MootBotMeeting started at 08:58. The chair is mrevell.08:58
MootBotCommands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]08:58
mrevellWelcome to February's Launchpad users meeting!08:58
mrevell[TOPIC] Roll call08:59
MootBotNew Topic:  Roll call08:59
mrevellLet's get an idea of who's here for the meeting. If you're here to take part, say me.08:59
mrevellOkay, let's assume you're shy :)09:00
mrevellWe'll move straight onto user questions, as it appears there aren't many people here for the meeting09:01
mrevell[TOPIC] User questions09:01
MootBotNew Topic:  User questions09:01
mrevellWe don't have any user questions on the agenda, so if you have a question or suggestion or comment for the Launchpad team, go ahead!09:01
mrevellokay, if you do have a question or comment for the Launchpad team, you can find someone from the team just about 24 hours a day in #launchpad. Otherwise mail feedback@launchpad.net.09:03
MootBotMeeting finished at 09:03.09:03
jameshmrevell: that was short09:03
mrevelljamesh: Yeah, if no one says "me" in the roll call I tend not to drag it out.09:04
=== salgado is now known as salgado-afk
=== salgado-afk is now known as salgado
=== mrevell is now known as mrevell-lunch
=== mrevell-lunch is now known as mrevell
MootBotMeeting started at 15:00. The chair is barry.15:00
MootBotCommands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]15:00
barryhello everyone and welcome to this week's ameu reviewer's meeting15:00
barrywho's here today?15:00
BjornTgmb has problems with his internet connection atm15:00
barryBjornT: cool, thanks15:01
barrysalgado: ?15:02
bacallenap is off today i think15:02
barryschwuk: ?15:02
schwuksorry - was concentrating on another channel15:03
bigjoolshis first Soyuz review probably put him off ;)15:03
=== barry changed the topic of #launchpad-meeting to: agenda
schwukbigjools: :P15:03
gmbSorry - I've been having connectivity issues15:03
=== barry changed the topic of #launchpad-meeting to: Launchpad Meeting Grounds | Channel logs: http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/ | Meeting Logs: Logs available at http://kryten.incognitus.net/mootbot/meetings/
barry[TOPIC] agenda15:03
MootBotNew Topic:  agenda15:03
* barry needs more coffee15:03
barry== Agenda ==15:03
barry * Roll call15:03
barry * Next meeting15:03
barry * Action items15:03
barry * Queue status15:03
barry * Mentoring update15:03
barry * Review process15:03
barry   * sabdfl request: make sure enums to be in the same interface files as the schemas where they are expressed.15:03
barry   * thumper - unwrapping import statements (line wrapping that is)15:04
barry[TOPIC] next meeting15:04
MootBotNew Topic:  next meeting15:04
barrysame time and place?  anyone know they won't be here?15:04
* bigjools will be sprinting15:04
bigjoolsbut I might make it15:04
barryk, thanks15:05
bacsprinting too15:05
* jtv same15:05
BjornTquite a lot of people will be sprinting next week15:05
bigjoolsgood point15:05
barrywhich sprint is it?15:05
salgadoteam lead sprint?15:05
bigjoolsTeam Leads and Soyuz15:05
salgadooh, soyuz too?15:05
barryshould we still have a meeting then?15:05
bigjoolsSoyuz Guy #3 (tm) is starting next week15:06
flacosteand bzr15:06
flacostenot that we have any bzr people in this meeting15:06
sinzuime me me15:06
barryflacoste: right.  i think mwhudson is the only guy who's gonna be at the next asiapac meeting ;)15:07
barrywell, i guess we'll still have the ameu meeting.  if nobody shows up, it'll be blissfully short :)15:07
barry[TOPIC]  * Action items15:07
MootBotNew Topic:   * Action items15:07
barry * (continued) intellectronica to put cover letter draft on wiki15:08
barryi think this was done, right?15:08
intellectronicabarry: yup15:08
barryintellectronica: awesome!  can you email the link?15:08
bigjoolscan we link off PR to that too - I have enough bookmarks already :)15:08
barrybigjools: +115:09
barryintellectronica: do you mind adding that link and emailing it to the launchpad list?15:09
intellectronicabarry: sure, i'll do that15:09
flacosteshouldn't sumit-review15:10
flacostemodified to use that template?15:10
barry[ACTION] intellectronica to email link to new review template and add a link to PR15:10
MootBotACTION received:  intellectronica to email link to new review template and add a link to PR15:10
barryflacoste: let's get some feedback on it, but then, probably so15:10
* bigjools just added it to PR15:10
barrygreat, thanks!15:10
barry * (continued) sinzui to look into outputting PR stanza by default in `review-submit`15:11
sinzuiI submitted my change to automatically output the PR block. I wait for mwhudson's approval.15:11
barrysinzui: rock on!15:11
barry[TOPIC]  * Queue status15:11
MootBotNew Topic:   * Queue status15:11
barrygeneral queue is clear15:12
barryand only 3 needs-review branches in the pink15:12
barryqueue looks pretty good, any comments?15:12
intellectronicathe general queue is clear, but we've had to reject a branch of jml's15:12
barryintellectronica: ah yes, i see it.  has jml been notified?15:13
intellectronicai think something went wrong with his submissions, since there are quite a few of them on the mailing list with no wiki entries15:13
intellectronicayes, danilo and i wrote to him15:13
barryintellectronica: great, thanks15:13
barryany other comments about the queue?15:14
barry[TOPIC]  * Mentoring update15:14
MootBotNew Topic:   * Mentoring update15:14
barrynothing from me here...15:15
sinzuiI think schwuk needs to get more reivews. I think he has had only two since he started.15:15
bacmentoring with gavin is going well, but slow.  please allocate him some branches if you clear out the general queue.15:15
barrysinzui, bac good points, thanks15:16
bacsinzui: i think gavin has done two also15:16
barryso we should favor mentorees when assigning general queue branches?15:16
intellectronicabut does it happen often enough?15:16
schwuksinzui: I'm going to try going on call this Friday, so I should get more then.15:16
sinzuischwuk: Fab15:17
bigjoolsas long as we mentorees don't get bombarded with branches15:17
bacif gavin does any reviews next week i may need to ask one of you to mentor it, since i'll be sprinting.15:17
barry[AGREED] favor (but don't overwhelm) mentorees when assigning general queue branches15:17
MootBotAGREED received:  favor (but don't overwhelm) mentorees when assigning general queue branches15:17
gmbbac: I'm happy to mentor if needs be.15:17
intellectronicabigjools: unlikely. it really doesn't happen very often these days15:17
bacgmb: thanks15:17
bigjoolsintellectronica: true - most of them are done on-call15:18
barryi'll need someone to help mentor schwuk during pycon, but that's not for a few weeks yet15:18
barryer, sorry, bigjools15:18
bigjoolswe can sort that out nearer the time15:19
barryanything else?15:19
barry[TOPIC]  * Review process15:19
MootBotNew Topic:   * Review process15:19
barry   * sabdfl request: make sure enums to be in the same interface files as the schemas where they are expressed.15:20
barryso mark was pretty clear that we reviewers need to be more aware of where interfaces are defined15:20
barryi moved an interface from person.py to teammembership.py because it was in the wrong place15:21
barryso he just wanted me to communicate to you to keep an eye out for these things while reviewing code15:21
sinzuibarry: That reminds me that there was never an announcement that ISchemas can be defined in browser.*15:22
barry   * thumper - unwrapping import statements (line wrapping that is)15:22
bacbarry: did you mention it to the developer who put it in person originally?15:22
barrybac: i did not15:22
barrybac: i think mark's point was more that reviewers need to be on guard for this15:22
bacbarry: true, but it might have been a good "teachable moment."15:23
barrysinzui: i don't remember that decision specifically15:23
flacostesinzui: it's still status quo on this i think15:23
barrybac: true15:23
flacostebarry: i'm probably the one at fault here, since I took care of the move of all generic launchpad ones15:24
flacostebarry: i probably put it person.py to avoid a cyclic import problem15:24
flacosteor maybe i'm just fabulating15:24
salgadoor maybe it was me15:24
sinzuibzr annotate15:24
barryflacoste: no it makes some sense, because it was actually /used/ in person.py15:24
barrybut it was easy to avoid the circular import15:25
barrysinzui: if it's worth it (i don't think it is)15:25
sinzuiI don't think it is worth it15:25
barryor if you're curious :)15:25
barryanything else on this topic?15:26
barry   * thumper - unwrapping import statements (line wrapping that is)15:26
bigjoolsa big hairy +1 from me for that15:26
barryso in the meeting agenda thumper suggests putting multi-line imports each on a separate line15:26
* barry hasn't actually talked to him about htis15:26
barryit occurs to me too that __all__ has the same issue15:27
flacostei think this is crack15:27
salgadothat's crack15:27
flacostethis is to avoid conflicts15:27
intellectronicait's a nice idea, but the risk is that when merging we'll get too many imports that aren't being used15:27
flacostebut these are trivial conflicts15:27
barrybug salgado said he didn't like this in a recent review of mine15:27
flacostelive with it15:27
intellectronicaalso, these conflicts are easy to solve15:27
bigjoolsit's not the conflicts that are the problem15:27
flacosteand it uses a lot of screen estate15:27
bigjoolsit's the diff15:27
salgadoI can live with that in the __all__, but not in imports15:27
* barry agrees with salgado15:28
bigjoolsworking out wtf changed when 4 lines are reformatted15:28
gmbbigjools: using meld will solve that one.15:28
gmb(or something similar)15:28
flacostewho cares about these changes?15:28
flacostewe have make lint to see if they are spurious15:28
salgadobigjools, make lint should tell you if the changes are correct or not15:28
bigjoolsfair point15:28
barry[VOTE] one __all__ entry per-line but not per multiline import15:29
MootBotPlease vote on:  one __all__ entry per-line but not per multiline import.15:29
MootBotPublic votes can be registered by saying +1/-1/+0 in the channel, private votes by messaging the channel followed by +1/-1/+0  to MootBot15:29
MootBotE.g. /msg MootBot +1 #launchpad-meeting15:29
MootBot-1 received from flacoste. 0 for, 1 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now -115:29
MootBot-1 received from salgado. 0 for, 2 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now -215:29
MootBot-1 received from gmb. 0 for, 3 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now -315:29
BjornTi don't care much either way, as long as we're consistent. if we're going to change the coding style, we should change all imports to conform with it. i don't thing that's worth the trouble15:29
MootBot-1 received from sinzui. 0 for, 4 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now -415:29
MootBot-1 received from bac. 0 for, 5 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now -515:30
MootBot-1 received from BjornT. 0 for, 6 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now -615:30
MootBotAbstention received from bigjools. 0 for, 6 against. 1 have abstained. Count is now -615:30
barryokay, i think you all misunderstood the sense of my question, but we'll just say "i know what you mean" :)15:30
barrythe -1's are /against/ one-line per import15:30
MootBot-1 received from barry. 0 for, 7 against. 1 have abstained. Count is now -715:30
MootBot-1 received from intellectronica. 0 for, 8 against. 1 have abstained. Count is now -815:31
MootBot-1 received from schwuk. 0 for, 9 against. 1 have abstained. Count is now -915:31
barry[AGREED] thumper's suggestion of one-line per import is rejected15:31
MootBotAGREED received:  thumper's suggestion of one-line per import is rejected15:31
barry[TOPIC] free-for-all15:31
MootBotVote is in progress. Finishing now.15:31
MootBotFinal result is 0 for, 9 against. 1 abstained. Total: -915:31
MootBotNew Topic:  free-for-all15:31
bigjools<Wayne> Denied </Wayne>15:31
barryi'm done, anybody have anything not on the agenda?15:32
bacone quick thing15:32
sinzuiI'd like to suggest that when large branches are submitted, they are looked over for how they can b broken into smaller branches15:32
jtvsinzui: shouldn't that happen before?15:33
* barry looks sheepish15:33
sinzuiI had a looks a one of celso's branches, and saw four separate deliverables.15:33
baci noticed 'rocketfuel-branch' no longer updates trunk.  this led to a much larger than expected diff i generated to review.  just mentioning15:33
bigjoolsit's down to the dev to manage this - if the review doesn't like it the branch should be rejected.  The rules have been well announced.15:34
BjornTjtv: it should, yes. but people will submit large branches anyway.15:34
barrybigjools: +115:34
sinzuibigjools: True, but the chances of getting parts reviewed and landed is better than a giant branch15:34
BjornTfor big branches, i think the reviewer should have to explain why the branch couldn't be split up15:35
bigjoolssinzui: that's why we have the 800 line rule though isn't it?15:35
sinzuibigjools: I was able to review two parts of celso's large branch and he landed them before you and schwuk got the backend and frontend pieces15:35
schwuksinzui: what about the time expended helping get the branch split? That's taken from other reviews.15:35
gmbMaybe review-submit should wc -l the diff and warn the dev before they submit something oversized.15:35
sinzuischwuk: I spent 10 minutes to find the parts15:36
BjornTschwuk: i think the idea is that the reviewer will learn how to split up branches, so he won't do the same mistake in the future.15:36
flacostesinzui: if it makes it that future branch are smaller that's good15:36
sinzuiMy core point is that during the preimp, the bug/spec needs to break the branches down to sane sizes15:36
bigjoolsbranch size is something I try to stay aware of during the branch's whole lifetime so I am not surprised when I submit it15:37
bigjoolssinzui: +115:37
sinzuiI think in celso's case, he could have delivered the parts through out the week instead of on one day15:37
bigjoolspre-imp should discuss this as part of the "ready to code" criteria15:38
* sinzui 's branch in pending-reviews is special. there are no code or test changes.15:38
flacostei'd like to recall a point15:39
flacostebig branches needs an arrangement with a reviewer15:39
flacoste*before* they are submitted15:39
flacostei think we should just reject branches over 800k as a matter of policy15:39
flacoste800 lines15:39
gmbflacoste: +115:39
gmbEspecially for oncall work.15:40
flacosteand leave the dev to find a reviewer15:40
LarstiQ800k lines or 800 lines?15:40
sinzuiSo 800+ in the general queue is forbidden?15:40
gmbIt dies up a reviewer for far too long.15:40
barryflacoste: i would support that (even as a recent offender) IF lpreview complained bitterly about > 800 line diffs15:40
bigjoolsgmb: it can kill them too :)15:40
flacostelarger than 800 lines is ok15:40
gmbbarry: It should be fairly easy to patch lpreview to do that.15:40
barrylet there be a --isuck flag15:40
flacosteif you have a reviwerer that commited to it15:40
* gmb is looking at the source now.15:40
flacostethis has been a policy for some time now15:40
flacostebut we didn't really enforce it15:40
flacostenow is probably time to do it15:40
* sinzui branches lpreview for 800 line slap test15:41
bigjoolsso > 800 with prior agreement with a reviewer only?15:41
flacostelpreview will only submit a 800 lines patch if the -r option is used15:41
gmbsinzui: lpreview/__init__.py:313 would be an ideal place for the slap code.15:41
flacostebigjools: yes15:41
bigjoolsflacoste: sounds good to me15:41
barrysinzui or gmb: who wants the action item on this one? hack lpreview to enforce (with manual override) 800 line limit?15:41
flacosteidea being that the reviewer will be able to help split the branch earlier15:42
gmbbarry: I'll take it.15:42
barrygmb: thanks!15:42
flacostebarry: no manual override15:42
flacostethe manual override is the -r option15:42
sinzuino manual15:42
barry[ACTION] gmb to hack lpreview to enforce 800 line limit15:42
MootBotACTION received:  gmb to hack lpreview to enforce 800 line limit15:42
flacoste-r being the reviewer who agreed to review the branch15:42
barryflacoste: +115:42
BjornTflacoste: using -r has a disadvantage, though.15:42
sinzuiif the review is not specified and the diff is > 800 lines, die15:42
schwukshould lpreview also have a -mentor argument?15:43
flacosteBjornT: what is it?15:43
schwukor at least a -cc15:43
BjornTit's not uncommon to ask a reviewer for a review, without telling him how big the diff is15:43
gmbschwuk: Yes. I think there's abug for that already.,15:43
flacosteBjornT: right!15:43
flacosteBjornT: what's your suggestion?15:43
BjornTflacoste: manual override :)15:43
barryBjornT: --isuck15:43
BjornTthis shouldn't happen often, so supplying an extra argument shouldn't be a problem15:44
sinzuiI think the implicit meaning of -r should suffice15:44
barrysinzui: i think BjornT has a point though: i might add -r without being warned about branch size15:45
bigjoolsI regularly use -r to direct the mail to the reviewer though15:45
baci think even if -r is specified there should be an explicit acknowledgment the branch is too big15:45
gmbsinzui: Ah, but people use that when subitting stuff for PR...15:45
BjornTsinzui: how often do you ask how big the diff is before accepting to review a branch?15:45
barryi'd rather, first get the warning15:45
bigjoolsyou need a new option15:45
gmbbac: +115:45
barryokay, we're out of time for this meeing!  gmb it's in your court now15:45
gmb"You're submitting a 1200 line diff for review. Don't be silly now. Are you sure? [y/N]"15:45
gmbbarry: Okay.15:45
MootBotMeeting finished at 15:45.15:45
barrythanks everyone!15:46
BjornTsinzui: branches over 800 should not be common, so no need to optimize for that case. a bit extra work shouldn't be a problem.15:46
bigjoolsthanks barry15:46
schwukthanks barry15:46
bacthanks baw15:47
=== Edwin is now known as EdwinGrubbs
=== salgado is now known as salgado-lunch
=== salgado-lunch is now known as salgado
=== jamesh_ is now known as jamesh

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!