[00:02] <knome> has anyone EVER encountered a problem that the receiver doesn't see a part of a plaintext email?
[00:09] <cjohnston> mhall119: i figured out how to do that lead = models.ForeignKey('Attendee')
[00:10] <james_w> cjohnston, hey, so, linaro has two track leads for one of the tracks this time
[00:10] <james_w> hope that doesn't conflict with your plans too much
[00:11] <cjohnston> just need to add that to it
[00:11] <cjohnston> I think that would go back to needing a leadmodel.py
[00:16] <mhall119> yeah, we would
[00:16] <cjohnston> thats what i was trying to do to start with
[00:17] <mhall119> either thay or put one of the leads on some government watch list so they can't attend
[00:17] <mhall119> whichever is easier
[00:17] <cjohnston> hehe
[00:17] <mhall119> ok, I'm off to do school work
[00:17] <cjohnston> i work for the FD.. the second option would be easy
[00:32] <james_w> heh
[00:33]  * james_w makes a note to never get on the wrong side of you two
[00:35] <cjohnston> hehe
[02:27] <nigelb> cjohnston: pong
[02:28] <nigelb> Sorry, was I way sort of burned out last night. Came home at 11 pm and went straight to bed.
[16:20] <mhall119> james_w: can we prep a deployment of summit for IS today?
[16:23] <james_w> yes
[16:23] <james_w> I'd like that loosen-restriction branch to be part of it
[16:23] <james_w> and can fix that pad url bug in a minute too if you would like that to be part of it?
[16:26] <mhall119> that's be good, are there any other know bugs we can fix quickly?
[16:27] <james_w> probably
[16:27] <james_w> oh
[16:27] <james_w> I should fix the regression too
[16:27] <james_w> that's a bit trickier, but I can fix most of it pretty quickly
[16:28] <mhall119> what regression?
[16:28] <james_w> with the band-aid fix I took out
[16:28] <mhall119> oh
[16:28] <mhall119> ok
[16:28] <james_w> it was fixing another bug
[16:29]  * mhall119 hates bandaid fixes for exactly this reason
[16:29] <james_w> get() finding multiple objects, when the guard is only for zero objects
[16:29] <james_w> it only occurs if you schedule one meeting in multiple places though
[16:29] <james_w> so it's not the end of the world if it doesn't get out today
[16:32] <mhall119> james_w: is the need to allow linaro meetings in the same room just for hackfest, or for all linaro meetings?
[16:33] <mhall119> if it's just hackfests, I'd rather make a new meeting type for "hackfest" and add it to the type_exceptions list
[16:33] <mhall119> either that or add a flag to the Room object to allow adjacent meetings of the same track in that room
[16:33] <mhall119> if either one of those solutions would suit your needs
[16:34] <james_w> for all linaro meetings
[16:35] <james_w> the Room one would likely work for us
[19:51] <james_w> mhall119, a flag on room, or a flag on track?
[19:51] <james_w> track more closely models what we want I think
[19:54] <mhall119> I suppose that would make more sense, yeah
[19:55] <mhall119> that'll make it easier to apply to only Linaro stuff and not UDS stuff
[20:28] <james_w> yeah
[20:28] <james_w> harder to work in to the admin UI though
[20:28] <james_w> I'll work on that now
[20:42] <mhall119> just make it part of the Track inline
[20:42] <mhall119> it'll show on the Summit's admin page
[20:43] <mhall119> that's what I did for the Track.color field
[20:46] <james_w> yeah
[20:46] <james_w> fighting with test isolation issues first though
[20:48] <james_w> ah
[20:49] <james_w> it's not a django TestCase
[20:57] <james_w> pushed the change to add that to the model
[21:15] <mhall119> james_w: test_check_schedule_errors_on_same_track_in_previous_slot defines a 'track2' but never uses it
[21:15] <james_w> yeah
[21:16] <james_w> it's just to check that it doesn't check that all the tracks match
[21:16] <james_w> sorry, I mean it should use it
[21:17] <james_w> I accidentally commited the commenting out I had done trying to debug that test isolation issue
[21:20] <james_w> fix pushed for that
[21:23] <james_w> and a branch pushed for the pad URLs
[21:29] <mhall119> james_w: needs to be done for the other pad url function too
[21:29] <mhall119> that was the one that would cause a 404
[21:46] <james_w> oh
[21:46] <james_w> missed that, sorry
[22:06] <james_w> argh
[22:06] <james_w> why have a bunch of tests started failing in all my branches
[22:07] <james_w> I'm really hoping this isn't something to do with the time
[22:11] <james_w> anyhow, I've pushed the change for the edit links, as I don't see how the pad changes would cause these failures, and it happens with or without them
[22:44] <james_w> yeah, time-dependent tests
[22:52] <james_w> http://paste.ubuntu.com/695356/ fixes it and seems like a good idea to me anyway
[23:04] <mhall119> ah, good catch