On 03/13/2013 09:37 PM, Curtis Hovey wrote:
All Hail William and Steve for bringing Lp to its lowest number of
oopses and timeouts in 6 years.
I never thought I'd see the day. Thanks, guys, and congratuliations!
Jeroen
___
Mailing list:
On 2012-08-02 00:12, Matthew Revell wrote:
* The existence of a project could be leaked by its name appearing as
the source of a translation string, perhaps.
It wouldn't even need to! If your project had the same translatable
string in it as secret project X, then translations from
On 2012-06-04 20:17, Francis J. Lacoste wrote:
On 12-06-01 06:16 PM, Stuart Bishop wrote:
I think there is a Storm bug, although others disagree. I'm not sure
why a socket going tits up is different from any other sort of
disconnection. At the moment, I think when the TCP connection fails
On 2012-03-20 08:02, Francis J. Lacoste wrote:
My guess is that they are used to work-around some constraints check.
I say if you remove them and the tests pass, leave them out :-)
We've used block_implicit_flushes on several discrete occasions, for
several reasons. According to my email
On 2011-12-20 12:36, Martin Pool wrote:
One downside of componentization is that it introduces a stall or
debate about where things ought to go. Robert suggested three places.
None of them is a perfect fit: they either do not know about bson
(oops) or they are specific to much more than bson
Hi folks,
Several db-devel branches are ready for deployment. We'd better catch
up before everyone's away for holidays!
Stuart, any chance you could request the appropriate rollouts for these?
Besides being on vacation and having some offline places to go to, I'm
not sure I'd get the
On 2011-12-13 18:22, Stuart Bishop wrote:
clicking on it in Gnome terminal). I'm also tempted to say case
insensitive or lowercase only.
Say lowercase only and I'll support you; say case insensitive and
I'll throw bricks at you.
Jeroen
___
On 2011-12-01 05:54, Francis J. Lacoste wrote:
'feature' could be it, but we use it to indicate bugs that are really
feature request.
new-code?
feature-fail?
Jeroen
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev
Post to :
On 2011-11-30 21:03, Matthew Revell wrote:
Would anyone mind if I stuck some kind of “join us on IRC, we're here to
help!” somewhere near the top of the help.launchpad.net page?
Not at all; great idea.
Done. Please have a look correct anything you need to.
(And to reinforce my reminder,
On 2011-12-01 13:17, Micah Gersten wrote:
What about feature-regression or regression-feature?
I think feature-regression is very good.
Jeroen
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev
Post to : launchpad-dev@lists.launchpad.net
Hi all,
I just talked to another user who was stuck with a problem in Launchpad
and had given up on a feature. As so often, all it takes is someone to
talk to!
Two things I'd like to do about that:
1. A small documentation tweak.
2. A reminder.
The tweak
-
Would anyone mind if
On 2011-11-11 13:25, Huw Wilkins wrote:
Hi everyone,
Hi Huw, and thanks for taking this on!
It all looks very clear and sensible to me (and I believe you already
noted in different words that no battle plan survives first contact with
the enemy). It leaves me with only one question.
What
On 2011-10-27 16:32, Julian Edwards wrote:
The things we discussed on the call were fairly simple:
* Keep all strings as unicode internally (with the exception of plain ASCII
strings which are easily coerced to unicode automatically)
* Convert to/from unicode only when necessary (e.g. utf8
On 2011-10-17 21:07, Francis J. Lacoste wrote:
This is an affirmation that I've seen mentioned a couple of time
recently, but I cannot assert his truth value. In my understanding, this
is still a myth. Launchpad users always have a preferred email address.
Teams might not have one, as person
On 2011-10-13 15:06, Robert Collins wrote:
Curtis script expunges dangling team join requests; expiring them
would involve notifications ('sorry your request was not replied to'),
and that would be bogus if e.g. the person had been deleted (or
alternatively merged into someone in the team).
On 2011-10-14 19:48, Matthew Revell wrote:
So, as for adding expiry to team memberships: our feature work is
unlikely to give us an excuse to add such a feature any time soon and
it's not a critical issue for a maintenance squad to tackle. If
someone were able to add this expiry outside of
Due to a problem with the person-merging code, it seems we have some
team membership records that can't be removed.
Here's a particularly annoying case where membership requests can't be
approved or denied: https://answers.launchpad.net/launchpad/+question/173909
As things stand, these
On 2011-10-12 17:07, Jeroen Vermeulen wrote:
And I wonder: if a team membership request has not been approved in a
year, say, doesn't that amount to a denial of the request? Shouldn't we
treat it as one?
The user who is running into the problem followed up with a noteworthy
comment:
«I
On 2011-10-12 18:16, Nigel Babu wrote:
I think it would be a nice idea to have team admins be able to set a
certain number of days or months after which an application is either
automatically rejected or expired (like we do for bugs). This makes
things cleaner and more flexible for all teams
On 2011-10-13 02:53, Robert Collins wrote:
On the 'should we expire' side - We have a guiding principle that
Launchpad is the custodian of peoples data, not the owner. A mandatory
fixed expiry date seems (to me) to be in tension with that. As Nigel
says though, a configurable setting might be
On 2011-10-13 03:14, curtis Hovey wrote:
A similar fix was made for answer contacts a few months ago. The fix is
almost identical to the script I have used to fix vestigial data. I am
attaching my script
This looks suspiciously like a complete solution to the problem of the
broken membership
On 2011-10-13 11:17, Martin Pool wrote:
I wish there was a 'reason' field on team membership requests because
a large fraction of them seem to be mysterious, from people with no
previous involvement or contact with the project, who perhaps are
confused about why they're clicking it.
My
Is anyone else getting strange failures when running tests involving the
Librarian on Oneiric?
The librarian output I get from these tests includes:
* Successful startup notice.
* What looks like a few kB¹ of null bytes (visible in less, not in
the shell).
* Uncaught exception in
On 2011-09-30 21:22, curtis Hovey wrote:
That is indeed what I see and it is repeatable for a set of tests, if
you change the set, the failing tests are different. It seem that even
tests that use the librarian (2, 4, ..) always fail.
Also interesting is that in the course of a test run, the
On 2011-09-27 21:13, Abel Deuring wrote:
yes, this is the core of what StormRangeFactory is intended to improve:
Get rid of the need to count larger result sets for OFFSET and SELECT
count(*). (The latter is replaced by an estimation. It might make sense
to change the text 15-20 of 234 results
On 2011-09-21 05:23, Robert Collins wrote:
https://code.launchpad.net/~adeuring/launchpad/bug-739052-9/+merge/76241
That is all.
What does this mean? What does the better refer to? I read the MP
and the relevant change seems to be that you replaced ListRangeFactory
with StormRangeFactory.
On 2011-09-21 15:25, Robert Collins wrote:
Not me - Abel. He has been slaving hard over the last few weeks to
bring together StormRangeFactory - so that batches can use value range
contraints rather than offsets, which postgresql can often answer much
more efficiently.
I've written about this
On 2011-09-20 12:02, Robert Collins wrote:
I think the key difference isn't that its more data, its that its
-workflow- - the process by which things enter the system, move
through it, and get reported on and massaged - which needs to change.
Absolutely. The reason why I brought up this
On 2011-09-20 18:04, Stuart Bishop wrote:
This ties into our 256+ critical bugs too. I'd really like to see our
high bugs downgraded to medium and our critical bugs downgraded to
high. This way we can use critical for the stuff that genuinely has to
be fixed right now possibly late at night and
On 2011-09-20 20:22, Stuart Bishop wrote:
There was a formula from an agile seminar I can never remember where
you take the average time to fix bugs, rate of incoming bugs and end
up with a timeframe. Any bugs hanging around longer than this
timeframe are WONTFIX by definition, because the
On 2011-09-19 03:13, Robert Collins wrote:
You may be interested in Kirit Sælensminde's work on bug classification,
which I summarize (not too well, probably) here:
http://pqxx.org/development/libpqxx/wiki/AllSoftwareIsBroken
I've seen that before I think, perhaps you mentioned it on IRC? I
On 2011-09-15 18:37, Barry Warsaw wrote:
Sorry, the main thing I was asking for confirmation of was whether Launchpad
is actually known to work with Python 2.7 and/or Oneiric. Are any developers
using this combination on their dev machines?
I work on Oneiric; default python is 2.7 so I
Devel and db-devel just broke again in buildbot. The PGBouncerFixture
seems to be the culprit.
Bug here: https://bugs.launchpad.net/launchpad/+bug/846236
Jeroen
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev
Post to :
On 2011-09-06 16:00, Julian Edwards wrote:
Ian's recent review of Henning's JavaScript branch shows that Ian has
grown from a shy, good-natured, if-that's-alright-with-you commenter to
a vicious shark who will go as deep as it takes to find out what's wrong
with your branch. And that's how I
Anyone else seen this? The Rabbit layer won't fire up for me on
Oneiric. It times out while waiting to talk to Rabbit:
http://paste.ubuntu.com/682456/
The rabbit logs do seem to suggest that things are running, and I have
half a dozen rabbit processes open.
To my regret I don't have
Another problem on Oneiric that stops tests from running. I'm posting
it here in hopes that someone can make sense of it.
Storm breaks with a failure to access file $libdir/debversion: no such
file or directory.
http://paste.ubuntu.com/682459/
My best guess is that this might be caused
On 2011-09-05 17:22, William Grant wrote:
As it happens, I solved this today too. Apply
http://paste.ubuntu.com/682469/ to the rabbitfixture egg. Tested on
Lucid/Oneiric, and hopefully works on everything in between. I may merge
a less terrible solution to trunk eventually.
No change. :(
We no longer have a team structure or regular meetings to pass this
through, nor any standing procedures that I can find, so I'm winging
this. If I'm skipping a step: too bad, we'll patch it up later but the
decision stands.
As Ian wallyworld Booth's review mentor, I'm satisfied that he
On 2011-08-26 10:25, Robert Collins wrote:
Users seek help: need something like 'answers'.
Some of these requests for assistance uncover symptoms of a problem in
the software (e.g. a crash, or user confusion from the UI). Call this
a problem statement.
A single *bug* could link or
On 2011-08-16 23:51, Stuart Bishop wrote:
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 10:19 PM, Gary Postergary.pos...@canonical.com wrote:
On Aug 16, 2011, at 11:13 AM, Jonathan Lange wrote:
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 3:46 PM, Jeroen Vermeulenj...@canonical.com wrote:
That said, ZCA probably ought to do a
Since my last thread of this kind led to such great news, I'm just going
to keep doing it.
Wouldn't it be great if our test suite automatically ran each of our
utility interfaces through:
self.assertProvides(
getUtility(ISomethingSource), ISomethingSource)
It's a pain to have to
Just throwing an idea out there for our maintenance squad(s), or whoever
might be interested:
When a test assertion fails, wouldn't it be great if the traceback could
stop at the failed assertion? Rarely if ever am I interested in the
call stack inside TestCase.assertEqual, a matcher, etc.
On 2011-06-14 11:13, Robert Collins wrote:
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 8:51 PM, Julian Edwards
julian.edwa...@canonical.com wrote:
Can you expand on the value you get? What does it do for you / us to
be told about whitespace and indentation variation?
If I may just butt in here, are we all
On 2011-07-16 23:20, Robert Collins wrote:
On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 10:56 PM, Jeroen Vermeulenj...@canonical.com wrote:
post-restore cache void, what have you. Those things don't make timing any
more reliable, just more conservative — and that means more downtime.
I agree that it makes it
On 2011-07-15 22:56, Robert Collins wrote:
We'll learn how to write incremental patches. Meeting the 15s goal on a
cold database will be hard though, since we can't easily reproduce results
or try out tweaks. It might help if we could break a slave out of
replication to time a DB patch
On 2011-07-15 00:27, Robert Collins wrote:
As prep for https://dev.launchpad.net/LEP/FastDowntime the db schema
I appreciate that between now and the deployment side of this going
live we're going to be doing a little more work around each schema
patch with no immediate payoff - but it means
On 2011-06-28 12:49, Robert Collins wrote:
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 10:43 PM, John Meinelj...@arbash-meinel.com wrote:
I personally have a pretty good feeling about what requests are slow (revno
and annotations). We could somehow clarify safe requests that could be
made to loggerhead.
On a
On 2011-06-21 19:52, Danilo Šegan wrote:
I am looking at pushing some revisions through deployment, but I don't
feel comfortable QAing your fix for bug 394645. I'd appreciate it if
you could help get that going (there are 3 revisions that seem related)
so we could move on with no-downtime
On 2011-06-14 08:50, Robert Collins wrote:
In terms of development process we would land schema changes that are
compatible with the python code on devel - just the schema change, no
python code changes at all. Then we'd do nodowntime deploys as normal
up to and past that revision; when a good
On 2011-06-14 16:18, Robert Collins wrote:
I think we'd want to constraint it like so:
- never land a schema change that requires a python code change.
- never land python code dependent on a non-deployed schema change.
- with the exception being when something is just genuinely Too Hard
Hi all,
We've had a merge proposal to make sorting of subscriber names
case-insensitive:
https://code.launchpad.net/~nigelbabu/launchpad/spec-sub-sort/+merge/63315
This harks back to a problem we've run into before: IIRC we run
Launchpad in the C locale, which sorts unpleasantly. It may
On 2011-06-03 13:17, Martin Pool wrote:
Maybe as a simple place to start there should just be a compare human
strings function that can be passed to sort(cmp=) and at least the
.lower() will not be repeated.
This sounds very attractive to me. We'd have to make this sort is for
display
On 2011-05-31 11:36, Robert Collins wrote:
We're clearly talking past each other.
Clearly! I was vague in my original email because I was thinking
solutions might go in very different directions than I was suggesting,
but after the first misunderstandings there was just no way to get back
On 2011-05-31 13:43, Robert Collins wrote:
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 6:18 PM, Jeroen Vermeulenj...@canonical.com wrote:
But most importantly I wanted to have a shared look at what we really need
here, and come up with a properly considered guideline instead of an organic
growth of rubber bands
On 2011-05-31 05:09, Robert Collins wrote:
I think having different service accounts for these things is sensible
for a couple of reasons.
One is separation of concerns: its much easier to have a tightly
scoped role than to have one mega-powerful service account. If that
account were to be
On 2011-05-31 10:51, Robert Collins wrote:
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Jeroen Vermeulenj...@canonical.com wrote:
The reality is that we already have what I'm asking for,
To the extent that we have a number of celebrities, yes.
No: to the extent that we have a specific celebrity for
On 2011-05-24 03:23, Robert Collins wrote:
I think that we have two categories of actors:
- internal actors
- actors of clients of launchpad
For the former we *might* want a single service account. *might*. I've
yet to see a convincing argument for its utility. What we usally want
IME is
Hi,
This is something I run into from time to time: some component of
Launchpad needs to do things in Launchpad that previously only humans
and teams could do. The component needs to be an owner of something, or
enter a comment in a conversation, or commit to a bzr branch etc.
What we've
On 2011-05-24 00:17, Elliot Murphy wrote:
I think the same capability (of having an account used by a non-human
to read and write to launchpad) is needed by plenty of people outside
of launchpad (anyone using Tarmac), so a single celebrity user sounds
like a solution that would not solve this
On 2011-05-24 09:53, William Grant wrote:
But Launchpad is not the only robot talking to Launchpad. It is a
general problem, and a special-case solution that works for internal
code is probably not a very good solution at all.
But robots talking to Launchpad are a different discussion that we
On 2011-05-24 00:50, Curtis Hovey wrote:
I have long wanted IPerson to have acknowledge that the actor may be a
user, a team, or a robot. We add ITeam to the object on __init__. I
would love the model to support IRobot.
That sounds useful, and it would help overcome the weirdness of ad-hoc
On 2011-05-24 10:15, William Grant wrote:
But Launchpad is not the only robot talking to Launchpad. It is a
general problem, and a special-case solution that works for internal
code is probably not a very good solution at all.
But robots talking to Launchpad are a different discussion that we
On 2011-05-11 10:13, Robert Collins wrote:
I suspect an easy migration target if folk want one would be to
migrate all the fire-and-forget jobs to trigger via rabbit (leaving
the payload in the db), by hooking a 'do it now' message into the
post-transaction actions in zope.
It's exciting
On 2011-05-08 04:10, Robert Collins wrote:
If we generate an OOPS it means that scenario wasn't tested. Thats
suboptimal at best.
Wouldn't that nudge us back towards integration-level unit testing
though? I imagine before we could open a can of worms like this we'd
need comprehensive
On 2011-05-04 08:32, Gavin Panella wrote:
One approach to improving this situation could be to forbid (with
code) the use of Reference properties that are not already cached (in
the store cache; this is nothing to do with @cachedproperty).
I'm a bit worried about the unusual cases:
On 2011-03-26 09:04, Gary Poster wrote:
2011-03-23 15:15:08 INFONotifying xxx about bug 736049.
2011-03-23 15:15:08 INFONotifying xxx about bug 736049.
...
2011-03-23 15:15:16 INFONotifying xxx about bug 733732.
Often also the notification lines in the log are several seconds or
On 2011-03-14 17:56, Gavin Panella wrote:
Although I think launchpad.js is correct, it is minified in a
different manner now. I think that a direct comparison of file
contents is not particularly feasible, though I'd be happy to be
wrong.
Don't know if it makes any sense, but have you
Hi folks,
This could be an easy big win for someone who feels like fixing a
performance problem.
One of our slowest requests is
LanguageSet:CollectionResource:#languages, an API request.
An example of the oops is here:
https://lp-oops.canonical.com/oops.py/?oopsid=1891B10
What does it
Took me a while to figure this out. If you get landings rejected by PQM
with this message…
«
merge
bzr+ssh://bazaar.launchpad.net/~jtv/launchpad/bug-623391-transactions
bzr+ssh://bazaar.launchpad.net/~launchpad-pqm/launchpad/devel
Command failed!
running 0 tests...
On 2011-02-28 05:27, Robert Collins wrote:
Thirdly, there is a new test helper I'm landing at the moment -
BrowsesWithQueryLimit. This renders the default view for a page and
checks the query count is under your supplied limit.
Thank you, bearer of good news.
This does raise a question
On 2011-02-28 13:49, Robert Collins wrote:
…do we know that in real life our request isn't naïvely fetching lots of
individual objects by id, ones that in the test are fresh in the cache?
Think cases of foo.bar.zot where the objects you reference were just
created by the test. References
On 2011-02-25 12:49, Jonathan Lange wrote:
Some time over the last week I hacked up a little extension to the
existing ./utilities/ec2 command, ec2 list.
When run, it gives you a list of all of the ec2 instances that you are
running that are testing branches of Launchpad. Something like this::
I seem to have broken ec2 land by generating a new EC2 AMI. As far as
I can tell right now, ec2 test still seems to work.
We're still trying to figure out what exactly the problem is; for now
you should be able to work around it by landing manually (after testing,
of course!) using bzr
On 2011-02-24 11:14, Jeroen Vermeulen wrote:
I seem to have broken ec2 land by generating a new EC2 AMI. As far as
I can tell right now, ec2 test still seems to work.
wgrant seems to have found and fixed the problem: a completely unrelated
change in bzr packaging that happened to get included
On 2011-02-17 13:15, Tom Haddon wrote:
Would the process be any smoother (if not immediately quicker) if you
could queue up QA requests, and then walk away and focus on something
else, rather than needing the back and forth of IRC interaction with
LOSAs? I'm wondering if it would be better to
On 2011-02-11 17:52, Julian Edwards wrote:
Since I only just started using ec2 I don't know if this is spurious or it's a
real problem.
Anyone seen/diagnosed this?
The same just happened to me. Looks like a windmill problem, because:
«The dying processes left behind the following output:
On 2011-02-04 05:28, Robert Collins wrote:
I'm wondering if folk have a particularly strong opinion (and
rationale :P) for which we should do first. They are *both* partly
implemented, and *both* are likely to have long tails leading to
niggly bits to sort out over some weeks.
Much as I'd
On 2011-01-31 06:12, Tim Penhey wrote:
My lazr-js refactoring landed today, which made me very happy.
I changed the doc test to actually be documentation, and it would make me even
happier if it was read by people:
lib/lp/app/doc/lazr-js-widgets.txt
Great stuff. Thanks for taking the
On 2011-01-11 16:54, Benji York wrote:
Version 1.9.3 of launchpadlib fixes this. Once PQM reopens I'll be
landing lp:~benji/launchpad/update-launchpadlib which simply bumps the
launchpadlib version.
Until then bumping the version locally and re-running buildout should
help.
I'm on
On 2011-01-07 17:00, Benji York wrote:
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 10:30 AM, Julian Edwards
julian.edwa...@canonical.com wrote:
The message is logged when if you don't pass a valid UI window ID that it
presumably uses for password input. Benji worked around it by creating a fake
window.
I intend
Thought that subject line would get your attention. :-)
I spend far too much of my life waiting for ZCML processing. And it
makes me wonder: is there any particular reason why
execute_zcml_for_scripts includes browser zcml?
At least that's what it looks like when I log what goes through
On 2010-12-04 00:26, Jonathan Lange wrote:
Have you tried excluding it and then running the tests?
Thanks for helping! No, I haven't tried that. How do I do it?
Jeroen
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev
Post to :
On 2010-12-04 00:44, Francis J. Lacoste wrote:
It caused very long debugging sessions in make harness when people didn't
understand why they weren't able to get at the views.
But make harness startup probably doesn't cost us as much time overall
as script startup does. Shouldn't we have a
On 2010-11-19 14:56, Martin Pool wrote:
You added dependencies on the phony target 'buildout_bin', which since
it does not exist will always cause its dependencies to be rebuilt.
Also, by adding this on the left hand side, in some places you make $@
refer to this phony target, not what it
Hi folks,
Benji and I got a little worked up yesterday over the time it takes to
do a make or make schema. We're probably not alone.
I have two pieces of good news for you, then some pie in the sky, and a
question (with more floating pie attached).
Good news #1: an optimized version of
On 2010-11-18 23:48, Jonathan Lange wrote:
AIUI, we need it for some tests, and we need it for deployment. Why
not get the tests to generate the wadl just-in-time, and have a
separate make target for things that need to be done on deployment?
Did you really just juxtapose the phrases generate
On 2010-11-15 19:13, Danilo Šegan wrote:
Translation exports
---
On requesting an export, users have no idea how long they need to wait
before they get an email with a download link.
There is no web UI for the export queue (neither for management, nor for
overview).
Note
On 2010-10-22 00:55, Robert Collins wrote:
security.cfg won't be applied, thats true, but you'll need
security.cfg to test this, and you need the code in devel to deploy
it. And we can do GRANTS live, we just can't run the entire thing.
Has that changed now, with the faster security.py?
On 2010-11-02 10:00, Ian Booth wrote:
I currently have a mp for review which moves the various launchpad log
and trace files from the root directory to a logs subdir directly off
the root directory. However, I need input from people as to what impact
this may have on production systems, namely
On 2010-11-01 04:11, Tim Penhey wrote:
It was [trivial] that we stopped working.
[r=trivial] will pass fine, but is socially unacceptable
[rs=...] is still fine AFAIK
I have a distinct, if faded, memory of a decision to abolish that one as
well. May have been for some technical reason like
On 2010-10-22 21:43, Francis J. Lacoste wrote:
On October 22, 2010, Julian Edwards wrote:
Can anyone remember why we abandoned [r=trivial] ?
We abandoned trivial because developers (and some non-regular developer) were
landing non-trivial change using that tag. Sometime to get by the
On 2010-10-26 05:52, Ian Booth wrote:
As part of the effort towards full support for running parallel tests, a
branch to remove the hard coded url port (8085) for the various test
urls (eg http://launchpad.dev:8085) has been merged. You need to be
aware of the implications of the change when
On 2010-10-20 03:00, Francis J. Lacoste wrote:
Here Robert is actually proposing an experimental framework to assess our
beliefs that allowing landing unreviewed changes is actually a bad idea.
Thanks for explaining that. While I stand by what I said (and will go
into details below) I don't
On 2010-10-20 21:26, Francis J. Lacoste wrote:
I agree that the 3 months period is probably a bad criteria. Let's change the
criteria to being a reviewer. Which usually happens after being on the job for
3 months.
Thanks, I think it'd help some.
Jeroen
On 2010-10-19 17:28, Julian Edwards wrote:
On Tuesday 19 October 2010 02:53:10 Robert Collins wrote:
What do you think?
So basically, you want to bring back [r=trivial] ?
To those who missed preceding episodes: Julian is referring to the old
days when we did allow unreviewed landings.
It
On 2010-10-14 09:27, Curtis Hovey wrote:
There are 7 bugs that claim to be fixed, but they are not fix released
because they were not targeted to a milestone.
http://alturl.com/o4r4g
Can people with experience in Launchpad Foundation, Translations, and
Code fix the status of these bugs?
Brad discovered a nasty bug in Storm's SQLObject compatibility layer
that you should be aware of. The is_empty method there inverts its
result: it returns False for an empty result and True for a nonempty
one. Storm's native is_empty does not have this problem.
He also found that fixing
On 2010-10-12 02:23, Robert Collins wrote:
I thought I'd vary my regular Tuesday pattern this week, and see how
far I can get working directly towards a no-shared-fixtures facility
for testing (with parallelism built in).
I know of the following issues affecting this:
- All the 'XTestSetup'
I know that for both
Translations and Code, at one point they were *forced* to scramble and
update their part because that was required to fix some breakage. Sorry,
to be hand-wavy around the precise breakage that required completing that
refactoring, but if you are interested, I'm sure Danilo,
On 2010-10-11 16:21, Julian Edwards wrote:
I too forget the details but I don't feel the Translations team were
forced by anyone in particular to scramble and update our code. However
we did end up in a situation where we had to do so.
Can you try and remember exactly what situation that
1 - 100 of 198 matches
Mail list logo
