| === mrevell is now known as mrevell-lunch | ||
| === salgado-afk is now known as salgado | ||
| === mrevell-lunch is now known as mrevell | ||
| * bigjools is waiting with anticipation | 13:59 | |
| barry | #startmeeting | 14:00 |
|---|---|---|
| MootBot | Meeting started at 15:00. The chair is barry. | 14:00 |
| MootBot | Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE] | 14:00 |
| barry | welcome everyone to this week's ameu reviewer's meeting | 14:00 |
| barry | who's here today? | 14:00 |
| bac | me | 14:00 |
| sinzui | me | 14:00 |
| flacoste | me | 14:00 |
| salgado | me | 14:00 |
| intellectronica | me | 14:00 |
| bigjools | me | 14:00 |
| jtv | me | 14:00 |
| allenap | me | 14:01 |
| barry | gmb sends his apologies | 14:01 |
| barry | [TOPIC] Agenda | 14:01 |
| MootBot | New Topic: Agenda | 14:01 |
| barry | == Agenda == | 14:01 |
| barry | * Roll call | 14:01 |
| barry | * Next meeting | 14:01 |
| barry | * Action items | 14:01 |
| barry | * Queue status | 14:01 |
| barry | * Mentoring update | 14:01 |
| barry | * Review process | 14:01 |
| barry | * '''Pre-imp calls are falling by the wayside''' (gmb) | 14:01 |
| bigjools | schwuk has a family emergency as you guess you saw | 14:02 |
| statik | me (sorry for delay) | 14:02 |
| barry | bigjools: i did :( | 14:02 |
| barry | [TOPIC] next meeting | 14:02 |
| MootBot | New Topic: next meeting | 14:02 |
| barry | same time and place week += 1 ? | 14:02 |
| barry | anybody know they won't be here? | 14:03 |
| barry | done | 14:03 |
| barry | [TOPIC] action items | 14:03 |
| MootBot | New Topic: action items | 14:03 |
| barry | * gmb to hack review-submit to enforce 800 line limit. | 14:03 |
| barry | don't think this was done, so we'll just push it to next week | 14:04 |
| barry | * schwuk to work with mwhudson to get instructions for running loggerhead onto the wiki | 14:04 |
| barry | anybody know anything about this one? | 14:04 |
| barry | if not, we can just push it to next week too | 14:05 |
| sinzui | barry: I do | 14:05 |
| barry | sinzui: the floor is yours | 14:05 |
| sinzui | barry: sorry, I thought the remark was about why it has not landed | 14:06 |
| barry | um, which the 800 line limit one? | 14:06 |
| sinzui | mwhudson's loggerhead branch that precipitated the need for instruction about how to run it. | 14:07 |
| barry | oh | 14:07 |
| barry | sinzui: is this so we can run loggerhead on our dev boxes? | 14:07 |
| sinzui | barry: yes. I have not seen the instructions yet. | 14:08 |
| barry | sinzui: but there was something about this that didn't land? | 14:08 |
| sinzui | barry: never mind me, I'll sit down and shutup | 14:08 |
| barry | ok :) | 14:08 |
| barry | i guess we'll move on :) | 14:08 |
| barry | [TOPIC] queue status | 14:08 |
| MootBot | New Topic: queue status | 14:08 |
| barry | i see lots of 1.2.4 branches in the queue and it being week 4 i guess it's good there are no 1.2.3 branches there :) | 14:09 |
| barry | we do have 5 pink branches in needs-review, anybody know anything about those? | 14:10 |
| barry | (there are 3 pinks that have been merged; i guess PR hasn't been updated for those yet) | 14:10 |
| barry | 3 of the unmerged pinks have conflicts | 14:10 |
| jtv | PR gets updated a bit less now that it's needed less, I think :) | 14:11 |
| barry | 2 are stub's branches, i'm guessing that's just the long running work stuart's been doing | 14:11 |
| barry | jtv: yep, i think you're right. that's a good thing, right? :) | 14:11 |
| sinzui | I can take abel's branch from schwuk | 14:11 |
| jtv | some good, some bad, like life :) | 14:12 |
| barry | we should at least be sure to remove merged branches tho | 14:12 |
| barry | sinzui: thanks! | 14:12 |
| sinzui | jtv's technique to to remove the branch from his repo and let the lines in PR go red | 14:12 |
| * jtv blushes | 14:12 | |
| barry | flacoste: what's up with leonard's custom-methods-get branch? | 14:13 |
| jtv | sinzui: I move them. I keep directories for "waiting for review," "merging," "merged" etc. | 14:13 |
| flacoste | barry: that should have been updated to needs-reply | 14:13 |
| flacoste | barry: it would be back in needs-review today | 14:13 |
| barry | flacoste: k, thanks | 14:13 |
| * barry thinks stub's branches should be moved to wip | 14:14 | |
| barry | anything else on the queue? | 14:14 |
| barry | 5 | 14:15 |
| barry | 4 | 14:15 |
| barry | 3 | 14:15 |
| barry | 2 | 14:15 |
| barry | 1 | 14:15 |
| barry | [TOPIC] mentoring update | 14:15 |
| MootBot | New Topic: mentoring update | 14:15 |
| sinzui | I see that only bigjools has signed up for on-call review | 14:15 |
| barry | any updates? | 14:15 |
| sinzui | I think it should be mandatory. | 14:16 |
| * bigjools is going to join Barry for a few hours my PM on Mondays | 14:16 | |
| barry | yep, thanks bigjools | 14:16 |
| bac | allenap has agreed to do on-call reviews but hasn't updated the wiki | 14:16 |
| bigjools | I think schwuk signed up but I don't remember who with and when | 14:16 |
| allenap | I'm doing it now :) | 14:16 |
| bac | we will start next week | 14:16 |
| sinzui | I've been allocating branches to mentoree's but the on-call review is the best way to get experience. | 14:17 |
| barry | allenap: thanks! | 14:17 |
| barry | sinzui: i agree. how did the oncalls work while i was away? did we keep up or fall behind? | 14:17 |
| sinzui | I think all was well. I had very little work last Friday in fact. | 14:18 |
| barry | sinzui: no end of week 3 freak out? :) | 14:19 |
| bac | it was pretty busy at the start of the week but tapered...just as it should | 14:19 |
| barry | bac: that's great! | 14:19 |
| barry | anything else on mentoring? | 14:20 |
| barry | 5 | 14:20 |
| barry | 4 | 14:20 |
| barry | 3 | 14:20 |
| barry | 2 | 14:20 |
| barry | 1 | 14:20 |
| barry | [TOPIC] review process | 14:20 |
| MootBot | New Topic: review process | 14:20 |
| barry | * '''Pre-imp calls are falling by the wayside''' (gmb) | 14:20 |
| barry | i'll just paste in gmb's comments since he's not here: | 14:21 |
| barry | * '''Pre-imp calls are falling by the wayside''' (gmb). Since we've adopted the on-call review process I've noticed that less and less people (including myself) have been having pre-imp calls before they start work. Partly, I figure that this is because the on-call process allows the developer to talk about their implementation decisions with the reviewer and so helps to substitute for a pre-imp in a lot of ways. However, I've had one | 14:21 |
| barry | branch land this cycle that happily had r= from the reviewer but which, had there been a pre-imp, might not have landed in the form it did (which would have avoided me needing to ask for an RC). Should we be enforcing the requirement to have pre-imp calls, or at least be more scrutinous of those branches that don't? | 14:21 |
| bac | scrutinous? | 14:21 |
| jtv | bac: works for me. | 14:21 |
| bigjools | bac: gmb is making up words again | 14:22 |
| bac | i see a lot of branches with no pre-imp | 14:22 |
| barry | i've noticed the same thing gmb has noticed | 14:22 |
| jtv | We could start by asking why there was none. | 14:22 |
| flacoste | we usually have on on the foundations team | 14:22 |
| intellectronica | i sometimes think that pre-imp calls are not the right emphasis | 14:23 |
| barry | i've been thinking about something similar: any branch that gets a needs-reply represents a flaw in the process | 14:23 |
| flacoste | well | 14:23 |
| flacoste | hold your horses barry | 14:23 |
| barry | maybe one cause is that there wasn't sufficient pre-impl call | 14:23 |
| flacoste | there are many needs-reply that aren't serious | 14:24 |
| sinzui | I write my notes/pre-imp material like a cover letter and send it to flacoste for discussion. | 14:24 |
| intellectronica | what we want is to be 'ready to code', but i've had many cases where there was a pre-imp call, but after starting to work i realised it wasn't actually ready to code | 14:24 |
| intellectronica | sinzui: i think that's an /excellent/ idea | 14:24 |
| sinzui | intellectronica: the format or sending it to flacoste? | 14:24 |
| intellectronica | i should do this more often, and maybe we should even consider establishing this as a process | 14:24 |
| flacoste | i can testify that sinzui techinque works very well | 14:24 |
| bigjools | I think you can recommend it but make it optional, personally I prefer the phone call | 14:25 |
| jtv | Fankly I rarely feel something is ready to code until I've written the code—in my head if nowhere else. | 14:25 |
| flacoste | bigjools: we do have a phone | 14:25 |
| barry | sinzui: does this pre-impl letter turn into your review cover letter? | 14:25 |
| flacoste | bigjools: after I read the notes | 14:25 |
| sinzui | bigjools: My letter is a start of a phone call and sometime gobby | 14:25 |
| intellectronica | bigjools: sure, phone call is great, but it's short, and you can easily miss things | 14:25 |
| bigjools | woa | 14:25 |
| flacoste | actually sinzui is modest here | 14:26 |
| bigjools | writing a note is great for some, sure | 14:26 |
| bigjools | but it won't always work for me | 14:26 |
| flacoste | because his notes often includes high-level version of what will become his tests | 14:26 |
| sinzui | barry: the pre-imp letter has tests and rules, the cover letter has implementation detail. Both would read like a spec | 14:26 |
| flacoste | bigjools: you should see it as the start of practicing TDD :-) | 14:27 |
| barry | very interesting | 14:27 |
| bigjools | ha :) | 14:27 |
| bigjools | What I tend to do is to write notes during the phone call | 14:27 |
| intellectronica | exactly, we do that for specs, but almost never for bugs, but i noticed that when i do that (for specs) the implementation is much more predictable | 14:27 |
| bigjools | perhaps a better approach would be to establish a pre-imp template? | 14:28 |
| flacoste | an A5! | 14:28 |
| barry | a TPS report! | 14:28 |
| intellectronica | bigjools: i think that can be useful, like we have for specs | 14:28 |
| sinzui | flacoste: we better add inkscape to lp deps then | 14:28 |
| jtv | I don't like the idea of a template for pre-imps; that makes you focus too much on what's there, and too little on what makes your branch unique. | 14:29 |
| jtv | Could we just "review" the cover letter? | 14:29 |
| flacoste | in my book, the template would be very bare | 14:29 |
| bigjools | I think it's more to direct the conversation to make sure you don't miss salient points | 14:29 |
| jtv | Danilo's been quoting my cover letters in reviews, which is sort of a first step towards reviewing cover letters. | 14:29 |
| flacoste | bigjools: the idea of the pre-impl call is to discuss a design, not to come up with one | 14:30 |
| jtv | A template that makes sure you don't miss any salient points is likely to look exactly like the review checklist. | 14:30 |
| bigjools | Did I say it was? | 14:30 |
| barry | flacoste: right | 14:30 |
| flacoste | bigjools: no, you didn't | 14:31 |
| flacoste | it's just that having on paper the overall plan makes it easier to see if you miss salient points during the convesation | 14:31 |
| barry | so, are there any concrete proposals? | 14:31 |
| bigjools | maybe the word "template" is wrong, "guidelines" is better | 14:31 |
| flacoste | example? | 14:31 |
| bigjools | off the top of my head, performance, testing, security, meeting specs | 14:32 |
| intellectronica | actually, my best specs, the ones that made it easiest to go ahead with the implementation, mention which files/objects are going to change, how it will be tested, etc'... | 14:33 |
| barry | i guess we should move this discussion to the mailing list. i'm not sure there are any action items here | 14:34 |
| bigjools | other than to remind people to have a pre-imp :) | 14:34 |
| barry | bigjools: right :) | 14:34 |
| barry | [ACTION] barry to remind people to have pre-impl calls | 14:34 |
| MootBot | ACTION received: barry to remind people to have pre-impl calls | 14:34 |
| barry | well, that's it for me. does anybody have anything not on the agenda? | 14:35 |
| barry | 5 | 14:35 |
| jtv | 4 | 14:35 |
| barry | 13 | 14:35 |
| barry | 2 | 14:35 |
| jtv | bingo!! | 14:35 |
| barry | #endmeeting | 14:35 |
| MootBot | Meeting finished at 15:36. | 14:35 |
| * jtv is sunstroked today. Never mind jtv. | 14:35 | |
| barry | thanks everyone! | 14:35 |
| bigjools | thanks barry | 14:35 |
| jtv | barry: thank you! | 14:35 |
| statik | tanks barry | 14:36 |
| === kiko is now known as kiko-fud | ||
| === salgado is now known as salgado-lunch | ||
| === kiko-fud is now known as kiko | ||
| === salgado-lunch is now known as salgado | ||
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!