[00:01] <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.
[00:02] <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)
[00:03] <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?
[00:04] <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.
[00:05] <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.
[00:06] <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.
[00:07] <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 :)
[00:08] <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 :)
[00:09] <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.
[00:10] <cjwatson> Yeah, I meant reference not autoclose
[00:31] <wgrant> cjwatson: Oh, IPersonRoles really doesn't enjoy being given None. Will fix.
[11:18] <cjwatson> wgrant: Bah.  Thanks.
[11:19] <cjwatson> I didn't run the full bugs test suite after that. :-(
[11:30] <wgrant> Quis testfix ipsos testfix, etc.
[16:30] <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
[19:12] <rpadovani> cjwatson, sure thing, I start right now :-)
[19:26] <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>
[19:33] <mapreri> remove qa-needstesting and putting qa-ok, i'd say  (/me's just trying a guess)
[19:49] <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
[19:51] <rpadovani> ... I need to read more the wiki
[19:51] <rpadovani> ty
[19:52] <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? ;)
[19:53] <mapreri> (or release candidate)
[19:58] <cjwatson> that may be obsolete, it predates me
[20:49] <mapreri> nice