| [11:34] <Cas> Hi, I just noticed that the main page for our project is saying that the latest version is 1.3.9 yet 1.3.11 is available and it is listed in history https://launchpad.net/deluge | |
| [11:35] <cjwatson> That means the latest version that was actually uploaded to LP directly | |
| [11:35] <Cas> except that in all downloads 1.3.11 is there | |
| [11:36] <cjwatson> hm, right, one moment | |
| [11:39] <cjwatson> Cas: if you hover over the date under "Released:" on https://launchpad.net/deluge/1.3/1.3.9 and https://launchpad.net/deluge/1.3/1.3.11, it shows 1.3.9 as being released five seconds after 1.3.11 | |
| [11:39] <Cas> lol | |
| [11:40] <cjwatson> Cas: you should be able to edit the released times though, to avoid that | |
| [11:40] <cjwatson> and hopefully model reality a bit more closely | |
| [11:42] <Cas> I can't see where to edit release date | |
| [11:42] <Cas> it suggests a launchpad bug fetching files from our ftp | |
| [11:42] <Cas> it was working fine up until july 2014 | |
| [11:43] <wgrant> Cas: There's an edit icon next to the release date, if you have privileges. | |
| [11:44] <wgrant> There was a bug with the release finder for a few months, which probably explains why those were found around the same time. | |
| [11:44] <Cas> not seeing that here and I have full privs for Deluge afaik | |
| [11:46] <Cas> oh wait | |
| [11:46] <Cas> sorry was looking on the wrong page | |
| [11:47] <Cas> would be handy to have edit options on https://launchpad.net/deluge/+milestones | |
| [11:47] <Cas> :) | |
| [11:49] <Cas> Thanks cjwatson, wgrant :D | |
| === shadeslayer_ is now known as shadeslayer | |
| === persia_ is now known as persia | |
| === Spads_ is now known as Spads | |
| === anthonyf is now known as Guest61698 | |
| === Guest61698 is now known as anthonyjf | |
| [16:26] <zyga> hey, it seems to be impossible to link a bug to a git branch that fixes it, is that accurate or is it just me not knowing how to do that? | |
| [16:27] <cjwatson> there is no such feature in LP today | |
| [16:28] <cjwatson> and may not ever be because git branches are more transient than bzr branches; we may just implement linking directly to a merge proposal instead | |