[00:03] pfanelli: might have more luck on the mailing list [00:11] bob2: thx. I got this channel off of the bzr web site. I also checked for answers on LP. Do you know how to subscribe to the mailing list? (this is probably a stupid ? :) ). Also, I was gonna' ask a question on LP. Do you think i should also do this? [00:12] pfanelli: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/bazaar - dunno about lp [00:13] bob2: heh, i just looked up the mailing list on the bzr site (duh - my bad, lol) thanks! [00:14] pfanelli: no worries === salgado is now known as salgado-afk [00:24] * igc offline for an hour or so while travelling [01:12] I've just submitted 3 of Robert's approved patches to PQM, given that he's offline today. [01:14] is there any chance of the 30+ patches currently in BB landing before 1.13? === Wowbagger is now known as UdontKnow [01:47] jelmer: I just got a "Could not determine revno for ... because its ancestry shows a ghost at ..." error, thoughts? [01:47] while trying to commit to a svn branch [01:47] jelmer: of all of them landing? I'd estimate that at near 0. [01:48] jelmer: there's a good chance that some of them will, though... [01:48] Perhaps even most? [02:03] is there a location alias for the "checkout of" branch? [02:07] spiv: thanks [02:22] anyone seen any integration with Visual Studio and Bazaar? [02:24] I see this https://launchpad.net/bzr-visualstudio but it doesnt seen active [02:40] * igc is back online [02:48] jam, if you're still around, the groupcompress tests are failing [02:49] I think I know the fix but I'm not sure ... [02:49] add "start = entry.start" around line 236 in groupcompress.py? [02:58] spiv: ping [03:00] hi lifeless [03:05] jfroy, please file a bug [03:05] will do if I see it again [03:05] spiv, most would be nice [03:06] I wiped the cache and tried the operation again (a commit), and it worked [03:06] jfroy, it's not reproducible? [03:06] (well, also made a clean checkout) [03:06] I haven't seen the same error again yet [03:06] poolie: hi [03:06] I always try a "wipe cache, get a clean checkout" while tracking bzr-svn top of tree. [03:07] It's not unreasonable for changes to invalidate existing branches or the cache [03:07] jfroy, unless there is a bug that's been fixed no changes should be invalidating existing branches/cache [03:08] jfroy, was this the same branch we fixed a bug in yesterday? [03:10] yes I believe so [03:10] actually no [03:10] well, yes and no :p [03:10] same subversion branch [03:11] but much older local branch (my actual daily work branch) [03:13] lifeless: pong [03:19] spiv: about to send in a tags fix [03:19] lifeless: hooray. ratchet improvement? :) [03:19] spiv: surprisingly, not yet. 4 verbs in and still equilibrium [03:20] lifeless: I'd love a review of my fetch with search patch (http://bundlebuggy.aaronbentley.com/project/bzr/request/%3C20090306005950.GD7819%40steerpike.home.puzzling.org%3E) [03:20] lifeless: huh, odd. What's the current culprit? [03:21] spiv: tags [03:21] so get_parent_ was equilibrium [03:21] ten tags - first _should_merge, [03:21] but .tags needed real [03:22] then branch._transport needed real [03:22] which is what I'm working on at the moment [03:22] oh, open_branchV2 is in there too, to get the format [03:32] spiv: also there is an oddity on decod of responses [03:32] spiv: '' -> () [03:33] igc: something like that. I think I fixed it in a different branch by using 'entry.start' in place of 'start', but either should be fine [03:33] spiv: or more clearly, ('',) [03:33] spiv: and, ratchet -> 11 [03:38] i'm about to travel, and i have a small class projec that i'm using bzr to track on my deskop, i'm the only 'developer' and it's not public anywhere. i'd like to move the working tree to my laptop while i travel... can i simply copy the directory over? or is there better way? [03:38] sure just [03:38] on your laptop, [03:38] bzr branch bzr+ssh://desktop/~/what/ever [03:38] oh, and make a repo in the right place on your laptop first [03:38] jam: yeah, it looked like start was being set in the if branch but not the else branch [03:39] 'make a repo' meaning a directory for it to live in, i assume [03:40] lifeless: I fixed some bugs in your get_parent branch to be able to land it, btw [03:40] spiv: ok, I'll pull now [03:40] lifeless: where you were passing 'foo' rather than ('foo',) as a response [03:40] jam: the unclear bit was knowing what start ought to be set to - and entry.start looked a likely option :-) [03:41] hackedhead: i mean, in your home directory, do [03:41] bzr init-repo myproject [03:41] lifeless: you had some tests and code that had (x) rather than (x,), happily other tests noticed :) [03:41] igc: yeah, inside that if, entry.start is set to start [03:41] or whatever name you want to use [03:41] spiv: yes, I've just been cleaning that up here too [03:41] this will make a directory to hold all your branches [03:41] it is outside the if that already has it [03:42] jam: another minor quibble, the groupcompress branch had a heap of bzr tags in it referencing missing revisions [03:42] jam: I'm not sure if they're gone know but my concern was how they got there [03:42] igc: root cause: pull not propogating tags [03:43] poolie: okay, and when i get back i can do a merge from the desktop, using ssh again, in the other direction? [03:43] yes, or just push to the desktop [03:43] oh, right, okay [03:43] presumably no other work will have happened there while you're away [03:43] so just a push will do [03:43] yes. =] [03:43] hth [03:43] yeah,much, ty [03:43] lifeless: I'm not sure I understand - why would a 'bzr-0.15' tag exist in the groupcompress repo at all? [03:43] you're welcome [03:44] igc: oh, that? blame jam :P [03:44] o/ [03:44] maybe the orginal branch shared a repo with bzr.dev or something? [03:45] funny, I don't remember ever trying to merge my jam-integration branch into groupcompress [03:45] I honestly don't have any idea why the tags would have spread to GC [03:46] maybe I did a 'bzr merge' with a bad path once? [03:46] igc: It shares a repo, but it shouldn't have shared a branch [03:52] spiv: [03:52] [BzrDir.open, BzrDir.open_branchV2, BzrDir.find_repositoryV3, Branch.get_stacked_on_url, Branch.last_revision_info, BzrDir.cloning_metadir, Repository.get_parent_map, Repository.get_stream, Branch.get_parent, Branch.get_tags_bytes, Branch.get_tags_bytes] [03:52] spiv: clear as day now. [03:53] spiv: also note: VFS-free! [03:53] spiv: I'm going to ignore the duplicate call [for now] [03:53] spiv: as caching coherency requires a little care, and this is already somewhat better [03:55] lifeless, jam, this branch was originally going to set the format to 1.9-rich-root [03:55] to get it over with [03:55] poolie: which branch [03:55] to set the default format for 1.13 to 1.9 [03:56] i'm inclined now to stick with plain 1.9 [03:56] works for me [03:57] spiv: reviewing your patch about fetch paramaters [04:02] lifeless: nice [04:03] spiv: so, I want to combine the first three calls [04:04] spiv: with a lock_read() we could optimistically ask for the next two or even three [04:04] lifeless: a lock_read on which object? [04:04] spiv: Branch [04:05] Hmm. If we opened branches read-locked, then get_stacked_on_url and last_revision_info are obvious things to fetch. [04:05] yes [04:05] but api clarity does still matter :) [04:06] Right. [04:06] Branch.open().unlock().lock_write() blows [04:06] There is definitely some friction with the current API here. [04:06] poolie: I wouldn't do rr [04:06] given the 5-hour conversion times [04:06] I could buy into Branch.open_read_locked() [04:06] lifeless: me too [04:07] me three [04:07] jam, ok [04:07] wait for something like CHK, which gives a real benefit [04:11] spiv: reviewed [04:12] spiv: in short; some smoke tests for the new capabilities; and some naming changes [04:12] spiv: also please review my tags patch :) [04:12] lifeless/spiv: changing the default format to 1.9 bumps test_branch_from_trivial_branch_streaming_acceptance to 18 [04:12] poolie: tsk! [04:12] putting just a number there makes it hard to see what actually was added [04:13] poolie: yes, thats true. OTOH its very easy to work with for us [04:13] poolie: when some of the ratches are still > 100 [04:13] yes that's the tradeoff [04:13] i know i know [04:13] :) [04:13] been there too [04:15] spiv: oh bah, ignore the self.debug() call I left in [04:16] lifeless: was already reviewing :) [04:16] poolie: it stays at 11 for me [04:17] spiv: K, I'll wait for your feedback and remove the debug call at the same time [04:18] poolie: I see: [04:18] [BzrDir.open, BzrDir.open_branchV2, BzrDir.find_repositoryV3, Branch.get_stacked_on_url, Branch.last_revision_info, BzrDir.cloning_metadir, Repository.get_parent_map, Repository.get_stream, Branch.get_parent, Branch.get_tags_bytes, Branch.get_tags_bytes] [04:18] poolie: however, I do see an increase in blackbox.test_branch.TestSmartServerBranching.test_branch_from_trivial_branch_to_same_server_branch_acceptance, which is from 65 to 66 [04:21] lifeless: http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/127042/ [04:22] lifeless: reviewed [04:23] poolie: yeah, most of those will be tags [04:23] poolie: print self.hpss_calls[8].stack [04:23] i guess it's also reading the stacking control file [04:23] poolie: will show you the cause [04:25] that's nice [04:25] well it's http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/127042/ [04:25] meh [04:25] format_string = transport.get(".bzr/branch-format").read() [04:26] poolie: right, but look higher :) [04:27] poolie: _ensure_real is generally a symptom [04:27] you'll find something like merge_tags_if_needed [04:27] sure, of get_parent [04:27] or get_parent :) [04:27] get_parent as landed though [04:28] just recently? [04:28] today [04:28] Yes, a couple of hours ago. [04:28] so maybe that didn't reduce the rpc count, but it did eliminate vfs access here? [04:29] Right. [04:29] yes get_parent_map was no improvements in round trips, but one less cause of vfs [04:29] the next patch removes the last cause [04:29] lifeless: s/get_parent_map/get_parent/ :) [04:29] bah yes [04:30] Perhaps it should be called get_parent_location to reduce confusion? Not that the wire API is the same as bzrlib's API... [04:30] spiv: see thursday's chat:) [04:30] spiv: _run_with.. should show the transform [04:30] ? [04:30] on staying on the main game? [04:30] at a guess [04:31] poolie: no, about verb names [04:31] lifeless: oh, _run_with... was self-explanatory to me :) [04:31] spiv: I can't tell if I need a lambda or not [04:31] spiv: for instance [04:32] lifeless: please feel free to extend the docstring; the transform for the given example is just "return _run_with_write_locked_target(callable, *args, **kwargs)" [04:32] (what if _transport is only defined in the lock_written state? for instance) [04:32] Typically if a function takes *args/**kwargs then lambdas are unneccessary. [04:34] ok so that one's still failing after merging bzr.dev... [04:35] because now tags() is forcing a real repository... [04:37] poolie: so the problem is that _ensure_real of a BzrBranch7 is one VFS call more expensive than of Branch6? [04:37] spiv: your cloning_metadir looks odd [04:37] spiv: sometimes you return a tuple [04:37] i think so [04:37] spiv: sometimes you return a string, for branch_name [04:37] spiv: is this deliberate? [04:37] lifeless: do I? Hmm. [04:37] that would be consistent with it having to read its stacking url over the vfs [04:37] lifeless: IIRC I meant to always return a tuple. [04:38] lifeless: ugh, so I do. [04:38] spiv: adjusting [04:38] therefore i think it's correct for that count to go up by 1 given the level of technology in this branch [04:38] lifeless: thanks. [04:38] spiv: and letting pqm handle the fallout [04:39] poolie: what's odd to me is that 1.6 has stacking URLs too... [04:39] spiv: current default is 0.92 [04:39] Oh, ok. [04:39] In that case, it all makes perfect sense :) [04:40] poolie: http://bundlebuggy.aaronbentley.com/project/bzr/request/%3C1236311834.10834.1.camel%40lifeless-64%3E [04:40] poolie: given that lifeless is about to land get_tags_bytes, which should get rid of the VFS from that case, a temporary +1 bump sounds ok to me. [04:40] poolie: ^ is about to land [04:40] poolie: and it will conflict on that line [04:40] poolie: but as lifeless says maybe just merging in that branch will be easier? [04:42] k, i'll look at some other failures first [04:45] poolie: so the other acceptance test in test_branch.py *will* go up for 1.9 as default, with my branch [04:45] poolie: and thats fine [04:54] (65->66 for me - you have +1 on that change) [05:05] i wish, again, we printed stack traces as soon as they occurred... [05:08] is it bad if "bzr check" says "2 inconsistent parents"? [05:08] on the repo where it says that, i can't push changes in [05:08] i made that repo with "git-fast-export | bzr fast-import", and it seems to work fine locally, but not in branches i've made off it... [05:09] seb_kuzminsky: it may be a bzr-fastimport bug then [05:09] seb_kuzminsky: ideally someone would run bzr reconcile on that repo [05:10] * seb_kuzminsky reads about reconcile [05:10] lifeless or spiv, one of you might want http://bundlebuggy.aaronbentley.com/project/bzr/request/%3Ce01316480903052104k63c85898t88ed90dcccdc7715%40mail.gmail.com%3E [05:10] also spiv is http://bundlebuggy.aaronbentley.com/project/bzr/request/%3C20090126072506.GA30864%40steerpike.home.puzzling.org%3E now obsolete? [05:11] "Reconciliation complete." [05:11] bzr check is clean now :-) [05:13] but it still doesnt work :-( [05:14] poolie: not obsolete, but it does need another look to figure out how it should interact with vila's http network activity [05:14] i removed ran reconcile on the "master" repo, removed the remote branch, re-branched to the remote machine, committed on the remote machine, and tried to push [05:14] bzr: ERROR: Revision {set([('null:',)])} not present in "KnitVersionedFiles(_KnitGraphIndex(CombinedGraphIndex(, )), )". [05:14] both repos are 1.9-rich-root, in case that matters [05:14] both 'check' clean [05:15] seb_kuzminsky: which version of bzr? I think this bug was fixed in bzr.dev about a week ago. [05:15] "1.13dev" on the remote machine [05:15] "1.12" on the master server [05:15] upgrade the server? [05:16] remote is on the bzr intrepid ppa [05:16] seb_kuzminsky: upgrade the 1.12 to bzr.dev if you can, IIRC [05:16] server is intrepid's 1.12-1~bazaar1~intrepid1 [05:20] spiv: do i need the nightly ppa? or is beta good enough? [05:20] looks like i need beta [05:20] s/beta/nightly/ [05:20] seb_kuzminsky: nightly, I think. [05:21] seb_kuzminsky: https://launchpad.net/bugs/317654 is the bug, btw [05:21] Ubuntu bug 317654 in bzr "error about null revision not present pushing to server" [High,Fix committed] [05:22] seb_kuzminsky: also, you may be able to workaround it by using sftp:// rather than bzr+ssh:// [05:22] hmm [05:23] yes, sftp:// pushed successfully [05:23] but it didnt run the hooks (bzr-email, bzrbuildbot) [05:23] Yeah. [05:23] those only run with ssh, right? [05:23] That's right. [05:24] ok [05:24] * seb_kuzminsky adds bzr-nightly-ppa to sources.list.d/bzr.list [05:25] spiv: I've just forwarded you a pqm failure [05:25] lifeless: ok [05:25] spiv: I'd like to ask a favour [05:26] spiv: land my http://people.ubuntu.com/~robertc/baz2.0/integration branch [05:26] lifeless: ok [05:26] spiv: its likely that ^^^^[log from bzrlib.tests.branch_implementations.test_hooks.TestOpen.test_open(RemoteBranchFormat-default)] is one of several failures with hooks [05:27] * spiv nods [05:27] so running hooks.* RemoteBranchFormat should flush them out [05:28] I *think* at a glace that the branch is being opened remotely in more cases === jfroy_ is now known as jfroy [05:28] so trivially adjusting may be sufficient [05:29] server is on 4083 (latest in bzr.dev), remote machine is on 4058 [05:29] remote still can't push, same error [05:30] upgrading remote to 4083 now [05:30] seb_kuzminsky: remote needs to be at least 4061 [05:31] seb_kuzminsky: "missed it by *that* much" ;) [05:31] heh [05:31] that's what i get for hopping off of the nightlies and down to the boring old stuff in the "release" ppa ;-) [05:32] seb_kuzminsky: also, the network protocol is in a fair bit of flux in bzr.dev atm. So until 1.13rc1 is out, you may need to keep client and server on the same version of bzr.dev to avoid weird smart server failures. [05:32] ok thanks for the heads up [05:32] (but on the plus side it ought to be noticeably faster) [05:33] ooh, thanks! [05:33] seb_kuzminsky: if you *do* get weird failures though, please let us know :) [05:33] oh you'll know [05:34] ;-) [05:34] :) [05:35] looks like it worked [05:35] seb_kuzminsky: great [05:35] aw yea [05:35] thanks spiv! [05:36] yeah that's all working just fine :-) [05:36] yay, thanks again! [05:36] ok i'll be back when it breaks next time ;-) [05:37] seb_kuzminsky: good :) [05:42] lifeless: the three calls are [server] open_branchV2, [client] open, [server] get_stacked_on_url [05:42] spiv: right, [05:42] open_branch didn't open the branch [05:43] Right. [06:11] spiv: I need to go [06:11] spiv: good luck with the branch [06:11] lifeless: not a problem [06:11] lifeless: happy travels [06:15] yes bye lifeless [06:25] spiv, i have a failure now in test_clone_unstackable_branch_preserves_stackable_repo_format [06:26] because RemoteBranchFormat, at least in the version of trunk that i've merged, claims not to support stacking [06:26] whereas with this change it will [06:26] does this ring any bells? [06:28] poolie: hmm [06:30] poolie: that does ring some bells, in that a recent landing touched that code. [06:30] i think in general robert was going to make tags be handled by making teh format depend on the particular branch [06:30] not sure that's a great idea [06:30] at the moment it says it always supports tags [06:30] so i'm going to make it consistent with that and hope :) [06:30] poolie: but IIRC the change was that it was going to rely on the underlying format to decide [06:31] Right, that's what Robert's patch for tags does. [06:31] (make the format of the branch handle it) [06:31] Not sure what the overlap with tags and stacking is here though? [06:37] well, they're both capabilities that are determined by the real on disk format === mike is now known as indy34 [08:01] So now that the 'authors' revision property has been added, 'author' is no longer written, right? Isn't that bad for backwards compatibility with older clients? [08:01] I mean, it's not a big deal, but still. [08:05] * igc dinner [08:06] i thought that we changed it to write out only the additonal authors? [08:06] but you should raise that on the list? [08:13] jelmer: You mean LP's email notifications? I don't know. I know they work for lp:~jelmer/bzr-svn/0.5-mirrored. [08:15] poolie: regarding the repository acquisition policies, yes, it is a bit weird. [08:16] spiv, i'm going to try to move it [08:16] poolie: lifeless lands some changes to allow Branch.clone and others to accept a repository_policy kwarg [08:16] For similar reasons. [08:22] hm i remember seeing that but i can't find the mail [08:28] ah ok [08:28] so, i'd like to clean it up but it's not all that bad [08:29] we always create a bzrdir there before we think about stacking [08:29] poolie: You thought it was changed to what? [08:30] but it doesn't really matter because there's only one relevant bzrdir format, and we can choose to make a different branch format before the branch is created [08:30] i'd say it's not great though [08:30] Oh, it only uses 'authors' when multiple authors were passed. That's not so bad, then. [08:30] Peng_, i thought the issue had been taken into account [08:31] Wait, never mind. [08:31] poolie: ISTM commit only sets 'authors' now. [08:41] beuno: Will Loggerhead try to perform syntax highlighting on gigantic files? IIRC, Mercurial limited it to smallish files. [08:56] spiv if you're still here [08:56] or anyone really [08:56] these likes look backward to me [08:56] 233 require_stacking = True [08:56] 234 result._format.require_stacking() [08:56] uups [08:57] 232 if not require_stacking and repository_policy._require_stacking: [08:57] 233 require_stacking = True [08:57] 234 result._format.require_stacking() [08:57] oh i see === montywi|zzz is now known as montywi|talk [09:20] poolie: Mailing list message sent, fwiw. [09:38] hey, anyone have any idea why all of a sudden, I can do a bzr up but not a bzr st (permission denied) [09:38] what's in the traceback in ~/.bzr.log? [09:39] one sec [09:42] poolie: nothing sinister [09:42] http://rafb.net/p/EMHVs538.html [09:42] and an strace sees it trying to find files, but getting ENOENTs back [09:42] but it says permission denied? [09:42] yep [09:42] how strange [09:42] how about bzr -Derror st [09:43] running selftest . [09:43] huh? [09:43] one sec [09:45] poolie: http://rafb.net/p/qMF0NF83.html [09:47] ok [09:47] this is probably because there's a directory in your working tree that you can't read [09:48] try just ls -laR [09:48] ah, gnupg [09:48] http://rafb.net/p/6yTDaq68.html [09:49] yep [09:50] o_O [09:50] also, bug 338653 [09:50] Launchpad bug 338653 in bzr "OSError is printed without a useful filename" [Medium,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/338653 [09:50] the permissions are set to the user though [09:50] ah, no execute on the directory [09:51] ok, now getting "no handlers found for logger "bzr" [09:51] with which version? [09:51] 1.12 [09:51] (on intrepid) [09:54] thanks for the help mpool [10:20] vila: do you have some time to give CHKInventory some test love? [10:21] I think we need tests across both Inventory & CHKInventory for *all* the read-only APIs [10:21] the mutation APIs need to be tested separately of course [10:23] we then need to test all of the above for each of the serializer combinations, e.g. chk16, chk255 [10:23] Damn mutants! They're everywhere! Oh, wait... [10:24] vila: what do you think? [11:03] Blimey, DVCS 4tw [11:03] svn working copy of 4 branches : 713 MB on disk [11:03] bzr checkouts, plus the full history of the entire project : 484 MB total [11:54] awilkins: Eh. svn's lack of working copy compression FTL. They could do better than 484 MB if they wanted to. [11:59] Yeah, and the 17,840 files vs 5,864 isn't too hot either [12:32] Gnnnnargh my frickin mother-in-law has put all the cardboard in the recycling bin even though there is a fricking sign on the lid that says not to [12:32] Now I'll have to empty the fricking thing out or get fined or something [12:32] * awilkins is sorry for the noise [12:33] I thought cardboard was recyclable o.O [12:34] are you sure the sign says not to put that in there? [12:34] Yes, there is a separate pickup for cardboard/paper [12:34] ah [12:34] This is the plastic/cans bin [12:34] ahhhh, I get it [12:35] * Toksyuryel 's place just has one bin for all the recycling, heh [12:35] * awilkins wonders if they take organic waste, like dismembered^W old meat. [12:41] nah, those go to the soylent green facility :P [12:54] hiya [12:57] so, has anyone thought about getting something like darcs's patch algebra for bzr? Darcs is absolutely neat in that branches sort of magically fall out of related changes, and that you can freely change past patches in non-conflicting ways, but the UI they add to it that tries to pass for a VCS is unbelievably shitty [12:59] hard to do something like that in bzr where each revision has it's parents (the history forms a graph), so the order can't be changed [12:59] I guess, that was also a question of "how very hard would it be to do?" [13:00] because the patch algebra has some really cool consequences (at least as long as you don't get into exponential time corner cases :) [13:00] by hard I meant impossible :) [13:01] like the fact that darcs is the only VCS that gets merges right where a series of patches reverts changes textually, but not semantically [13:01] the patch theory is based on the fact that you can manupulate the order of patches, which in bzr you can't [13:02] I know, so bzr would have to be hacked quite badly. I supposed as much. But would it really be completely impossible to allow reordering them? [13:03] using the DAG model bzr uses, yes [13:03]