[03:30] <ubotu> New bug: #106889 in launchpad "Typo in Answers Tab Tooltip (for People/Teams)" [Undecided,Unconfirmed]  https://launchpad.net/bugs/106889
[04:29] <mpt> Gooooooooooooooooood afternoon Launchpadders!
[04:30] <ajmitch> hello mpt 
[04:38] <Hobbsee> hi mpt!
[04:39] <ajmitch> aha, Hobbsee 
[04:39] <Hobbsee> ajmitch: indeed!
[04:45] <ubotu> New bug: #106900 in malone "Confusing batched notification if attachment is quickly removed" [Undecided,Unconfirmed]  https://launchpad.net/bugs/106900
[05:05] <Hobbsee> looks like we have a spammer.  https://launchpad.net/bounties/winmodem-support
[05:16] <ubotu> New bug: #106908 in malone ""Report a new bug" page for non-LP-using project needs beautifying" [Undecided,Unconfirmed]  https://launchpad.net/bugs/106908
[05:18] <mpt> ugh, bounties still show up?
[05:19] <mpt> they should have a "sorry, we're closed" sign
[05:20] <ubotu> New bug: #106909 in launchpad-bazaar "faq should explain how imports work" [Undecided,Unconfirmed]  https://launchpad.net/bugs/106909
[07:18] <poolie> lifeless: now launchpad has visible dildos too: http://librarian.launchpad.net/6561186/Corrupt2.png
[07:20] <ubotu> New bug: #106924 in malone ""Is this a new tag?" question is tautological" [Undecided,Unconfirmed]  https://launchpad.net/bugs/106924
[07:20] <poolie> bug 85575
[07:20] <ubotu> Malone bug 85575 in vte "gnome-terminal reacting very sluggishly" [High,Confirmed]  https://launchpad.net/bugs/85575 - Assigned to Ubuntu Desktop Bugs (desktop-bugs)
[07:20] <lifeless> nice
[08:09] <BjornT> lifeless: time for reviewer meeting?
[08:10] <lifeless> cool
[08:10] <lifeless> I wasn't sure if it was now or +1 hour
[08:10] <lifeless> reviewer meeting now
[08:10] <lifeless> spiv:
[08:10] <lifeless> jamesh: 
[08:11] <jamesh> hi
[08:11] <spiv> Hello
[08:12] <lifeless> just setting up
[08:12] <lifeless> agenda for now
[08:12] <lifeless>  * Roll call
[08:13] <lifeless>  * Next meeting
[08:13] <lifeless>  * Queue status.
[08:13] <lifeless>  * How are post-merge reviews of rs/trivial commits going?  (BjornT for .eu)
[08:13] <lifeless>  * Training up reviewers - to discuss (BjornT for .eu)
[08:13] <lifeless>  * [fasttrack]  (BjornT for .eu)
[08:13] <jamesh> the pending-reviews script is part way through a run (started at 05:42 UTC)
[08:13] <lifeless>  * Urgent review requests (lifeless for .au)
[08:15] <lifeless> next meeting at the usual time ?
[08:15] <jamesh> sure.
[08:15] <BjornT> sure
[08:15] <spiv> Sure.
[08:17] <lifeless> queue status 
[08:17] <lifeless> so spiv, bjornt and jamesh you all have red reviews on my screen
[08:18] <jamesh> lifeless: I've done that one since pending-reviews was last generated
[08:18] <spiv> I have one less than on the current page.
[08:18] <lifeless> heh
[08:18] <lifeless> meeeting syndrome :)
[08:18] <spiv> Which still leaves me with two, though :)
[08:19] <BjornT> i will do mine today. i had friday off, that's why i didn't do them then.
[08:20] <lifeless> BjornT: was that an urgent thing, or preplanned ?
[08:20] <spiv> And I've been sucking because I've been focussing on bzr, but after the freeze kicks in tomorrow morning I won't have that excuse any more.
[08:20] <spiv> I should have realised how little launchpad review time I'd have earlier and punted my reviews :/
[08:20] <lifeless> right
[08:21] <lifeless> I was about to say something along those lines
[08:22] <BjornT> lifeless: i requested the day off a few days in advance. i didn't bother adding it to PendingReviews since one day usually doesn't make much difference.
[08:22] <lifeless> BjornT: I think that assessment was wrong - please in future do let me know.
[08:23] <lifeless> reviews are a significant latency in the development cycle; where we dont need that latency we shouldn't have it.
[08:23] <lifeless> leave and being busy are both avoidable things, and its up to us to avoid them - in both cases by signalling you dont have review cycles for that time period.
[08:23] <BjornT> lifeless: ok, will do that in the future. i guess we should add notices for public holidays as well, then?
[08:23] <lifeless> yes, I think so.
[08:24] <lifeless> jamesh: so what happened with that 10 day review? how did it get so old?
[08:26] <jamesh> I didn't allocate enough time for reviews last week.  Also, it was 5 days old by the first work day it was on my queue (which isn't an excuse for not sending the review last week)
[08:27] <lifeless> jamesh: well 5 days old, 4 of which were weekend and pub holiday; so I should be saying '10 -4 -2' == 4 days old review.
[08:27] <lifeless> which sounds much less several
[08:27] <lifeless> subjective/objective time in a sense.
[08:28] <lifeless> *severe* I mean.
[08:29] <lifeless> jamesh: so is there anything we can do to help you [and all reviewers]  allocate enough time ?
[08:31] <lifeless> we can think of reviews in a RT os scheduling sense I guess
[08:31] <jamesh> don't know.  I should have been checking up on them more frequently
[08:32] <BjornT> maybe having the pending-reviews script sending a daily reminder of your review queue would help?
[08:33] <lifeless> would it be read?
[08:33] <lifeless> and acted on?
[08:33] <lifeless> alternatively, how about a per-reviewer subpage?
[08:33] <BjornT> i would read it
[08:33] <lifeless> do you find checking daily a problem at the moment?
[08:34] <BjornT> and often people state that they didn't do some reviews since they forgot to check their queue status.
[08:34] <lifeless> I'm in favour of this
[08:34] <lifeless> can you take it to the .eu meeting 
[08:34] <BjornT> sure
[08:34] <lifeless> see if it works for them as well?
[08:35] <lifeless> I suggest it only mail if there are reviews to do
[08:35] <spiv> +1
[08:36] <lifeless> jamesh: ?
[08:36] <BjornT> yeah, i agree with sending mail only if there are reviews to do. makes it less likely for people to ignore the e-mails.
[08:36] <jamesh> I suppose I could look at something like that.  The alternative would be an Atom feed
[08:36] <jamesh> not sure which people would prefer
[08:37] <lifeless> jamesh: lets start with mail; its much the same machinery, and does not need any affirmative action on the reviewers behalf.
[08:37] <jamesh> could you file a bug with the details of how it should work?
[08:37] <lifeless> sure
[08:37] <lifeless> how detailed do you want ?
[08:38] <jamesh> what you want in the emails, when emails should be sent, etc
[08:38] <jamesh> perhaps it'd be useful to know about needs-reply branches that have been modified since being moved to that state too
[08:38] <lifeless> sure you don't want a spec ?
[08:38] <lifeless> :0
[08:39] <jamesh> either a bug or spec would be fine
[08:39] <lifeless> hmm
[08:40] <lifeless> I wonder if we should automatically bump needs-review-with-conflicts down to needs-reply
[08:41] <BjornT> i'm not so sure about that. i often review branches having only trivial conflicts.
[08:41] <lifeless> yeah defer that thought
[08:43] <lifeless> how does this sound
[08:43] <lifeless> https://bugs.launchpad.net/launchpad-development-infrastructure/+bug/106936
[08:43] <ubotu> Malone bug 106936 in launchpad-development-infrastructure "daily review mails" [Undecided,Unconfirmed]  
[08:46] <BjornT> looks good for a first step. it'd be nice to include the description of the branch, and a link to the diff, but maybe it's not easy to get the description?
[08:46] <jamesh> I'll have to ask how close the "reviews in launchpad" stuff is likely to be
[08:47] <lifeless> indeed :)
[08:47] <lifeless> however if we keep moving the goal posts :)
[08:47] <lifeless> ...
[08:47] <lifeless> anyhow
[08:47] <lifeless> * Urgent review requests (lifeless for .au)
[08:47] <lifeless> so I wanted to raise this
[08:48] <lifeless> currently there is no formal documentation on what dev's should do when something is urgent;
[08:48] <lifeless> its made clear its their responsbility, but I couldn't find anything saying 'ask around', or 'put it on pending reviews with a /!\ this is urgent marker', or ...
[08:50] <lifeless> this came up because at the long weekend there was a branch for a critical hotfix that got lost
[08:50] <lifeless> not due to anyone doing anything wrong
[08:50] <lifeless> but it fell through the urgent cracks and got treated as normal
[08:50] <ubotu> New bug: #106936 in launchpad-development-infrastructure "daily review mails" [Undecided,Unconfirmed]  https://launchpad.net/bugs/106936
[08:50] <Mez> kiko / SteveA around ? (shipit stuff)
[08:52] <lifeless> ok
[08:53] <BjornT> lifeless: maybe refine ProductionProcess, and add something to that document?
[08:53] <lifeless> possibly
[08:53] <lifeless> possibly WorkingWithReviews ?
[08:54] <BjornT> well, anything urgent should be cherry picked. so it makes sense to have one document describing how to make urguent fixes.
[08:54] <lifeless> good point
[08:54] <lifeless> ok
[08:54] <lifeless> who wants to do that ? :)
[08:54] <BjornT> i don't think ProductionProcess is a good name for that document, though.
[08:57] <lifeless> ok
[08:57] <lifeless> I'll mail the list
[08:57] <lifeless> any other business?
[08:59] <lifeless> 5
[08:59] <BjornT> lifeless: what about training up new reviewers?
[08:59] <BjornT> iirc, the last thing that was said, was that it should be discussed further at the next meeting
[08:59] <lifeless> hmm, agenda has it for .eu meeting follow up - IIRC the feeling here was a buddy system for some reviews was sufficient.
[09:00] <lifeless> ah
[09:00] <lifeless> we deferred the main conversation
[09:00] <lifeless> did you discuss in .eu time ?
[09:01] <BjornT> it was discussed at the .eu meeting. it's in the meeting log for 2007-04-04
[09:01] <lifeless> ok
[09:02] <lifeless> I like the 'Another variant on that is to have the new reviewer send the review to an experienced reviewer for comments, before sending it to the reviewee.' proposall
[09:02] <lifeless> as its the simplest to implement immediately
[09:02] <lifeless> Barry will be joining the ranks very soon - in fact once we agree on a training mechanism.
[09:03] <lifeless> BjornT: looks like there wasn't a strong preference amongst the .eu crowd. Lets vote here:
[09:03] <lifeless> is 'Another variant on that is to have the new reviewer send the review to an experienced reviewer for comments, before sending it to the reviewee.' a good start that we should go forward with ?
[09:04] <spiv> That sounds fine to me (I'm happy with any variant on the basic idea of an established reviewer reviewing new reviews).
[09:04] <BjornT> +1, since it's probably the easiest thing.
[09:05] <BjornT> although, i think one important part is to have a document describing what a reviewer should look for in a diff.
[09:05] <lifeless> BjornT: which is different from our coding standards how ?
[09:08] <SteveA> design standards?
[09:08] <BjornT> lifeless: surely a reviewer should look at more than the coding standard? for example, is there a spec, does the implementation follow the spec, is the code design reasonable, etc.
[09:08] <lifeless> well, I mean to say that we have a set of standards that describe what developers should be producing, hopefully in quantitative terms.
[09:09] <lifeless> I struggle to imagine anything that we would give as advice to a reviewer that isn't also good advice for the developer.
[09:10] <BjornT> lifeless: agreed, that document should be required reading for new developers.
[09:10] <lifeless> in which case, I argue that its not a reviewer centric document, its part of the '* standards' if you like.
[09:11] <BjornT> currently, the best way of learning all the standards and requirements is to submit branches for review and learn from the review replies.
[09:11] <jamesh> sounds good.  We do want to encourage people to "self review" to an extent anyway ...
[09:11] <jamesh> so they should know what to look for
[09:12] <lifeless> I agree they should know what to look for
[09:12] <BjornT> yeah, i don't argue for that it should be for reviewers only. any developer is a potentional reviewer :)
[09:13] <lifeless> we currently have:
[09:13] <lifeless> https://launchpad.canonical.com/TipsForReviewers
[09:13] <lifeless> which has suggested reading for generalaties about review
[09:14] <lifeless> https://launchpad.canonical.com/PreMergeReviews
[09:14] <lifeless> has 'what are reviewers looking for'
[09:14] <lifeless> which points to TipsForReviewers
[09:15] <lifeless> which still has that unresolved 'all pillars' thing
[09:15] <lifeless> anyhow
[09:15] <lifeless> I'm +1 on documenting our design standards and so forth better.
[09:15] <lifeless> I'm not at all convinced that the *primary audience* of such documentation is the review team.
[09:16] <lifeless> I htink the primary audience is our developers; that the review team is responsible for feeding suggesting into the documentation.
[09:16] <lifeless> ...
[09:16] <lifeless> and enforcing it.
[09:17] <BjornT> i agree. that document should be for both developers and reviewers. especially since developers are exepcted to do a self-review before submitting the branch for review.
[09:17] <lifeless> SteveA: does this make sense to you?
[09:18] <SteveA> I agree with developers doing a self-review before the review
[09:19] <SteveA> and I agree that both things ought to involve reviewing the spec and the coding standards
[09:20] <lifeless> I fear the butt
[09:22] <lifeless> SteveA: was that the end of your statement ?
[09:25] <lifeless> ok, looks like steve is awol
[09:25] <lifeless> I agree with what Steve is saying
[09:25] <lifeless> I dont think it contradicts my point
[09:27] <lifeless> concrete proposal: lets add anything that comes up as 'this should have been looked for' to the current design standards docs
[09:27] <lifeless> and if there isn't an appropriate document, add one at the time.
[09:27] <lifeless> jamesh: ^
[09:27] <lifeless> BjornT: ^
[09:27] <lifeless> spiv: ^
[09:28] <jamesh> sounds good
[09:28] <spiv> I agree.
[09:29] <BjornT> lifeless: what do you mean by 'this should have been looked for'?
[09:30] <lifeless> BjornT: I mean, that when in a review or other discussion something is found that *should* have been picked up by a prior review, we document what it is that should have been looked for by said review.
[09:31] <lifeless> whether it is a design issue, UI, CSXF or whatever.
[09:31] <lifeless> start building this missing document base.
[09:31] <BjornT> does a self-review count as a prior review? :)
[09:31] <lifeless> separately it might be nice if a dev says 'I did not know to look for X' to also incorporate it into the same body of documentation.
[09:31] <lifeless> yes, self-review does count
[09:31] <BjornT> cool
[09:32] <lifeless> ok
[09:32] <lifeless> any other business ?
[09:33] <lifeless> 1.5 hour review meeting meep.
[09:33] <lifeless> still, we covered a lot
[09:33] <lifeless> 5
[09:33] <lifeless> 4
[09:33] <lifeless> 3
[09:33] <lifeless> 2
[09:33] <lifeless> 1
[09:33] <lifeless> ---
[09:33] <lifeless> I'll write this up into minutes shortly. Thanks all!
[09:50] <Theuni_> hey
[09:50] <Theuni_> any admin around?
[09:54] <mthaddon> what can I help with Theuni_?
[09:57] <Theuni_> mthaddon: when importing the zope bugtracker, some milestone seems to have ended up in the wrong release series
[09:57] <Theuni_> i can't see any way to move that milestone to the correct series from the UI, so I guess I need some admin to help me do that :)
[09:58] <Theuni_> See https://launchpad.net/zope3/3.4/+milestones 
[09:58] <Theuni_> It has a '3.3' milestone in there. That should go to the 3.3 release series ...
[09:58] <mthaddon> ah, ok - different type of admin, I'm afraid :(
[09:58] <Theuni_> ok, np.
[09:58] <spiv> Theuni_: jamesh can probably help
[09:58] <spiv> jamesh: ^
[09:59] <jamesh> Theuni_: I don't think we have a mechanism to move milestones from the web UI at the moment.
[10:00] <jamesh> stub or lifeless could probably do the moves though
[10:00] <Theuni_> :)
[10:00] <jamesh> (I could figure out the SQL if needed)
[10:02] <jamesh> Theuni_: also, you should find a logo image for the zope3 product -- it will make all the zope3 pages on LP look a bit nicer :)
[10:03] <Theuni_> hmm. there's some kind of logo n the product homepage, but it looks blurry
[10:03] <jamesh> the "Change branding" menu item lets you change things
[10:04] <jamesh> http://www.zope.org/Images/zbutton might be a good choice after being resized slightly
[10:08] <Theuni_> better now? :)
[01:30] <thumper> hi all
[01:32] <kiko> hey thumper 
[01:33] <thumper> kiko: hi
[01:34] <kiko> yawn.
[01:35] <thumper> kiko: I'm with ddaa atm
[01:35] <kiko> thumper, I know, Rinchen told me you would be there. that's great news!
[02:24] <statik> anyone know a browser that I can use on linux to sorta check for safari compatibility
[02:25] <LarstiQ> webkit or khtml iirc
[02:25] <statik> ta
[03:40] <popey> aaargh, I have managed to link a bug to an incorrect external system, can I delete them?
[03:40] <popey> bug 106996
[03:40] <ubotu> Malone bug 106996 in kopete "Kopete needs a method to block ICQ spammers" [Undecided,Unconfirmed]  https://launchpad.net/bugs/106996
[03:40] <popey> should be linked to kde 57234 and 63839, but not the kde url and not the ATi one :(
[03:41] <ubotu> KDE bug 57234 in general "messages from people not in contact list should be filtered." [Wishlist,New]  http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=57234 - Assigned to kopete-devel@kde.org
[03:41] <ubotu> KDE bug 63839 in general "Easier way to block senders" [Wishlist,Resolved: fixed]  http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=63839 - Assigned to kopete-devel@kde.org
[03:41] <popey> sorry
[03:41] <popey> ooo, neat
[03:50] <popey> figured it out \o/
[04:00] <ubotu> New bug: #107001 in malone "some bug followups break threading" [Undecided,Unconfirmed]  https://launchpad.net/bugs/107001
[05:56] <alefteris> hi all! is it possible to mass export po files from rosseta?
[05:57] <kiko> alefteris, for a certain project? sure.
[05:58] <alefteris> how can someone do that?
[05:58] <alefteris> fir example for the gnome packages
[05:58] <kiko> not for a group of projects.
[05:58] <kiko> and you said "packages" so perhaps you're talking about distro packages, not projects.
[06:00] <alefteris> kiko, how is the merging with upstream feature working then? can you please explain a bit? :)
[06:01] <ubotu> New bug: #107027 in launchpad "Assinging a bug re-sends it to people who have already received it" [Undecided,Unconfirmed]  https://launchpad.net/bugs/107027
[06:01] <kiko> alefteris, I think it has changed. danilos?
[06:02] <danilos> alefteris: what 'merging with upstream' feature are you talking about?
[06:03] <kiko> danilos, I think he wants to know how strings from distro translations are reused in the project context.
[06:03] <alefteris> is there anyway the translations from rosseta to be used by the upstream project, ex gnome?
[06:04] <danilos> alefteris: sure, but you can export them only per-package, eg. you go to https://translations.launchpad.net/ubuntu/feisty/+source/gnome-desktop/+pots/gnome-desktop-2.0/ and choose 'Download translations'
[06:05] <kiko> oh.
[06:05] <alefteris> ok thats what i wanted to ask.. so there is no mass export of all gnome packages thing?
[06:06] <Lumiere> is there a way to make your default view of a projects bugs to be bugs.launchpad.net/<project>/+bugs
[06:06] <Lumiere> instead of bugs.launchpad.net/<project>/
[06:06] <danilos> alefteris: no, but what do you want to use that for? or do you actually want a single-language mass-export?
[06:07] <alefteris> the latter
[06:07] <danilos> alefteris: ah, ok, that makes sense, but we don't have it at the moment; what you *can* do, however, is download a language pack which is regenerated daily and contains all the gnome translations (including some others)
[06:08] <alefteris> a ok
[06:08] <alefteris> thanks for you answers danilos kiko :)
[06:09] <danilos> alefteris: there's a separate language pack for GNOME (strangely named "language-pack-gnome-LANGCODE" :), so you can use that
[06:11] <alefteris> ok, also another question: is there a meta package that gets installed when you chooso to install the language support for a spesific language from System -> System managment-> languge support?
[06:20] <alefteris> sorry found it :)
[07:58] <Loevborg> Why doesn't searching for "interface eth0 is being released" reveal https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/network-manager/+bug/102716?
[07:58] <ubotu> Malone bug 102716 in network-manager "NetworkManager fails to bring up wired interface after resume" [Undecided,Unconfirmed]  
[07:59] <Loevborg> Does launchpad bug search not include comments?
[08:01] <salgado> Loevborg, no, it doesn't
[08:01] <Loevborg> it really, _really should
[08:02] <Loevborg> (at the very least optionally)
[08:02] <Loevborg> the submitter often adds important information, such as error messages, in a 2nd comment
[08:02] <Loevborg> Searching by error message is really one of the most logical ways to find a bug.
[08:03] <salgado> Loevborg, bug 70665 seems to be about that
[08:03] <ubotu> Malone bug 70665 in malone "Allow searching in comments" [Medium,In progress]  https://launchpad.net/bugs/70665 - Assigned to Bjrn Tillenius (bjornt)
[08:04] <Loevborg> that's right
[08:04] <Loevborg> thanks
[08:04] <salgado> Loevborg, there seems to be a fix for it already. you can subscribe to be notified when it gets rolled out to production
[08:05] <Loevborg> pity that bug's "fixed" for 1 month
[08:06] <Loevborg> but yes, I'll subscribe to the bug, thanks
[08:28] <kalikiana> Arg, when will the font be fixed I wonder?
[09:30] <Kmos> bug 107062
[09:30] <ubotu> Malone bug 107062 in kubuntu-docs "Linux.org is hurting Linux; don't recommend it" [Wishlist,Needs info]  https://launchpad.net/bugs/107062 - Assigned to Richard Johnson (nixternal)
[09:30] <Kmos> lol
[09:35] <OgMaciel> danilos: ping
[09:49] <nixternal> Kmos: haha, you liked that one
[09:50] <ubotu> New bug: #107077 in launchpad "database/productrelease.py has duplicate lines causing two queries" [Undecided,Unconfirmed]  https://launchpad.net/bugs/107077
[09:52] <Kmos> nixternal :)
[09:53] <pochu> Kmos, nixternal: what about http://www.whylinuxisbetter.net/ :)
[09:53] <Kmos> hehe
[09:54] <Kmos> myownlinuxdomain.com :D
[09:54] <nixternal> there are a couple of good ones that I will list in the future, but removing linux.org because someones blog says it is evil is nuts
[09:54] <Kmos> pochu: that one is nice
[09:54] <Kmos> nixternal: right.. it's a big LOL :)
[09:55] <pochu> :-)
[09:56] <OgMaciel> mdke: hey, do you subscribe to the rosetta mailing list by any chance?
[10:22] <john_> Hey Guys. Congrats on the launch. I have a strange question. Why did launchpad use Zope in the first place? Is there a write up of this somewhere? I am interested in how the project was affected by this decision, good or bad.