Re: hottest100 (was Re: Bazaar focus for 2.1 and 2.2)

Jelmer Vernooij wrote: > FWIW, I've just pushed a copy of bzr-svn that allows it to interact with > the KDE subversion repository. This should fix the 4 KDE items on the > list. Well done! Ian C. -- ubuntu-distributed-devel mailing list ubuntu-distributed-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify setting

Re: hottest100 (was Re: Bazaar focus for 2.1 and 2.2)

Hi Martin, On Wed, 2010-02-03 at 16:40 +, Martin Pool wrote: > We had a big push on hottest100 last week, and it was good. A fairly > recent copy of the hottest100 results are below. FWIW, I've just pushed a copy of bzr-svn that allows it to interact with the KDE subversion repository. This s

Re: hottest100 (was Re: Bazaar focus for 2.1 and 2.2)

On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 16:40:12 +, Martin Pool wrote: > * help james_w with some of the bugs opened against the package > importer (assuming he wants it) I would love it. Thanks, James -- ubuntu-distributed-devel mailing list ubuntu-distributed-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsub

Re: hottest100 (was Re: Bazaar focus for 2.1 and 2.2)

We had a big push on hottest100 last week, and it was good. A fairly recent copy of the hottest100 results are below. To summarize where we got to: most of the upstream branches are now working; there are a few not correctly registered but that could probably be fairly easily fixed. In package b

Re: hottest100 (was Re: Bazaar focus for 2.1 and 2.2)

On Tue, 2010-01-26 at 11:46 +0100, Jelmer Vernooij wrote: > On Tue, 2010-01-26 at 05:38 -0500, Francis J. Lacoste wrote: > > On January 26, 2010, Martin Pool wrote: > > > and in passing we're fixing some misregistration. At the moment the > > > biggest problem we can't fix is that some Launchpad p

Re: hottest100 (was Re: Bazaar focus for 2.1 and 2.2)

2010/1/26 Martin Pool : >> lp:accerciser -> lp:~vcs-imports/accerciser/main >> lp:at-spi  -> lp:~vcs-imports/at-spi/git-trunk >> lp:ekiga -> lp:~vcs-imports/ekiga/git-trunk >> lp:gconf  -> lp:~vcs-imports/gconf/trunk >> lp:glib -> lp:~jjardon/glib/trunk all done >> lp:gnome-common -> lp:~vcs-imp

Re: hottest100 (was Re: Bazaar focus for 2.1 and 2.2)

2010/1/26 Dmitrijs Ledkovs : > 2010/1/26 Jelmer Vernooij : >> I've fixed those I can up myself, since I'm already a member of the >> Registry Administrators somehow. >> >> There's quite a few that seem to be owned by community members or teams >> but haven't actually been touched in a while. The fo

Re: hottest100 (was Re: Bazaar focus for 2.1 and 2.2)

2010/1/26 Jelmer Vernooij : > I've fixed those I can up myself, since I'm already a member of the > Registry Administrators somehow. > > There's quite a few that seem to be owned by community members or teams > but haven't actually been touched in a while. The following projects we > can not update

Re: hottest100 (was Re: Bazaar focus for 2.1 and 2.2)

On Tue, 2010-01-26 at 05:38 -0500, Francis J. Lacoste wrote: > On January 26, 2010, Martin Pool wrote: > > and in passing we're fixing some misregistration. At the moment the > > biggest problem we can't fix is that some Launchpad projects have > > branches but no development focus (ie default bra

Re: hottest100 (was Re: Bazaar focus for 2.1 and 2.2)

On January 26, 2010, Martin Pool wrote: > We're hacking a bit more on this script (in > http://code.launchpad.net/~canonical-bazaar/udd/hottest100) to make it > do things including > > * check both the package and upstream branch for freshness and existence > * cross check the package branch again

Re: hottest100 (was Re: Bazaar focus for 2.1 and 2.2)

We're hacking a bit more on this script (in http://code.launchpad.net/~canonical-bazaar/udd/hottest100) to make it do things including * check both the package and upstream branch for freshness and existence * cross check the package branch against Madison * understand some of the branches that ar

Re: hottest100 (was Re: Bazaar focus for 2.1 and 2.2)

2010/1/16 Francis J. Lacoste : > On January 15, 2010, Martin Pool wrote: >> In case people are wondering how far this has come. >> >> When we started focussing on the hottest100 a month ago we had about >> 90 of the hottest100 packages linked to products, and about 52 of them >> had working branche

Re: hottest100 (was Re: Bazaar focus for 2.1 and 2.2)

On January 15, 2010, Martin Pool wrote: > In case people are wondering how far this has come. > > When we started focussing on the hottest100 a month ago we had about > 90 of the hottest100 packages linked to products, and about 52 of them > had working branches. Now we have 94 of them linked to

Re: hottest100 (was Re: Bazaar focus for 2.1 and 2.2)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Martin Pool wrote: > 2010/1/15 Andrew Bennetts : >> Martin Pool wrote: >> [...] >>> The definition of 'working' here may be a bit loose; I'm working on a >>> script to scan them and report those which are stale. This will also >> I suspect that most o

Re: hottest100 (was Re: Bazaar focus for 2.1 and 2.2)

2010/1/15 Andrew Bennetts : > Martin Pool wrote: > [...] >> The definition of 'working' here may be a bit loose; I'm working on a >> script to scan them and report those which are stale.  This will also > > I suspect that most of the gnome ones are currently stale (hopefully my > mail from yesterda

Re: hottest100 (was Re: Bazaar focus for 2.1 and 2.2)

Martin Pool wrote: [...] > The definition of 'working' here may be a bit loose; I'm working on a > script to scan them and report those which are stale. This will also I suspect that most of the gnome ones are currently stale (hopefully my mail from yesterday is a good step towards correcting tha

Re: hottest100 (was Re: Bazaar focus for 2.1 and 2.2)

In case people are wondering how far this has come. When we started focussing on the hottest100 a month ago we had about 90 of the hottest100 packages linked to products, and about 52 of them had working branches. Now we have 94 of them linked to products, which must be just about all that aren'

Re: hottest100 (was Re: Bazaar focus for 2.1 and 2.2)

On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 09:49 +1100, Andrew Bennetts wrote: > Jelmer Vernooij wrote: > > On Thu, 2010-01-14 at 18:07 +1100, Andrew Bennetts wrote: > > > Import exists but fails (even after retry): > > > --- > > > > > > gnome-control-center > > This was a broke

Re: hottest100 (was Re: Bazaar focus for 2.1 and 2.2)

Jelmer Vernooij wrote: > On Thu, 2010-01-14 at 18:07 +1100, Andrew Bennetts wrote: > > Import exists but fails (even after retry): > > --- > > > > gnome-control-center > This was a broken import - I've removed it and created it again to force > it to import

Re: hottest100 (was Re: Bazaar focus for 2.1 and 2.2)

On Thu, 2010-01-14 at 18:07 +1100, Andrew Bennetts wrote: > Import exists but fails (even after retry): > --- > > gnome-control-center This was a broken import - I've removed it and created it again to force it to import from scratch. > gnome-power-manager

Re: hottest100 (was Re: Bazaar focus for 2.1 and 2.2)

Andrew SB wrote: > On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 2:33 AM, Martin Pool wrote: > > To be useful, this query needs some measurement of whether the branch is > > fresh. > > This is especially true for GNOME products. A number of branches > currently marked as working are still pointed at old svn repos whil

Re: hottest100 (was Re: Bazaar focus for 2.1 and 2.2)

On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 1:53 PM, Martin Pool wrote: > 2010/1/8 Jonathan Lange : >> On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Martin Pool wrote: >>> 2010/1/8 James Westby : On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 10:58:04 +1100, Martin Pool wrote: >> ... This does raise other questions in my mind. Are we excluding som

Re: hottest100 (was Re: Bazaar focus for 2.1 and 2.2)

2010/1/8 Jonathan Lange : > On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Martin Pool wrote: >> 2010/1/8 James Westby : >>> On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 10:58:04 +1100, Martin Pool wrote: > ... >>> This does raise other questions in my mind. Are we excluding some >>> packages before we really start? >> >> I don't know.

Re: hottest100 (was Re: Bazaar focus for 2.1 and 2.2)

On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Martin Pool wrote: > 2010/1/8 James Westby : >> On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 10:58:04 +1100, Martin Pool wrote: ... >> This does raise other questions in my mind. Are we excluding some >> packages before we really start? > > I don't know.  I guess we only would be if the top

Re: hottest100 (was Re: Bazaar focus for 2.1 and 2.2)

2010/1/8 James Westby : > On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 10:58:04 +1100, Martin Pool wrote: >> Here are some specific things people can do to help with hottest100: >> >>  * work out how to make package-product links (explain that here :-) >> and create them when they're missing > > Just a note that > >  https

Re: hottest100 (was Re: Bazaar focus for 2.1 and 2.2)

On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 10:58:04 +1100, Martin Pool wrote: > Here are some specific things people can do to help with hottest100: > > * work out how to make package-product links (explain that here :-) > and create them when they're missing Just a note that https://edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+upst

Re: hottest100 (was Re: Bazaar focus for 2.1 and 2.2)

Here are some specific things people can do to help with hottest100: * work out how to make package-product links (explain that here :-) and create them when they're missing * update the branches pointing to obsolete imports (gnome etc) * write a script that checks the date of the last revision

Re: hottest100 (was Re: Bazaar focus for 2.1 and 2.2)

On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Jonathan Lange wrote: > On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 3:41 AM, James Westby > wrote: >> On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 10:32:08 -0600, John Arbash Meinel >> wrote: >>> So... how do we do that? Who gets assigned that task? I certainly don't >>> feel like I have any ability to mak

Re: hottest100 (was Re: Bazaar focus for 2.1 and 2.2)

2010/1/7 Jonathan Lange : > For almost any of the decisions made on Launchpad, there isn't much in > the way of documentation as to why they were made that way. > Permissions is not an exception here. > > Most of the people I talk to admit that the Launchpad permission > system is haphazard, confus

Re: hottest100 (was Re: Bazaar focus for 2.1 and 2.2)

On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 2:44 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Jan 6, 2010, at 9:38 AM, Curtis Hovey wrote: > >> We have a general problem where knowledgeable contributors cannot update >> a project because Launchpad made someone else the owner (the owner may >> not want to be in that role). Examples in

Re: hottest100 (was Re: Bazaar focus for 2.1 and 2.2)

On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 10:44 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote: > On the platform team, I worked on bug 494704 yesterday.  I started by > assigning the bug to myself.  I was dismayed that I could not set the status > of the bug to Won't Fix or Triaged.  The reason for this is not at all clear > or documen

Re: hottest100 (was Re: Bazaar focus for 2.1 and 2.2)

On Jan 6, 2010, at 9:38 AM, Curtis Hovey wrote: > We have a general problem where knowledgeable contributors cannot update > a project because Launchpad made someone else the owner (the owner may > not want to be in that role). Examples include setting the product > release finder, setting the bug

Re: hottest100 (was Re: Bazaar focus for 2.1 and 2.2)

On Wed, 2010-01-06 at 11:38 +1100, Jonathan Lange wrote: > >> So the associating development focus does not seem to have been > done. > >> Again, I don't think I have access to actually change any of this > stuff. > >> (And obviously neither do you, or you probably would have done > it. :) > > > >

Re: hottest100 (was Re: Bazaar focus for 2.1 and 2.2)

On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 13:38:53 Jonathan Lange wrote: > >> So the associating development focus does not seem to have been done. > >> Again, I don't think I have access to actually change any of this stuff. > >> (And obviously neither do you, or you probably would have done it. :) > > > > Exactly. It

Re: hottest100 (was Re: Bazaar focus for 2.1 and 2.2)

On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 17:39:02 Jonathan Lange wrote: > On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 12:46 PM, Tim Penhey wrote: > > On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 13:38:53 Jonathan Lange wrote: > >> >> So the associating development focus does not seem to have been done. > >> >> Again, I don't think I have access to actually chang

Re: hottest100 (was Re: Bazaar focus for 2.1 and 2.2)

On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 12:46 PM, Tim Penhey wrote: > On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 13:38:53 Jonathan Lange wrote: >> >> So the associating development focus does not seem to have been done. >> >> Again, I don't think I have access to actually change any of this stuff. >> >> (And obviously neither do you, or

Re: hottest100 (was Re: Bazaar focus for 2.1 and 2.2)

On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 13:38:53 Jonathan Lange wrote: > >> So the associating development focus does not seem to have been done. > >> Again, I don't think I have access to actually change any of this stuff. > >> (And obviously neither do you, or you probably would have done it. :) > > > > Exactly. It

Re: hottest100 (was Re: Bazaar focus for 2.1 and 2.2)

On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 3:41 AM, James Westby wrote: > On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 10:32:08 -0600, John Arbash Meinel > wrote: >> So... how do we do that? Who gets assigned that task? I certainly don't >> feel like I have any ability to make that change. > > I think it's normally the job of the LP CHR. I

Re: hottest100 (was Re: Bazaar focus for 2.1 and 2.2)

On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 2:33 AM, Martin Pool wrote: > To be useful, this query needs some measurement of whether the branch is > fresh. This is especially true for GNOME products. A number of branches currently marked as working are still pointed at old svn repos while the projects have moved to

Re: hottest100 (was Re: Bazaar focus for 2.1 and 2.2)

On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 10:32:08 -0600, John Arbash Meinel wrote: > So... how do we do that? Who gets assigned that task? I certainly don't > feel like I have any ability to make that change. I think it's normally the job of the LP CHR. I was hoping one of the LP people on the list would help with t

Re: hottest100 (was Re: Bazaar focus for 2.1 and 2.2)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 James Westby wrote: > On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 18:33:29 +1100, Martin Pool wrote: >> I put jml's query output into a Google spreadsheet, so that we can >> annotate lines with the relevant bug etc. >>

Re: hottest100 (was Re: Bazaar focus for 2.1 and 2.2)

On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 18:33:29 +1100, Martin Pool wrote: > I put jml's query output into a Google spreadsheet, so that we can > annotate lines with the relevant bug etc. > . I'll put another plug in for

hottest100 (was Re: Bazaar focus for 2.1 and 2.2)

I put jml's query output into a Google spreadsheet, so that we can annotate lines with the relevant bug etc. . Some observations: Some aren't linked to products; that's probably easily fixed. In some ca