=== mrevell is now known as mrevell-lunch === FreeNode is now known as herb === FreeNode is now known as herb === mrevell-lunch is now known as mrevell [15:00] So, who's chairing the meeting today? [15:01] gmb: statik [15:01] Cool. [15:01] I almost said me, thinking that the meeding had started already [15:02] Curse! My trap is foiled. [15:02] Does statik know he's chairing? ;) [15:03] gmb: barry and he discussed it [15:03] Right. [15:03] I'll go round up some of the troops... === danilo__ is now known as danilos [15:05] me [15:05] me [15:05] me [15:05] me [15:05] Hold your horses boys [15:06] sorry folks [15:06] fsck runs at the *worst* possible time [15:06] #startmeeting [15:06] Meeting started at 15:06. The chair is statik. [15:06] Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE] [15:06] so, whos here? [15:06] me [15:06] me [15:06] me [15:06] me [15:06] me [15:06] me [15:06] me [15:06] me [15:07] schwuk will be late as he's had to step out [15:07] * Roll call [15:07] * Next meeting [15:07] * Change time to 1400 UTC due to US daylight savings time? [15:07] * Action items [15:07] * Queue status [15:07] * Mentoring update [15:07] * Review process [15:07] me [15:07] [TOPIC] Next meeting time [15:07] New Topic: Next meeting time [15:07] meme [15:08] should we change the meeting time? [15:08] +1 [15:08] [VOTE] change the meeting time to 1400 UTC [15:08] Please vote on: change the meeting time to 1400 UTC. [15:08] 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 [15:08] E.g. /msg MootBot +1 #launchpad-meeting [15:08] +0 [15:08] Abstention received from statik. 0 for, 0 against. 1 have abstained. Count is now 0 [15:08] +1 [15:08] +1 received from jtv. 1 for, 0 against. 1 have abstained. Count is now 1 [15:08] +0 [15:08] Abstention received from gmb. 1 for, 0 against. 2 have abstained. Count is now 1 [15:08] -1 [15:08] -1 received from bac. 1 for, 1 against. 2 have abstained. Count is now 0 [15:08] +1 [15:08] +1 received from BjornT. 2 for, 1 against. 2 have abstained. Count is now 1 [15:08] +0 [15:08] Abstention received from allenap. 2 for, 1 against. 3 have abstained. Count is now 1 [15:08] -1 [15:08] +1 [15:08] +1 received from sinzui. 3 for, 1 against. 3 have abstained. Count is now 2 [15:08] -1 received from bigjools. 3 for, 2 against. 3 have abstained. Count is now 1 [15:08] +1 [15:08] +1 received from intellectronica. 4 for, 2 against. 3 have abstained. Count is now 2 [15:08] +0 [15:08] Abstention received from salgado. 4 for, 2 against. 4 have abstained. Count is now 2 [15:09] +1 [15:09] +1 received from flacoste. 5 for, 2 against. 4 have abstained. Count is now 3 [15:09] [AGREED] Change this meeting to 1400UTC going forward [15:09] AGREED received: Change this meeting to 1400UTC going forward [15:09] can I point out that this will be over UK people's lunch hour when the clocks go forwards here [15:09] bigjools: No it won't. [15:10] 14:00 UTC == 15:00 BST [15:10] * bigjools is a loser [15:10] Granted. [15:10] [TOPIC] Action items [15:10] Vote is in progress. Finishing now. [15:10] Final result is 5 for, 2 against. 4 abstained. Total: 3 [15:10] New Topic: Action items [15:10] anyone have action items? [15:11] ubmit to enforce 800 line limit. [15:11] Ah. [15:11] * gmb to hack review-submit to enforce 800 line limit. [15:11] Big fat fail, I'm afraid. Still need to forward my patch to mwh for approval. [15:11] Leave it on the agenda; I'll tackle it this week. [15:11] * gmb is also a loser [15:12] there, there, don't be too hard on yourself. it's a lot of work sending an email [15:12] [TOPIC] Queue status [15:12] New Topic: Queue status [15:13] I see 9 branches that are colored pink [15:13] Yeah, there are quite a few > SLA. [15:13] but the general queue is empty [15:13] db branches? [15:13] flacoste: 3 are db branches [15:13] Are the on-call reviewers letting people know when they've been assigned branches from the queue? [15:14] schwuk: need any help with your review? [15:14] allenap: same question [15:14] statik: schwuk's not here yet [15:14] the others over SLA are in the other reviewer meeting [15:14] I know schwuk started to review navlinks-by-content, but I don't see it in my mail [15:14] sinzui: are you his mentor? [15:14] statik: No, I'm okay right now, but a bit behind. I have apologised to abel. [15:14] statik: I am [15:15] sinzui: can you follow up with schwuk to see if he needs anything? [15:15] I will [15:15] allenap: great [15:15] sinzui: thank you [15:15] [TOPIC] Mentoring update [15:15] New Topic: Mentoring update [15:15] does anyone have some fantastic and insightful comments about mentoring? [15:16] No, but I've agreed to mentor bigjools whilst his mentor is away. [15:16] does anyone want to complain about their mentors? [15:16] gmb: that is great, thanks for volunteering [15:16] I noticed you helping him with the lunchtime thing earlier [15:17] I shall resist from sticking the boot in further :) [15:17] [TOPIC] Review process [15:17] New Topic: Review process [15:17] wise [15:17] I have a question about the review process [15:17] there was talk about releasing the lpreview plugin as open source [15:17] is anyone following up on that? [15:18] statik: It was mentioned, then kiko mentioned the process that such a release would have to go through, then... nothing after that, I think. [15:18] is there any reason that we should NOT release it? [15:18] I think our recent additions would make it less useful for release. [15:18] someone would need to manage submissions [15:19] sinzui: what additions are those? [15:19] The PR block ouput, make lint, 800 line limit, [15:19] my thinking is that this plugin might be an interesting base for companies who are considering bazaar. I am not thinking that we will get useful contributions back [15:20] statik: I think that we'd have to have a released branch and an used-by-lpdevs branch really. [15:20] For exactly the reasons that sinzui stated. [15:20] gmb: that sounds like extra work, which is a good reason not to release [15:20] Right. [15:21] ok. the floor is open for anyone who wants to talk about our review process [15:21] 5 [15:21] 4 [15:21] 3 [15:21] schwuk asked me how do we review sourcecode changes [15:21] 2 [15:21] aha [15:21] fantastic question [15:21] we submit sourcecode changes via PQM [15:22] but typically there are certain people who are more familiar with the code in a particular sourcecode dir [15:22] for example, I recently added feedvalidator to sourcecode [15:22] Edwin fixed a bug, and I reviewed it and submitted it [15:23] I think for sourcecode changes we have a good idea of what is affected, and will need to individually arrange for reviews based on how significant the change is [15:23] I don't think sourcecode changes can be assigned to the general review team [15:23] but that is just my opinion [15:23] BjornT: what do you think about review of sourcecode changes? flacoste? [15:24] bugger [15:24] i agree with your explanation [15:24] I missed the response to my question [15:24] but it also depends of the actual code [15:24] we submit sourcecode changes via PQM [15:24] but typically there are certain people who are more familiar with the code in a particular sourcecode dir [15:24] for example, I recently added feedvalidator to sourcecode [15:24] Edwin fixed a bug, and I reviewed it and submitted it [15:24] I think for sourcecode changes we have a good idea of what is affected, and will need to individually arrange for reviews based on how significant the change is [15:24] I don't think sourcecode changes can be assigned to the general review team [15:24] but that is just my opinion [15:24] for example, we don't usually commit to zope directly [15:25] but first land upstream and backport the fix [15:25] the idea is to prevent diversion [15:25] although we currently have one (stub's changes to the testrunner which aren't meaningful for upstream) [15:25] schwuk was review mwhudson's navlinks. to see the changes, he has to run loggerhead [15:26] sinzui: for which I got instructions off mwhudson [15:26] schwuk: rock! [15:26] that sounds fine, I don't think we have anyone else on the team that is particularly familiar with loggerhead [15:27] and I will deny ever sending patches upstream for it [15:27] but IMO those instructions should have been included with the review request,or put on the wiki and linked to [15:27] for everyone's benefit [15:28] schwuk: good point, could you and mwhudson collaborate on getting some instructions on the wiki about running loggerhead? [15:28] statik: sure [15:28] awesome [15:28] [AGREED] schwuk to work with mwhudson on getting loggerhead instructions on the wiki [15:28] AGREED received: schwuk to work with mwhudson on getting loggerhead instructions on the wiki [15:28] any other topics to discuss? [15:29] 5 [15:29] 4 [15:29] 3 [15:29] 2 [15:29] 1 [15:29] #endmeeting [15:29] Meeting finished at 15:29. [15:29] thanks statik! [15:29] thanks statik [15:29] thanks everyone! [15:29] Cheers statik [15:29] thanks statik === salgado-lunch is now known as salgado === Rinchen` is now known as Rinchen === mwhudson_ is now known as mwhudson === salgado is now known as salgado-afk