02:29 <sr> LOL! did you know PHP5.3 has "goto"? :-D

02:29 <sr> oh and they use "\" as the namespace separator

02:30 <sr> dkubb, ah yeah sorry, the bob branch requires integrity/bob HEAD

02:30 <dkubb> sr: ahh, np. I will give it a try tomorrow

02:31 <sr> did you push the changes to dm-aggregates already?

02:47 <sr> dkubb, with HEAD: http://gist.github.com/113383

02:47 <sr> (11 failures, getting better :)

02:47 <dkubb> sr: is that with dm-core/next and dm-more/next HEAD?

02:48 <sr> yep

02:49 <sr> is Collection#shift gone?

02:52 <dkubb> sr: no

02:52 <dkubb> sr: it should work the same as before. Collection#shift mostly delegates up the chain to Array#shift

02:54 <dkubb> sr: ok, just pushed a couple of things to edge for dm-core and dm-more, and I'm going to hit bed

02:57 <dkubb> hmm, those shift errors are weird. will look at them tomorrow

02:58 <sr> night

05:30 <sr> raggi, FYI, builder.integrityapp.com is running with your Threaded engine

05:30 <raggi> sr: hey

05:30 <raggi> oh, cool

08:49 <harryv> sr: re yesterday's troubles, actually it builds and everything is fine, only, it's an old commit that stays on top :/

09:53 <atmos> harryv: i'm seeing the exact same thing

09:53 <atmos> harryv: mine builds but my notifiers send message for two commits back

09:54 <atmos> and my ui says "hasn't been built yet"

11:59 <sr> atmos, harryv commits should be ordered by their commit date

12:02 <atmos> sr: definitely not seeing that behavior here

12:02 <atmos> i'll investigate

12:03 <sr> note that in git HEAD's commit date can be older than HEAD~20 for example

12:03 <sr> not sure that is related

12:11 <foca> atmos: what version of integrity?

12:17 <atmos> 0.1.9.1

12:20 <sr> hurm. we should send [ANN] to the mailing-list :P

12:21 <qrush> newest integrity off rubyforge is working wonderfully

12:22 <qrush> much better experience than whatever happened last week

12:22 <qrush> Maybe it was just CentOS being dumb, but ubuntu is much happier with ruby

12:22 <foca> http://www01.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=double+whopper nom nom nom I want a burger now

12:22 <sr> qrush, nah, some annoying were fixed in that one

12:23 <qrush> my change for ordered projects is in, i'm happy :)

12:23 <sr> http://github.com/integrity/integrity/blob/f63bfc1e3737e94d20703430bcc583b33d912a0c/CHANGES#L4

12:23 <sr> oh, I forgot to include it in the changelog :(

12:24 <qrush> aww :[

12:24 <qrush> one option i may build in is to separate private from public projects

12:24 <qrush> so have two separate lists

12:25 <foca> I thought about that

12:25 <foca> at some point in the past

12:26 <foca> didn't get around to seeing how it works on the UI

12:26 <sr> imo what we really need is a way to assign credentials on a per-project basis

12:27 <foca> yup

12:28 <foca> I haven't done anything re: auth on the rewrite exactly because of that :)

12:29 <sr> I believe that'd be doable at start time (ie, in the rackup)

12:30 <qrush> ehhh

12:30 <sr> but then yeah, not as friendly as through a <form>

12:30 <qrush> i can't see a use for that at tbot

12:31 <harryv> agree

12:31 <sr> buuut, let's not bloat integrity with an auth system

12:31 <qrush> I'd just run another integrity server.

12:32 <sr> could be a bit painful to run a CI server per client

12:32 <foca> right now the easiest solution is to run multiple integrity apps from the config.ru

12:32 <atmos> map

12:32 <atmos> yeah

12:32 <sr> yep

12:32 <foca> specially once we split bobette out

12:33 <foca> er, the building part out, into bobette

12:41 <atmos> nothing significant changed in the notifier api in the last few minor rleases, did it ?

12:42 <sr> atmos, nope but the test api did

12:42 <sr> (but it sucks anyway)

12:42 <atmos> k, i think i updated this after that anyway

12:42 <sr> whats the error?

12:42 <atmos> there wasn't one

12:43 <atmos> one of my older specs had a ~>0.1.9.1 dep in it

12:43 <atmos> 0.1.10 doesn't like it

12:52 <atmos> oh crap, someone fubar'd my deploy keys for github

12:52 <atmos> so it wasn't even the upgrade

14:00 <sr> nakajima, ah, thanks for the review!

14:00 <nakajima> sure thing. It was something I was going to do anyway

14:01 <sr> with that a a few CSS rules, I think we safely say the integrity/integrity/bob is "usable"

14:01 <sr> err wtf typos

14:05 <sr> anything else you've planned to work on btw? :)

14:06 <qrush> sr: Seriously? background building is ready to ship?

14:08 <nakajima> I was thinking it might be nice to have a dj background builder, but I haven't taken much time to look at it yet

14:15 <sr> qrush, yeah, more or less. there are probably still stuff that need to be addressed that I didn't think of

14:15 <sr> but otherwise yeah, it's getting there. we're using it on builder.integrityapp.com actually

14:19 <foca> nakajima: does dj work with anything other than ARec?

14:28 <sr> nakajima, 22:19 <foca> nakajima: does dj work with anything other than ARec?

14:28 <nakajima> sr: Ah, didn't think about that

14:30 <sr> alright, just pushed to the bob branch

14:31 <sr> now some css. started http://gist.github.com/113716 but my CSS-fu is almost nil so, help welcome :-)

14:31 <sr> s/almost/close to

14:33 <harryv> uh, what does the & do in sass?

14:34 <sr> reference to the current element or something like that

16:13 <IntegrityBot> Integrity: Built ba63ab9 successfully

16:13 <IntegrityBot> http://builder.integrityapp.com/integrity/commits/ba63ab96a298677fb9ef8dc788f1fb001b46c655