| cjwatson | Yeah, I don't think the list on the repo is that useful. | 00:01 |
|---|---|---|
| wgrant | (the repo -> bug link already exists if you go through the commit history, anyway) | 00:01 |
| cjwatson | And for refs, it can be linkified from recent commit messages. | 00:01 |
| cjwatson | Usually. | 00:01 |
| cjwatson | Once we have a convention I imagine we could even hack our cgit to support it. | 00:01 |
| wgrant | Right, exactly. | 00:02 |
| cjwatson | Were we just going to apply the LP: regex for changelogs? | 00:02 |
| wgrant | So I guess we grow a BugGitRepository which is unique (commit_sha1, bug) | 00:02 |
| wgrant | I hadn't really thought about that yet. | 00:03 |
| wgrant | My main goal was to get it possible to have Git MPs with bugs, which is the main blocker for us. | 00:03 |
| wgrant | Whether manually linked or otherwise. | 00:03 |
| cjwatson | I wonder what tarmac would do with this. | 00:03 |
| wgrant | The MP bug harvesting is then actually separate from BugGitRepository. | 00:03 |
| wgrant | What do you mean? | 00:03 |
| cjwatson | It currently expects to be able to do ... oh, it's actually fetching the bug list from bzrlib directly | 00:04 |
| wgrant | Because the MP should grab any bugs referenced from commits that it involves, rather than looking at BugGitRepository at all. | 00:04 |
| wgrant | Oh, is it? | 00:04 |
| cjwatson | rev = self.bzr_branch.repository.get_revision(rev_info[0]) | 00:04 |
| cjwatson | for bug in rev.iter_bugs(): | 00:04 |
| wgrant | Huh, I didn't expect that. | 00:04 |
| cjwatson | An exotic approach. | 00:04 |
| wgrant | I guess that makes sense given the LP list isn't always reliable. | 00:05 |
| cjwatson | Maybe they didn't trust LP, indeed. | 00:05 |
| wgrant | But I do occasionally forget to --fixes and link manually on LP, which would break in that world. | 00:05 |
| cjwatson | Anyway, if a sensible thing were exposed on BMP's API, that would be better. | 00:06 |
| wgrant | Perhaps that is fine, though. | 00:06 |
| cjwatson | Which is easier than coming up with a sensible thing for a branch. | 00:06 |
| cjwatson | Since there's an implied stop point. | 00:06 |
| wgrant | I'm weighing up whether to continue to allow manual linking at all. | 00:06 |
| wgrant | For MPs, at least. | 00:06 |
| wgrant | But that would mean we'd need automatic linking before this would be useful at all. | 00:07 |
| wgrant | Which means bikeshedding the commit message format. | 00:07 |
| cjwatson | Yeah, I assumed we'd bikeshedded this eight years ago and would just use that :) | 00:07 |
| cjwatson | Or at least have it as a valid option, so that package repositories can be sensible. | 00:08 |
| cjwatson | Anyway, I must sleep, happy to debate further in the morning. | 00:08 |
| wgrant | If by sensible you mean wrong, then indeed :) | 00:08 |
| wgrant | Well, I guess if we don't autoclose then it's OK. | 00:09 |
| wgrant | If it preserves current LP behaviour then it'd be fine. | 00:09 |
| wgrant | But GitHub instacloses on merge. | 00:09 |
| wgrant | Night. | 00:09 |
| cjwatson | Yeah, I meant reference not autoclose | 00:10 |
| wgrant | cjwatson: Oh, IPersonRoles really doesn't enjoy being given None. Will fix. | 00:31 |
| cjwatson | wgrant: Bah. Thanks. | 11:18 |
| cjwatson | I didn't run the full bugs test suite after that. :-( | 11:19 |
| wgrant | Quis testfix ipsos testfix, etc. | 11:30 |
| cjwatson | rpadovani: Will you be able to do QA on your change? That is, trying things out on qastaging and making sure they behave sensibly | 16:30 |
| rpadovani | cjwatson, sure thing, I start right now :-) | 19:12 |
| rpadovani | cjwatson, so, I tested it here: https://bugs.qastaging.launchpad.net/launchpad/+bug/1391394 with my account and a private browser session, and works as expected. What's next? Should I create screenshots? | 19:26 |
| mup | Bug #1391394: Unable to unhide my comment <comments> <confusing-ui> <hide> <qa-needstesting> <trivial> <ui> <unhide> <Launchpad itself:Fix Committed by rpadovani> <https://launchpad.net/bugs/1391394> | 19:26 |
| mapreri | remove qa-needstesting and putting qa-ok, i'd say (/me's just trying a guess) | 19:33 |
| cjwatson | rpadovani: that should be fine, so you can do as mapreri says. https://dev.launchpad.net/PolicyAndProcess/QAProcess?highlight=%28qa-ok%29 | 19:49 |
| cjwatson | rpadovani: no need for screenshots | 19:49 |
| rpadovani | ... I need to read more the wiki | 19:51 |
| rpadovani | ty | 19:51 |
| mapreri | "qa-rcfixed: when a bug is fixed in RC mode." cjwatson ? | 19:52 |
| mapreri | the only meaning i'm aware of RC is "Release Critical", guess this is different? ;) | 19:52 |
| mapreri | (or release candidate) | 19:53 |
| cjwatson | that may be obsolete, it predates me | 19:58 |
| mapreri | nice | 20:49 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!