[21:34] <Laney> is the LoC delta policy still being operated?
[21:37] <wgrant> Laney: To a reasonable extent.
[21:37] <wgrant> If someone wants to add 5000 lines without taking anything away I will probably tell them to go away.
[21:40] <Laney> See #launchpad earlier; I just want to expose a property on PackageUpload. Shouldn't be that big (code-wise, never sure about tets).
[21:40] <wgrant> That's fine.
[21:40] <wgrant> Will need a bit of extra code to preload the relevant objects to avoid timeouts, but still pretty easy.
[21:42]  * Laney nods
[21:58] <cjwatson> Laney: I think the PU tests are reasonably rational these days.
[21:58] <cjwatson> lib/lp/soyuz/tests/test_packageupload.pyu
[21:58] <cjwatson> -u
[21:58] <cjwatson> Actually that wouldn't be for webservice stuff would it
[22:00] <cjwatson> Oh yeah, the webservice tests are in there as well.
[22:00] <cjwatson> class TestPackageUploadWebservice
[22:15] <cjwatson> wgrant: I've landed everything I want in the next lp-buildd release, FWIW.  Not going to have time to QA it tonight
[22:16] <cjwatson> The master side is -106 so far although without handling builder_version yet
[22:17] <wgrant> cjwatson: Yeah, it should be a bit cleaner now you can avoid handing both the dict and list around.
[22:18] <cjwatson> I can only assume the code that mangled it into a dict was written well after the original slave code, or else that whoever wrote it didn't know that you could pass dicts through xmlrpc.
[22:19] <wgrant> It was written well after the slave code.
[22:19] <cjwatson> That makes some sense at least.  If they'd been written together it would have been manifest lunacy
[22:19] <wgrant> I think the dicts happened with the introduction of BFJB in 2009.
[22:19] <wgrant> Because the BFJB can extend the dict with its own keys.
[22:20] <cjwatson> Yeah.  Which I've destroyed.
[22:20] <wgrant> (that's why it gets both the sentence and the dict)
[22:20] <wgrant> Ah, good :)
[22:20] <wgrant> Because it needed to die.
[22:20] <wgrant> It wasn't providing any significant value and means the BFJB is involved in yet another place it shouldn't be.
[22:26] <wgrant> Oh, I see you went the whole way and matched the names to the existing ones on the master side. I guess that makes sense.
[22:27] <cjwatson> I figured why not.
[22:27] <wgrant> Yeah
[22:27] <cjwatson> Otherwise I have to have a totally pointless thing that renames them.
[22:27] <wgrant> builder_status is probably sufficiently clearer that it makes sense.
[22:27] <wgrant> Yep
[22:31] <wgrant> cjwatson: I haven't noticed any other regressions. Have you seen any?
[22:31] <cjwatson> From 116/117?  No
[22:31] <wgrant> Great.
[22:31] <cjwatson> The depwait one has the amusing effect of turning things into upload failures
[22:31] <wgrant> Yes
[22:31] <cjwatson> But that was obvious once I looked at it
[22:31] <wgrant> That's how I first noticed it.
[22:32] <cjwatson> I got Alexander to land my builddfitzer change and he said he'd include a reminder to update local checkouts in his report, so hopefully other webops will use it
[22:32] <wgrant> Yep, saw that.
[22:32] <wgrant> Thanks.
[22:32] <cjwatson> But it might be worth watching out for cases where builders appear to have been reset rather than rebuilt