by then... :)
[10:43] <cjwatson> Pass :)
[11:51] <kyrofa> Hmm... I'm either severely jetlagged, or the method to create a snap for building on LP has changed. I could previously select my git branch and say "create snap" from there... now I can't find it
[11:52] <kyrofa> And I have no idea what time zone I'm in so I don't know if anyone is around :P
[11:57] <kyrofa> cjwatson, do you know anything about that?
[12:01] <cjwatson> wut
[12:03] <cjwatson> kyrofa: yes, appears to have regressed.  can you please file a bug and I'll get it sorted out ASAP?
[12:04] <kyrofa> cjwatson, ah! Okay, so I'm not insane, good deal. I've never logged a bug against LP before, where is that?
[12:04] <cjwatson> kyrofa: https://bugs.launchpad.net/launchpad/+filebug
[12:05] <kyrofa> cjwatson, I suppose I could have guessed...
[12:05] <cjwatson> I see the problem.  Looking for why tests didn't catch it, though.
[12:05] <cjwatson> I guess it's possible we never checked for the presence of that link.
[12:06] <cjwatson> kyrofa: For now, you can work around this by adding "/+new-snap" to the URL for the git branch, which is where the missing link should point to.
[12:06]  * cjwatson -> lunch
[12:08] <kyrofa> cjwatson, bug #1603969. Workaround works fine, thank you!
[12:08] <cjwatson> Oh, yikes, misrefactoring of tests along with (prompted by my review comment) misrefactoring of code.
[12:09] <cjwatson> Should've spotted this ...
[12:09] <cjwatson> Or maybe not.  Anyway, lunch first.
[13:05] <kyrofa> cjwatson, are the armhf/arm64 builders all taken for something?
[13:06] <dobey> kyrofa: https://launchpad.net/builders
[13:07] <kyrofa> dobey, I was specifically referring to snap builders. Are they all the same?
[13:07] <dobey> kyrofa: yes
[13:07] <kyrofa> dobey, nice, I've not seen this page, thanks!
[13:08] <dobey> ￼ Building amd64 build of darktable-kyrofa snap package in ubuntu xenial-updates
[13:09] <kyrofa> dobey, yes, apparently that one will complete 4 minutes ago :P
[13:10] <dobey> yeah
[13:28] <cjwatson> Yes, there is no such thing as "snap builders".
[13:28] <cjwatson> There's a little bit of a queue, but not much.
[13:28] <cjwatson> Looks like basically just a pile of phone builds.
[22:19] <GyrosGeier> hi
[22:19] <GyrosGeier> are there stability issues with the bzr servers?
[22:20] <GyrosGeier> lots of my automated builds now die with
[22:20] <GyrosGeier> bzr: ERROR: [Errno 8] _ssl.c:490: EOF occurred in violation of protocol
[22:54] <cjwatson> not aware of any known issues in that regard
[22:55] <cjwatson> I'd expect to be hearing of nagios checks failing (even if at second hand) if there were something wrong there
[22:55] <cjwatson> could be anything on the network path though