[09:48] <cjwatson> wgrant: I'm looking into the reported (non-timeout) bug unsubscribe oops.
[09:48] <cjwatson> Unless you are already.
[09:50] <wgrant> cjwatson: Fixed on DF already.
[09:50] <wgrant> Just writing tests for the untested cod
[09:50] <wgrant> e
[09:50] <cjwatson> Heh, OK.
[09:59] <cjwatson> wgrant: Did you have any thoughts on http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2015/04/29/%23launchpad-dev.html#t16:48 ?
[10:01] <wgrant>  "Default" is ew, the rest makes some sense.
[10:02] <cjwatson> Mm, maybe I can just drop that and the singular is enough.
[10:03] <wgrant> In an ideal world that would be where the repository selector was, I think.
[10:03] <wgrant> But "default" should definitely not be the first word on the page!
[10:03] <cjwatson> repository selector> how do you mean?
[10:04] <wgrant> Well, we need some way to see the other repositories, probably near the top of the page.
[10:04] <cjwatson> Right.
[10:04] <wgrant> Maybe even above the "You can browse the source code"
[10:04] <cjwatson> Maybe just "Git branches".  It's "branches associated with the default Git repository", but "Git repository branches" just sounds like we're confused.
[10:04] <wgrant> That would make it clear which repo is selected.
[10:04] <wgrant> Yeah, "Git branches" makes sense-ish.
[10:06] <cjwatson> The page is annoyingly spread out over product-branches.pt and product-branch-summary.pt right now, which makes it awkward.
[10:26] <wgrant> dammit nvidia
[10:27] <wgrant> number_of_duplicates
[10:27] <wgrant>     1156
[10:27] <wgrant> other_users_affected_count_with_dupes
[10:27] <wgrant>     2865
[22:14] <wgrant> cjwatson: https://code.launchpad.net/~wgrant/launchpad/git-fixes/+merge/257977
[22:18] <cjwatson> wgrant: r=me
[22:18] <wgrant> cjwatson: Thanks.
[22:18] <cjwatson> I think we can NDT without that, though - I was going to sort that out after this call
[22:18] <cjwatson> if that's OK
[22:19] <cjwatson> since at least ASCII-only MPs work
[22:20] <wgrant> yep
[22:20] <wgrant> sounds good to me
[22:43] <cjwatson> wgrant: LPSed/RTed; feel free to amend both if your rev is ready before webops take that
[22:45] <cjwatson> https://code.qastaging.launchpad.net/~cjwatson/grub/+git/qas/+ref/fstest-test/+merge/254312 was the ASCII-only case I mentioned, BTW
[22:46] <wgrant> Yep, saw it in the OOPS.
[22:46] <wgrant> I poked around locally and found all the obvious crashers and fixed them.
[22:46] <cjwatson> Yep.  Thanks for that.
[22:47] <cjwatson> I think anything further from our side is gravy at this point.
[22:48] <cjwatson> Is there anybody at the sprint who might be able to help chase down the nova scheduling thing tomorrow?
[22:49] <wgrant> If it's not solved overnight, I will harrass someone.
[22:50] <wgrant> I'm talking to designy people tomorrow morning, will try to get something useful out of them. But I think we just need something like your screenshot, target/owner repo listings...
[22:50] <wgrant> And GitRef:+activereviews would be nice and might be easy.
[22:50] <wgrant> All of which are quick to do something roughly as dirty as the bzr equivalent.
[22:51] <cjwatson> Yeah, there's a huge pile of misc views to clean up.
[22:51] <cjwatson> Layouts of the worst cases of combining git and bzr listings that also show a useful set of information about git branches would be good.
[22:52] <cjwatson> In some ways I'd like to ram them all into a single table.
[22:53] <cjwatson> Partly because multiple similar-content tables on a single page look bad because their column widths don't match.
[22:53] <cjwatson> I haven't touched the package views yet.
[22:53] <wgrant> The only place we really need to show both simultaneously is on Person:+branches
[22:54] <wgrant> Since a target (or an owner-target) has a primary VCS defined.
[22:54] <cjwatson> The project and package views could get away with having a mode switch, indeed.
[22:54] <cjwatson> Once we model such a thing.
[22:55] <wgrant> Person:+branches already has a relationship filter.
[22:55] <wgrant> (it was several separate pages a few months ago, but it's all one now)
[22:57] <cjwatson> I'd been focusing on the target partly because I'd like to have a rule that the target page for a target with a default repository always shows at least something about the default repository, so that we can switch the canonical URL over to shortened_path rather than unique_name
[22:57] <cjwatson> since I really don't like the canonical URL for default project repositories being /~owner/project/+git/project
[22:57] <wgrant> Yeah, definitely. And that's the only bit that really requires thought.
[22:58] <wgrant> The others are, well, tables.
[22:58] <cjwatson> so I think that even if we have a mode switch we always need to show *something* about the non-default mode
[22:58] <cjwatson> (if there's any content for it)
[22:58] <wgrant> yep
[22:58] <cjwatson> we could certainly have a radically different summary, though
[22:59] <cjwatson> very hard to get the summary right without a mode switch - I tried, it's a mess as you saw
[22:59] <cjwatson> "you can clone a git repository!  oh and by the way you can push a bzr branch!"
[22:59] <wgrant> Mhm.
[23:01] <cjwatson> but perhaps I could go and try Person:+branches for a while, because that involves a lot of the same kind of infrastructure but has a fairly minimal summary
[23:01] <cjwatson> and, I think, should probably just show repositories rather than refs
[23:01] <cjwatson> maybe?
[23:02] <cjwatson> although "last commit" is meaningless for repositories, so perhaps that's wrong
[23:03] <cjwatson> perhaps repositories should have an expander for branches
[23:03] <cjwatson> worth asking design if they have any thoughts there
[23:04] <wgrant> I don't really know. I like seeing all the recent work, but it might get drowned out by eg. a push --mirror
[23:04] <cjwatson> Yeah.  And status is meaningless for repositories *and* refs, too.
[23:05] <cjwatson> (To the extent that it's meaningful for branches ...)
[23:05] <wgrant> I would not complain if the status column accidentally went missing tomorrow.
[23:05] <wgrant> mm
[23:05] <wgrant> I guess Merged is useful
[23:05] <wgrant> But meh
[23:06] <cjwatson> In the default view, which excludes it :-)
[23:06] <wgrant> yep
[23:07] <cjwatson> If we're using committer_date (which we do right now in ref listings), then push --mirror is less of a problem
[23:07] <cjwatson> One of my branches in progress fixes ref listings to sort by descending committer_date
[23:07] <cjwatson> Which makes them a lot more sensible
[23:07] <wgrant> blr: Do you want to experiment with these couple of views and see if you can get something vaguely sensible?
[23:08] <cjwatson> http://paste.ubuntu.com/10956927/ is what I have today, if you want to crib anything from that
[23:08] <blr> wgrant: sure - thanks cjwatson
[23:09] <cjwatson> (also I have http://paste.ubuntu.com/10956930/ lying around from an older branch that tried to do more with targets, but I suspect more of that branch is crap)
[23:09] <wgrant> I'll work with designy people tomorrow, but it'll be a while before we have anything useful, and we just need something vaguely adequate for tomorrow.
[23:09] <blr> cjwatson: will move push-instructions to a partial, it is used in two places
[23:10] <blr> and add the git specific copy we discussed last night
[23:10] <cjwatson> The fixed sorting is the top bit of the patch to lib/lp/code/browser/gitrepository.py, and we likely want that regardless
[23:10] <cjwatson> (from the first paste)
[23:11] <cjwatson> I'm inclined to say that we may want to drift away from trying to have a single view for Person again
[23:12] <wgrant> Yeah
[23:12] <cjwatson> Person:+branches is recent work, but there could also be a view that lists all your repositories
[23:12] <cjwatson> Then Person:+branches can just mix in refs with the committer date as "last modified"
[23:12] <wgrant> A push --mirror with a billion branches seems not hugely likely.
[23:12] <wgrant> Can always be adjusted if it doesn't work out.
[23:12] <cjwatson> right, but even if somebody does that, a lot of those branches are going to be old
[23:12] <wgrant> Yep
[23:13] <cjwatson> in terms of committer date
[23:13] <wgrant> So Person:+branches intersperses branches and refs.
[23:13] <cjwatson> we miiiight have a perf problem, but I don't think it's a fundamental UI problem if you end up with a bazillion branches off in batch 87
[23:13] <wgrant> Product:+branches shows one or the other, and additionally the default git repo if git is selected, plus a VCS switcher.
[23:14] <wgrant> I don't see a perf problem here, though it will be awkward to implement.
[23:14] <cjwatson> GitCollection lalala
[23:14] <wgrant> It may be better to have a VCS switcher for Person:+branches in the first iteration.
[23:14] <wgrant> No fundamental perf problem, then :)
[23:14] <cjwatson> like another dropdown?
[23:14] <wgrant> It's a simple matter of code.
[23:14] <wgrant> Could be, yeah.
[23:15] <cjwatson> Or just Person:+repositories, if it's going to have totally different semantics anyway
[23:15] <wgrant> We can't currently dynamically change the default view for a particular object.
[23:15] <wgrant> Only an interface.
[23:16] <wgrant> But I guess having it as a secondary page for the first iteration is OK.
[23:16] <cjwatson> right, but we could have another slot in PersonBranchesMenu
[23:16] <cjwatson> which already has "Branches", "Active reviews", "Source package recipes"
[23:16] <cjwatson> the only concern would be whether we're painting ourselves into a corner, but redirects are a thing ...
[23:17] <wgrant> Right, it works short term.
[23:18] <wgrant> Anyway, I need to sleep.
[23:18] <cjwatson> I'm not convinced we can fix the canonical URL of target default repos by tomorrow, but even making it possible to find them via a Person view would be a small step up
[23:18] <cjwatson> yeah, me too
[23:19] <wgrant> blr: Experiment with what you can today, and Colin and I can hopefully bikeshed over whatever you have into something releasable in our morning.
[23:19] <cjwatson> (conceivably, Person:+repositories could list all the projects you've worked on in code terms, whether that be bzr or git - take advantage of the bzr repository metaphor even if it isn't precisely identical
[23:19] <cjwatson> )
[23:19] <wgrant> True
[23:20] <cjwatson> that sort of thing might help address people's issues with code
[23:22] <cjwatson> and after all e.g. https://code.launchpad.net/~cjwatson/launchpad is a thing, so we *sort of* have that notion already