|
=== mrevell is now known as mrevell-lunch |
|
=== mrevell-lunch is now known as mrevell |
|
[15:00] <barry> #startmeeting |
|
[15:00] <MootBot> Meeting started at 16:00. The chair is barry. |
|
[15:00] <MootBot> Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE] |
|
[15:00] <intellectronica> me |
|
[15:00] <barry> hello everyone and welcome to this week's ameu launchpad reviewers meeting |
|
[15:00] <bigjools> premature |
|
[15:00] <barry> who's here today? |
|
[15:00] <bigjools> me |
|
[15:00] <gmb> me |
|
[15:00] <sinzui> me |
|
[15:00] <flacoste> me |
|
[15:00] <allenap> me |
|
[15:00] <bac> me |
|
[15:00] <salgado> me |
|
[15:01] <intellectronica> me, and i'm not premature, just a bit weird |
|
[15:01] <bigjools> :) |
|
[15:01] <gmb> bigjools: Time does not apply to intellectronica as it does to the rest of us. ;) |
|
[15:01] <statik> me |
|
[15:02] <sinzui> Time is an illusion |
|
[15:02] <bigjools> he's about to do my review, I'm not going to insult him :) |
|
[15:02] <barry> danilo__: ping? |
|
[15:02] <gmb> Meeting time doubly so. |
|
[15:02] <barry> schwuk: ping |
|
[15:03] <barry> [TOPIC] next meeting |
|
[15:03] <MootBot> New Topic: next meeting |
|
[15:03] <barry> same time and place? anybody know they can't make it? |
|
[15:04] <barry> cool |
|
[15:04] <barry> [TOPIC] action items |
|
[15:04] <MootBot> New Topic: action items |
|
[15:04] <barry> * barry submitted bug reports for bzr-lpreview about the 1.2.6 milestone and `utilities/paste` path. the sftp urls issue is because of the settings in `locations.conf` |
|
[15:04] <gmb> I completely forgot to do that, so thanks barry :) |
|
[15:05] <barry> gmb: np! note that the sftp thing is due to the setting of your public_branch config |
|
[15:05] <schwuk> barry: sorry! |
|
[15:05] <schwuk> me |
|
[15:05] <barry> schwuk: np |
|
[15:05] <barry> * (continued) barry to remind lp devs to do pre-impl calls (*done*) |
|
[15:05] <BjornT_> me |
|
[15:06] <barry> there's nothing like an impending meeting to get action items done :) |
|
[15:06] <barry> * barry to remind devs that sending a cover letter isn't enough to trigger a review (*done*) |
|
[15:06] * bigjools noticed that barry only just did that :) |
|
[15:06] <barry> * barry to prod mwh about gmb's 800-line limit patch (*done*) |
|
[15:06] <barry> :) |
|
[15:06] <gmb> Cool. |
|
[15:06] <flacoste> barry: this means that we shouldn't use public_branch anymore or that we should use bzr+ssh in it? |
|
[15:06] <barry> * gmb to add lpreview to sourcecode and hack rf-setup to link it in |
|
[15:06] <gmb> I appear to be made of fail. |
|
[15:06] <barry> flacoste: that you should use bzr+ssh in it |
|
[15:06] <gmb> I need to talk to someone about getting this into sourcecode. |
|
[15:06] <flacoste> barry: what about pqm? |
|
[15:07] <gmb> I have a hack in rocketfuel-setup, however. |
|
[15:07] <flacoste> barry: iirc, that was for pqm submission which don't support bzr+ssh |
|
[15:07] <barry> flacoste: i think i've been told that pqm can now handle bzr+ssh, but i haven't tried it myself |
|
[15:07] <bigjools> there are two separate configs |
|
[15:07] <bigjools> one's for PQM and it has to be sftp |
|
[15:08] <flacoste> actually, looking at my cache copy of PQM quey: |
|
[15:08] <flacoste> Merge bzr+ssh://devpad.canonical.com/code/mwh/launchpad/code-import-worker-db sftp://devpad.canonical.com/code/rocketfuel/launchpad/devel |
|
[15:08] <flacoste> so i guess PQM handles bzr+ssh just fine |
|
[15:08] <flacoste> now |
|
[15:08] * bigjools has this: |
|
[15:08] <bigjools> submit_branch = sftp://devpad.canonical.com/code/rocketfuel/launchpad/devel |
|
[15:08] <bigjools> public_branch = bzr+ssh://devpad.canonical.com/code/julian/launchpad |
|
[15:08] <salgado> I think we still need to use sftp for the submit branch |
|
[15:08] <flacoste> public_branch had to be sftp:// previously |
|
[15:09] <salgado> I recently tried using bzr+ssh there and it failed |
|
[15:09] <barry> bigjools: yes, i have sftp in my submit_branch right now, but i think the asiapac folks told me pqm can handle bzr+ssh |
|
[15:09] <bigjools> salgado: yes, I tried too |
|
[15:09] <barry> salgado, bigjools okay, that's good to know |
|
[15:09] <bigjools> barry: it doesn't work, at least for us |
|
[15:09] <barry> so, submit_branch = sftp, public_branch = bzr+ssh |
|
[15:09] <bigjools> the review plugin uses public_branch |
|
[15:09] <barry> agreed? |
|
[15:10] <bigjools> yup |
|
[15:10] <barry> [AGREED] submit_branch = sftp, public_branch = bzr+ssh |
|
[15:10] <MootBot> AGREED received: submit_branch = sftp, public_branch = bzr+ssh |
|
[15:10] <barry> [ACTION] barry to email about submit_branch vs public_branch |
|
[15:10] <MootBot> ACTION received: barry to email about submit_branch vs public_branch |
|
[15:10] <sinzui> barry I don't recalled the Antipodean's saing PQM like bzr+ssh |
|
[15:11] <barry> sinzui: no? i could be misremembering where i heard that. but it doesn't work, so we'll just chalk that up to sleep deprivation |
|
[15:11] * sinzui decides not to fix his spelling |
|
[15:12] <sinzui> Heard? or IRC? |
|
[15:12] <barry> sinzui: irc |
|
[15:12] <sinzui> We're we in the same meeting? |
|
[15:12] * barry will scan his logs |
|
[15:12] <barry> sinzui: could have been pvtmsg |
|
[15:12] * sinzui refrains from fixing grammar |
|
[15:12] <barry> (i.e. not in the meeting) |
|
[15:13] <barry> [TOPIC] queue status |
|
[15:13] <MootBot> New Topic: queue status |
|
[15:13] <barry> 7 pinkies |
|
[15:13] <barry> but many of those look like stub db reviews |
|
[15:14] <barry> and jamesh's ongoing review branch |
|
[15:14] <barry> schwuk: what's up with cprov's branch? |
|
[15:15] <barry> schwuk: ? |
|
[15:16] <schwuk> barry: nothing - It only hit my queue yesterday, I saw it this morning, and I'm reviewing it now. |
|
[15:16] <schwuk> Or if it did hit my queue before yesterday, I missed it |
|
[15:16] <barry> schwuk: cool. it must have been sitting around for a while before you got it. thanks for reviewing it! |
|
[15:16] * schwuk pokes irc notifications |
|
[15:17] <sinzui> schwuk: I allocated it on Saturday |
|
[15:17] <cprov> schwuk: thanks, you are my hero. |
|
[15:17] <barry> any other queue comments? |
|
[15:17] <schwuk> sinzui: I must of missed it then - my bad |
|
[15:17] * sinzui review period carried over to Saturday |
|
[15:17] <barry> yes, we do still need to keep an eye on our PR queues |
|
[15:17] <intellectronica> sinzui: it's a good idea to prod folks when you allocate reviews, because people are not used to this anymore |
|
[15:17] <sinzui> intellectronica: agreed |
|
[15:18] <barry> intellectronica: is it still a good idea to do this allocation? |
|
[15:18] <schwuk> cprov: thank me *after* the review :) |
|
[15:18] <sinzui> I don't care for the allocation |
|
[15:19] <bigjools> I check my queue once a day, in the morning |
|
[15:19] <barry> sinzui: how can we better handle reviews the oncaller doesn't get to? |
|
[15:19] <sinzui> I think we pull from the general queue if no on-call review could get to it. large branches still require an agreement |
|
[15:19] <bac> barry: i think we should still do the allocation. i always target trainees or reviewers who don't do on-call. |
|
[15:20] <intellectronica> barry: i think so. otherwise the general queue can end up being too long in the beginning of a shift, which is not really fair to the OCR |
|
[15:20] <schwuk> I do check my queue - it just always seem to be at the wrong time. |
|
[15:20] <barry> bac: +1, intellectronica +1 |
|
=== danilo__ is now known as danilos |
|
[15:21] <barry> let's keep doing it. just remember to take a look at your queue once per day. and don't feel bad about rejecting a branch (more on this later) |
|
[15:21] <barry> any other queue status feedback? |
|
[15:21] * sinzui sees the FIOS cables being laid outside his window |
|
[15:21] * bigjools is jealous of sinzui |
|
[15:22] <bac> as a reminder, i've written a little cronscript that will notify you of changes to *your* section of PendingReviews. talk to me later if you'd like to use it. |
|
[15:22] <barry> sinzui: <sniff> |
|
[15:22] * sinzui has the lowest DSL right now. |
|
[15:22] * bac will never see FIOS out in the woods |
|
[15:22] <barry> bac: can you email lp-reviews about it? |
|
[15:23] <flacoste> bac: nice idea |
|
[15:23] <schwuk> bac: +1 |
|
[15:23] <bac> barry: sure. i've announced it before but no one was interested. <sniff> |
|
[15:23] <barry> bac: ;} |
|
[15:24] <barry> bac: sounds like there's interest now! :) |
|
[15:24] <barry> bac: timing is everything |
|
[15:24] * bac remembers why he isn't in marketing |
|
[15:24] <schwuk> bac: maybe you didn't announce it loudly enough :) |
|
[15:24] <barry> moving on? |
|
[15:24] <barry> [TOPIC] mentoring update |
|
[15:24] <MootBot> New Topic: mentoring update |
|
[15:25] <barry> any updates? mentors, start thinking about graduations at the end of this cycle, and also any new devs to bring on for next cycle |
|
[15:26] <barry> no news is good news! |
|
[15:26] <bac> allenap continues to do excellent reviews and will definitely be up at the end of the cycle. |
|
[15:26] <allenap> cool :) |
|
[15:26] <barry> bac: cool, allenap great to hear! |
|
[15:27] * schwuk hopes this Friday's OCR will be busier than last weeks |
|
[15:27] <schwuk> ...or maybe everyone waited for sinzui... |
|
[15:27] <sinzui> schwuk: the Foundations team laid it all on my shoulders |
|
[15:27] * bigjools is happy to put a large Soyuz branch in schwuk's direction |
|
[15:27] <sinzui> schwuk: I really did not complete my reviews until Saturday |
|
[15:27] <barry> schwuk: careful what you wish for :) |
|
[15:28] <schwuk> barry: true :) |
|
[15:28] <bigjools> it's over the limit as well, and I can't pare it much more :) |
|
[15:28] <schwuk> barry: not mentoring, but for the past two weeks jml hasn't updated the topic when he's gone 'off duty' |
|
[15:29] <schwuk> bigjools: we can have a chat about it after the meeting |
|
[15:29] <bigjools> schwuk: sure thing |
|
[15:29] <barry> schwuk: k. you might send him a friendly reminder email |
|
[15:29] <schwuk> barry: will do |
|
[15:29] <barry> schwuk: thanks! |
|
[15:29] <barry> moving on... |
|
[15:29] <barry> [TOPIC] review process |
|
[15:29] <MootBot> New Topic: review process |
|
[15:30] <barry> * '''Removing the reject queue''' (allenap). On Monday, Barry put a |
|
[15:30] <barry> review back on the reject queue, with a comment. I was on-call the |
|
[15:30] <barry> next day, as was Danilo, but neither of us noticed it. In the end, |
|
[15:30] <barry> Francis had to chase it up. I think it would work better if we put |
|
[15:30] <barry> rejected reviews back on the general queue (with a comment), and drop |
|
[15:30] <barry> the reject queue altogether. |
|
[15:30] <allenap> Any objections? |
|
[15:30] <bigjools> +1 |
|
[15:30] <danilos> +1 |
|
[15:30] <gmb> +1 |
|
[15:30] <barry> allenap: +1 |
|
[15:30] <sinzui> +1 |
|
[15:30] <bac> +1 |
|
[15:30] <schwuk> +1 |
|
[15:31] <salgado> +1 |
|
[15:31] <danilos> = +8 |
|
[15:31] <flacoste> +1 |
|
[15:31] <bac> i propose rejections be put at the *top* of the general queue |
|
[15:31] <allenap> bac: +1 |
|
[15:31] <danilos> bac: +2 ;) |
|
[15:31] <bigjools> +1 |
|
[15:31] <gmb> bac: +1 |
|
[15:31] <barry> [AGREED] get rid of the reject queue and just use the general queue with a comment, with rejections put at the top |
|
[15:31] <MootBot> AGREED received: get rid of the reject queue and just use the general queue with a comment, with rejections put at the top |
|
[15:31] <barry> :) |
|
[15:31] <allenap> Does anyone know if this'll break pending-reviews? |
|
[15:32] <danilos> allenap: it shouldn't, we've been doing that in the past |
|
[15:32] <flacoste> i don't think so |
|
[15:32] <allenap> Great, I'll do that then. |
|
[15:32] <barry> allenap: do you want to communicate this to the team or shall i? |
|
[15:33] <allenap> barry: I'll do it once I've changed PR. |
|
[15:33] <barry> allenap: awesome, thanks |
|
[15:33] <barry> [ACTION] allenap to update PR and communicate to team new rejection policy |
|
[15:33] <MootBot> ACTION received: allenap to update PR and communicate to team new rejection policy |
|
[15:34] <barry> well, that's it from me. we have about 10 minutes left. does anybody have any other issues to discuss, about the review process or anything else? |
|
[15:34] <bigjools> one thing just quickly |
|
[15:35] <bigjools> something that came up in a review of gmb's branch was the pythonic vs c-style braces |
|
[15:35] <bigjools> barry: you preferred the c-style right? |
|
[15:35] <gmb> bigjools: barry Pointed out the python S.O.P for that instance. |
|
[15:35] <sinzui> a brace on a line by itself inflates the lines |
|
[15:36] <bigjools> I just wanted to formalise something in the style guide |
|
[15:36] <bigjools> sinzui: but it reduces diff count later when changing it :) |
|
[15:36] <barry> well, i wouldn't put it as c-style vs. python-style, but ime, closing brace/paren/bracket on a line by itself is very common python idiom |
|
[15:36] <sinzui> if ( this |
|
[15:36] <barry> bigjools: right |
|
[15:37] <sinzui> or that |
|
[15:37] <sinzui> ): |
|
[15:37] <bigjools> anyway, probably not a matter to discuss now, we can take it to the ML |
|
[15:37] <sinzui> I think we should be consistent with how braces close |
|
[15:37] <barry> bigjools: that's also why we always include the comma on the last line, even though it isn't required |
|
[15:37] <gmb> sinzui: +1. |
|
[15:37] <sinzui> I've grown to love the trailing comma |
|
[15:37] <bigjools> barry: my thoughts exactly |
|
[15:38] <gmb> But let's take it to the ML, 'cos from experience I feel there could be a bunfight about this |
|
[15:38] <barry> sinzui: consistency = +1, bigjools do you want to take it to the ml? |
|
[15:38] <bigjools> will do |
|
[15:38] * barry breaks out his bikeshed paint |
|
[15:38] * bac breaks out his buns |
|
[15:38] <barry> [ACTION] bigjools to take brace closing policy to ml |
|
[15:38] <MootBot> ACTION received: bigjools to take brace closing policy to ml |
|
[15:38] * bigjools hides |
|
[15:38] * gmb avoids that mental image |
|
[15:38] <bigjools> lol |
|
[15:39] * barry was going to say his buns break out, but refrains from getting so crude |
|
[15:39] <sinzui> gmb: my implode if he was left in a room with Kurt |
|
[15:39] <gmb> E_PARSE |
|
[15:39] <sinzui> s/my/might/ |
|
[15:40] <gmb> sinzui: I like kurt. He's like a wind up toy. You just have to see how far he'll go... |
|
[15:40] <bigjools> he has limits? |
|
[15:40] <barry> bigjools: my question exactly |
|
[15:40] <gmb> bigjools: Not so far. |
|
[15:40] * bigjools remembers the shower nozzle comment in #canonical |
|
[15:40] <gmb> Ah, happy times. |
|
[15:41] <bigjools> are we done now? :) |
|
[15:41] <barry> we have 5 more minutes. any more tush jokes? |
|
[15:41] <barry> okay, i think we're done :) |
|
[15:41] <intellectronica> 5 minutes my arse! |
|
[15:41] <barry> #endmeeting |
|
[15:41] <MootBot> Meeting finished at 16:41. |
|
[15:41] <sinzui> I did follow up with mwhudson__ about his navlinks branch |
|
[15:41] <barry> thanks everyone |
|
[15:41] <intellectronica> cheers barry |
|
[15:41] <gmb> Ta barry. |
|
[15:41] <bigjools> grassy ass |
|
[15:42] <barry> sinzui: sorry :) |
|
[15:42] * bigjools got one in right at the end there |
|
[15:42] <barry> sinzui: you're supposed to say "butt wait! i have more!" |
|
[15:42] * bigjools sees this one running for a while |
|
[15:43] <barry> take it to #canonical :) |
|
[15:43] <sinzui> schwuk: mwhudson__ has secondary concerns about the branch. he doesn't have time to work on it now, but will circle back to it. It may require additional changes and review |
|
[15:44] <schwuk> sinzui: Do we leave it on the queue for now? |
|
[15:44] <sinzui> I'm tempted to move it back to work in progress. If he wants to land it without changes, then he may |
|
[15:46] * sinzui moves branch |
|
=== salgado is now known as salgado-lunch |
|
=== salgado-lunch is now known as salgado |
|
=== salgado is now known as salgado-brb |
|
=== salgado-brb is now known as salgado |
|
=== salgado is now known as salgado-afk |
|
|