[00:12] <jelmer> rockstar: Hi! If you're still reviewing, any chance you can have a look at this mp: https://code.launchpad.net/~jelmer/launchpad/upgrade-sourcecode/+merge/23034
[00:20] <sinzui> rockstar, thumper: can either of you review https://code.launchpad.net/~sinzui/launchpad/series-branch-target/+merge/23056
[00:23] <wgrant> Can someone please land https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~wgrant/launchpad/move-rescueiflost-tests/+merge/22737?
[00:29] <mwhudson> man it's all ask ask ask in here today
[00:29] <mwhudson> jelmer: did you consider just deleting and re-pulling in the cross-format case?
[00:29] <mwhudson> it's simpler and probably quicker
[00:30] <mwhudson> wgrant: is this one of the ones that passed ec2 yesterday but got foiled by testfix?
[00:31] <wgrant> mwhudson: No, noodles landed all of them overnight.
[00:31] <wgrant> This one needs EC2ing too.
[00:31] <mwhudson> wgrant: OK
[00:32] <jelmer> mwhudson: that's a good point; do you reckon that's a better idea than upgrading? I guess it's a bandwidth vs cpu tradeoff
[00:34] <mwhudson> jelmer: my thinking is that they're all small branches so that simplicity is better
[00:34] <jelmer> mwhudson: I wonder if removing the branch is simpler in this case though; it'll involve checking that the tree is unchanged, etc
[00:35] <mwhudson> jelmer: hm, fair point
[00:38] <mwhudson> jelmer: you seem to have lost the 'don't pull if the revision id is the same' thing
[00:38] <mwhudson> but i guess that's not much of an optimization really
[00:39] <jelmer> mwhudson: Bazaar really should be taking care of that case itself
[00:39] <jelmer> at least imnsho :-)
[00:40] <mwhudson> quite
[00:42] <mwhudson> jelmer: approved
[00:43] <jelmer> mwhudson: thanks!
[00:55] <mwhudson> wgrant: your branch has conflicts with devel it seems
[00:55] <wgrant> mwhudson: Bah.
[00:55]  * wgrant merges.
[01:12]  * jpds has https://code.launchpad.net/~jpds/launchpad/stormify-distribution-bits/+merge/23060 up for grabs.
[01:13] <mwhudson> wgrant: pushed yet?  should i run ec2 land again?
[01:14] <wgrant> mwhudson: Just fighting buildout so I can rerun the involved tests.
[01:15] <mwhudson> heh heh
[01:17]  * wgrant stabs $SOMETHING in the face.
[01:17] <wgrant> lazr.config.interfaces.NoConfigError: No config with name: initZopeless config overlay.
[01:17] <wgrant> YES BUT WHY?
[01:17] <jpds>  /11
[01:20] <wgrant> So it turns out that the error actually meant that I needed to fix permissions on the account table.
[01:20] <wgrant> That makes sense.
[01:38] <wgrant> mwhudson: Pushed.
[02:23] <wgrant> mwhudson: Did you kick that ec2 off yet?
[02:23] <mwhudson> wgrant: yeah, sorry
[02:23] <mwhudson> wgrant: it's headless now
[02:23] <wgrant> Thanks.
[02:23] <wgrant> Great.
[09:00] <adeuring> On call: adeuring || reviewing: - || queue: [sinzui] || This channel is logged: http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/ || https://code.edge.launchpad.net/launchpad/+activereviews
[09:04] <mwhudson> adeuring: you missed a /topic there
[09:05] <adeuring> mwhudson: arghh... thanks!
[10:41] <gmb> adeuring, Morning. Can you give me a code review on https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~gmb/launchpad/add-next_check-to-bugwatch-pages-bug-558410/+merge/23080?
[10:41] <adeuring> gmb: sure
[10:41] <gmb> noodles775, Any chance of a quick UI review of https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~gmb/launchpad/add-next_check-to-bugwatch-pages-bug-558410/+merge/23080? I can provide screenshots if needed; it's a trivial change.
[10:45] <noodles775> gmb: I can take a look, but if it's non-urgent, it'd be great to get one of the others (rockstar, for eg), to do an initial review and I'll do the second one?
[10:45] <noodles775> Although, if it's that trivial, might not be worth it.
[10:45] <gmb> noodles775, Well, it's just a case of adding data to the BugWatch +edit and BugTracker overview pages (lastchecked and next_check dates for bug watches, basically)
[10:46] <gmb> So, your call.
[10:46] <noodles775> OK, I'll just do it then.
[10:46] <gmb> Thanks.
[10:57] <adeuring> gmb: r=me
[10:57] <gmb> noodles775, FTR, I have no idea why I've called next_check "Scheduled" on BugWatch+edit but called it "Next check" on the BugTracker overview. I think we should probably stick to one label, agreed?
[10:57] <gmb> adeuring, Thanks
[11:32] <deryck> Hi adeuring.  I have one for the queue, when you can look at it.  https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~deryck/launchpad/not-notified-someone-else-subscribed-494257/+merge/23044
[11:32] <adeuring> deryck: surw, I'll look
[11:32] <deryck> adeuring, thanks!
[11:49] <adeuring> deryck: overall, you branch looks good. I just wondered if it makes sense to explicitly test that bug.subscribe(..., send_notifications=False) does indeed not send notifications.
[11:50] <deryck> adeuring, ah, good point.
[11:50] <adeuring> deryck: OK, so r=me
[11:50] <deryck> adeuring, thanks!  I'll add the test here in a moment.
[11:56] <gmb> noodles775, Thanks for the review.
[11:57] <noodles775> np.
[12:50] <maxb> Hello OCR, I'd like to enqueue https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~maxb/launchpad/ignored-asserts/+merge/18889 please, which is up for re-review after a tweak to the tests.
[12:54] <adeuring> maxb: sure, I'll look.
[12:54] <adeuring> maxb: Or do you want gmb to cióntinue the review=
[12:54] <adeuring> s/=/?/
[12:55] <maxb> In this case, I don't think there's enough context for it to be worth me seeking out gmb - I'd rather get it reviewed today :-)
[12:56] <adeuring> fair eonough
[12:58] <maxb> Ah, I see gmb was around earlier - I only looked at the fact that he is currently marked away. Never mind, there really isn't much prior context to this branch.
[13:15] <adeuring> maxb: r=me. As Graham said, good catch!
[13:15] <maxb> adeuring: Thanks, could you land it for me?
[13:15] <adeuring> maxb: sure
[13:16] <maxb> excellent. one more baby step towards python 2.6
[13:16] <maxb> oh, I'm supposed to set a commit message in the MP, aren't I
[13:17] <maxb> done
[14:11] <gary_poster> adeuring: could you look at https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~gary/launchpad/small/+merge/23052 ?  This was a quick fix for a problem abentley found on karmic
[14:11] <adeuring> gary_poster: sure
[14:11] <gary_poster> thank you
[14:11] <abentley> gary_poster, adeuring: fix verified on my system.
[14:12] <gary_poster> thanks abentley
[14:15] <adeuring> gary_poster: r=me
[14:15] <gary_poster> thank you adeuring!
[15:46] <jpds> adeuring: Hi, did you ec2 land my branch?
[15:46] <adeuring> jpds: sorry, forgot it... Will do that now.
[15:52] <jml> adeuring: could you please review https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~jml/launchpad/more-services/+merge/23107 – it's a branch with a few simple cleanups?
[15:53] <adeuring> jml: sure
[15:53] <jml> thanks.
[15:56] <jpds> adeuring: No problem, thanks!
[16:06] <allenap> adeuring: Could you rubber-stamp a proposal for me please? It's a cherry-pick of an already-reviewed change. https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~allenap/launchpad/dynamic-batch-size-bug-546085-devel/+merge/23105
[16:09] <adeuring> allenap: done
[16:10] <allenap> adeuring: Thanks :)
[16:14] <allenap> adeuring: Could you try changing the review type to "code", or add an approve for "code" (or nothing)? bzr lp-land complains at the moment. (And if that doesn't work I'll land it by hand.)
[16:22] <adeuring> allenap: done. (sorry for the delay -- was on skype)
[16:22] <allenap> adeuring: Thanks :)
[16:32] <adeuring> jml: r=me
[16:34] <jml> adeuring, thanks.
[16:34] <allenap> adeuring: Do you have time for another? Should be straightforward I hope. https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~allenap/launchpad/dont-update-dupe-bugs-bug-511276/+merge/23113
[16:35] <adeuring> allenap: yes
[16:46] <adeuring> allenap: r=me
[16:46] <allenap> adeuring: Thanks!
[16:50] <allenap> adeuring: I've got a silly one for you now :) https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~allenap/launchpad/dynamic-batch-size-bug-546085-db-devel-preempt-conflict/+merge/23114
[16:51] <adeuring> allenap: rs=me
[16:51] <allenap> adeuring: Thanks :)
[19:45] <deryck> abel is gone.  Is anyone else reviewing this afternoon?
[19:48] <deryck> rockstar or abentley -- could I ask a review from one of you fine gentleman?  It's to do with linking branches on a bug page.
[19:52] <abentley> deryck, sure.
[19:52] <deryck> abentley, thanks!  https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~deryck/launchpad/no-linky-abandoned-branches-559325/+merge/23135
[19:55] <abentley> deryck, was there a preimplementation call?
[19:56] <deryck> abentley, no.  I just did it on a whim at lunch.
[19:56] <maxb> deryck: I question the appropriateness of this change because it hides potential partial work done on a bug that someone else could rescue and complete
[19:56] <abentley> deryck, I'm not sure this is the right solution.
[19:56] <deryck> abentley, ah, ok.  fair enough.  I did discuss the proposed solution with jml in the bug.  And he agreed with the approach.
[19:58] <abentley> deryck, yes, I saw that.  Still, he's not on the code team anymore.
[19:58] <abentley> deryck, my reasons are much like maxb's.
[19:59] <deryck> abentley, I didn't see maxb's comment?  Where is that?
[19:59] <abentley> deryck, and I'm not sure that abandoning a branch is a clear indication that you want to never get any questions about it.
[19:59] <abentley> deryck, in channel, 4 minutes ago.
[20:00] <deryck> ah, sorry. thought that was you :-)
[20:00] <deryck> the red bled together in xchat :-)
[20:01] <abentley> perhaps appropriate in this case.
[20:02] <deryck> abentley, so your argument would be if you don't want the connection then unlink the branch?
[20:03] <abentley> deryck, that seems suboptimal too.
[20:03] <abentley> deryck, is it true that you never want to receive any questions about the branch, or do you just not want to be asked whether you're working on it?
[20:04] <maxb> Would it not be sufficient to display the branch's "Abandoned" status alongside its name in the bug "Related branches" list?
[20:04] <deryck> abentley, I would guess more the latter.  But I think it's hard to presume what anyone means by "abandoned" really.
[20:04] <deryck> maxb, it's already listed.
[20:05] <deryck> maxb, sorry, I'm wrong
[20:05] <deryck> was thinking of rejected.
[20:05] <maxb> MP status is shown, branch status is nort
[20:05] <maxb> *not
[20:05] <deryck> right
[20:05] <deryck> yeah, maybe that's the right fix.
[20:06] <abentley> deryck, so I think branch status should be shown, and we should maybe reduce the visibility of the merge proposal.
[20:06] <abentley> deryck, but I'd be interested to hear what rockstar thinks.
[20:07] <maxb> I like the idea of reducing the visibility of the MP
[20:07] <deryck> abentley, I can go along with your suggestion.  but would be interested in rockstar's opinion, too.  I can go either way.  It makes sense to me to drop it completely, too.
[20:08] <deryck> but I'm thinking as a bugs guy obviously :-)
[20:08] <maxb> Drop what? the MP or the entire branch?
[20:08] <deryck> entire branch per my fix now
[20:09] <maxb> Just because someone has abandoned a branch does not mean that it does not contain useful work
[20:09] <abentley> deryck, if I'm not mistaken, the reason the branch status isn't shown is because the MP *is* shown.
[20:10] <deryck> maxb, I don't disagree with you.  I'm saying I can see both sides.  Abandoned branches could also be useless, as well as they could be useful.
[20:11] <maxb> Better to err on the side of not losing visibility on potential useful code, IMO
[20:11] <deryck> abentley, ok.  I don't think branch status is really useful unless it's abandoned.  So if we go this route, maybe we should treated abandoned branches differently, i.e. show branch status and a link to MP but no info on the MP?
[20:12] <deryck> maxb, true.  but my assumption is someone marked it "abandoned" precisely because it wasn't useful.
[20:13] <abentley> deryck, we use the "merged" status very heavily.  Others not so much.
[20:13] <maxb> "I have stopped work on this branch" doesn't mean the same as "There's no useful work in this branch"
[20:14] <abentley> deryck, that's not what I would assume.  I would assume they didn't have time for it, or maybe the reviewer was being a jerk and obstructing it.
[20:14] <deryck> maxb, but does ABANDONED always equal "I have stopped work on this branch?"  If so, how do you know that?  :-)  That's all I mean.  I'm not intending to argue with you, really. :-)
[20:14] <abentley> deryck, yes, that's what it means.
[20:15] <maxb> Well, that's what the English word means to me :-)
[20:17] <deryck> fair enough.  I take your points.  But I don't have a desire to pursue it beyond this.  it was a lunch time fix for me.  I like removing some clutter from the bug page, but if we don't agree is right, I won't pursue it further myself.
[20:17] <deryck> Thanks anyway, abentley, for the review.
[20:18] <abentley> deryck, very well.  Sorry it didn't work out.
[20:18] <deryck> no worries
[21:01]  * rockstar sees that he was apparently pinged in this channel while at lunch
[21:05] <abentley> rockstar, don't worry about it.
[21:06] <rockstar> abentley, yeah, it looks like there was consensus.
[21:06] <abentley> rockstar, well, more like resolution.
[21:10] <rockstar> abentley, I'd be all for hiding abandoned branches on a bug that have a branch that actually fixed the bug (and was landed)
[21:10] <rockstar> In that case, I'd only show the one that fixed the issue.
[21:15] <abentley> rockstar, chat?
[21:16] <rockstar> abentley, oh, it's getting to be that time huh?
[21:16] <rockstar> abentley, can you give me 5 minutes to get my tests passing?
[21:16] <abentley> rockstar, sure.