=== slank is now known as slank_away [00:26] steven@undermined:~/launchpad/lp-branches/drop-populate-specification-aag% bzr di | diffstat -s [00:26] 2 files changed, 1714 insertions(+), 1712 deletions(-) [00:26] wgrant: ^ :-( [00:45] StevenK: :( [00:45] StevenK: How? [00:45] Oh, sampledata [00:45] But that's quite a lot [00:45] postgres order change? [00:49] pg_dump jumped from 9.1.6 to 9.1.7 [00:50] Right [00:50] So probably some reordering [00:50] Or an arch change [00:50] Or something like that :) [00:50] Lots of blank lines [00:50] http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/1536113/ [00:51] Our sorting thing doesn't coalesce blank lines, but I'm not sure what's with that order change [00:52] I'm not even sure if we have any specs that are non-public in sampledata [00:52] Heh, probably not, no [00:52] Then it might not even matter [03:42] wgrant: Do you know which revno added the dependency stuff? [03:42] My pawing through bzr log hasn't turned it up [03:43] StevenK: r16333 [03:43] from bzr log lib/lp/blueprints [04:36] StevenK: Looking [04:37] I think it needs a fix [04:37] I've been pondering for a few minutes [04:38] The AP nullness check is pointless [04:39] Oh? [04:39] Also, I'd probably do it with one query per batch [04:39] You're walking up by ID, and the function is idempotent [04:39] You might as well just run over all of them, rather than playing planner roulette. [04:39] (AP will be left null in almost all cases, because almost all of them are public) [04:40] There's also no need to call reconcileAccess here [04:40] But we check information_type [04:40] Right, but there's no point [04:40] Just iterate in batches from spec 1 to MAX(spec.id) [04:40] Calling specification_denorm_access on each batch [04:42] The spec reconcileAccess was never needed, because there was no legacy privacy to migrate [04:46] wgrant: http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/1536441/ [04:48] StevenK: I'm not sure if that tuple expansion will work, but if it does then great [04:49] It does not [04:51] It works for id 1, and then it tries for set of more than one id [05:12] wgrant: http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/1536494/ even works [05:13] StevenK: https://code.launchpad.net/~wgrant/launchpad/registry-view-accounts/+merge/143438 [05:17] wgrant: r=me [05:18] wgrant: So, pastebin peering? [05:18] StevenK: If it works [05:18] You could also do execute(Select('specification_denorm_access(id)', tables=[Specification], where=[Specification.id.is_in(blah)])) [05:19] But it doesn't matter much [05:24] Do not understand these test failures [05:25] wgrant: The diff is updated [05:26] wgrant: But I think I should reset Specification.access_policy to NULL before the second runHourly due to triggers [05:28] StevenK: Indeed [05:29] And since Specification.access_policy doesn't exist, I'm sort of stuck how to reset it [05:29] StevenK: Create it? [05:30] This isn't a DB branch; you're allowed to make model changes [05:30] Sure, but I've managed to get this far with doing so :-) [05:31] SQL! [05:39] Hmm [05:40] The second runHourly is ignoring the spec since it's already seen it, too [05:40] Ah, yeah [05:40] You'll have to nuke the memcache record [05:41] Or create one public, one private, nuke access_policy across specification, then do a single runHourly [05:51] Bleh, it looks like .specifications is supposed to filter out inactive projects and it's broken, and I don't see how [05:52] wgrant: Diff updated [05:55] StevenK: r=me [05:57] I know, let's land it :-P [05:58] Bad StevenK [05:58] wgrant: Diff is at http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/1536676/ ; test failures at http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/1536679/ [06:24] wgrant: You lose buildbot bingo [06:26] Indeed [06:44] * StevenK facepalms at himself re bug 1100061 [06:44] <_mup_> Bug #1100061: BranchSubscriptionAddOtherView rejects open teams even for public branches < https://launchpad.net/bugs/1100061 > [06:45] Ah, so it was you :) [06:49] * StevenK taps his foot waiting for BMPJ [06:49] wgrant: https://code.launchpad.net/~stevenk/launchpad/fix-branch-subscription-for-public/+merge/143441 [06:50] hey guys [06:52] plomme: Hi [06:52] I'm new to submitting patches for lp I wante'd to know what the procedure was. [06:53] plomme: Is your change in bug #1097770 still desirable if we remove the private releases restriction? [06:53] <_mup_> Bug #1097770: The series timeline does not distinguish between active and inactive milestones < https://launchpad.net/bugs/1097770 > [06:53] It was added in error, and was never intended to exist [06:53] The intent was to prevent release *files* from being added, but not the releases themselves [06:53] no actually [06:54] if proprietary projects can handle releases then the bug correction is mute [06:55] Right, that's what I thought. [06:55] StevenK or I can probably arrange that early next week. [06:55] And it's likely a better solution than the somewhat hacky inactive thing [06:55] yeah [06:55] I agree [06:56] thanks a lot for looking into it! It's been somewhat of a thorn in our foot =) [06:57] No worries, sorry about the inconvenience. There was a bit of a miscommunication around the addition of that check. [06:59] * StevenK peers at wgrant [07:00] I feel like I'm being watched. [07:00] wgrant: I linked you an MP :-) [07:00] I know, but then plomme appeared :) [07:01] haha I can get distracting sometimes [07:04] Heh [07:04] Done now, anyway :) [07:12] :) [07:16] brb [07:21] ok back. [08:57] good morning [09:46] jtv: how wise/easy is it to remove a name from a LP translations? [09:48] czajkowski: a person's name? [09:48] yup [09:48] From translated strings? [09:48] https://support.one.ubuntu.com/Ticket/Display.html?id=28061 [09:49] do you still have access to the RT ? [09:50] czajkowski: seems like... trying to get to the ticket [09:50] Checking out the links the user posted... [09:51] czajkowski: that's a tough one. [09:52] The remove-translations script may work for this. [09:53] czajkowski: you'll have to remove the user's translations from those PO files to get this done. Have a look at scripts/rosetta/remove-translations-by.py. [09:54] IIRC we never quite got around to making it work properly with user names, so you may have to look up the user's id. [09:54] getUtility(IPersonSet).getByName() wants a word. [09:55] jtv: never gone near those scripts before [09:55] this should be *interesting* [09:55] czajkowski: WCPWG [09:55] WCPGW, even [10:00] bzr: ERROR: Server sent an unexpected error: ('error', 'xmlrpclib.Fault', "") [10:00] just fwiw [10:01] StevenK: you say this... [10:01] jml: nice timing :) [10:02] jml: I'm just guessing, but I smell a FDT, and you hit the what 5 second window? [10:02] lifeless: bingo [10:02] lifeless: that's my guess [10:02] it finished at 10:01 [10:03] Yeah [10:17] lifeless, jml: 3.2s, actually [10:17] That's quite some luck [10:25] jtv: is there a wiki page on this somewhere in the vast quanties of wiki pages ? [11:12] czajkowski: no, I don't think we have a wiki page on that particular script... === yofel_ is now known as yofel [13:27] wgrant: Could I have a patch number for adding a phase column to BPPH, please? === slank_away is now known as slank === salgado is now known as salgado-lunch === salgado-lunch is now known as salgado [16:34] bac, benji, gary_poster, frankban, teknico: Do any of you guys have time to review a proposed merge for lp2kanban? If not, no worries; I'm just hoping to get someone with context knowledge to take a glance. [16:35] gmb: I can. Also, bac was working on it earlier today so he might be primed to do so as well. [16:37] thanks [16:37] benji, That would be wonderful, thank you: https://code.launchpad.net/~gmb/lp2kanban/cards2workitems/+merge/143543 [16:37] * benji looks. [16:38] benji: actually i didn't touch lp2kb directly but our tarmac configs [16:38] bac: ah; you're off the hook then ;) [16:41] Oo, $0.33 AWS bill for December. Crikey, better sell some silverware... [16:53] :-) [17:08] gmb: the branch looks good, I had a few thoughts about things you brought up in the MP description/comment and a couple small code suggestions [17:09] benji, Thanks :) === deryck is now known as deryck[lunch] [17:19] benji, How does the linking-to-multiple external sources work? [17:20] gmb: I have no idea. :) The code is either in lp2kanban or in a custom script we use to interface between MPs linked to Reitveld and kanban. [17:22] if you look at the Juju GUI board you can right click on some of the cards in review or done-done and look at the "Link to" menu item to see multiple external links [17:22] gmb: ^^ [17:24] benji, Ah, I don't think it's in lp2kanban; that only supports one external link at a time... I shall have a poke around. [17:24] THanks for the tip :) [17:25] cool, glad to help [17:55] benji, Ah, cards don't support multiple external links - the ones on the juju gui board have an external_system_url and an external_card_id (the second automatically links to LP, of course). [17:55] So the MP-nukes-blueprint problem still stands, but is solvable. [17:56] (in another branch :) [17:56] ) [17:56] gmb: maybe it is a different mechanism, but there is some way of having unlimited (named) links on a card [17:56] benji, Hmm, maybe I'm missing something. [17:57] * gmb goes to find LKK API docs [17:59] gmb: hmm, I'm looking for it, but I can't find it; you may be right that there can be only one. I could have sworn that you can have as many as you want. [17:59] benji, Yeah, I was under the impression at first that you could (not including putting HTML in the description field). [18:00] Hmm, found this feature request, but no answer: http://support.leankit.com/entries/20414932-multiple-external-links-on-a-card [18:00] benji, ^^ [18:01] Anyway, EoD time. [18:01] Benji's Rules for Web Apps #231: If your application allows the user to enter one link related to an application entity, they should be able to enter multiple links related to an application entity. [18:01] benji, Darn tootin'. [18:03] and since their suggestion app uses different credentials than their application propper, that suggestion will never get any votes from me because I can't log in and will not be forced to work that hard to suggest they make their app better [18:04] benji: but its web2.0 [18:05] heh [18:05] benji: what could POSSIBLY be wrong with embedding another app in your apps process space with no controls ? [18:06] lifeless: we should start an industrial espionage agency; the fruit hang so low [18:06] benji: lol :) === matsubara is now known as matsubara-afk === deryck[lunch] is now known as deryck === slank is now known as slank_away [20:07] rr *sounds [20:07] (excuse that, high latency--) [23:21] cjwatson: That seems like a pretty bad name [23:22] wgrant: Suggestions? [23:22] BPPH.phased_update_percentage, I suppose, to go with the control field name [23:23] Once the control field is finalised that would sound reasonable [23:23] It is finalised [23:23] Already implemented in update-manager [23:23] It's a lot clearer to someone who hasn't seen it before than "phase", and it isn't going to be referenced a huge amount [23:23] Aha [23:23] That was quick [23:23] mvo overachieved and did it last cycle in advance of the server side [23:23] Ah [23:24] It just wasn't documented until I looked it up earlier this week [23:24] Or at least not consistently documented [23:25] cjwatson: 2209-36-1 is yours [23:26] Thanks [23:27] * cjwatson attempts to discern a rationale in the choice of second component [23:27] Sorting by owner? [23:32] If there's a series of minor standalone patches we will tend to just reuse a minor number per owner, yeah