[01:29] <blr> you would think repo.lookup_reference('non-existent-ref') could return None...
[01:37] <wgrant> There are valid arguments to both approaches.
[01:37] <wgrant> But I tend to prefer returning None, indeed.
[04:32] <blr> wgrant: would you mind having a look at the awful test test_repo_repack_verify_commits_to_pack in https://code.launchpad.net/~blr/turnip/repack-api/+merge/257312
[04:32] <blr> it passes, but with 'fatal: fgets: Input/output error' which is probably a little less than ideal.
[04:55] <blr> wgrant: oops nvm, that.
[04:56] <blr> wgrant: but wouldn't mind a quick check over the branch again before I merge it (including that test).
[05:20] <wgrant> blr: Hrm, there wasn't a simpler way?
[05:24] <wgrant> blr: I'd like to see actual assertions on the numbers of packs, since currently you have a loop over what is presumably one pack.
[05:34] <blr> wgrant: there are two packs (after pack-objects is called), confirmed if you break and have a look in the repo
[05:34] <blr> I could certainly add an assertion though
[05:35] <wgrant> blr: Yep, just some assertions to that effect would be nice, in case pygit2 decides to become better.
[05:35] <wgrant> Don't want it making the test unbreakable.
[05:35] <blr> it would be nice to have some of this in pygit2
[07:19] <blr> wgrant: added a test helper prop @packs and the 2 pack assertion which has cleaned up the test a bit if you want to have a quick look again.
[07:29] <wgrant> blr: The "for filename in factory.packs" bit is still weird, because it only uses the last pack that it loops over.
[07:29] <wgrant> It overwrites the local on every iteration.
[07:45] <blr> ah yes, true
[07:46] <blr> wgrant: added another assertion that there is 1 pack and just used the first element
[07:46] <blr> that makes more sense :)
[07:47] <blr> thanks
[07:47] <wgrant> Great.
[07:47] <wgrant> The test makes sense now!
[07:47] <blr> yay for sense
[12:19] <cjwatson> wgrant: Mind having a quick look over my updates to https://code.launchpad.net/~cjwatson/launchpad/git-mp-move-outside-ref/+merge/260105 ?
[12:20] <cjwatson> And I'm testfixing.
[12:20] <wgrant> cjwatson: Amazing.
[12:20] <wgrant> Oh, of course, it's keyed on source rather than target branch, so it would never have become a totally huge list.
[12:20] <cjwatson> Yeah.
[12:21] <cjwatson> Still.
[17:18] <mgz> hey there, bzr private branches seem to be broken?
[17:19] <mgz> smart server says TypeError _makeBranchTransport() got an unexpected keyword argument 'private'
[17:19] <mgz> er... all bzr branches in fact it seems
[17:20] <mgz> cjwatson: ^if you're still working
[17:31] <mgz> I filed bug 1458948
[17:31] <mup> Bug #1458948: bzr smart server operations fail with TypeError <Launchpad itself:New> <https://launchpad.net/bugs/1458948>
[17:32] <xnox> the world broke.....
[17:32] <xnox> bzr: ERROR: Server sent an unexpected error: ('error', 'TypeError', "_makeBranchTransport() got an unexpected keyword argument 'private'")
[17:32] <xnox> and i'm not pushing to private branch....
[17:32] <Laney> bug 1458948
[17:32] <mup> Bug #1458948: bzr smart server operations fail with TypeError <Launchpad itself:New> <https://launchpad.net/bugs/1458948>
[17:33] <xnox> Laney: i bet code needs to be pushed to deploy the fix for broken pushes right.....
[17:38] <Laney> could be https://bazaar.launchpad.net/~launchpad-pqm/launchpad/devel/revision/17526
[17:39] <Laney> ...which is now 503ing