[05:22] Does bazaar have some equivalence functionality as GIT Blame? [05:50] sarcasticCat: have you tried 'bzr blame'? :) [05:50] lol that's that first thing I tried :P [05:51] What does it lack that you're looking for? [05:55] spiv: Uhm, there's this source file (that has been worked on by multiple people), I'd like to know who've made what changes [05:56] spiv: git blame would do just that. But at my place, the cvs is bazaar, and I'd like to know if bzr is capable of this [05:58] sarcasticCat: bzr blame should tell you that. [05:58] sarcasticCat: is it not doing that for y ou? [05:59] (you may also find GUI implementations nice, like 'bzr qannotate' from the qbzr plug, or 'bzr gannotate' from the bzr-gtk plugin) [05:59] spiv: Oh, ok. Yeh, it worked. (It didn't work the first time because I was at the wrong directory) [05:59] thanks [05:59] You're welcome. [06:02] spiv: Uhm, now I get is not versioned sometimes. [06:03] What might be the reason for ths? (i'm pretty sure people have made a lot of changes gradually in these files) [06:03] *this [06:05] sarcasticCat: hmm, when you try "bzr blame "? what does "bzr status " report? [06:05] how sure are you that it is versioned [06:07] bob2: almost 100%. (This file has different blocks of code written in different styles, so it must've been written by multiple people, obviously not at the same time. So it must be versioned) [06:08] :/ [06:08] er, use bzr status or bzr log to find out [06:09] well, bzr log would give me > 2000 lines (from 2009 till now) :( [06:09] bpaste.net shell session of 'bzr log somefile | head ; bzr blame somefile | head' [06:10] Oooh, bzr status gave me "nonexistent", which doesnt make anysense [06:10] I'm staring at the file right now. o_O [06:11] the syntax is [bzr status ] , right? [06:11] == not in bzr [06:12] (this is all the same as git btw) [06:12] bob2: Sorry, i'm not quite following. What do you mean by "not in bzr" [06:12] ? [06:13] the file isn't in bzr [06:13] or your path is screwed up somehow [06:14] uhm, yeah. there's a typo in it! Sorry for the noise! [06:16] btw, is there a way to check who first added a particular file? [06:16] bzr log --help [06:16] -> reverse -> | head [06:17] bob2: uhm...? reverse what? [06:17] ? [06:17] the output of log [06:18] prety sure it's the exact same answer as in git, just with the word 'bzr' instead of the word 'git' [06:20] Well, I know what the output of log looks like. But I dont see how that relates to my question. [06:20] ? the first commit is the one that added it [06:21] oh, I see what you're saying. I thought you said to do a [bzr log] (w/o the filename) [08:11] morning [08:15] Humbug. === jml` is now known as jml [12:35] * jelmer waits for the 2.5.1 SRU tests to pass.. [12:36] how parallel are you going? [12:36] mgz: 4 I think [12:36] thunderbird is also keeping one of my CPU cores busy though [12:37] ehehe [12:37] thunderbird is the antivirus of nix. [12:37] what it's doing, I have no clue.. [12:41] Some things man isn't meant to know. [14:05] hi, all. i've been googling for an answer to this question for quite a while but can't seem to find an answer [14:06] is it possible to configure which shared repository a branch uses? [14:06] situation as follows: i have a co-located workspace in /path/to/colo and a legacy shared repo in /path/to [14:06] yes, but depends what you mean by 'configure' [14:07] i want to choose the shared repo location [14:07] e.g. with bzr reconfigure [14:07] or by editing .bzr/branch/branch.conf or any other configuration [14:07] it will just use the one closest as it climbs the directories [14:07] which break my co-located workspace [14:08] because i want my branches to use /path/to/colo/.bzr/branches [14:08] there's no problem having a repo in colo [14:08] * jelmer luncheons [14:09] fsvo lunch [14:09] yes, but for some reason the branch suddenly picks up the shared repo in the parent [14:09] which obviously doesn't contain its history [14:09] so as a consequence my co-located workspace is now broken [14:09] jelmer, not quite yet! is there some command that will make a colo branch init a repo where it lies? [14:09] :) [14:10] mgz: a bzr-colo branch or a bzr-core colocated branch? [14:10] i'm using bzr-colo [14:10] but i don't think it matters [14:10] it's related to the bug i just reported: https://bugs.launchpad.net/bzr/+bug/1005532 [14:10] Ubuntu bug 1005532 in Bazaar "bzr reconfigure --standalone has no effect on lightweight checkouts" [Undecided,New] [14:11] frathgeber: that does matter [14:11] ok [14:11] the way in which bzr-colo stores it branches is confusing bzr [14:11] frathgeber: so, in theory there's no problem with the layout you want, just some of the conversion commands are likely too zealous about sqiushing things together [14:12] jelmer: yes, i realised it's confusing bzr [14:12] and now i'm looking for a way to un-confuse bzr [14:12] I would be inclined to reassign this to bzr-colo [14:12] i.e. make it use .bzr/branches as the shared repo again [14:12] instead of .. [14:13] i think what i'm really asking is: how does bzr-colo make a branch use a shared repo in a subdirectory [14:13] and how can i restore this configuration if it's broken? [14:14] frathgeber: if a branch itself doesn't have a repository bzr will look upwards [14:14] so if you remove .bzr/branches/foo/.bzr/repository it will start using .bzr/repository again [14:16] there seems not to be a .bzr/branches/foo/.bzr/repository [14:16] if .bzr/branches/foo is a standalone branch there would be [14:17] ok [14:17] so i need to bzr reconfigure --standalone .bzr/branches/foo [14:18] oh bugger, i see what has happened [14:18] frathgeber: I don't think bzr-colo branches would ever want to be standalone? [14:19] shouldn't they use the repository in .bzr/branches ? [14:19] my failed attempt to reconfigure did actually delete the shared repository in .bzr/branches/.bzr/repository [14:19] they should, yes [14:20] right, go and eat some things jelmer :) [14:20] but my failed attempt to reconfigure it as per bug #1005532 seemed to have killed that shared repository [14:20] Launchpad bug 1005532 in bzr-colo "bzr reconfigure --standalone has no effect on lightweight checkouts" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1005532 [14:20] anyway, "lunch" first.. back in 45 min :) [14:20] thanks, enjoy your lunch [14:20] * frathgeber just had 'lunch' a few min ago [14:21] frathgeber: the interesting thing for that bug is probably the steps to get into that situation [14:21] if you can reproduce from scratch, that would be usefulful to include steps for [14:21] yes, it actually started earlier, but i hadn't expected that that would be relevant [14:22] situation was as follows (and i think will be subject of another bug report): [14:22] co-located workspace in /path/to/colo [14:23] now i did bzr colo-checkout ../mybranch as described in the bug report [14:23] subsequently however, i rebased /path/to/colo (which in fact is also a lightweight checkout of mybranch) [14:26] actually, that should be legal, shouldn't it? rebasing a branch that has 2 lightweight checkouts shouldn't break either of them? [14:28] shouldn't have any impact, indeed [14:30] anyway, i noticed that bzr info in ../mybranch gave me the 'wrong' shared repo and indeed all bzr operations were broken [14:30] bzr: ERROR: Revision ... not present in ... [14:31] so i was looking for a way to point it back to the 'right' shared repo [14:31] right, but you're not sure which command actually broke the repo, correct? [14:31] for the bug report, that's what we need [14:31] correct [14:32] for recovery, it sounds like you want to make a fresh branch from another copy of the repo, as at some point the current one got deleted [14:32] indeed [14:33] possibly during recovery attempts after the layout got confused rather than at the same time [14:33] i think i had pushed everything upstream before [14:34] i've repeatedly done bzr reconfigure --standalone followed by bzr reconfigure --use-shared to figure out what actually happened [14:35] remember .bzr.log also records your past commands and might be useful in working out what happened when [14:35] very good point indeed [14:36] i'll have a look at that and see if it tells me sth [14:38] ah, there we go. i think i remember now what caused me to try those weird experiments [14:38] bzr reported ../mybranch was out of date, so i tried bzr up, which failed [14:38] saying 'branch has no revision ...' [14:39] mgz: i can attach .bzr.log to the bug report? [14:40] yup, you may want to trim it a little, but keeping a few commands before that update would likely be useful too [14:41] yeah, i found the but from where it's potentially relevant [14:43] odd, https://bugs.launchpad.net/bzr/+bug/1005532/+addcomment is broken for me, i get the generic 404 'Lost something?' [14:43] Ubuntu bug 1005532 in bzr-colo "bzr reconfigure --standalone has no effect on lightweight checkouts" [Undecided,New] [14:44] refreshing helped [14:45] odd, on post or get? [14:46] get [14:46] i think it was because jelmer had made a status change in the meantime [14:46] ah, I know what it is [14:47] project changed from bzr to bzr-colo and there's no redirect [14:48] ah, right [14:48] that's fair enough [14:49] i'll try to rescue my shared repo and maybe someone can make some sense from my bzr.log [14:50] creating a fresh branch from the bits you pushed upstream is probably easiest [14:51] yep [14:53] mid-term i'll probably switch to colo-core [14:53] when is that going to make it into the release? [14:54] it's in 2.5, with a few ui polish issues [14:54] neil was talking about making bzr-colo use the new core colo support where available [15:00] ok. where can i find documentation on core colo? [15:02] canonical.com is really slow today... [15:02] not sure what we have on the user-facing side [15:02] nothing obious at least :) [17:12] it seems i've lost the 2 most recent commits [17:13] now the branch is in some weird limbo and appears unusable [17:14] e.g. bzr: ERROR: Could not determine revno for ... because its ancestry shows a ghost at ... [17:23] frathgeber: did you perhaps remove any of the repository directories? [17:23] one repository probably has/had mroe revisions than the other [17:24] i didn't conciously remove any of the repository directories [17:24] but quite possibly one of the commands i ran did (see https://bugs.launchpad.net/bzr-colo/+bug/1005532/+attachment/3166962/+files/bzr.log) [17:24] Ubuntu bug 1005532 in bzr-colo "bzr reconfigure --standalone has no effect on lightweight checkouts" [Undecided,New] [17:29] is there anything i can do to rescue that branch? i still have the working tree and also the dirstate, so i could branch from upstream and diff to see the changes and try to re-create those 2 missing commits [17:29] is there an easier/safer way to do that? [17:31] frathgeber: it's probably easiest to talk to somebody familiar with bzr-colo, I'm not entirely sure what all the colo- commands do [17:35] ok. but assuming the repository is lost (which is what i'm assuming now), do i have better options to ressurect those 2 lost commits than what i described above? [17:37] frathgeber: yup. On the other hand, 'find . -name pack-names -print' should tell you where some repository may be hidden and hopefully recoverable (I'm here for less than ~5 minutes) [17:38] ok, will run that [17:39] alas it's gone [17:40] i'll go the manual route then [17:40] thanks for your help jelmer, mgz, vila [19:47] Oh look, 2.5.1 takes lplibrarian into the hundred millions. Yeesh. [19:53] fullermd: whu? [19:54] * fullermd shrugs [19:55] Doesn't mean anything. Just cute. [21:33] hello all [21:34] do you have any idea how can i commit so i can get a partial version like .1.1 ? [21:34] or .1.2? [21:41] why? [21:42] bob2: i just wanna know how [21:42] ok! [22:06] dodgerblue: that happens when you commit a merge of another commit [22:07] wgz: thanks :) [22:11] do I need to install the "colo" plugin if I want to try colocated branches in bzr 2.5? [22:17] jave: nope, that's a different thing [22:23] okay. were can I find proper docs on colocated branches? [22:24] jave: there aren't any at the moment, colocated branches are still experimental in 2.5 [22:25] ah well. [22:25] I think the main documentation is some emails to the mailing list at this point. [22:25] is colo branches usable at all in 2.5? [22:26] or should I wait? [22:26] jave: I wouldn't recommend it for production use [22:26] okay thanks, [22:26] if you're working on plugins etc and want to make them ready for colocated branches then it might be worth to have a look at them [22:27] no I just wanted to try out colo branches on the emacs repo [22:51] bzr viz's UI is very broken for me in 2.5.0. I can't scroll all the way to the top of the revisions history. Does anyone else have this? [22:53] vadi2: it's fine here [22:53] vadi2: what version of bzr-gtk is that? [22:54] 0.103.0+bzr792-1ubuntu1 [22:56] This is what I can scroll up to: http://i.imgur.com/i7mBv.png you can tell it's not the latest one because the arrow button is still pressable. The only way I can get to the top is via the keyboard up/down buttons - and when I switch that way, it fails to scroll, but does select the revision properly/ [23:00] vadi2: I would recommend filing a bug, I haven't seen any bugs about this issue before [23:01] alright