[01:05] wgrant: sure [12:05] cjwatson: So that branch isn't terrifying at all. [12:16] * cjwatson attempts to apply sarcasm detector to wgrant [12:17] cjwatson: Surely that always returns true. [12:17] No it doesn't. [12:18] wgrant: Liar. [12:19] I don't know why I'd be terrified of a branch that changes the behaviour of lots of scripts that haven't been touched since I refactored this four years ago :) [12:19] I've done a lot of grepping trying to think of patterns that might be problematic; direct use of test_emails, catching SMTPExceptions, aborted transactions, that kind of thing [12:19] Yeah [12:19] We'll need to do a lot of weird QA. [12:19] But it's manageable. [12:20] Can you think of any other patterns I might have missed? [12:20] I don't think so. [12:20] The only other big risk I see is that some things might somehow break the email commit hook. [12:21] Or not commit at all. [12:21] Well, if they don't commit at all then the operation being notified about doesn't happen either. Unless they commit before sending mail [12:21] Right, but errors might do that. [12:22] Some errors abort because they don't LBYL [12:22] but others will. [12:22] I'm definitely spooked by the oops/error handling in jobs, I don't really understand that yet [12:23] (which is why I applied the context manager to those for now)