[02:57] <FourDollars> pappacena: Could you help to check https://answers.launchpad.net/launchpad/+question/691890?
=== pieq_ is now known as pieq
[11:38] <cjwatson> pappacena: ^- taking that BTW - pretty sure it's a problem with my initial implementation of git MPs
[13:34] <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.
[13:54] <cjwatson> pappacena: I have a chunk of it already TBH, but up to you
[14:08] <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.
[14:10] <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!
[14:14] <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
[14:15] <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)
[14:16] <cjwatson> pappacena: But I haven't actually tested that theory yet, so this is definitely one to tackle in full TDD style
[14:17] <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.
[14:19] <cjwatson> Great, thanks