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