[02:13] <broder> bah. is there any way to get a forgotten password notice from staging.lp.net?
[02:17] <broder> actually, is the staging import working? i can't login with a known good password (i was trying to reset the password for a bot account)
[02:35] <wgrant> broder: login.staging.launchpad.net is managed by ISD, and it's on a completely separate database from the rest of staging. I don't know what its restore schedule is like.
[03:08] <broder> :-/
[03:10] <nigelb> broder: The good news is you can ping people in #canonical-isd, the bad news is, they're probably away.
[03:14] <broder> nigelb: ok, we'll see what happens
[03:23] <nigelb> :)
[03:46] <bfreis> Hello, I've found a bug on Oneiric's x64 cloud image (it simply doesn't work, it is completely broken). I'm trying to report it but https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+filebug redirects me to https://help.ubuntu.com/community/ReportingBugs
[03:46] <bfreis> All I want is a text area to enter all the information I got (what the problem is, and how to solve it)
[03:46] <bfreis> Can I have it?
[03:46] <wgrant> bfreis: Read the page.
[03:46] <wgrant> It tells you how to do it.
[03:47] <wgrant> Ubuntu requested that people be forced to read the page first, because otherwise a lot of people file them improperly.
[03:48] <bfreis> wgrant, that page tells me how to report a bug against an specific package. It will collect info about my system, etc. The problem here is something else: it is the CLOUD IMAGE that is buggy. There's absolutely nothing to do with my system. That "ubuntu-bug" thing will scan my system, etc, it is not the case here
[03:48] <wgrant> bfreis: Scroll further down.
[03:48] <wgrant> "Filing bugs at Launchpad.net"
[03:48] <wgrant> It is deliberately difficult to find.
[03:49] <bfreis> Damn
[03:49] <bfreis> This is really stupid
[03:49] <bfreis> I just lost about 8 hours tracking down a bug
[03:49] <bfreis> Solving it
[03:49] <bfreis> And now it is REALLY HARD to report it
[03:50] <wgrant> Ubuntu had a huge problem with people filing bugs without sufficient information, so they requested that we redirect to that page. If you want to suggest improvements to it, you might want to try talking to #ubuntu-bugs.
[03:53] <bfreis> wgrant, well, they certainly solved it the wrong way. I lost at least 1 hour *looking for the form*, being sent from channel to channel in IRC, and I can assure you I have lots of good information about this bug. Maybe they reduced the bad reports, but you can be sure that they are making people who can write good reports very, very disgusted.
[03:54] <bfreis> I can imagine the amount of bad reports they were getting
[03:55] <bfreis> But I still think it'd be better for them not to get helpful people disgusted by their system :/
[03:56] <bfreis> They are certainly losing lots of good, important reports because of it.
[03:56] <wgrant> Probably. #ubuntu-bugs is probably the best place to argue your case; Launchpad has nothing to do with that wiki page, apart from redirecting to it because Ubuntu said so :)
[04:36] <bfreis> wgrant, well, thanks. I finally managed to report the bug (https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/896772), then I went to #ubuntu-bugs to talk about the difficulty of reporting bugs, but people just ignored me. Damn, this is not how you deal with people who want to help!
[04:39] <broder> bfreis: it's late night on a holiday weekend. your timing isn't really ideal. might have a better change of reaching people on monday
[04:43] <bfreis> I'm sure if I call Amazon about a problem on AWS they will answer immediatly, and try to help and solve any problems... Bad timing is not an excuse. Oh, and note that I'm not the one asking for help, I'm the one who had trouble, who solved the problem and providing help here. It doesn't look very professional.
[04:45] <sagaci> the majority of people in ubuntu-bugs are volunteers
[04:45] <broder> bfreis: i think that's both unfair and inaccurate and i would hope that you know that. i don't know who is responsible for the cloud images or how to fix them, but i can tell you from experience that coming in with a bad attitude won't make the people in these chatrooms likely to help you
[04:45] <wgrant> It's a weekend, so full-time developers won't be around. The Americas and Europe are hopefully asleep, and the US is on holiday, so volunteer community members are less likely to be around.
[04:46] <wgrant> And sure, AWS will probably support you 24x7 if you pay them.
[04:47] <wgrant> As will Canonical.
[04:47] <broder> though even if you're paying them, you only get 24x7 support above their first 2 tiers of support, which are themselves on top of the fees for the services themselves
[04:47] <broder> (amazon, that is, not canonical)
[04:52] <bfreis> Well, all I have to say is: I'm a (non-paying) Canonical consumer, who tries to help (and puts lots of effort on it -- hours and hours fixing the problem that was blocking my work) and loses well over 1 hour trying to find a form to report a bug. It gets me extremelly disgusted, and then all I find is people defending the system. This is really not how Canonical should treat its consumers (specially those who, voluntarily, lost many hours just to help th
[04:52] <bfreis> em).
[04:52] <broder> but you're not talking to canonical representatives. you're talking to volunteers, who are here trying to improve the distribution they care about, but not interested in people who come in looking for a fight
[04:54] <bfreis> broder, please, come on, take a look at my first message in this channel: I asked, as directly as possible, for a link with a form to report a bug. What I get? "Oh, you gotta read a huge, useless page, and then find a link which is purposely hidden". And this after hours of hard working. Wouldn't you be disgusted in my place?
[05:01] <sagaci> well now you should know where to file a bug, correct?
[05:02] <wgrant> I told you how to do it 2.5 minutes after you asked, too.
[05:02] <wgrant> how disgusting :(
[05:04] <bfreis> wgrant, yeah, you guided me through the huge wiki page, thanks. Just don't forget the 8 (?) hours solving the bug and the over 1 hour looking for that form before you helped me find it (which should be trivial to find).
[05:04] <broder> bfreis: none of the people here can directly change the process that is causing you problems, so we're trying to do the next best thing by being informative. to have that responded to so negatively is discouraging
[05:05] <bfreis> sagaci, sure! Now I know it. However, I sure that more people who would write good bug reports will simply drop it. I doubt everyone is as persistent as I have been.
[05:06] <bfreis> broder, true. Who can change this process? Since the last thing that was causing me trouble was launchpad.net, I assumed here would be a good place to solve it.
[05:07] <broder> bfreis: wgrant has told you that already. the people in #ubuntu-bugs are the best place to start, and we can't help you that they're not there, because it's late at night, on a weekend, during a holiday
[05:08] <broder> but i'm going to head out now, because i was only in here because of another question, and only stuck around because i was trying to be helpful, and clearly you don't see me as being helpful
[05:08] <bfreis> It is a pity Canonical treats us, people who try to help in one way or the other, like that.
[05:09] <bfreis> @broder (if you ever see a log): I don't see you helpful at all, sorry.
[05:19] <micahg> bfreis: IIRC, this was something decided at a community bug squad meeting, this isn't Canonical treating anyone in a certain way
[05:20] <bfreis> interesting, it is the community making it hard for the community to report bugs
[05:20] <micahg> anyways, Ubuntu bug procedures are off topic here, so let's move to #ubuntu-bugs
[10:47] <Laibsch> OOPS-8bd384eebeb2268cbb39ffe1831abf8e
[10:48] <Laibsch> launchpad is oopsing left and right recently.  It would be really nice if things became more stable.
[16:20] <s0cialc0d3r> If there is a launchpad admin or canonical support rep here, I've been having a string of login issues for quite some months now, and I still can't log in. Is there anybody here who could help?
[18:39] <lifeless> s0cialc0d3r: hi
[18:39] <lifeless> s0cialc0d3r: what happens when you try, and whats your lp userid ?
[20:19] <exarkun> What is the expectation for https://code.launchpad.net/~gary/twisted/setuptoolsbug/+merge/7298 ?
[20:28] <lifeless> in what sense?
[20:29] <lifeless> exarkun: I think its obsolete. Have commented to that effect.
[20:30] <exarkun> lifeless: Thanks.  I hope that means it will disappear from https://code.launchpad.net/twisted/+activereviews soon.
[20:31] <exarkun> On another subject entirely, how will I know when lp:twisted has been re-imported using a new version of bzr-svn?
[20:32] <lifeless> exarkun: I think the answer to that depends on how you are arranging for the re-import ?
[20:33] <exarkun> I heard third-hand that it would be re-imported so that it would be possible to dpush revisions from a branch of it into the upstream svn repository (which is not currently possible, or at least not currently easy).
[20:33] <lifeless> so, one way to reimport is to delete the old branch and request a new import
[20:33] <lifeless> another is to ask for the lp branch content to be deleted
[20:34] <lifeless> a third is to reimport it yourself and ask for the lp branch content to be replaced
[20:34] <lifeless> I'm not aware of any other routes; which one was selected? If you don't know, who might?
[20:34] <exarkun> maybe jelmer or glyph
[20:35] <lifeless> jelmer: ^ ?
[20:36] <jelmer> hi exarkun, lifeless
[20:36] <jelmer> glyph and I talked about this the other day
[20:37] <jelmer> 1) is probably the simplest/q\uickest, but will mean people have to resubscribe if they are subscribed to the current branch
[20:37] <jelmer> 2) is probably easier than 3), but both of those will require LOSA assistance
[20:38] <jelmer> actually, it might be a good idea to get the svn cache removed on the code importers, just to be sure.
[20:39] <exarkun> fwiw, there is apparently only one subscriber, and I think he can resubscribe without much difficulty.
[20:43] <jelmer> hmm, I wished 'bzr info lp:twisted' would show me the Launchpad metadata (such as subscribers/VCS URL)
[20:44] <jelmer> exarkun: in that case, let's see if we can get the svn cache for that SVN repo removed and then recreate the imports
[20:44] <jelmer> exarkun: is this just for the twisted SVN repo (bbbe8e31-12d6-0310-92fd-ac37d47ddeeb), or others as well ?
[20:46] <exarkun> The Twisted SVN repo is the only one that I'm interested in (as far as I know :)
[22:58] <revoof> hi. i get "Rejected: Unable to find distroseries: oneric" when i try to upload files with dput. what could be wrong?
[22:58] <mwhudson> revoof: it's spelt oneiric ? :)
[23:00] <revoof> mwhudson: thanks. could have barely been more trivial ;)
[23:00] <mwhudson> revoof: a downside of using such a funny word i guess
[23:00] <mwhudson> at least 'precise' shouldn't have this problem...
[23:01] <tumbleweed> you have great faith in peoples spelling ability
[23:02] <exarkun> people's
[23:02] <tumbleweed> :)
[23:06]  * mwhudson starts campaining for quetzalcoatlish quagga
[23:06] <mwhudson> and, sigh
[23:08] <revoof> now my first package is uploaded: https://launchpad.net/~niklas-fiekas/+archive/ppa - but i am getting 404's when trying to apt-get update after adding the deb line. equally trivial?
[23:09] <revoof> or must i upload a binary instead of the source package?
[23:09] <wgrant> It's not published yet.
[23:09] <mwhudson> revoof: it takes a while
[23:09] <wgrant> Packages are only published to ppa.launchpad.net every 5 minutes.
[23:09] <wgrant> And your binaries are still building, so there won't be anything there until they're done.
[23:09] <wgrant> https://launchpad.net/~niklas-fiekas/+archive/ppa/+build/2957525
[23:12] <s0cialc0d3r> lifeless: Apparently the canonical SSO open ids are messed up, and and they became unassociated
[23:12] <s0cialc0d3r> lifeless: I can PM you details
[23:14] <revoof> mwhudson, wgrant: thanks again. could have seen that: "1 package building"
[23:25] <revoof> good night