[07:41] <jtv> StevenK: we're on a very intense deadline today, and a critical branch hasn't been reviewed… could you help henninge out?
[07:41] <StevenK> jtv: I sure can, link me?
[07:41] <henninge> StevenK: hang on
[07:41] <jtv> thanks guys :)
[08:01] <StevenK> henninge: Still hanging on :-)
[08:02] <henninge> StevenK: thanks for hanging on ;-)
[08:02] <henninge> https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~henninge/launchpad/recife-current-tm-view-1/+merge/41690
[08:08] <henninge> StevenK: stop!
[08:08] <henninge> StevenK: requisite branch missing ...
[08:08] <henninge> pre
[08:08] <StevenK> Hah
[08:08] <henninge> I think
[08:08] <StevenK> You say, after I've read through the entire diff
[08:09] <henninge> StevenK: well, actually, that part needs review, too.
[08:09] <henninge> ;-)
[08:17] <henninge> StevenK: mp updated with a comment. Sorry again.
[08:20] <StevenK> henninge: +1'd, I just need a mentor review
[08:20] <StevenK> Sadly, my mentor EOD'd about 3 hours ago
[08:22] <henninge> StevenK: there'll be others waking up ... ;) Thank you very much!
[08:22] <henninge> StevenK: Your review is for all files in the diff, right?
[08:23] <StevenK> Right
[08:27] <henninge> cool, thanks ;)
[08:28] <henninge> StevenK: "other" is short for "other side" which term is used in other places in the recife branch.
[08:35] <StevenK> henninge: The UI displays which of those two terms?
[08:36] <henninge> The UI currently just says "Other:" but the next branch changes that to "In Upstream:" and "In Ubuntu:" respectively.
[08:36] <henninge> The term "other" or "other side" will not appear in the UI.
[08:36] <henninge> "next branch" == work in progress
[08:38] <StevenK> henninge: Then feel free to ignore that bit
[12:04] <stub> jelmer: https://code.launchpad.net/~stub/launchpad/pending-db-changes/+merge/41691 is pretty trivial, almost self reviewable.
[12:05] <jelmer> hi stub
[12:05] <jelmer> I'll have a look
[12:26] <salgado> sinzui, I went to UI review your branch but noticed that rockstar has done so already.  if you'd like a second review just let me know and I'll be glad to do it
[12:27] <salgado> hi jelmer.  can I add another one to the queue?
[12:28] <jelmer> salgado: Hi Salgado. Of course :-)
[12:30] <jelmer> stub: r=me
[12:32] <stub> ta
[12:38] <jelmer> henninge: the branch that needs review is lp:~henninge/launchpad/recife-current-tm-view-1 ?
[12:38] <henninge> jelmer: yes!
[12:38] <henninge> jelmer: Steven already had a look at it but it needs a second review.
[12:41] <henninge> jelmer: thanks a lot. I'll be off to lunch soon but would be happy to reply after it, if needed.
[12:42] <jelmer> henninge: np
[15:58] <henninge> jelmer: got another one. ;-)
[15:59] <henninge> jelmer: but only if you can finish it before your EOD ;-)
[16:00] <jelmer> henninge: Yeah, that should be doable.. I'm here for at least another hour.
[16:00] <henninge> cool, it's not very big either ..
[16:03] <jelmer> yeah, I just had a quick look
[16:26] <jelmer> henninge: r=me
[16:27]  * jelmer dives back into the {s,blue}prints code
[16:27] <henninge> jelmer: thank you!
[17:38] <salgado> sinzui, did you see my comment on https://code.launchpad.net/~james-w/launchpad/expose-blueprints/+merge/30026?
[17:38] <sinzui> I did
[17:38] <sinzui> I set the bug you are working on as high since it is now linked to a branch
[17:52] <salgado> sinzui, yeah, saw that.  did you also see my branch which addresses your comments?  If I'm not missing anything, it looks like the two remaining issues are the removal of updateLifecycleStatus() from browser code and unexporting of .distribution/.product/.productseries/.distroseries, with setTarget() and proposeForGoal() exported instead of them?
[17:56] <salgado> jelmer, thanks for the review!  I'll add the docstrings you suggested.  btw, I guess you didn't notice the XXX I left in personHasDriverRights() as I don't quite like that name?
[17:59] <jelmer> salgado: Yeah, but I don't really have any better suggestions (other than personHasDriversLicense :-P)
[18:00] <sinzui> salgado, I will look at the branch after my meeting
[18:00] <salgado> jelmer, heh, ok, I'll remove the XXX then
[18:02] <salgado> thanks sinzui
[18:07] <salgado> jelmer, AFAICT, there's nothing on my branch that requires it to land on db-devel rather than devel.  do you agree?
[18:08] <jelmer> salgado: Yes.
[18:08] <jelmer> salgado: IIRC you also proposed it against devel, no?
[18:09] <salgado> I did, just wanted to make sure
[18:09] <salgado> jelmer, also, do you know if there's a wiki page describing the tags that one should include in the PQM request?  I guess I need the qa-untestable one?
[18:09] <salgado> or similar
[18:11] <jelmer> salgado: There is a bug associated with your branch so you don't need the no-qa tag in the commit. You should remove the needs-testing tag on the bug after the branch has landed and add qa-untestable
[18:11] <jelmer> salgado: I'm not sure if there's a wiki page, it would indeed be useful to have one.
[18:11] <salgado> ok, cool
[18:11] <salgado> jelmer, found this: https://dev.launchpad.net/PQMCommitMessages
[18:12] <salgado> doesn't mention QA tags but as you pointed they're not needed on commit messages anymore. :)
[18:27] <jcsackett> back
[18:42] <henninge> Hi! If somebody would look at my latest branch I would be thrilled. ;-)
[21:11] <thumper> abentley: ping
[21:11] <abentley> thumper: pong
[21:49] <thumper> abentley: https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~thumper/launchpad/recipe-binary-builds/+merge/40686
[21:58] <abentley> thumper: https://code.launchpad.net/~abentley/launchpad/better-recipe-errors/+merge/41780
[22:01] <thumper> abentley: done