=== mwhudson_ is now known as mwhudson === yofel_ is now known as yofel === BasicPRO is now known as BasicOSX [06:56] morning all [07:05] hey jam [07:05] morning all === mlh is now known as RumpledForehead === RumpledForehead is now known as mlh [07:43] good morning [07:45] moin [07:47] jelmer: Riddell " moin [08:04] oneiric beta's out, time to upgrade everyone! [08:25] hi Riddell, jelmer, vila [08:31] vila, so there's no pressure for a 2.3.5 or 2.4.1 yet? [08:31] worth a check but I think we're fine there [08:33] so 2.2.5 is mostly for the sake of branch-out-of-date warnings? [08:33] I should file a bug probably if only to collect feedback about what the upgrade policies are across ... err... whatever combination of python/subunit/testtools we want to support on ... hardy, lucid and up ? [08:34] so far yes, there is also #805809 but it's unclear that many people can/will encounter it [08:34] vila: if you're just doing "date" on pqm, it tells you the timezone [08:34] jam: UTC then [08:35] jam: but it makes the file stamp origin even more... surprising [08:35] jam: any guess for that ? [08:36] vila: I'm not 100% sure what those timestamps are, let me dig a bit [08:37] vila: 'the file timestamp', is that mtime or ctime? [08:37] (last modification time, creation time) [08:38] its pretty clear that your file times don't correlate well with your datestamps [08:38] jam: I mean the stamp embedded in the file *name* [08:39] vila: I think that might be the time it was submitted, which could certainly vary wildly from when the test starts [08:39] jam: so patch.1314909400.log ==> 2011-09-01 22:36:40 [08:39] jam: you mean received ? [08:39] vila: sure [08:39] given that 2 of them are about 3 seconds different [08:39] 2011-09-01 13:03:31: duration: 2:53:02 start: 2011-09-01 15:18:26, end: 2011-09-01 18:11:28 [08:39] 2011-09-01 13:03:34: duration: 2:07:47 start: 2011-09-01 18:13:16, end: 2011-09-01 20:21:03 [08:39] that can certainly be "submit submit" [08:40] but it won't be running a test in between there [08:40] jam: vary, yes, depending on load, but *after* selftest starts ???!?!?! [08:40] * jelmer will bbiab [08:40] jam: yeah, I noticed the 3 seconds [08:40] vila: not-be-reliable-at-all-because-it-has-nothing-to-do-with-when-the-test-starts [08:41] hi jam? [08:41] jam: well, the file *has* to exist before we write into it [08:41] hi poolie [08:41] hey, see my pm? [08:41] poolie: I did not [08:41] ugh, there it is [08:42] jam: so it *has* something to do with when the test starts... [08:43] vila: given the lack of significant correlation, I would ignore it personally [08:43] or read the pqm code to figure out what the number means [08:57] vila, hey, i'm kind of concerned this pqm investigation is .. [08:57] being done in a laborious way, i suppose [08:57] i want the test suite to be fast again [08:58] IS are working on replacing the machine [08:58] separately we could look at tarmac [08:58] hopefully this particular setup has a life expectancy of only days or weeks [08:59] but, do as you think best i suppose [09:00] poolie: I have a patch that just removes fsync, and I'm happy enough that it fixes the short term issues [09:00] its about 2:1 [09:01] wfm [09:01] ok, good night then [09:01] poolie: well, I agree with all you've said above, that was my understanding weeks ago when I realize the slowdown (i.e. wait for the new pqm before anything else), as you've seen the patch was minimal and I didn't spend much on it [09:01] ok [09:03] jam, poolie, jelmer, Riddell : thanks for not targeting lp:bzr/2.2 with your landings today, other branches are fine, will slow me down a bit, but I can work on other stuff [09:06] vila: I shall never submit to your tyranny! [09:06] and vila, you're probably not going to get a merge window before tomorrow, unfortunately [09:07] I'm counting about 12 hours of PQM before your 2.2 branch [09:09] vila: unless you want to prioritize: https://code.launchpad.net/~jameinel/bzr/2.4-disable-selftest-fdatasync-837293/+merge/73757 before the rest :) [09:10] jam: hehe [09:11] yeah, I went to the pqm web page after saying this and... well, the point is: once 2.2.5 lands, I'll need to pull and submit again to open 2.2.6, so please leave 2.2 alone until you see the opening === zyga-afk is now known as zyga [10:19] jam: hi, thanks for the review — I think I'll just go with what I have now, just because HTTP headers seem to be set already and I'd have to restructure the code a bit otherwise to be able to raise a HTTPNotFound instead [10:19] danilos: I don't think the headers are sent until we actually start sending data [10:19] but I could be wrong [10:19] jam: also, LP seems not to have picked up on your "merge:approve": I think you've got to use something like " merge approve\n review approve" [10:20] danilos: no, I just need "merge: approve" vs "merge:approve" I was missing a ' ' [10:20] merge approve auto review approves [10:20] jam: I've actually tried it out and got "AssertionError: Attempt to set headers a second time w/o an exc_info" [10:20] jam: oh, nice, I didn't know that :) [10:20] danilos: yeah, saves typing [10:20] so sure, go ahead and land it [10:21] jam: thanks, I will [10:25] jam, can you please mark it as approved so it doesn't appear as unapproved on the bug (https://code.launchpad.net/~danilo/loggerhead/bug-839395/+merge/73766) [10:25] Ubuntu bug 73766 in Bazaar GTK+ Frontends "Remove file does not update view to show file is removed" [Undecided,Fix released] [10:25] ubot5, very smart, thank you [10:25] danilos: I am only a bot, please don't think I'm intelligent :) [10:25] that's what I said! [10:32] danilos: its marked Merged now, I don't think you need me to regress it back to Approved :) [10:40] jam: I thought you'd only do a vote, not touch the entire proposal status, but I guess no big deal :) === Quintasan_ is now known as Quintasan [12:34] jam: hi, does bug 839515 look familiar to you? [12:34] Launchpad bug 839515 in bzr (Ubuntu) "bzr crashed with BzrCheckError in _commit_write_group(): Internal check failed: Cannot add revision(s) to repository: missing referenced chk root keys: [StaticTuple('sha1:3c52a9038699157dee61f9bd1b03d255fa021805',)]" [High,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/839515 [12:35] I remember there were some stacking bugs that were fixed a while ago that looked similar. Could this be fallout from those bugs? [12:39] jelmer: that specifically looks like the bug that made us default to not fetching tags [12:41] but it does appear that the *.../ubuntu branch is broken [12:45] jam: thanks for confirming [14:55] so continuing my question that i didn't get answered, what exactly does 'signing' your commits do? since after signing mine, the branch appears unchanged [14:58] AuroraBorealis, with newer versions of bzr you can see the signatures by running "bzr log" with a particular option [14:58] does that include 2.4.0? [14:59] AuroraBorealis: I'm not sure, it might just be bzr.dev at this point [14:59] it seems natty doesn't have 2.4.0 yet o.o [14:59] AuroraBorealis, though bzr has supported creating signatures since before 2.0 I think [15:00] so should i push my local branch over my remote one to get it to have the signatures? [15:00] since i did it on my local branch, it says that no changes were made [15:01] I'm not sure if we fill in signatures yet, I think we just fetch the signature for a revision when we fetch the revision [15:03] and it seems that at least in 2.3.4, the verify signatures option went away [15:05] AuroraBorealis, there is a verify-signatures command in 2.4 IIUC [15:05] hmm [15:06] AuroraBorealis: the verify signatures option in 2.3.4 had been there for a while but wasn't actually implemented, which was why it was removed [15:06] ah. [15:06] so the entire signing thing needs some more work to actually be useful :3 [15:07] AuroraBorealis: you can use "bzr verify-signatures" today [15:07] AuroraBorealis: so it is useful, though there are some more improvements we should make [15:07] well i'm on linux and it hasn't upgraded xD [15:09] it should be in oneiric [15:09] i appear to be in natty [15:13] AuroraBorealis: you can use the bzr PPA for 2.4.0 (should work on natty), or otherwise be patient for another two months [15:13] is the ppa this? https://launchpad.net/~bzr/+archive/ppa [15:14] AuroraBorealis, yep [15:19] should I be worried that the test bzrlib.tests.test_setup.TestSetup.test_build_and_install is failing for me in trunk? [15:20] Riddell: locally or only on pqm ? [15:20] locally [15:20] then yes [15:20] and I feel your pain :-/ [15:20] and yay i made bzr crash [15:20] actually it might be due to my new install [15:21] and yeah, verify -signatures don't work :< [15:24] i guess i'll file a bug report, after my bagel [15:26] vila: yes it was just that I didn't have everything installed [15:27] Riddell: so it fails on on pqm now ? Missing dependency there ? [15:27] s/on on/only on/ [15:27] vila: no it only ever failed locally [15:27] ha cool [15:28] just out of curiosity what did you fix ? [15:30] vila: sudo apt-get build-dep bzr [15:31] ha, well, yeah ;) === beuno is now known as beuno-lunch [16:05] I've started working with bzr and I'm really loving it. But I'm a newbie t this, and VCS in general, and I'd like to learn how to actually work with it... I mean, I currently have one directory on my computers, called ~/devel/appname and an lp bzr repository that I push to. [16:06] and? :3 [16:07] and that's good, but I'm only using one branch. I'd now like to start experimenting more widely with my app, so I thought I'd setup different branches to work with, and then merge with a main branch, that in turn is pushed to lp from time to time. Is it simply a matter of using different directories, or are there other things to consider? [16:07] you have your main branch [16:07] and then you just branch from that [16:07] do stuff with it [16:07] and when you want to merge it back, merge the main one with the other one [16:08] so yeah pretty much the second branch will be a seperate folder inside the repo folder [16:09] ok, so instead of having my code in ~/devel/appname, I'd have it in ~/devel/appname/trunk, /testing, etc? And the ~/devel/appname directory would only contain branches? [16:10] usually appname is the repository === deryck is now known as deryck[lunch] [16:10] trunk is the 'main deveopment branch' [16:10] and then testing can be a seperate branch where you are doing experimental stuff [16:10] then you can merge testing back into trunk and whatever [16:11] yes, that's what I meant in my question. What does that look like? [16:12] does it mean I'll have my code in appname and subdirectories of that directory will contain the branches? Or will other branches be in the same parent as the trunk? [16:15] appname is the repository, it stores revisions and stuff [16:15] and everything below that is a branch [16:16] ok, so it wouldn't make much sense for appname to be versioned? [16:17] well i'm just assuming that the folder appname is a repository [16:17] right. [16:17] so its not really versioned, it just holds branches [16:17] unless that requires additional setup. It's only a directory here. [16:17] you have to run bzr init-repo or create it in bazaar explorer [16:19] see: http://doc.bazaar.canonical.com/latest/en/user-guide/shared_repository_layouts.html?highlight=repository [16:19] and http://doc.bazaar.canonical.com/latest/en/user-reference/repositories-help.html?highlight=shared%20repository [16:19] ok, and that is self contained so it doesn't matter if I change the name of the directory later? [16:20] the name of the repository or the branch? [16:20] i dont think it matters, because the actual information is in the .bzr directory in the repo / branches [16:21] but it will changes obviously the URI of the repo =P [16:21] :) [16:24] AuroraBorealis, great links. That's precisely what I was looking for :) [16:25] the thing about bazaar is that it supports multiple models [16:25] so you can do it like git does, or svn and whatnot === beuno-lunch is now known as beuno === deryck[lunch] is now known as deryck [18:35] Using bzr-svn here, and somehow I've got a file that bzr considers versioned but that doesn't exist in the svn repo [18:35] if I try to bzr remove the file, bzr ci, bzr dush, then I get a "SubversionException: ... path not found" error [18:36] any ideas on how this can be corrected? Can I safely add the file using svn and then bzr pull the change into the bzr repo? [18:39] On a related note, other than diff'ing an export from the bzr repo and svn repo, is there any way to check if there might be other files/contents out of sync between the bzr branch and the svn repo? [18:51] hmm. I had a branch on launchpad that I was working on .I then proposed a merge for upstream, and it was accepted. Now the branch is gone. Is that normal? [18:52] oh, it's just hidden. But is it a bad idea to keep working on that branch after it's been merged with upstream, or will that simply mark it as unmerged? === med_out is now known as medberry [19:35] test [20:58] I've got bzr (client) setup just fine on one machine. But when I try to branch on a second machine, I get SSH key madness. Any idea how to make SSH or BZR happy? Do I need to copy my keys from one machine to another? [21:07] Apparently, you just scp them to the target machine, from ~/.ssh/ [23:22] gdoubleu: what version of bzr-svn are you using? [23:26] hi jelmer [23:26] poolie: g'day! [23:26] hey poolie, jelmer ;) [23:27] hey vila [23:28] This is just wrong. when I get home on a Friday evening it ought to be quiet on IRC... [23:28] Maybe your calendar crashed. [23:28] ok, I'll mute myself ;) [23:28] it's saturday morning, i'm at google working on the lca programme [23:28] poolie: I guess you're excused then; vila however... :-P [23:28] Oh, you went there too ? [23:29] jelmer: Me ? Can't have fun with the importer anymore ? [23:30] vila: :) [23:30] We need to record imports success instead of import failures: http://webnumbr.com/ubuntu-package-import-failures.from%282011-08-29%29 [23:31] This curve going down is not getting us enough positive feedback :-p