Merge lp:~james-w/launchpad/remove-code-import-list into lp:launchpad
| Status: | Merged |
|---|---|
| Approved by: | Aaron Bentley on 2010-03-22 |
| Approved revision: | no longer in the source branch. |
| Merged at revision: | not available |
| Proposed branch: | lp:~james-w/launchpad/remove-code-import-list |
| Merge into: | lp:launchpad |
| Prerequisite: | lp:~james-w/launchpad/code-imports-use-ibranchtarget |
| Diff against target: |
526 lines (+9/-359) 10 files modified
lib/lp/code/browser/bazaar.py (+3/-1) lib/lp/code/browser/configure.zcml (+0/-7) lib/lp/code/interfaces/codeimport.py (+0/-10) lib/lp/code/model/codeimport.py (+1/-49) lib/lp/code/model/tests/test_codeimport.py (+0/-194) lib/lp/code/stories/branches/xx-bazaar-home.txt (+1/-1) lib/lp/code/stories/codeimport/xx-codeimport-list.txt (+0/-72) lib/lp/code/stories/codeimport/xx-codeimport-view.txt (+3/-3) lib/lp/code/templates/bazaar-index.pt (+1/-1) lib/lp/registry/browser/productseries.py (+0/-21) |
| To merge this branch: | bzr merge lp:~james-w/launchpad/remove-code-import-list |
| Related bugs: |
| Reviewer | Review Type | Date Requested | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aaron Bentley (community) | 2010-03-18 | Approve on 2010-03-22 | |
|
Review via email:
|
|||
Commit Message
+code-import-list has been removed in favour of +code-imports
Description of the Change
This removes +code-import-list which is obsoleted by
+code-imports.
Thanks,
James
| Aaron Bentley (abentley) wrote : | # |
| James Westby (james-w) wrote : | # |
Here's the reason why I made this change:
[20:52] <james_w> thumper: could you perhaps provide a little SQL help?
[20:53] <thumper> sure
[20:54] <james_w> CodeImportSet.
[20:54] <james_w> I need to rewrite the query to allow for using SourcePackage as well
[20:55] <thumper> ok
=== salgado-brb is now known as salgado
[20:55] <thumper> james_w: I'm just looking at your code import target branch
[20:55] <thumper> hmm.. seems to have gone
[20:55] <james_w> great
[20:56] <james_w> I keep screwing up the initial settings and forgetting things like prerequisite branches
[20:56] <thumper> :)
[20:56] <thumper> james_w: can you paste me a link?
[20:56] <james_w> https:/
[20:56] <james_w> https:/
[20:57] <james_w> the intention of that one is just to refactor, not allow any new behaviour
[20:58] <james_w> and to make the tests more explicit about if they require the code import to be against a product
[21:06] <thumper> james_w: reviewed
[21:06] <james_w> thanks
[21:06] <mwhudson> flacoste: so buildbot farted again
[21:06] <mwhudson> flacoste: did you read my mail yet? (i only sent it a minute or so ago)
[21:07] <thumper> james_w: composeQueryString needs to die
[21:07] <james_w> even better
[21:07] <flacoste> mwhudson: switching to email...
[21:08] <mwhudson> thumper, james_w: it's used for the search box on https:/
[21:08] <mwhudson> but maybe that page needs to die now
[21:08] <mwhudson> (now that (a) we disable failing imports (b) +code-imports is more useful)
[21:08] * thumper looks at the page
[21:09] <thumper> my vote is kill the page
[21:10] <thumper> +code-imports is where we should add stuff now
[21:10] <james_w> right, a search box isn't too useful as you could go from search-
[21:10] * james_w starts a new branch
...
[21:40] <james_w> thumper: what count should be on https:/
[21:40] <james_w> (see the bottom if you have forgotten it was there :-)
[21:48] <thumper> james_w: my suggestion would be working code imports
[21:49] <james_w> thumper: just a count of all imports in the REVIEWED state?
[21:49] <thumper> james_w: yeah
[21:49] <thumper> what is it now?
[21:49] <james_w> all "active"
[21:50] <james_w> so REVIEWED and not for deactivated products/projects
[21:50] <james_w> and tried at least once
[21:50] <james_w> so REVIEWED is a fine approximation in my opinion
[21:51] <mwhudson> REVIEWED is a decent approximation now we mark imports failing automatically
There was no call, as this discussion seemed sufficient.
There isn't an associated bug.
I don't know about lint.
> This seems to change the way import_count is calculated. Why is that?
It makes the change as that is basically the point of the branch.
Thanks,
James
| James Westby (james-w) wrote : | # |
New revision pushed with problems from lint fixed.
Thanks,
James
| Aaron Bentley (abentley) wrote : | # |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
James Westby wrote:
> Here's the reason why I made this change:
Great. Unless I'm a domain expert, I need to know that any change has
been sanity-checked by a domain expert, so please note things like this
when requesting reviews in the future.
> I don't know about lint.
There is quite a lot of it. You can see it by running "make lint", and
you should do that before submitting a branch for review. In general,
you should fix any lint that you encounter.
I recommend installing the lp:lpreview-body plugin, and then either
using "bzr lp-propose" or "bzr send" to create your merge proposals, as
this will automatically run lint on the relevant files and provide a
template for your review request.
>> This seems to change the way import_count is calculated. Why is that?
>
> It makes the change as that is basically the point of the branch.
The described point of the branch was "This removes +code-import-list
which is obsoleted by +code-imports," which had no obvious connection.
Now that I see the IRC log, it's much clearer.
Please fix the lint, but otherwise this is
merge approved
Aaron
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://
iEYEARECAAYFAku
ZlAAn3rcUyW6Qss
=nuwN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Was there a preimplementation call? Is there an associated bug? Is there any lint?
This seems to change the way import_count is calculated. Why is that?