| 00:00.31 | *** join/#storm wallflower (n=wallflow@ip-205-246-113-216.pool.grokthis.net) |
| 01:26.02 | *** join/#storm rockstar_ (n=rockstar@75-171-134-187.hlrn.qwest.net) |
| 01:46.55 | *** join/#storm bigdo2 (n=scmikes@72-197-8-8-arpa.cust.cinci.current.net) |
| 03:09.48 | *** join/#storm ubot3 (n=ubot3@unaffiliated/nalioth/bot/ubot3) |
| 04:28.51 | *** part/#storm bigdog (n=scmikes@72-197-8-8-arpa.cust.cinci.current.net) |
| 05:09.28 | *** join/#storm jukart (n=jukart@85-124-221-45.static.xdsl-line.inode.at) |
| 05:11.36 | *** join/#storm jukart_ (n=jukart@lsfw01.lovelysystems.com) |
| 05:23.24 | *** join/#storm dobee (n=dobee@lsfw01.lovelysystems.com) |
| 05:52.42 | *** join/#storm bigdog (n=scmikes@72-197-8-8-arpa.cust.cinci.current.net) |
| 05:54.08 | *** join/#storm jukart (n=jukart@lsfw01.lovelysystems.com) |
| 05:55.43 | *** join/#storm jukart (n=jukart@lsfw01.lovelysystems.com) |
| 06:49.15 | *** join/#storm bac (n=bac@canonical/launchpad/bac) [NETSPLIT VICTIM] |
| 06:49.15 | *** join/#storm weatherman (n=weatherm@S0106001b11b2d97a.vc.shawcable.net) [NETSPLIT VICTIM] |
| 07:34.16 | *** join/#storm bigdog (n=scmikes@72-197-8-8-arpa.cust.cinci.current.net) |
| 08:10.12 | *** join/#storm jkakar (n=jkakar@nat/canonical/x-e715b662e889d58d) |
| 08:23.49 | *** join/#storm niemeyer (n=niemeyer@nat/canonical/x-1f2866dbf3f79553) |
| 08:26.13 | *** join/#storm dholbach (n=daniel@ubuntu/member/dholbach) |
| 08:26.15 | dholbach | hiya |
| 08:26.25 | jkakar | Heya :) |
| 08:26.31 | dholbach | Storm ROCKs! |
| 08:26.33 | dholbach | hugs y'all |
| 08:26.36 | jkakar | Yay! |
| 08:26.39 | dholbach | so when's 0.13 coming out? :) |
| 08:26.42 | jkakar | high-fives dholbach |
| 08:26.51 | dholbach | I'd like to use the debugging thing :) |
| 08:26.56 | jkakar | dholbach: Actually, just yesterday we were saying that we should prepare a release soonishly. |
| 08:27.05 | jkakar | dholbach: Ah, cool. Yeah, the tracing facility is very nice. |
| 08:27.08 | dholbach | neat-o :) |
| 08:27.19 | jamesh | dholbach: if you can convince someone to review lp:~therve/storm/resultset-groupby-2, Storm will rock even more :) |
| 08:27.22 | jkakar | dholbach: I don't have an exact date, but since you're asking I'll see what I can do to push it forward. |
| 08:27.40 | dholbach | jamesh: I guess you don't want ME to review it ;-) |
| 08:27.50 | jkakar | dholbach: Your review would be most welcome! |
| 08:28.31 | dholbach | jkakar: I've never written a test-case - maybe that gives you an idea of how what my review would be worth :) |
| 08:28.50 | jamesh | jkakar: what do you think about using the new merge proposal comment system for Storm reviews? |
| 08:28.54 | dholbach | but I'd be happy to package 0.13 for intrepid and test it a bit |
| 08:29.26 | jkakar | dholbach: We've actually got packaging code in place; I'm planning to use PPAs to build packages for dapper->intrepid for the next release. |
| 08:29.41 | jkakar | jamesh: I don't have any experience with it, but I'd be happy to try it out and see how it works. |
| 08:29.42 | dholbach | not sure how suitable it is, but we could think about getting it into hardy-backports if it doesn't shake the world up too much |
| 08:29.51 | dholbach | jkakar: great |
| 08:29.54 | jkakar | dholbach: That would be cool. |
| 08:30.19 | jamesh | jkakar: it is a bit basic at the moment, but you can get a list of proposals targeted at lp:storm here: https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~storm/storm/trunk/+landing-candidates |
| 08:30.53 | jamesh | if you click on the "view proposal details" link, you get a list of the unmerged revisions and can add comments |
| 08:30.54 | jkakar | jamesh: Hey, that's cool! |
| 08:31.01 | jamesh | comments can include votes |
| 08:31.18 | jamesh | (no special meaning is applied to the votes though) |
| 08:31.46 | jamesh | the only thing I haven't checked up on is email notification w.r.t. this system |
| 08:32.03 | jamesh | I believe it exists, but you probably have to subscribe to one of the branches |
| 08:32.25 | jkakar | jamesh: I noticed that you left comments on the bug but left an 'Approve' vote for the branch. Is that the expected usage pattern? It seems that you'd actually want the comments linked to the branch, not the bug. |
| 08:32.54 | jamesh | jkakar: I'd left my comments on the bug before playing around with the merge proposal stuff |
| 08:33.03 | jkakar | jamesh: Ah, okay. |
| 08:33.18 | jamesh | jkakar: If we used this infrastructure, I'd expect the "code review in bugs" to be moved here |
| 08:33.20 | radix | huh |
| 08:33.25 | radix | what's the Merge Queue? |
| 08:33.30 | radix | Is that like PQM or something? |
| 08:33.59 | radix | or is it just the branches that have been Approved? |
| 08:34.00 | jamesh | radix: the aim is to let projects drive a PQM instance off the data in LP |
| 08:34.07 | radix | I see |
| 08:34.26 | jamesh | that bit isn't ready yet, and isn't a prereq for using the rest of the stuff |
| 08:34.30 | radix | this is cool stuff |
| 08:35.59 | niemeyer | jamesh: WOOHAY! |
| 08:36.57 | niemeyer | dholbach: Yo! |
| 08:37.05 | dholbach | yo niemeyer - how are you doing? :) |
| 08:37.14 | niemeyer | dholbach: Excellent, thanks! |
| 08:37.21 | niemeyer | dholbach: Very happy for hearing the good news! |
| 08:38.21 | jamesh | niemeyer: I'm pretty happy about it myself :) |
| 08:38.35 | dholbach | niemeyer: which? :) |
| 08:38.56 | niemeyer | dholbach: Storm landed! |
| 08:39.02 | niemeyer | jamesh: Congratulations! |
| 08:39.15 | niemeyer | jamesh: and thanks for the long ride! :) |
| 08:41.10 | niemeyer | jamesh: Just got the email from Kiko about some pages taking longer to render |
| 08:41.20 | niemeyer | jamesh: Is it easy to test the performance of these pages? |
| 08:42.47 | jamesh | niemeyer: we've got a few metrics: a small amount less queries, and a lot more time spent in Python |
| 08:43.13 | niemeyer | jamesh: Right |
| 08:43.40 | niemeyer | jamesh: So I was wondering how it'd perform if the C extensions was brought up to date (which must be done before 0.13 in any case) |
| 08:44.03 | jamesh | niemeyer: If I take the "insert ... returning" optimisations out, it is probably doing slightly more queries though |
| 08:44.05 | niemeyer | jamesh: If we fix that today, would you be able to make some performance tests tomorrow or so? |
| 08:44.07 | jamesh | so I expect we can drop that bit |
| 08:44.13 | jamesh | niemeyer: sure. |
| 08:44.42 | niemeyer | jamesh: Nice! It shouldn't take much. I'll work on that today. |
| 09:01.46 | jamesh | niemeyer: I guess next on my plate is writing some migration documentation for the team |
| 09:02.02 | jamesh | wrong window |
| 09:05.58 | niemeyer | jamesh: Documentation will be awesome indeed.. I'll be happy to help however possible |
| 09:28.11 | *** join/#storm mcella (n=mcella@ip-176-247.sn2.eutelia.it) |
| 09:43.25 | *** join/#storm mcella (n=mcella@ip-176-247.sn2.eutelia.it) |
| 11:54.21 | *** join/#storm al-maisa1 (n=al-maisa@89.146.184.75) |
| 11:55.27 | *** join/#storm al-maisan (n=al-maisa@89.146.184.75) |
| 11:59.41 | al-maisan | Hello there! Quick question .. I need to handle the modification of a particular object attribute in a special way .. whenever that attribute changes I need to update counters in a different object .. |
| 12:00.39 | al-maisan | I am just wondering how I would distinguish between the cases where the watched object is created and updated respectively |
| 12:02.13 | al-maisan | When an object O1 is created in a certain state I need to increment the "total" counter as well as the counter that corresponds to O1's state |
| 12:03.14 | al-maisan | Conversely, when an object O2 has its state modified I merely need to decrement the counter for O2's old state and increment the counter for its new state |
| 12:04.45 | al-maisan | Any ideas? |
| 13:20.25 | niemeyer | al-maisan: Hello |
| 13:20.40 | al-maisan | hello niemeyer |
| 13:20.44 | al-maisan | how are things? |
| 13:21.22 | niemeyer | al-maisan: In 0.13, which is not out yet, the easiest is to use a validator in the property.. that's very simple |
| 13:21.30 | niemeyer | al-maisan: Currently, you can define a custom property for taht |
| 13:21.32 | niemeyer | that |
| 13:21.40 | niemeyer | al-maisan: Which is not so trivial, but should work in most cases |
| 13:21.47 | al-maisan | OK |
| 13:22.03 | niemeyer | al-maisan: If you have the chance of using trunk, I'd advise it |
| 13:22.11 | al-maisan | is there an example you could point me to? |
| 13:22.17 | al-maisan | or documentation? |
| 13:33.37 | niemeyer | al-maisan: For which option? |
| 13:35.36 | al-maisan | I am afraid I will have to go with the "custom property" option .. |
| 13:49.29 | *** join/#storm oubiwann_ (n=oubiwann@71-34-204-4.omah.qwest.net) |
| 14:10.31 | *** join/#storm oubiwann (n=oubiwann@71-34-195-154.omah.qwest.net) |
| 14:25.33 | *** join/#storm oubiwann_ (n=oubiwann@71-34-195-164.omah.qwest.net) |
| 14:46.35 | *** join/#storm oubiwann (n=oubiwann@71-34-194-147.omah.qwest.net) |
| 15:01.07 | *** join/#storm al-maisa1 (n=al-maisa@SE400.PPPoE-5827.sa.bih.net.ba) |
| 15:25.37 | *** join/#storm oubiwann_ (n=oubiwann@71-34-193-243.omah.qwest.net) |
| 15:25.49 | *** join/#storm bigdog (n=scmikes@72-197-8-8-arpa.cust.cinci.current.net) |
| 16:42.16 | *** join/#storm bigdo2 (n=scmikes@72-197-8-8-arpa.cust.cinci.current.net) |
| 17:04.38 | *** join/#storm oubiwann (n=oubiwann@70-57-185-7.omah.qwest.net) |
| 17:19.41 | *** join/#storm oubiwann_ (n=oubiwann@207-224-106-188.omah.qwest.net) |
| 17:22.24 | *** join/#storm dobee (n=dobee@dsl-wien1-35-55.utaonline.at) |
| 17:31.47 | *** join/#storm oubiwann (n=oubiwann@71-34-206-169.omah.qwest.net) |
| 17:55.17 | *** join/#storm jukart (n=jukart@85-124-221-45.static.xdsl-line.inode.at) |
| 19:11.26 | *** join/#storm dobee_ (n=dobee@dsl-wien1-35-166.utaonline.at) |
| 19:43.54 | *** join/#storm paroneayea (n=user@fsf/member/paroneayea) |
| 20:06.11 | *** join/#storm paroneayea (n=user@fsf/member/paroneayea) |
| 23:25.19 | *** join/#storm dobee (n=dobee@85-124-200-100.static.xdsl-line.inode.at) |