[04:14] <StevenK> Oh, bah. Firefox, why are you hiding the URI schema for http:// URIs? :-(
[04:35] <lifeless> because chrome did it and so its obviously cool.
[04:35] <lifeless> nevermind that it completely messes things up
[04:56] <StevenK> If Firefox is just going to copy Chrome, that's disappointing.
[05:41] <lifeless> oh, I agree.
[05:58] <nigelb> lifeless: <3
[05:58] <nigelb> thanks!
[05:58] <nigelb> StevenK: Speaking of browsers, this might be entertaining - http://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-lwEG-pIhR3Q/TodEKkigwVI/AAAAAAAACgs/ARfogL6LqXM/s512/msft.jpg
[06:02] <StevenK> nigelb: I saw that
[06:05] <nigelb> :)
[20:59] <lifeless> under one page of mediums left
[21:38] <mwhudson> lifeless: and hey, i just closed two of the bugs you reclassified
[21:52] <lifeless> mwhudson: cool
[21:53] <mwhudson> three!
[21:53] <nigelb> do I hear a four? ;)
[21:53] <lifeless> going once
[21:55] <lifeless> spring cleaning :)
[21:58] <mwhudson> sadly no more yet
[21:59] <nigelb> I think I found the best spring cleaning material in tech-debt.
[21:59] <nigelb> Although fixing one bug = at least 2 to 3 MPs :P
[21:59] <mwhudson> my current launchpad side project is made of tech-debt
[21:59] <lifeless> nigelb: thats more like an attic :) - this is stuff that we have lying around uncategorised ;)
[22:00] <nigelb> lifeless: heh
[22:00] <nigelb> I can see the spiderwebs hang off those bugs :P
[22:01] <lifeless> :)
[23:33] <wallyworld_> wgrant: were you going to look at 863098?
[23:33] <wgrant> Bug #863098
[23:33] <_mup_> Bug #863098: OOPS when retargeting a private bug to a context the user cannot see private bugs by default <404> <bugs> <disclosure> <oops> <Launchpad itself:Triaged> < https://launchpad.net/bugs/863098 >
[23:34] <wgrant> I wasn't.
[23:34] <wallyworld_> ok. i can
[23:34] <jelmer> hi wallyworld_, wgrant
[23:34] <wgrant> Evening jelmer.
[23:34] <wallyworld_> hello
[23:34] <wgrant> wallyworld_: Thanks.
[23:34] <wallyworld_> np. just wan't to make sure we weren't going to double up
[23:35] <wallyworld_> i hate unity today. had to totally blow alway all my settings to get it to not lock up the desktop
[23:37] <wgrant> wallyworld_: I suspect the solution will be to just subscribe the actor, as we do when making a bug private in the first place.
[23:38] <wallyworld_> wgrant: that would work code wise. is that what we want to do policy wise? i guess so
[23:39] <wgrant> +          xdr: {use: 'flash'},
[23:39] <lifeless> or just set next_url to a different value
[23:39] <wgrant> aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
[23:39] <lifeless> + add a notification
[23:39] <lifeless> I wouldn't expect the actor to be subscribed; in fact it will be explicitly *against* one of curtis' rules to do that.
[23:40] <lifeless> the rule being 'for "private projects" newly private-in-that-project bugs have no subscriptions other than the default set'
[23:40] <wgrant> Private projects don't exist.
[23:40] <wgrant> So rules around them aren't relevant yet.
[23:41] <wgrant> c-i-p is a default-private-bugs project, where the reporter has a subscription regardless.
[23:41] <lifeless> 'private bugs by default' seems to be your proxy for now
[23:41] <lifeless> wgrant: the reporter is one of the default set of subscriptions
[23:41] <lifeless> wgrant: the triager isn't
[23:41]  * wallyworld_ wonders whether to take the red pill or blue pill
[23:42] <mwhudson> hooray for not landing code until you have a use for it
[23:42] <wgrant> lifeless: But the triager is the one reporting the bug in the "private project".
[23:42] <wallyworld_> mwhudson: you referring to your mp from friday?
[23:42] <mwhudson> wallyworld_: yes
[23:43] <lifeless> wgrant: ahhh, no I'm not :)
[23:43] <lifeless> wgrant: meh, I can see arguments both ways.
[23:43] <wallyworld_> mwhudson:  do you have a specific use case for it now?
[23:43] <lifeless> wgrant: whatever you guys decide, I think it needs documentation if it will increase the visibility of such bugs
[23:44] <mwhudson> wallyworld_: basically, it seems stuffing things in annotations is unpleasant, better to just have an IParticipationExtras interface that separately defines the things we care about
[23:44] <wgrant> lifeless: I feel that all these changes are insane.
[23:44] <wgrant> lifeless: Because they're making an existing confusing and exceptional privacy mechanism even more confusing and exceptional, in a gradual fashion.
[23:44] <wgrant> lifeless: Rather than a one-off change to a sensible one.
[23:44] <mwhudson> wallyworld_: yeah, trying to (only) store the feature flag controller on the participation
[23:45] <lifeless> wgrant: so the goal is a sensible one; I agree that gradual changes can be tricky.
[23:45] <lifeless> wgrant: I wouldn't want to see massive code drops, but I could totally see stuff being feature flagged until all the bits are in place
[23:45] <wallyworld_> mwhudson: +1 for that ff change
[23:45] <wgrant> For stuff like this they're not tricky: they're dangerous.
[23:45] <wgrant> lifeless: Right, that is what I intended from the start. But it seems everyone prefers gradual change :/
[23:45] <wgrant> Normally, sure. But not for something like this.
[23:45] <lifeless> wgrant: talk to your team :)
[23:46] <lifeless> wgrant: FWIW, to me, feature-flagged to ~launchpad isn't gradual change, because only we're affected, and we can deal.
[23:47] <lifeless> wow, our lp-oops install has masssssive cruft in it
[23:47] <lifeless>                                            QUERY PLAN
[23:47] <lifeless> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[23:47] <lifeless>  Seq Scan on oops_oops  (cost=0.00..1991487.27 rows=2772 width=68)
[23:48] <wallyworld_> wgrant: so, what's the consensus? subscribe or redirect with notification?
[23:51] <wgrant> Not sure.
[23:51] <wgrant> But looks like we need to roll back the latest devel rev.
[23:51] <wgrant> It breaks lots of profiling tests, it seems.
[23:51] <wgrant> (and introduces Flash, so getting rid of it is a bonus :))
[23:52] <wallyworld_> flash?
[23:52] <wallyworld_> what for?
[23:52] <wgrant> Bypassing cross-domain request restrictions.
[23:52] <wgrant> I assume.
[23:53] <wallyworld_> you mean someone wrote action script?
[23:53] <wgrant> No.
[23:53] <wgrant> YUI has some Flash embedded.
[23:53] <wgrant> To use as an XHR transport.
[23:53] <wgrant> To violate browser cross-domain request restrictions.
[23:53] <wgrant> Because Flash is more holey.
[23:54] <wallyworld_> i thought flash functionality was implemented using ActionAcript
[23:54] <wallyworld_> ActionScript
[23:54] <wgrant> This is a prebuilt SWF in YUI.
[23:54] <wallyworld_> ok
[23:54] <wallyworld_> yuck
[23:54] <wgrant> Because fuck good practice, let's put proprietary compiled formats in our tarballs :)
[23:54] <lifeless> the 503 page ?
[23:54] <wgrant> lifeless: Yes.