[00:47] <wallyworld> wgrant: a quick one for you https://code.launchpad.net/~wallyworld/launchpad/translator-licence-checks-531720/+merge/130458
[00:48] <wgrant> Already there :)
[00:49] <wgrant> wallyworld: Does set_translations_relicensing agreement want to invalidate the cache?
[00:49] <wallyworld> wgrant: i think it should
[00:49] <wgrant> Oh
[00:49] <wallyworld> so that next time get is called, it returns the new value
[00:49] <wgrant> I missed the last hunk, nevermind
[00:50] <wgrant> It's a bit sad that we have a property into a method into a cached property into a method
[00:50] <wgrant> But it's the easiest way to do this
[00:50] <wgrant> r=me
[00:50] <wgrant> Thanks
[00:50] <wallyworld> thanks, i didn't want to mess with t too much
[00:57] <wallyworld> wgrant: hwdb - we have plans to remove soon right? if so, we should be able to reduce the priority of the hwdb criticals
[00:58] <wgrant> wallyworld: I demoted the non-ZOP criticals (eg. regressions) a few weeks ago, but by ZOP the timeouts are still critical, though we have decided to ignore them
[00:58] <wallyworld> sure, but if the feature is being removed....
[00:58] <wallyworld> we don't really care
[00:59] <wgrant> Right, but they're still noise
[01:00] <wallyworld> noise in the critical bug listing, yes
[01:00] <wgrant> And in the OOPS reports :)
[01:00] <wallyworld> only till the feature is removed
[01:00] <wgrant> Sure
[01:00] <wgrant> Removing code is the best way of fixing criticals :)
[01:00] <wallyworld> if we aren't going to fix, regardless of oops report noise, it's no using seeing them
[01:01] <wallyworld> when did we say we can remove the code?
[01:01] <wgrant> Probably in about 6 months
[01:04] <wgrant> Anyway, you can demote them if you want
[01:04] <wgrant> There's ~1 timeout and ~2 OOPSes
[01:04] <wallyworld> i will do that i think
[07:11] <adeuring> good mmorning
[08:39] <RoelV> hi!
[08:39] <RoelV> how do I make an existing project part of another project in launchpad?
[10:32] <czajkowski> cjwatson: it feels like we only just compelted the opening of translations for Q!
[10:35] <cjwatson> The wheel keeps on turning
[10:36] <cjwatson> And to be fair it was a bit prolonged last time because it took ages for people to work out what to do, hence me providing some links up-front
[10:36] <czajkowski> it's a slow cog in motion today
[11:41] <shadeslayer> I seem to be getting this error : http://paste.kde.org/574226/ : when polling launchpad every 5 minutes
[11:41] <shadeslayer> script : http://paste.kde.org/574232/
[11:41] <shadeslayer> could someone suggest a polling interval that won't get my ip blocked?
[11:42] <cjwatson> I don't know the reason for the error, but that error doesn't look like a blocked IP to me
[11:43] <cjwatson> Your problem might well simply be that you're trying to use launchpadlib in a threaded program
[11:43] <shadeslayer> oh
[11:44] <cjwatson> Try rewriting it based on an event loop
[11:44] <shadeslayer> yeah, I guess I'll have to do that
[11:58] <jml> how do I get a launchpadlib object given the normal browser URL  for that?
[11:58] <jml> load(), maybe
[12:04] <jml> ah, but the URL needs to be transformed, somehow
 -> api, insert api version as prefix
[12:15] <cjwatson> jml: or just strip the scheme and host off the front
[12:15] <cjwatson> >>> lp.load('/ubuntu/+source/base-files')
[12:15] <jml> cjwatson: oh, that works? neat. thank you.
[12:15] <cjwatson> <distribution_source_package at https://api.launchpad.net/1.0/ubuntu/+source/base-files>
[13:51] <flacoste> jelmer: thank you very much for all your work over the last 3 years! good luck with your future projects!
[13:56] <nigelb> jelmer's leaving too? :(
[14:01] <cjwatson> hm, I guess I can't land those two branches since we're in testfix mode
[14:02] <rick_h_> abentley: r=me
[14:02] <abentley> rick_h_: You mean abel?
[14:02] <rick_h_> doh, bad tab completion, yea adeuring ^
[14:03] <adeuring> rick_h_: thanks!
[14:04] <cjwatson> adeuring: did you notice your buildbot failure?
[14:04] <adeuring> cjwatson: no, thanks for the heads up!
[14:06] <adeuring> cjwatson: looks like a flaky db connection, we had tehse failures too often... I#ll start a another buildbot run
[14:10] <cjwatson> ok
[14:36] <rick_h_> deryck: ping, got a sec?
[14:36] <deryck> rick_h_, sure, what's up?
[14:36] <rick_h_> deryck: want to chat and bring up another possible card for beta
[14:37] <deryck> rick_h_, sure.  meet you in the standup hangout.
[14:42] <jcsackett> sinzui: available to chat?
[14:42] <sinzui> yes
[15:28] <oalca> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/lp-dev-utils/+spec/comments-in-line-on-diffs
[15:28] <oalca> watch this
[15:29] <oalca> its what I believe a good blueprint
[15:31] <jml> *sigh*
[15:32] <czajkowski> oalca: thats a blueprint issue
[15:32] <czajkowski> oalca: it'd be a bug if anything to be developed on , if you like please file a bug .
[15:33] <czajkowski> oalca: https://bugs.launchpad.net/launchpad/+bug/780165  maybe this might be close to what you are looking at ?
[15:33] <_mup_> Bug #780165: commenting on specific lines in a diff using the web UI is tedious <code-review> <Launchpad itself:Triaged> < https://launchpad.net/bugs/780165 >
[15:35] <oalca> lets see
 lets see
[15:43] <cjwatson> oalca: I've generally found that it's not a good idea to register blueprints on projects you're not a developer on; it makes more sense for developers to decide whether something's big and complex enough to need that level of planning
[15:45] <oalca> ok, im sorry for that, im kind of new on launchpad, I tought bugs where for fails on systems
[15:45] <czajkowski> oalca: no worries have to learn somewhere.
[15:49] <oalca> yesterday I was here, asking about this, but none answered, so I decide to do that
[15:54] <abentley> bac: Could you please review https://code.launchpad.net/~abentley/launchpad/projectgroup-private-projects/+merge/130590 ?
[15:55] <cjwatson> These two buildbot failures are both transient, right?
[15:55] <cjwatson> The devel one certainly has nothing to do with my changes, so I'm retrying it
[15:56] <cjwatson> But the db-devel one looks pretty transient too
[15:59] <abentley> cjwatson: I agree.  Parallel-testing has unfortunately made buildbot a bit more flaky.  Still worth the trade-off, though :-)
[16:00] <jml> *so* glad that happened, btw.
[16:00] <abentley> jml: Yeah, it's great.
[16:01] <cjwatson> OK, forced db-devel too
[16:01] <cjwatson> And I definitely agree on the trade-off
[16:03] <sinzui> jcsackett, I added a comment with out finding: https://bugs.launchpad.net/launchpad/+bug/403629
[16:03] <_mup_> Bug #403629: Translation message link points to wrong message number <404> <lp-translations> <message-sharing> <Launchpad itself:Triaged by jcsackett> < https://launchpad.net/bugs/403629 >
[16:04] <sinzui> ^ I think there is a second case were a POFile translation was accepted, but later changed. the submission remain, but it is not in the pofile
[16:10] <lifeless> schpeeed!
[16:10] <czajkowski> jelmer: good luck and we shall see you soon when you're in my neck of the woods!
[16:10] <czajkowski> lifeless: ohhh hello there :D
[16:14] <bac> sorry abentley, was on a call.  can i look at it after lunch?
[16:14] <abentley> bac: sure.
[16:14] <bac> abentley: ok, will do
[16:14] <abentley> bac: thanks.
[16:35] <abentley> deryck: Just added a card for bug #1068719 to the beta lane.
[16:35] <_mup_> Bug #1068719: Person overview page breaks when assigned proprietary blueprints <oops> <private-projects> <Launchpad itself:Triaged> < https://launchpad.net/bugs/1068719 >
[16:37] <deryck> abentley, I saw that.  thanks for adding it.
[16:38] <deryck> abentley, do you think there's more investigation to do for the "blueprint listings related to product" or just drop that now, in favor of these other reported bugs/cards?
[16:40] <abentley> deryck: I think we need to look for other possible issues there.
[16:41] <deryck> abentley, ok, thanks
[17:26] <rick_h_> abentley: ping, got a sec for eyeballs?
[17:27] <rick_h_> abentley: doh nvm...dippy _owner for query :/
[17:36] <rick_h_> sinzui: ping
[17:36] <sinzui> hi rick_h_
[17:36] <rick_h_> sinzui: I'm working on implementing this 'userCanBeDeactived' idea
[17:36] <rick_h_> and I see lots of other examples of userCanXXXXX
[17:37] <rick_h_> but none I can find are in a validator-like context. Where not only do I want a bool, but a textual message reason I can pass back to the UI
[17:37] <rick_h_> sinzui: do you know of a case you can think of? I'm bzr grep'ing and failing.
[17:37] <rick_h_> and I'm not totally cool with having a userCanBeDeactivated returning a tuple of (bool, [list,of,reasons])
[17:37] <rick_h_> since it's a bit against the pattern in place for something named that way
[17:38] <sinzui> rick_h_, lib/lp/registry/browser/peoplemerge.py illustrates what we do now to check for ppas and private branches
[17:38] <rick_h_> looking, thanks
[17:40] <sinzui> rick_h_, I see duplicate in between the validator in that module and PersonSet._merge
[17:40] <sinzui> both are calling the same methods, but they handle them differently
[17:40] <rick_h_> sinzui: yea, that's what I was trying to avoid. I hoped to really make the validator just call Person.userCanBeDeactivated and then that method would return true/false and messages
[17:41] <sinzui> +1
[17:41] <rick_h_> but it seemed against the current pattern, which appears to be true
[17:41] <rick_h_> so wonder if I should just call it something different and move along
[17:51] <sinzui> rick_h_, I think there needs to be complex method that raises an error with an informative message (that can be captured an safely displayed), and a method that captures any error and returns true. I think this is the common practice used by Zope fields to validator or sae if the data is valid
[17:52] <rick_h_> sinzui: ah, ok cool. I'll add that second layer in
[18:04] <abentley> sinzui: I've been thinking that maybe validation methods should yield (not raise) exceptions, so that you can capture all the validation errors.
[18:04] <abentley> sinzui: Then methods that wanted to validate before making a change would simply raise the first exception, if any.
[18:04] <rick_h_> abentley: yea, that'd be cool. I'm capting them into a list currently and then checking that return list.
[18:04] <sinzui> That would solve the awkward validator in peoplemerge.py
[18:08] <abentley> sinzui, rick_h_: Something like this: http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/1289982/
[18:10] <sinzui> I think we prefer the look-before-you-leap style where canXXX returns early, other methods would collect them to show the user all the reasons
[18:35] <abentley> deryck: chat?
[18:37] <deryck> abentley, sure, give me 5 or 10 minutes to get free.
[18:40] <bac> abentley: your branch looks good.  thanks.
[18:40] <abentley> bac: Thanks for the review.
[18:44] <deryck> abentley, I can chat now.  jumping into stand-up hangout.
[19:17] <rick_h_> bac: got another branch for you if you've got time please? https://code.launchpad.net/~rharding/launchpad/related_projects_1063272/+merge/130414
[19:17] <rick_h_> bac: tried to explain things as they can kind of come across as a bunch of disjoint changes
[19:18] <bac> sure rick_h_
[20:24] <rick_h_> bac: heading afk, if there's anything that comes up pop it in the MP and I'll get back to you.
[20:24] <bac> rick_h_: ok, sorry i got distracted