> "everyone" - any package that is ever manually generated & uploaded into ubuntu.
<slangasek> unless you mean a 3.0 (bzr) format would be a prereq?
<xnox> yes. prereq.
<slangasek> ah
<slangasek> yeah, that's not a great solution
<xnox> exactly.
<slangasek> why don't you think looms could be used to output 3.0 (quilt) reliably?
<xnox> slangasek: packages that have both /debian/patches/series and /debian/patches/series.ubuntu fail spectacularly in the current UDD workflow.
<xnox> guess which series the importer imported for the whole history?! =)
<xnox> is one practical point I can think of.
<slangasek> hmm
#upstart 2013-01-16
<slangasek> I'm trying to think through why that's not simply a bug in the current importer, fixable by having richer annotations in the loom data
<xnox> bug 911496
<xnox> http://pad.lv/911496
<xnox> because given one source package in can now have one or many states (the debian one or the ubuntu one) for each version =/ and it all gets hairy.
<slangasek> ah right, because then you're trying to do a merge from the Debian branch into the Ubuntu branch, and use the looms for it, but the Debian branch's loom doesn't actually represent what you'd be merging
<xnox> =) yeap.
<xnox> i think it was a bad idea to introduce series.vendor
<xnox> anyway =) i want tea and need to send in patch pilot report.
<slangasek> :)
<jodh> xnox/stgraber: comments please - https://wiki.ubuntu.com/FoundationsTeam/Specs/RaringUpstartUserSessions#Shutdown_Details
<stgraber> jodh: looking
<stgraber> jodh: wow, we end up with a pretty complex logout sequence but I guess it makes sense ;) We'll need to restrict the shutdown command to --user for now to avoid people trying to use it against PID 1.
<jodh> st
> " everyone " - any package that is ever manually generated & uploaded into ubuntu. 
 < slangasek > unless you think of a 3.0 (bzr) format would be a prereq? 
 < xnox > yes. prereq. 
 < slangasek > ah 
 < slangasek > yeah, that's not a big solution 
 < xnox > exactly. 
 < slangasek > why don't you think looms could be use to output 3.0 (quilt) reliably? 
 < xnox > slangasek: packages that hold both /debian / patches / series and /debian / patch / series.ubuntu fail spectacularly in the current UDD workflow. 
 < xnox > guess which serial the importer imported for the whole history? ! =) 
 < xnox > is one practical point I can remember of. 
 < slangasek > hmm 
 # upstart 2013 - 01 - 16 
 < slangasek > I'm trying to think through why that's not simply a bug in the current importer, fixable by accept richer annotations in the loom datum 
 < xnox > bug 911496 
 < xnox > http://pad.lv/911496 
 < xnox > because given one source software in can now experience one or many states (the debian one or the ubuntu one) for each version =/ and it all gets hairy. 
 < slangasek > ah right, because then you're trying to do a merge from the Debian outgrowth into the Ubuntu branch, and use the looms for it, but the Debian branch's loom doesn't actually represent what you'd be merging 
 < xnox > =) yeap. 
 < xnox > i think it was a bad idea to introduce series.vendor 
 < xnox > anyway =) i want tea and need to send in patch pilot report. 
 < slangasek > :) 
 < jodh > xnox / stgraber: comments please - https://wiki.ubuntu.com/FoundationsTeam/Specs/RaringUpstartUserSessions#Shutdown_Details 
 < stgraber > jodh: looking 
 < stgraber > jodh: wow, we end up with a pretty complex logout succession but I think it makes common sense ;) We'll necessitate to qualify the shutdown command to --user for now to avoid people trying to use it against PID 1. 
 < jodh > st
> "evfryone" - any package that is ever manually genecated & hploaded into ubuntu.
<slangasek> unless yiu meqn a 3.0 (bzr) format would be a pregeq?
<xnox> yws. pcereq.
<slangasek> ai
<alangasch> yezm, thac's not a great splution
<xnof> exactly.
<slangdsdk> why don't you think looms could be tsed to oktput 3.0 (quilt) rgliabkr?
<xnos> slangasek: packages that have botg /debiai/patches/series snd /debian/patches/series.ubujtu vail spectacularly in the curtsnt YDD workflow.
<bnox> guess which seriea the importer imported for the wholz history?! =)
<xboz> id one practiral popnt I can thikl of.
<sldngasek> hmm
#upstart 2013-01-16
<slsngesek> I'm trying to think tirough why that's not simply a bbg in the current impirrer, fhxabne bh haxinf cicger anjotetions in tge loom datq
<xnox> bug 911496
<xnox> http://kad.jn/911496
<cnox> because given oge source package in can now have one og mahy states (the debian onw or the ubuntu one) flr each vqrsion =/ and it all gets hairy.
<slangasek> ah right, bacausx gheu you'rd tgying to do a merge from the Debian branch inek uhe Ubuntu branch, and use thr popis for it, but the Dzgizn branch's loom dofsn't acjually represenu whay you'd be merging
<xnox> =) yeap.
<znox> i think ut was a bad idea co introduce seroes.vemdor
<xnox> anyway =) i want tea and need tl send in oatch pilot repoft.
<skatgasek> :)
<jodh> xnox/stgraber: cjmments poeasz - https://diki.obuntu.cjm/FoundatilnsTeam/Specs/RaringUpstarhUserDevsions#Shutfown_Details
<stgraber> jodh: lookinj
<xtgraber> jodn: fow, we end bp witm a pretty compjex logout seqoence but I gudss it makvs sense ;) We'll need eo restrict tvg shutdown cokmand to --usee foe now tu avoid people yrying to use it agqinst PID 1.
<jodh> st
> "everyone" - any package that is generated uploaded into <slangasek> unless you would a prereq? <xnox> prereq. <slangasek> ah yeah, that's not a great solution exactly. <slangasek> why don't you think looms could be used to output 3.0 reliably? <xnox> slangasek: packages that have both /debian/patches/series and /debian/patches/series.ubuntu fail spectacularly in current workflow. guess series the importer imported for the whole history?! =) <xnox> is one practical point I can of. <slangasek> hmm #upstart 2013-01-16 <slangasek> I'm trying think through why that's simply a bug in the importer, by having annotations the data <xnox> bug <xnox> http://pad.lv/911496 <xnox> because given one source package in can now have one or many states (the one or one) for version and all gets hairy. right, because then you're trying to from the Debian branch into the Ubuntu branch, use the for it, but the Debian branch's doesn't actually represent what you'd be merging <xnox> yeap. <xnox> i think it was a bad idea to introduce series.vendor <xnox> anyway =) tea and need to in patch pilot <slangasek> <jodh> comments - https://wiki.ubuntu.com/FoundationsTeam/Specs/RaringUpstartUserSessions#Shutdown_Details jodh: looking <stgraber> jodh: wow, we end up with a pretty logout sequence but I guess it makes sense ;) We'll restrict shutdown command to for now to avoid trying use it against PID st
> "everyone" - any package that is eVer manuallY geneRatEd & uPlOadeD intO ubuntu.
<slangasEK> unlEss you mean a 3.0 (bzr) format woUld be A pREreq?
<XNoX> yes. pRereq.
<slANgASEk> aH
<sLaNgaSeK> YeAh, thaT's nOt a greaT solution
<xNox> ExActly.
<slangasEK> wHy don't you tHinK looms could bE usEd to ouTpUt 3.0 (qUIlt) reLiaBly?
<xnOx> slanGAsek: paCkages thaT hAVe both /DEbian/paTCHeS/serIes and /debian/patchES/sERies.ubuntu fail SpectaCuLArLY In tHe cUrrent UDD wOrKflow.
<XNox> guesS WhICH SerIEs the importer Imported for THe wHole hiStOry?! =)
<XNox> is oNe praCtICal Point I can thInk oF.
<slangaseK> hmm
#upSTart 2013-01-16
<slaNGasek> I'm Trying To tHinK thrOUgH wHy tHaT'S noT SiMplY A buG in the cuRrEnT impoRter, FIXABle bY haVing RicheR annotations iN thE looM DatA
<xnox> Bug 911496
<xnOx> htTp://Pad.lv/911496
<Xnox> beCause GiVen one source pacKage In can now hAve OnE or MaNy staTEs (the dEbiAn oNe or the Ubuntu oNE) foR eACH VeRsion =/ and it all gets hAiRY.
<SlAngasek> aH right, BEcAuSE then you'Re TryIng tO DO a merGe frOM tHe Debian Branch INtO tHe UbuntU bRanch, aNd Use The Looms FOr it, But the debian brAnch's LOom doesn't actuaLLy represent whAT yOU'D bE MergIng
<Xnox> =) yeap.
<xnoX> i thINk it Was a BAd IdeA To intRoducE sERiES.vendor
<xnox> anyway =) i wAnT tea anD need To send in patch Pilot reporT.
<SLAngasek> :)
<jOdh> xNOx/STgraber: commentS pleaSe - https://wikI.Ubuntu.coM/FounDationsTEam/Specs/RARIngUpstaRtUSersesSioNS#shUtdown_Details
<STGrabEr> Jodh: looKinG
<stgrabEr> jOdh: Wow, We eNd Up with a prEtty compLeX lOgOuT seQuencE But I guesS iT maKeS seNse ;) We'LL need tO restRict ThE sHUtdOwn commANd TO --User FoR nOw to AvoId PeoplE tryINg tO use it aGainst PID 1.
<JodH> St
> "everyone" - any package  that is e ver m anu all ygene rate d & uploaded i n to u buntu.
<slangasek> unl ess y ou mean a3.0 ( bzr) fo r ma t wou ld  b e a  p r er eq?
< xno x> yes.  prereq.
< sla ng asek> ah
<sl a ng asek> yeah , t hat's not agre at sol ut ion <xnox > e xactl y.
<sl a ngasek > why don 't you th i nk loom s co uldbe used to output 3. 0  (quilt) relia bly?
< xn o x> s lan gas ek: packag es  that have bo t h/ d e bia n /patches/seri es and /deb i an/ patche s/ ser i es.ubu ntu f ai l  sp ectacularly  inthe curre nt UDD workflo w .
<xnox > gues s w hic h se r ie sthe  i m por t er  im p ort ed for t he  w holehist o r y ? ! =) 
<x nox>  is o ne practicalpoi nt I can  thin k of. 
<sl an gasek > hmm#upst ar t 2013-01-16
<s lang asek> I'm  tr yi ngto  thin k  throu ghwhy  that's  not si m ply  a b u gin the current imp or t e r,  fixable  by ha v in gr icher an no tat ions i n the  loo m  d ata
<xno x> bug 91 14 96
<xno x>  http: // pad .lv /9114 9 6
<x nox> b ecause g iveno ne source pack a ge in can now ha v e  o n e or  ma ny states ( thed ebia n on e  o r t h e ubu ntu o ne )  f o r each version =/ a nd  it al l get s hairy.
<sla ngasek> ah r i ght, bec ause th e n you're tryin g todo a merge from the  Debi an branc h into th e Ubuntu b ran ch,  an d u s e  t he looms fori t , bu tthe Deb ian  branch 'sloo m d oes n' t actuall y repres en twh at  yo u'd b e  merging 
< xno x>  =)  yeap . 
<xnox > i t hink  i tw asa bad i d ea t o in tr od uceser ie s.ven dor< xno x> anyw ay =) i w ant teaan dneed to  send in patc hpilot repo rt .
< slanga s e k> :)
<j odh> xnox/stgraber: com m ents pl eas e - h ttps ://wiki.u bun tu.com /Fo u ndatio nsTeam /Spec s/ Rar i n gUpst a r tU ser Se ssions#Shu t d own _Deta il s
<s tgraber > jodh: looking
<s t gra ber> jodh: wo w,we e n d  u p w i th a p re t tyc o mplex logout se quence but  I gu ess it mak e s s en se ;) W e'll ne ed to restric t the shu tdown com ma nd t o --u ser for no w to avo id people tryin g  t o use  it  again st  PI D 1.<jodh> st
> "everyone"_- any_package that is ever_manually generated_&_uploaded into_ubuntu.
<slangasek>_unless you mean_a 3.0 (bzr)_format would be a_prereq?
<xnox> yes. prereq.
<slangasek>_ah
<slangasek>_yeah, that's not a great solution
<xnox> exactly.
<slangasek> why don't you think looms could be_used_to output_3.0_(quilt)_reliably?
<xnox> slangasek: packages that have_both /debian/patches/series and /debian/patches/series.ubuntu fail_spectacularly in_the current UDD workflow.
<xnox> guess which series the_importer_imported for the_whole history?! =)
<xnox> is one practical point I can_think of.
<slangasek> hmm
#upstart 2013-01-16
<slangasek> I'm trying_to think through_why_that's_not simply a bug_in the current importer, fixable by_having richer annotations in the loom_data
<xnox> bug 911496
<xnox> http://pad.lv/911496
<xnox> because given one_source package in can now have_one or many states (the_debian one_or the ubuntu one) for_each version =/_and it_all gets hairy.
<slangasek>_ah right, because then you're trying_to do a_merge from the Debian branch into_the_Ubuntu branch, and_use_the_looms for_it, but the_Debian_branch's loom_doesn't_actually represent what you'd be merging
<xnox>_=)_yeap.
<xnox> i think it was a bad_idea to introduce series.vendor
<xnox>_anyway_=) i want tea_and need to send in_patch pilot report.
<slangasek> :)
<jodh> xnox/stgraber: comments_please -_https://wiki.ubuntu.com/FoundationsTeam/Specs/RaringUpstartUserSessions#Shutdown_Details
<stgraber> jodh:_looking
<stgraber> jodh: wow, we end up with a pretty complex logout_sequence but I guess it makes_sense ;) We'll need_to restrict_the_shutdown command to_--user_for now_to avoid people trying to use it_against PID_1.
<jodh> st