[02:34] <bac> good <localtimeofday> everyone
[02:36] <mwhudson> hi bac
[02:36] <bac> hey mwhudson
[05:46] <StevenK> bac: Hai, are you still reviewing, or is the topic a bit stale?
[05:50] <lifeless> StevenK: what do you need reviewed
[05:53] <StevenK> lifeless: Small 42 line branch: https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~stevenk/launchpad/reject-mail-ppa-name/+merge/39119
[05:56] <lifeless> done
[06:00] <bac> StevenK: i am reviewing
[06:01] <bac> StevenK: but i am about to be lunching
[06:01] <bac> oops, didn't read far enough.
[10:57] <bac> adeuring: i leave the reviewing to your capable hands
[10:57] <bac> i did clear out +activereviews for you
[10:57] <adeuring> bac: ok, have a nice weekend!
[10:58] <bac> you too
[16:17] <EdwinGrubbs> sinzui: besides the losas, who should review a change to qastaging-penid-config? https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~edwin-grubbs/lp-production-configs/qastaging-openid-config/+merge/39153
[16:18] <sinzui> I do not think anyone else needs to
[16:21] <sinzui> EdwinGrubbs, why use staging's login? It is a test server. If we use the production one, it will be more reliable. And new users can also login
[16:23] <EdwinGrubbs> sinzui: No good reason.
[16:25] <sinzui> gary_poster, can you foresee cases where qastaging has to use ISD's staging SSO server
[16:26] <gary_poster> qastaging is not something I've had any involvement with other than the original discussions, but thinking...
[16:27] <gary_poster> ...yes...
[16:27] <gary_poster> maybe
[16:27] <gary_poster> description:
[16:28] <gary_poster> we want a system (staging or qastaging, not sure for this brave new world) that people can use to QA/test their webservice scripts
[16:29] <gary_poster> the one thing that we can possibly enable in the future on staging-type machines that is not OK on production machines is creating users with escalated privileges
[16:29] <gary_poster> for tests
[16:29] <gary_poster> we would want those users to be discarded
[16:29] <gary_poster> If we implemented it that way
[16:29] <gary_poster> So, that's scifi
[16:30] <gary_poster> In the abstract, I'd use the staging openid
[16:30] <gary_poster> because of that use case and maybe others like it
[16:30] <gary_poster> but if the staging openid server has been problematic that's a fair argument
[16:30] <gary_poster> sinzui ^^^
[16:31] <sinzui> gary_poster, I think that system is staging. qastaging is fast. SSO staging is not. if SSO staging is broken for a week, Launchpads QA is also broken
[16:32] <gary_poster> sinzui: I'm good with that as an initial setting
[16:32] <sinzui> oh, I guess I really do want to use production SSO with QA staging. We need to ensure our changes work in production
[16:32] <gary_poster> I thought that's what you were sating anyway
[16:33] <gary_poster> saying
[16:33] <sinzui> gary_poster, I often have to write and speak to understand myself
[16:34] <gary_poster> ah ok, understood.  I sometimes need the same
[16:42] <EdwinGrubbs> sinzui: ok, I'll change it to use login.launchpad.net.
[16:42] <sinzui> thanks
[16:43] <gmb> adeuring: Do you have time to take a look at https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~gmb/launchpad/make-bnl-descriptions-readable-bug-664566/+merge/39158 for me?
[16:43] <gmb> It's not a huge branch.
[16:43] <adeuring> gmb: sure
[16:43] <gmb> adeuring: Thanks.
[16:53] <adeuring> gmb: what about letting the display text for BugNotificationLevel.COMMENTS start with  "Any change..." too? (instead of "a change")
[16:55] <EdwinGrubbs> sinzui: can you approve this branch? https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~edwin-grubbs/lp-production-configs/qastaging-openid-config/+merge/39153
[16:56] <sinzui> Edwin, I cannot. I guess only a losa can.
[16:57] <EdwinGrubbs> sinzui: I added you as a reviewer just now. I will also get a losa to review it. It seems like all the other changes on that project had two reviews like that.
[16:57] <sinzui> There is a bug!
[16:57] <sinzui> I was able to give an approval via a comment, but I could not claim a  review an comment
[16:58] <adeuring> gmb: I think @cachedproperty would be better for _bug_notification_level_field. I understand that it is used just once, but just in case it is used later somewhere else, we can/should use the same Choice instance
[16:58] <gmb> adeuring: Okay, sure.
[16:59] <adeuring> gmb: thanks, r=me.
[17:00] <gmb> adeuring: Thanks!