FourDollars | pappacena: Could you help to check https://answers.launchpad.net/launchpad/+question/691890? | 02:57 |
---|---|---|
=== pieq_ is now known as pieq | ||
cjwatson | pappacena: ^- taking that BTW - pretty sure it's a problem with my initial implementation of git MPs | 11:38 |
pappacena | I'll take a look on what is going on there today to confirm the bug and check if it's an easy fix for the next release. | 13:34 |
cjwatson | pappacena: I have a chunk of it already TBH, but up to you | 13:54 |
pappacena | As you prefer. If you are busy with something else, I can take that. Otherwise, it's ok if you do it. I'm checking the git merge between personal repos now. | 14:08 |
cjwatson | pappacena: How about I finish the initial refactoring I was doing to make the tests easier, and then hand over | 14:10 |
pappacena | cjwatson: perfect for me! | 14:10 |
cjwatson | pappacena: https://code.launchpad.net/~cjwatson/launchpad/+git/launchpad/+merge/387752 - then after that, I think what's going on is that I bailed out too soon in the git case from BranchMergeProposal._ensureAssociatedBranchesVisibleToReviewer | 14:14 |
cjwatson | pappacena: The stacked branch stuff doesn't make sense for git, but the first bit of _subscribeUserToStackedBranch subscribes the user to the branch itself before it starts looking at stacked branches | 14:15 |
cjwatson | pappacena: I suspect that adding a git scenario to TestBranchMergeProposalNominateReviewer will expose this (which is why I started by porting those tests to testscenarios, so that doing that would be less annoying) | 14:15 |
cjwatson | pappacena: But I haven't actually tested that theory yet, so this is definitely one to tackle in full TDD style | 14:16 |
cjwatson | pappacena: Does that roughly make sense? | 14:17 |
pappacena | It does. Thanks for the refactoring and investigation. I'll review more in depth your MP, and work on that after. | 14:17 |
cjwatson | Great, thanks | 14:19 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!