[20:32] <lifeless> wgrant: in support of heat updates being wonky:
[20:32] <lifeless> https://bugs.launchpad.net/launchpad/+bug/816870
[20:32] <_mup_> Bug #816870: Distribution:+search (package search) timeouts <critical-analysis> <timeout> <Launchpad itself:Triaged> < https://launchpad.net/bugs/816870 >
[20:32] <lifeless> 36 heat, but AFAICT it should have 40
[20:32] <lifeless> 2*6 * 6*4 + 2*2
[20:33] <lifeless> 44 if the subs from dups are really honoured
[20:33] <lifeless> wgrant: I just added a dup, and its off by 8 => 2 for the subscriber, 6 for it being a dupe -> I do think there is a glitch somewhere
[20:34] <lifeless> or perhaps memcache
[21:36] <poolie> hi all
[21:37] <poolie> lifeless, if i was to put up a patch that re-added g+ (and maybe other) 'share' features, implemented just as a button linking to a url on the remote site, do you think that would be accepted?
[21:39] <lifeless> that would have less (but still some) disclosure implications; it would have no security implications. It may have taste/design/usabilility aspects which I'm not the best person to address (such as it wouldn't show the counts -> wouldn't grow LP's capabilities at all).
[21:39] <lifeless> the remaining disclosure implication would be the invitation to share private objects, definitely addressable.
[21:50] <lifeless> poolie: speaking of patches
[21:50] <lifeless> poolie: you've not removed the duplication in the show-timeline-to-developers code you landed
[21:50] <lifeless> poolie: I'm feeling a little let down, as you committed to do so as part of landing it without delay
[21:54] <poolie> i was just thinking about that too
[21:54] <poolie> i will do it soon
[21:55] <poolie> my january was a bit fuller than expected, what with two hospital trips
[21:55] <poolie> i know we said 'january'
[22:01] <lifeless> I understand, thank you
[22:02] <lifeless> january FSVO january will be fine :)
[22:02] <poolie> this is a good example of why not to make decisions based on planned future work :)
[22:02] <lifeless> hah, indeed
[22:06] <poolie> so i think it seems interesting enough that it's worth fixing the bugs and unifying the code
[22:06] <poolie> the bugs being mostly cross-browser js things
[22:06] <poolie> it got one or two upvotes
[22:09] <lifeless> its nice
[22:09] <lifeless> I wouldn't want it removed
[22:09] <lifeless> I just don't want it to be costly in a costly area
[22:17] <lifeless> flacoste: I'd kindof like to blog about our slack set-based approach; that ok with you? [given that you're orchestrating it, I don't want to steal your thunder...]
[22:51] <wgrant> poolie: I fixed most of the bugs last week
[22:51] <wgrant> poolie: Because I needed it
[22:51] <wgrant> poolie: It works in Firefox now, toggles, and jumps to the right place when it shows.
[22:54] <poolie> wgrant, oh hooray
[22:54] <poolie> thanks very much!
[22:55] <poolie> and i'm so glad you found it worth doing
[22:58] <poolie> wgrant, so the only remaining significant thing is to unify the rendering with the oops code?
[22:58] <wgrant> I think so
[22:58] <wgrant> oops/profile
[23:14] <wgrant> lifeless: Ah, duh
[23:15] <wgrant> lifeless: The count at the top of the page is users affected including dupes.
[23:15] <poolie> that's a feature :)
[23:15] <poolie> possibly showing the details in a tooltip or something would be good though
[23:16] <wgrant> That bug's users_affected_count == 4, so 2*6 + 4*4 + (2 + 2 on dupes)*2 == 36
[23:16] <wgrant> lifeless: Not a regression, and technically correct by the docs, but we should possibly fix it.
[23:17] <poolie> wgrant, ?
[23:17] <wgrant> poolie: Hm?
[23:18] <poolie> i wondered if you considered the inclusion of dupe-affected users a regression or something
[23:18] <wgrant> Ah, no, it's just that it's displayed including dupes, but heat calculation uses the raw value without dupes.
[23:19] <poolie> oh ok
[23:19] <wgrant> Since heat calculation is now more transparent (because the hilarious aging stuff is gone), this has only become obvious recently.
[23:19] <poolie> don't talk to me about heat :)
[23:20] <wgrant> Last time someone talked to me about heat, I deleted 7/8 of it :)
[23:25] <wgrant> wallyworld_: Morning
[23:25] <wallyworld_> wgrant: hello
[23:26] <wgrant> wallyworld_: Can you (no-)qa your picker thing?
[23:27] <wallyworld_> ok, give me a few minutes
[23:27] <wgrant> Thanks :)
[23:30] <poolie> wgrant,  :)
[23:35] <lifeless> wgrant: can you create an appropriate bug please
[23:36] <lifeless> wgrant: I doubt this will be the last we hear of it
[23:36] <lifeless> wgrant: we may want to keep the updateheat garbo job but change it to use a featureflag to determine the oldest date of heat which is *invalid*
[23:37] <wgrant> Possibly, yeah.
[23:37] <lifeless> wgrant: then we can just land new algorithm, set the flag to the right date, and watch it run
[23:37] <lifeless> (and then stop automatically)
[23:37] <wgrant> That sort of thing is probably going to be useful in several places.
[23:37] <lifeless> yes
[23:37] <wgrant> eg. the bug denorm tables
[23:37] <wgrant> Once I work how HTF we can recalculate BugSummary.
[23:42] <wgrant> lifeless: bug #936607
[23:42] <_mup_> Bug #936607: Bug heat calculation's affected users count doesn't match the displayed value <bugs> <Launchpad itself:Triaged> < https://launchpad.net/bugs/936607 >
[23:42] <lifeless> thanks; uhm, I might tweak the title for search
[23:43] <wgrant> Search is hopeless anyway, but feel free :)
[23:43] <lifeless> bug 936607
[23:43] <_mup_> Bug #936607: Bug heat appears wrong due to affected users from duplicates not being included <bugs> <Launchpad itself:Triaged> < https://launchpad.net/bugs/936607 >
[23:44] <lifeless> I figure folk will try bug heat wrong / bug heat broken etc; fingers crossed
[23:44] <wgrant> Yeah
[23:46]  * wallyworld_ takes car to mechanic - stupid fuel pump is broken :-(
[23:46] <lifeless> wallyworld_: needs a software upgrade?
[23:47] <wallyworld_> lifeless: i wish that's all it was. i used a rubber mallet to get it started
[23:47] <wallyworld_> but that's impractical
[23:48] <wallyworld_> hopefully won't cost toooo much
[23:51] <lifeless> wgrant: so, sso detangle. You're all set on that ?
[23:52] <wgrant> lifeless: Yeah. Hopefully make some progress on it soon.
[23:53] <lifeless> wgrant: I think its more urgent than continued db efficiency in the medium term
[23:54] <lifeless> wgrant: because it is a one off cost with a fairly long deploy tail
[23:55] <wgrant> Yeah, but it's also a bit more work and harder to do in small chunks of downtime throughout my days.
[23:56] <lifeless> yah
[23:56] <lifeless> I hear a rumour you have mondays to self-direct
[23:57] <wgrant> I've got stuff to finish off this week, but I expect so.
[23:57] <lifeless> :P