=== thumper_laptop is now known as thumper === mrevell is now known as mrevell-lunch === mrevell-lunch is now known as mrevell [14:54] * gmb dashes to get tea before the meeting. [14:54] * statik does too [14:55] * sinzui grabs a pot of coffee. [14:57] * intellectronica just pops some amphetamines [14:58] * sinzui hunts for some meth [14:58] * danilos grabs a sandwich, a bottle of rakia, and asks the girl in the bar to give him a lap dance [14:59] * barry goes to visit danilos [15:00] danilos: rakia, is that like raki - the anise drink? [15:00] #startmeeting [15:00] Meeting started at 15:00. The chair is barry. [15:00] Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE] [15:00] hi everyone and welcome to this week's ameu reviewer meeting [15:00] who's here today? [15:00] me [15:00] me [15:00] intellectronica: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rakia ;) [15:00] me [15:00] me [15:00] me [15:00] me [15:00] me [15:01] welcome danilos and allenap! [15:01] welcome allenap! [15:01] cheers :) [15:01] thanks [15:01] [TOPIC] agenda [15:01] New Topic: agenda [15:01] allenap: are you a new recruit? :) [15:01] * Roll call [15:01] * Next meeting [15:01] * Action items [15:01] * Queue status [15:01] * Mentoring update [15:01] * allenap mentored by bac [15:01] * bigjools mentored by barry [15:01] * flacoste hi-5 allenap and danilos [15:02] * Review process [15:02] * on-callers use PendingReviews? [15:02] * SteveA (or barry), use of properties instead of `__call__` in TALES [15:02] danilos: Yep, you? [15:02] * SteveA (or barry), use of raw strings for regexps only [15:02] * Tool update [15:02] * On-call reviews [15:02] * Keeping the time to around 8 hours [15:02] it's a full one today, so let's jump right in! [15:02] [TOPIC] next meeting [15:02] New Topic: next meeting [15:02] * bigjools is here [15:02] bigjools: welcome! [15:02] allenap: yep [15:02] thanks! [15:02] bigjools: hi, welcome as well :) [15:02] backatcha danilos [15:02] * flacoste cheers bigjools [15:02] a bunch of us are going to be in florida sprinting next week. should we still have the meeting or skip it? [15:03] * bigjools high fives flacoste [15:03] i'd like to skip it [15:03] +0 [15:03] statik: me too [15:03] +1 on skipping [15:03] -1 [15:03] [VOTE] skip the meeting next week? [15:03] Please vote on: skip the meeting next week?. [15:03] Public votes can be registered by saying +1/-1/+0 in the channel, private votes by messaging the channel followed by +1/-1/+0 to MootBot [15:03] E.g. /msg MootBot +1 #launchpad-meeting [15:03] -1 received from sinzui. 0 for, 1 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now -1 [15:03] -1 (I'll be here, not that I don't want you to skip it :) [15:03] -1 received from danilos. 0 for, 2 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now -2 [15:03] +1 [15:03] +0 [15:03] +1 received from statik. 1 for, 2 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now -1 [15:03] Abstention received from flacoste. 1 for, 2 against. 1 have abstained. Count is now -1 [15:03] +1 [15:03] +1 received from barry. 2 for, 2 against. 1 have abstained. Count is now 0 [15:03] +1 [15:03] +1 received from bac. 3 for, 2 against. 1 have abstained. Count is now 1 [15:04] +1 [15:04] cheater [15:04] * statik couldn't resist trying to cheat [15:04] /msg mootbot stop cheaters! [15:04] statik: i think i have a game for you... [15:04] any other votes? [15:04] 5 [15:04] 4 [15:04] 3 [15:05] +0 [15:05] Abstention received from bigjools. 3 for, 2 against. 2 have abstained. Count is now 1 [15:05] 2 [15:05] 1 [15:05] #endvote [15:05] [ENDVOTE] [15:05] does that still not work? [15:05] /msg mootbot fix yourself already! [15:05] changing topic should end it, too [15:05] (it ends when the meeting is done, that happened last time) [15:05] okay, we're split, so i rule :) [15:06] [AGREED] skip the meeting next week [15:06] AGREED received: skip the meeting next week [15:06] [TOPIC] action items [15:06] Vote is in progress. Finishing now. [15:06] Final result is 3 for, 2 against. 2 abstained. Total: 1 [15:06] New Topic: action items [15:06] barry: all of us, or only the florida sprint participants? [15:06] barry: we're not splitted, 3 for, 2 against, 2 abstentions [15:06] flacoste: statik cheated [15:06] intellectronica: everyone, but i won't stop you from meeting if you want :) [15:06] barry: but his cheat didn't work [15:07] * barry shamefully unwields his power [15:07] flacoste: great! then motion carried [15:07] [TOPIC] action items [15:07] New Topic: action items [15:07] meta argument alert :) [15:08] bigjools: do you want the floor? [15:08] * bigjools humbly disappears [15:08] i promised to create a cover letter and integrate it with the submission plugin. i have created a cover letter and am hacking on using it interactively from the plugin today [15:08] * intellectronica to work on a cover letter template (wait for mwh) [15:08] intellectronica: awesome! [15:08] should be ready for when mwh is back in business [15:09] intellectronica: you could put it out on the wiki [15:09] that way we could edit/improve it [15:09] and use it by pasting it in our editor [15:09] flacoste: +1 [15:09] I was personally having problems using lpreview plug in with my set-up (which pre-dates all the rocketfuel-get scripts and similar) [15:09] * flacoste used the plugin for the first time yesterday [15:09] didn't work too great :/ [15:09] flacoste: I've had the same experience [15:10] i reported my feedback to the list [15:10] danilos: did you? [15:10] danilos: my setup predates th rf-get scripts and i've had fairly good luck with the script [15:10] it should be registered in LP so we can track bugs [15:10] flacoste: no, I'll certainly do that [15:10] bigjools: +1 [15:10] danilos: Same for me as for barry, except that it tries to find the paste script in the wrong place. [15:10] +1 from me as well [15:10] I always write my cover letter and make my diff separate from the plugin--I think it is faster, and safer. [15:10] utilities/paste doesn't work for me though [15:11] sinzui: i'll take your advice! [15:11] i did for the diff, but not the cover letter [15:11] barry: why not? [15:11] but losing it twice, is kind of sucky [15:11] sinzui: i usually write my cover separately but let the plugin do the diff [15:11] barry: that's because your missing the magic password file [15:11] flacoste: did you check to see if "cover.txt" actually exists? [15:11] bigjools: i get some error output and no paste [15:11] flacoste: no, i have that! [15:11] I had to do both manually [15:11] bac: oops, right, it does! [15:11] but maybe we can debug that off-line (it's low priority for me) [15:12] ok [15:12] flacoste: i've documented that on the wiki [15:12] yeah, i lured us off-topic, sorry [15:12] bac: Do you have a link for that? [15:12] mwh is off-line. gmb, in the meantime would you register the plugin on LP? [15:12] https://launchpad.canonical.com/LPReviewPluginDocs [15:12] barry: Sure. Should I register two separate products, one for the webapp, too, or do you think that can wait? [15:13] bac: Thanks. [15:13] gmb: i think that can wait (and should be separate when it's time) [15:13] Okay. Will do. [15:13] [ACTION] gmb to register lpreview plugin on lp so we can track bugs [15:13] ACTION received: gmb to register lpreview plugin on lp so we can track bugs [15:13] moving on... :) [15:13] * barry will communicate the on-call process to launchpad developers [15:14] done, though there is discussion about some details (which we'll get to later) [15:14] * barry will contact devs who have previously expressed an interest in revieweing [15:14] obviously done, hi bigjools, allenap :) [15:14] done, and welcome new recruits! :) [15:14] * bigjools waves [15:14] * gmb to work on the review web site next week (hopefully) [15:14] schwuk wanted to start too, what happened to him? [15:14] bigjools: i think he's looking for a mentor [15:15] ok [15:15] * allenap drowns, no, waves [15:15] barry: No work done yet. I'm hoping to get some time tomorrow and Friday. [15:15] Too many other things are taking priority at this point. [15:15] gmb: understood! np, thanks for the update. [15:15] * sinzui to look into running `make lint` and output PR stanza by default in `review-submit` [15:16] I did not act on that one. [15:16] * sinzui looks at his shoes [15:16] PR begone [15:16] sinzui: np, should we just carry that over? [15:16] I considered updating the plugin to generate the PendingReview fragment, Since I do no know the URL of the cover letter before it is archived, I don't see much point in the effort. [15:17] sinzui: there is --pr option to generate the fragment already [15:17] flacoste: is that not for creating a paste with the diff, actually? [15:17] intellectronica: no, it outpus something you can paste in PR [15:17] outputs even [15:17] even though PR stuff could be linked to pus [15:17] flacoste: It doesn't have the cover letter link === salgado is now known as salgado-lunch [15:17] :-D [15:18] sinzui: hmm, i thought that was simply because the paste fails [15:18] because of path problems [15:18] well, gmb is gonna kill of PR soon enough anyway so maybe that's not the biggest bang for the buck [15:18] but that may be a wrong assumptions [15:18] I will look into this in more detail [15:18] sinzui: i think 'make lint' could be pretty useful tho [15:18] Faster gmb, kill, kill! [15:19] gmb will be my new best friend when he kills PR [15:19] barry: I will work on lint first. [15:19] * gmb needs little encouragement [15:19] gmb: now if that's not an incentive i don't know what is [15:19] sinzui: excellent, thanks [15:19] yes, please lint it as part of review-submit [15:19] :) [15:19] * barry will require `bzr review-submit` with exceptions. [15:19] done [15:20] (in the sense that i emailed that policy) [15:20] [TOPIC] queue status [15:20] New Topic: queue status [15:20] there are still a few long standing items in the queue over the sla [15:21] i know stub's branch that jtv is reviewing will just take a while [15:21] i'm not sure what the status is of adeuring's branch w/ jamesh [15:21] gmb, salgado, BjornT what are the statuses of your older branches? [15:21] barry: stub's branch is also not completely finished yet. [15:22] barry: there's another branch of stub which danilo and i decided not to touch for now, since it a zope branch. i think stub should make arrangements for someone to review it [15:22] jtv: should it be moved to work-in-progress then? [15:22] intellectronica: is that stub/zope/devel? [15:22] barry: I'm not sure it matters much at this stage, it's an "interactive" review. [15:22] barry: BjornT is absent today, he's in meetings [15:22] barry: The needs-review* one is actually now a wip, I think, due to a discussion with mpt. I'll talk to abently about it later today. [15:22] barry: yes, that's the one [15:23] jtv: okay, cool [15:23] intellectronica: there is nothing in it! [15:23] flacoste: in that case, i don't mind reviewing it [15:23] intellectronica: rs'ing it even :) [15:24] gmb: thanks [15:24] gmb: feel free to move it to wip if that's what it is [15:24] Sure. [15:24] any other comments about the current queue? [15:24] I think should remind developers to clear their merged branches from PendingReviews. [15:24] sinzui: good point [15:25] sinzui: +1 [15:25] [ACTION] barry will remind developers to clear merged branches from PR [15:25] ACTION received: barry will remind developers to clear merged branches from PR [15:25] 5 [15:25] 4 [15:25] 3 [15:25] 2 [15:25] 1 [15:25] [TOPIC] mentoring update [15:25] New Topic: mentoring update [15:25] * allenap mentored by bac [15:25] * bigjools mentored by barry [15:26] we have new victim^H^H^H^H^H^Hrecruits... yay! [15:26] and hopefully one more for next cycle [15:26] Cool. Even more on-call coverage. [15:26] I am not starting until Feb 4 though [15:26] i would like to talk to someone off-line about how mentoring and on-call work. [15:26] if anybody feels like they could mentor someone, let me know [15:27] bac: maybe we can chat about that next week f2f? [15:27] bigjools: yep [15:27] barry: good idea [15:27] also, any mentors who feel their recruits are ready to graduate, please let me know [15:27] and I am on leave the following week :) [15:28] bigjools: cool. just means more piling up for you when you get back :) [15:28] barry: in more ways than you can imagine [15:28] moving on because we only have 15 minutes and lots more to cover :/ [15:28] [TOPIC] review process [15:28] New Topic: review process [15:29] i'll do the quick ones first (hopefully) [15:29] * SteveA (or barry), use of properties instead of `__call__` in TALES [15:29] * SteveA (or barry), use of raw strings for regexps only [15:29] steve asked me to communicate two coding policies, if we all agree [15:29] i'll bring these up on the m.l. but briefly... [15:30] we want to discourage __call__ in TALES in favor of properties [15:30] and we want to discourage the use of raw strings for anything except regexp patterns [15:30] does anybody not know what those mean? [15:30] barry: Can you explain the reasons? [15:31] allenap: i think it's a consistency thing and easy of reading for #1 [15:31] for #2, steve observed cargo culting of raw strings in places where they weren't needed [15:31] i'm all for #2 [15:31] barry: actually, there's a more important reason for #1 [15:31] so suggested that devs may not understand what raw strings are for [15:32] if we're ever to go into localising launchpad, we'll have to get more raw strings in views (as compared to page templates) [15:32] and suggested that a good rule of thumb is to always use them for regexps and never for anything else [15:32] and i usually don't mind #1 [15:32] because of the way zope traverses in expressions [15:32] barry: +1 [15:32] (although it would be good to explain why raw strings are in python of course) [15:32] intellectronica: go ahead... [15:32] zope traverses properties, but stops at the result of a method call [15:32] danilos: we can cross that bridge when we get there :) [15:32] actually [15:33] so my_object/my_property/an_attribute is fine [15:33] other than that, parsing specially formatted textual files like PO files requires a lot of hard-coded strings as well [15:33] but my_object/result_of_method_call/an_attribute doesn't work [15:33] i think what #1 is about is not to use method call in TALES [15:33] flacoste: that's how I read it as well [15:33] oh, in that case i don't understand [15:34] danilos: exceptions are okay, if you really need them, but reviewers should scrutinize raw string usage carefully [15:34] because TALES will always implicitely call the end result [15:34] that's why there is no nocall: expression [15:34] barry: ok, point taken, we should probably take the discussion on-list [15:34] danilos: +1 [15:34] barry: are you proposing raw strings used nowhere but regex AND regex must use raw strings? or just the former? [15:35] [ACTION] barry to take raw string coding standard to the ml [15:35] ACTION received: barry to take raw string coding standard to the ml [15:35] bac: both [15:36] intellectronica: would you like to bring up the __call__ thing on the ml? [15:36] barry: if flacoste is right then i have no idea what it's about - i rather have someone else clarify first [15:36] btw, does the no string rule include docstrings? ;) [15:37] * danilos runs away... [15:37] intellectronica: okay. i'll ask SteveA to do it since he brought it up :) [15:37] danilos: we'll take that to the ml [15:37] moving on since i really want to get to sinzui's item [15:37] * on-callers use PendingReviews? [15:37] \o/ [15:38] i just want to take a quick vote and we can discuss more on the ml [15:38] [VOTE] do you as an on-caller want to use PR +1 or not -1? [15:38] Please vote on: do you as an on-caller want to use PR +1 or not -1?. [15:38] Public votes can be registered by saying +1/-1/+0 in the channel, private votes by messaging the channel followed by +1/-1/+0 to MootBot [15:38] E.g. /msg MootBot +1 #launchpad-meeting [15:38] +0 [15:38] Abstention received from flacoste. 0 for, 0 against. 1 have abstained. Count is now 0 [15:38] +1 [15:38] +1 received from barry. 1 for, 0 against. 1 have abstained. Count is now 1 [15:38] -0 [15:38] -1 [15:38] -1 [15:38] -1 received from bigjools. 1 for, 1 against. 1 have abstained. Count is now 0 [15:38] -1 received from gmb. 1 for, 2 against. 1 have abstained. Count is now -1 [15:38] +0 [15:38] Abstention received from bac. 1 for, 2 against. 2 have abstained. Count is now -1 [15:38] +1 [15:38] +1 received from intellectronica. 2 for, 2 against. 2 have abstained. Count is now 0 [15:38] -1 (when I'm provided with enough of the relevant information) [15:39] -1 received from danilos. 2 for, 3 against. 2 have abstained. Count is now -1 [15:39] +0 [15:39] Abstention received from sinzui. 2 for, 3 against. 3 have abstained. Count is now -1 [15:39] +0 [15:39] Abstention received from statik. 2 for, 3 against. 4 have abstained. Count is now -1 [15:39] cool, thanks for the feedback [15:39] i think that while PR sucks, the solution is to replace it with something better, not to give up on tracking reviews [15:39] I would like to point out that the whole point of on-call is to speed up reviews after the Lean training suggested we do 1-day branches. If PR is needed for tracking, the branch is too big to do an on-call. [15:40] bigjools: Agreed. [15:40] bigjools: not so. unless there's exceptional load, almost everything can be done on call [15:40] also true - so anything requiring PR is too big... [15:40] yes, if a branch is handled during the on-call day, then no need for PR. throw it in PR if size of the branch or problems lead to it not being completed during the cycle. [15:40] btw, i like it mostly for the pending-reviews page [15:41] okay, sorry to cut this short. we'll continue discussion on the ml. [15:41] [TOPIC] * On-call reviews [15:41] Vote is in progress. Finishing now. [15:41] Final result is 2 for, 3 against. 4 abstained. Total: -1 [15:41] New Topic: * On-call reviews [15:41] * Keeping the time to around 8 hours [15:41] sinzui: you have the floor, 3 minutes :) [15:42] bigjools: Not necessarily. I am a slow reviewer. 600 lines is 3h for me. If you want something reviewed near the end of my day, I may need to take that branch up another day. [15:42] sinzui: if it's near the end of the day, I don't submit for review [15:43] sinzui: don't accept big branches near the end of your day [15:43] Without PendingReviews, YOU would have to sit on your branch until another on-call reviewer is available. We also have a practice of reassigning branches at the end of the day. [15:44] sinzui: wasn't this about on-call reviews and not about non-on-call reviews? i.e. if you are not using on-call, you just put it onto PendingReviews [15:44] sinzui: i thought you were going to mention that you spend 20 hours doing reviews last week [15:44] barry: It's not that simple, Some branches arrive, and run out to be needs-reply, and a conversation in IRC is not going to fix that [15:45] sinzui: true [15:45] * sinzui appologises for the confusion, I was actually responding to a remark on IRC /before/ I was given the floor. [15:46] well, we've run out of time. sinzui can we take this to the ml? [15:46] sorry about that :( [15:46] I will [15:46] sinzui: thanks! [15:46] #endmeeting [15:46] Meeting finished at 15:46. [15:46] thanks everyone [15:46] thanks barry [15:46] thanks barry === salgado-lunch is now known as salgado === salgado is now known as salgado-brb === salgado-brb is now known as salgado