[07:48] <stub> Need a trivial review - https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~stub/launchpad/memcache/+merge/21534
[08:11] <thumper> stub: done
[08:11] <thumper> simple move for someone... https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~thumper/launchpad/move-code-events/+merge/21535
[08:12] <stub> Dun
[08:15] <thumper> stub: ta
[09:00] <henninge> jtv: whenever you start reviewing (or are you done?), the upload-from-slave branch is ready.
[09:08] <jtv> henninge: cool, I'll do that one as soon as I'm free to!
[09:11] <henninge> jtv: whatever, but if allenap gets here first, he can pick it up, too.
[09:11] <noodles775> Hey jtv, if/when you've time, could you take a look at https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~michael.nelson/launchpad/529926-partner-override-to-main/+merge/21329
[09:11] <jtv> noodles775: that's the one on the queue?
[09:13] <henninge> jtv: Pushing a new revision now that merges devel and resolves the conflict.
[09:13] <jtv> noodles775: maybe we can do a trade...  I apparently need a UI review on the branch that makes the builder UI not oops out.  There really isn't much to look at, but setting up for QA is hard work and I could use the feedback on the documentation for that.
[09:13] <noodles775> jtv: yep, I've just removed the conflict and re-pushed like henninge !
[09:14] <noodles775> jtv: I'm sprinting for the next 3 days, but might get a chance to take a look.
[09:14] <noodles775> jtv: ooh, that sounds really easy though...
[09:15] <jtv> noodles775: what—not the part where I said "hard work," I take it?
[09:17] <henninge> jtv: is "test_dispatchBuildToSlave" your code?
[09:17] <henninge> lp.translations.tests.test_translationtemplatesbuildbehavior.TestTranslationTemplatesBuildBehavior
[09:18] <jtv> henninge: yes
[09:18] <henninge> http://paste.ubuntu.com/396586/
[09:18] <jtv> what's the problem?
[09:18] <henninge> but I am doing another make schema now
[09:19] <jtv> henninge: yes, that's a matter of doing a "make schema"
[09:20] <henninge> jtv: have you seen this before?
[09:20] <henninge> http://paste.ubuntu.com/396597/
[09:20] <henninge> that's in the same output
[09:22] <jtv> henninge: don't know what that is, but I'd try a rocketfuel-get ; make clean ; ./utilities/link-external-sourcecode ../{devel,trunk} ; make
[09:22] <henninge> yeah, I am basically doing that ...
[09:24] <henninge> jtv: yup, all good now. That means the branch you got in review is good, too.
[09:24] <noodles775> jtv: so in terms of QA'ing, what I usually do for branches like that is use the factory/SoyuzTestPublisher to create any required data to display in the UI... that way you can just provide a pasted script for the reviewer to use.
[09:24] <noodles775> s/QA'ing/demo-ing
[09:25] <jtv> henninge: I know it's good—it went through a full EC2 test.  :)
[09:25] <henninge> mine didn't yet ...
[09:26] <jtv> noodles775: I had a look at your demo, but it's very unclear to me (as a non-Soyuz and not-particularly-Soyuz inclined) person how much that would help me for this.  I don't need to do things like package uploads for this, though I do use codehosting.
[09:27] <noodles775> jtv: couldn't you just use factory.makeSourcePackageRecipeBuild() in a harness?
[09:29] <jtv> noodles775: true, that'd work for source-package recipe builds.  Good idea.  Then you'd just tell Bob to start work on that one.
[09:29] <jtv> Or wait, maybe, depending on whether the buildd master will pick it up.
[09:29] <jtv> (I don't know how far the factory goes in setting up credible data)
[09:33] <noodles775> jtv: if you just set the builder attribute, and the state to BUILDING, it will display what you want in the UI (assuming no other builds are in that state... but you can manually unset those too).
[09:34] <jtv> noodles775: that won't set Builder.currentbuild though, will it?
[09:35] <jtv> noodles775: on a sidenote, AIUI a source package recipe build has an IBuildBase, so it'll present in the UI just like a Soyuz build.  Only new thing is that the icon is now part of the link formatter and so is next to the link instead of the sentence.
[09:41] <noodles775> jtv: Right, looking at the code, you'd need to grab the associated queue item and set the builder there, so that Builder.currentjob returns your item.
[09:42] <jtv> henninge: in doctests IIRC I've been doing something like builder.startBuild(buildqueue)
[09:42] <noodles775> jtv: hangon, I'll take a closer look at your branch.
[09:42] <jtv> cool, thanks
[09:42] <henninge> jtv: talking to me? ;)
[09:44] <jtv> henninge: no
[09:44] <jtv> sorry
[09:48] <noodles775> jtv: OK, so you've added a great story which sets up the required data... so a reviewer can just re-use that (or even easier, add a breakpoint and run the webapp using the test database).
[09:51] <jtv> noodles775: a breakpoint in the doctest and then run the webapp against the test db?  Clever!  Do you do that by something like "env LPCONFIG=test make run"?
[09:54] <noodles775> jtv: close: https://dev.launchpad.net/Debugging
[11:31] <stub> https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~stub/launchpad/oops-pruning/+merge/21536 is a trivial one
[11:32] <stub> two imports, one new line, and shifting some existing code one indentation to the right
[12:13] <jtv> henninge: review done
[12:14] <henninge> jtv: thanks
[12:19] <henninge> jtv: https://dev.launchpad.net/PythonStyleGuide#Multiline%20function%20calls
[13:23] <leonardr> gary, care to do a review of https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~leonardr/launchpad/529348-fix/+merge/21508 ? the test suite passed with no problems
[13:24] <gary_poster> leonardr: sure
[13:30] <gary_poster> leonardr: line 179 of https://pastebin.canonical.com/29282/ is
[13:30] <gary_poster> -            # XXX gary 2010-03-15 bug 539156
[13:30] <mup> Bug #539156: remove exception for +blobstore without a REFERER <Launchpad Foundations:Triaged> <https://launchpad.net/bugs/539156>
[13:30] <gary_poster> I think that XXX needs to star
[13:30] <gary_poster> stay
[13:31] <gary_poster> leonardr: other than that, r=gary
[13:42] <bac> jtv: ping
[13:49] <StevenK> jtv: Why did you remove me from the queue?
[13:56] <adeuring> gmb: you offered a review earlier today. Could you have a look here: https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~adeuring/launchpad/bug-267689-better-checkwatch-oopses/+merge/21558 ?
[14:03] <gmb> adeuring: Sure.
[14:07] <gmb> adeuring: Looks perfect; r=me
[14:07] <adeuring> gmb: thanks!
[14:27] <jtv> StevenK: did I!?
[14:28] <jtv> StevenK: maybe our updates crossed.
[14:34] <jtv> okay, I'll just have to accept that my main machine isn't going to come back to life today.  :-(
[14:36] <leonardr> jtv, can i get your approval on this trivial diff? it just sets the release date for a new version:
[14:36] <leonardr> http://paste.ubuntu.com/396730/
[14:36] <jtv> leonardr: loading...
[14:37] <jtv> leonardr: I'm sure that's alright.  :)
[14:37] <leonardr> thanks
[14:37] <jtv> so yes
[14:37] <leonardr> fwiw i did check to make sure versions.txt said 0.9.24
[14:38] <jtv> :)
[15:03] <EdwinGrubbs> wgrant: I'm looking at your two merge proposals. Who is ScottK? Did you do a pre-impl call with someone from soyuz?
[15:15] <james_w> EdwinGrubbs: ScottK is an Ubuntu developer, presumably who requested the feature
[15:15] <EdwinGrubbs> thanks for the info
[15:23] <james_w> https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~james-w/launchpad/package-merge-proposal-permissions/+merge/21561 is ready for review now if someone would be so kind
[15:23] <james_w> it corrects a discrepancy in source package branches that will remove one of the warts that Ubuntu developers see
[15:32] <jml> james_w, I'm on it.
[15:32] <james_w> thanks
[15:34] <EdwinGrubbs> noodles775: are you still around?
[15:38] <EdwinGrubbs> adiroiban: ping
[15:38] <adiroiban> EdwinGrubbs: hi
[15:40] <jml> james_w, done.
[15:40] <EdwinGrubbs> adiroiban: ok, I'll start on your merge proposal since you are the only one here.
[15:41] <adiroiban> EdwinGrubbs: thanks :)
[15:50] <noodles775> EdwinGrubbs: hey, yep I am, just sprinting.
[15:50] <EdwinGrubbs> ok, I'll take your mp next
[15:50] <noodles775> No rush, but when you've time it'd be great to get a review :)
[15:50] <noodles775> Thanks!
[15:55] <james_w> jml: all fixed, thanks. diff generating now.
[15:56] <james_w> jml: also, is there a handy method on IBranch to get the product/branch_name pair or the distro/series/sourcepackage/branch_name tuple as necessary?
[15:56] <james_w> I could use unique_name, but the code I'm replacing doesn't use owner currently.
[15:56] <jml> james_w, hmm.
[15:56] <jml> james_w, not _really_, there's (branch.target.name, branch.name), I guess
[15:57]  * jml double checks the IBranchTarget interface
[15:57] <jml> james_w, yeah, that would work.
[15:58] <james_w> what's name for a source package?
[15:58] <jml> james_w, the question is a bit inexact. branch.target will always return an IBranchTarget. When it's wrapping a sourcepackage, it'll be distro/series/sourcepackage.
[15:59] <james_w> yeah, that's what I meant :-)
[15:59] <james_w> thanks
[15:59] <jml> james_w, np.
[16:00] <jml> james_w, when you are writing code that uses branch, you almost never need to deal with actual products or packages.
[16:00] <james_w> I'm cleaning up ICodeImport to have less derived data, so that we can use IBranchTarget rather than IProduct with them
[16:01] <jml> james_w, that'd be awesome
[16:01] <james_w> disallowing +junk probably, but still...
[16:02] <jml> james_w, IBranchNamespace and IBranchCollection are also your friends
[16:02] <james_w> I have no friends, all around me are just interfaces, I never get to know the *real* person
[16:04] <jml> james_w, you don't need to perform surgery on someone before you really know them
[17:31] <EdwinGrubbs> adiroiban: I'm trying to run "./bin/test -t pofile_new_translation_autoselect"    What am I doing wrong?
[17:32] <adiroiban> EdwinGrubbs: nothing... I'm just stupid. I fogot to add the new testfile. I'm pushing it now
[17:33] <adiroiban> EdwinGrubbs: test pushed. can you please pull the branch and try it again
[17:33] <EdwinGrubbs> sure
[19:49] <leonardr> gary, https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~leonardr/launchpad/multi-part-etag/+merge/21573 is ready for your review
[19:49] <gary_poster> great, looking
[19:59] <gary_poster> r=gary leonardr