[16:59] <acheronuk> cjwatson: hi, not urgent but has been pointed out that there is a lubuntu bot to upload their CI ppa packages, which is therefore accruing much 'Karma'
[16:59] <acheronuk> https://launchpad.net/~lugito
[17:00] <acheronuk> Mayeb that should be set the same as the Kubuntu CI upload bot, which IIRC has been excluded from such statistics?
[17:00] <acheronuk> https://launchpad.net/~kubuntu-ci-bot
[17:00] <acheronuk> tsimonq2: ^^
[18:21] <cjwatson> acheronuk: I have no idea how that was done, and since karma has negligible functional effect it's not clear it's worth time spent figuring it out :)
[18:34] <acheronuk> cjwatson: well, it is arguable if it (a) is an encouragement for people to contribute, then bots should not really get it; or (b) if it is just a bit of fun then maybe it should just be ditched
[18:34] <acheronuk> I don't care overly much :)
[18:34] <acheronuk> tsimonq2 just pointed it out to me and I was curious
[18:36]  * acheronuk doesn't feel the need to compete with a bot :P
[18:40] <cjwatson> It's not purely a bit of fun, but unless somebody happens to know how exclusions work (since it's very much not obvious to me skimming through some relevant bits of code) I'm not going to spend lots of time on it I'm afraid
[18:43] <acheronuk> fair enough
[19:35] <wxl> here's someone having trouble signing the Code of Conduct, which i find somehwat urgent. any ideas? https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-codeofconduct/+bug/1831926
[19:36] <wxl> they also reported a bug linked to CoC/LP that's a dupe of this one, so perhaps related? https://bugs.launchpad.net/launchpad/+bug/736005
[23:12] <cjwatson> wxl: Whatever that is can't possibly be related to a POFile:+translate timeout
[23:13] <wxl> cjwatson: well someone duped it there
[23:13] <wxl> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1007050
[23:13] <cjwatson> wxl: No, they added a new task to a long-ago-duped bug
[23:13] <cjwatson> Pointlessly and almost certainly wrongly
[23:13] <cjwatson> I would have removed the task but I can't
[23:14] <cjwatson> s/almost // having looked at the OOPS
[23:14] <cjwatson> It's one of the many keyserver problems we're having these days
[23:14] <wxl> oh no
[23:15] <cjwatson> Followed up to the bug.  Ignore the complete and utter red herring that is the POFile:+translate reference.
[23:15] <wxl> yeah i'm a little more worried about people having problems signing the CoC
[23:16] <cjwatson> Please investigate whether it's actually user error before panicking
[23:17] <wxl> yeah well it doesn't seem to be in this case :/
[23:17] <cjwatson> Proof?
[23:17] <cjwatson> The quoted key ID in the OOPS is none of the four (!) associated with the user's LP account.
[23:18] <cjwatson> I don't see how you're in a position to state it's not user error given the information available so far
[23:18] <wxl> no access to the oops info
[23:18] <cjwatson> It could very well be a user with an unnecessarily large number of keys who's accidentally forgotten to push the one they're signing with
[23:18] <cjwatson> I posted the OOPS info to the bug.
[23:19] <cjwatson> Anyway, going to bed, this doesn't seem panic-worthy
[23:19] <wxl> yes i see that... except you're calling it a keyserver failure
[23:19] <wxl> which is it?
[23:19] <cjwatson> I said that before I checked
[23:19] <wxl> got it thx
[23:19] <cjwatson> Most OOPSes of that kind are keyserver failures, but occasionally they do turn out to be the user not actually having pushed the key at all.
[23:20] <cjwatson> (Certainly should be a better error message rather than an OOPS though.)
[23:21] <wxl> is there something about the oops id that would tip me off about that?
[23:21] <cjwatson> No, the ID itself is opaque
[23:21] <sarnold> that key also doesn't seem to be available via hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net
[23:21] <wxl> i figured as such
[23:21] <cjwatson> Has to be I'm afraid - tracebacks often have sensitive information