[04:59] blr: How's it looking? === Spads_ is now known as Spads [10:00] cjwatson: Did you work out your team mail stuff? [10:09] wgrant: No serious blockers but I got distracted by landing all the things yesterday. [10:22] Hm. I just found RecipeBuildBehaviour._extraBuildArgs and config.builddmaster.bzr_builder_sources_list. I wonder if I should replace my tools_archive stuff with that? [10:22] Oh, I thought that had been removed. [10:22] Oops. [10:22] We haven't used it in years. [10:23] tools_archive is in one way a bit more elegant, but it doesn't support specifying a different series, nor does it support specifying a sources.list somewhere that isn't the same LP instance. [10:23] I assumed it had been removed ages ago and hadn't even looked; I only ran across it by accident [10:26] I'm inclined to push the bzr_builder_sources_list stuff down to get_sources_list_for_building and remove tools_archive. It's basically the same as the deprecated OEM external dependencies stuff. [10:27] Except per-build-behaviour rather than per-archive. [10:27] Right, sounds reasonable to me. [10:27] Sorry, I hadn't realised it was still around. [10:27] NP [10:28] RecipeBuildBehaviour puts it after the primary archive in sources.list, but I think just before (as tools_archive) is conceptually slightly better. [10:28] Agreed. [10:29] Little difference in practice unless the same version ends up in the primary archive. [10:30] One day I am going to hack Zope to allow deep views. [10:30] +webhooks, +webhook/foo, +new-webhook [10:30] Madness [10:57] wgrant: Your celery tests seem very unreliable in buildbot ... [10:58] cjwatson: Yes, I've relaxed the two unreliable ones in my latest branch. [10:58] buildbot really can be very slow at running code :( [11:35] wgrant: Were you thinking that I should have a straight-through test that there's failure-counting if the snap source has been deleted, or is it enough to trust the general scan/scanFailed behaviour of builddmaster and check for the AssertionError on dispatch? [11:36] cjwatson: I think the latter is fine. [11:36] buildd-manager tests are awkward, and that behaviour is already reasonably well tested. [11:38] Good, that's what I thought/hoped. [11:38] I'm not that cruel. [11:41] Oh, fixing this will imply making branch/repository deletion hook into snaps, though. Which was on my to-do, just a bit further down. [11:41] I guess it's not hard. [11:42] Ah, fair. [11:42] It's not a blocker for landing the branch. [11:42] But I'd quite like to have some assertion that the behaviour is sane so when we rework something in three years we don't burn alphecca down. [11:48] I think I'll just propose a separate branch first to fix deletion. Easier that way round than some kind of weird assertion about what happens if a reference points into the void ... [11:49] Yep === Guest47499 is now known as anthonyf === anthonyf is now known as Guest410 === Guest410 is now known as anthonyf === anthonyf is now known as Guest26675