[04:08] <thumper> lifeless: https://code.launchpad.net/~thumper/launchpad/blueprint-enums/+merge/39726 ?
[04:08] <lifeless> thumper: I will look tomorrow am. I am fucked ;)
[04:09] <thumper> lifeless: np, perhaps aaron will look on his am
[04:10] <lifeless> thumper: sorry, just have trouble staying awake even :)
[04:10] <thumper> lifeless: np
[04:10] <thumper> I understand
[14:36] <mrevell> Hey henninge, care to review a help change for me?
[14:36] <mrevell> henninge, https://code.launchpad.net/~matthew.revell/launchpad/also-affects-help-bug-117460/+merge/39751
[14:39] <henninge> mrevell: sure
[14:40] <mrevell> oh, thanks henninge
[14:54] <henninge> mrevell: the "read more" link should probably not open in the pop-up window .... ;-)
[14:54] <mrevell> henninge, Oh! Damn. Yes.
[14:55] <henninge> mrevell: what's the "invisible-link" span for?
[14:56] <mrevell> henninge, Hmm. I'm not certain. I cargo-culted the HTML from the help link next to the "add tags" link below it. allenap, I think, implemented that, am I right allenap?
[14:57] <henninge> it may be about graceful degradation. Let me try that.
[14:58] <allenap> mrevell: I don't remember :-/
[14:58] <allenap> If I did, I probably cargo-culted it from somewhere else too.
[14:59] <mrevell> I think graceful degradation seems most likely
[15:03] <henninge> I could not reproduce it but I assume it triggers a context pop-up on the link.
[15:04] <henninge> mrevell: with that "read more" link fixed, r=me ;-)
[15:05] <mrevell> thanks henninge.
[15:05] <henninge> Maybe it's a good idea to raise the ivisible links question somewhere (meeting, ml), to check if it really still serves a purpose.
[15:11] <mrevell> henninge, Will do. I've actually just changed the branch slightly. I have now included a patch that Bryce attached to the bug report. It adds some explanatory text to the +choose-affected-product page. Would you please be able to take a look at the updated MP?
[15:12] <henninge> mrevell: I just put it as an item on the reviewer's meeting agenda. I am sure we'll have an answer there.
[15:13] <mrevell> Ah thanks henninge
[15:18] <henninge> mrevell: r=me. Thank you for that addition
[15:18] <mrevell> thanks henninge
[15:19] <henninge> mrevell: have fun landing that branch ... we have been in testfix for quite a long time now.
[15:19] <mrevell> henninge, Yes, so I understand :(
[16:15] <henninge> sinzui: Hi!
[16:15] <sinzui> hi henninge
[16:15] <henninge> sinzui: can you please check why your MP has such a large diff?
[16:15] <henninge> https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~sinzui/launchpad/merge-karma-1/+merge/39623
[16:17] <sinzui> henninge, oops
[16:17] <sinzui> henninge, I will re-request that to the correct env
[16:18] <henninge> sinzui: cool.
[17:50] <henninge> sinzui: r=me coming in by mail ;-) Just some comments on comments and my usual multi-line if condition
[17:51] <henninge> comment ...
[17:51] <sinzui> henninge, thanks. I will clean up my branch
[18:04] <abentley> sinzui: why is all the DB manipulation in SQL rather than Storm expressions?
[18:05] <sinzui> abentley, because we are by-passing caches and constraints to dismantle the object
[18:05] <abentley> sinzui: SQL can bypass constraints?
[18:06] <sinzui> abentley, All this may change in a few months when merge itself is changed to a job and possibly a garbo
[18:06] <sinzui> abentley, no mode contraints
[18:06] <sinzui> model
[18:08] <abentley> sinzui: are you bypassing model constraints in this patch, or just following the existing style?
[18:09] <sinzui> abentley, I am following the existing style. It believe it is from 2006
[18:10] <abentley> sinzui: on 33, is "if result" equivalent to "if result is not None"?  If so, please use the latter.
[18:10] <sinzui> abentley, the merge code is funky, but we are reimplementing all of it in the next 3 months
[18:12] <sinzui> abentley, I will fix all the merge code ``if result is None:``
[18:13] <abentley> sinzui: even better.  Thanks.
[18:13] <abentley> sinzui: I think it's actually "if len(result) > 0", though.
[18:14] <abentley> sinzui: no, my bad.
[18:14] <abentley> sinzui: Not used to reading direct SQL manipulation.
[18:14] <sinzui> me neither
[18:16] <abentley> sinzui: aside from that, everything looks good to me.
[18:17] <sinzui> fetchone is pretty ambiguous in the code. I see this as an example in the same module: ``bool(cur.fetchone()[0])``
[18:18] <abentley> sinzui: So that would evaluate the truth of the zeroth column.
[18:19] <sinzui> yes, I see that now
[18:20] <abentley> sinzui: http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0249/ says it returns None when no more data is available.
[18:21] <sinzui> I found the DB-API  docs. yes None if there are no more rows in the resultset
[20:01] <leonardr> abentley: take a look at the exciting https://code.launchpad.net/~leonardr/launchpadlib/ask-for-desktop-integration/+merge/39772
[20:01] <abentley> leonardr: ack
[20:08] <abentley> leonardr: Looks good.  I think you've added an unnecessary blank line at 287.  It's nice to see that big email thread actually produced results.