=== 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 anticipation13:59
MootBotMeeting started at 15:00. The chair is barry.14:00
MootBotCommands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]14:00
barrywelcome everyone to this week's ameu reviewer's meeting14:00
barrywho's here today?14:00
barrygmb sends his apologies14:01
barry[TOPIC] Agenda14:01
MootBotNew Topic:  Agenda14:01
barry== Agenda ==14:01
barry * Roll call14:01
barry * Next meeting14:01
barry * Action items14:01
barry * Queue status14:01
barry * Mentoring update14:01
barry * Review process14:01
barry    * '''Pre-imp calls are falling by the wayside''' (gmb)14:01
bigjoolsschwuk has a family emergency as you guess you saw14:02
statikme (sorry for delay)14:02
barrybigjools: i did :(14:02
barry[TOPIC] next meeting14:02
MootBotNew Topic:  next meeting14:02
barrysame time and place week += 1 ?14:02
barryanybody know they won't be here?14:03
barry[TOPIC] action items14:03
MootBotNew Topic:  action items14:03
barry * gmb to hack review-submit to enforce 800 line limit.14:03
barrydon't think this was done, so we'll just push it to next week14:04
barry * schwuk to work with mwhudson to get instructions for running loggerhead onto the wiki14:04
barryanybody know anything about this one?14:04
barryif not, we can just push it to next week too14:05
sinzuibarry: I do14:05
barrysinzui: the floor is yours14:05
sinzuibarry: sorry, I thought the remark was about why it has not landed14:06
barryum, which the 800 line limit one?14:06
sinzuimwhudson's loggerhead branch that precipitated the need for instruction about how to run it.14:07
barrysinzui: is this so we can run loggerhead on our dev boxes?14:07
sinzuibarry: yes. I have not seen the instructions yet.14:08
barrysinzui: but there was something about this that didn't land?14:08
sinzuibarry: never mind me, I'll sit down and shutup14:08
barryok :)14:08
barryi guess we'll move on :)14:08
barry[TOPIC] queue status14:08
MootBotNew Topic:  queue status14:08
barryi 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
barrywe 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
barry3 of the unmerged pinks have conflicts14:10
jtvPR gets updated a bit less now that it's needed less, I think :)14:11
barry2 are stub's branches, i'm guessing that's just the long running work stuart's been doing14:11
barryjtv: yep, i think you're right.  that's a good thing, right? :)14:11
sinzuiI can take abel's branch from schwuk14:11
jtvsome good, some bad, like life :)14:12
barrywe should at least be sure to remove merged branches tho14:12
barrysinzui: thanks!14:12
sinzuijtv's technique to to remove the branch from his repo and let the lines in PR go red14:12
* jtv blushes14:12
barryflacoste: what's up with leonard's custom-methods-get branch?14:13
jtvsinzui: I move them.  I keep directories for "waiting for review," "merging," "merged" etc.14:13
flacostebarry: that should have been updated to needs-reply14:13
flacostebarry: it would be back in needs-review today14:13
barryflacoste: k, thanks14:13
* barry thinks stub's branches should be moved to wip14:14
barryanything else on the queue?14:14
barry[TOPIC] mentoring update14:15
MootBotNew Topic:  mentoring update14:15
sinzuiI see that only bigjools has signed up for on-call review14:15
barryany updates?14:15
sinzuiI think it should be mandatory.14:16
* bigjools is going to join Barry for a few hours my PM on Mondays14:16
barryyep, thanks bigjools14:16
bacallenap has agreed to do on-call reviews but hasn't updated the wiki14:16
bigjoolsI think schwuk signed up but I don't remember who with and when14:16
allenapI'm doing it now :)14:16
bacwe will start next week14:16
sinzuiI've been allocating branches to mentoree's but the on-call review is the best way to get experience.14:17
barryallenap: thanks!14:17
barrysinzui: i agree.  how did the oncalls work while i was away?  did we keep up or fall behind?14:17
sinzuiI think all was well. I had very little work last Friday in fact.14:18
barrysinzui: no end of week 3 freak out? :)14:19
bacit was pretty busy at the start of the week but tapered...just as it should14:19
barrybac: that's great!14:19
barryanything else on mentoring?14:20
barry[TOPIC] review process14:20
MootBotNew Topic:  review process14:20
barry    * '''Pre-imp calls are falling by the wayside''' (gmb)14:20
barryi'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 one14:21
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
jtvbac: works for me.14:21
bigjoolsbac: gmb is making up words again14:22
baci see a lot of branches with no pre-imp14:22
barryi've noticed the same thing gmb has noticed14:22
jtvWe could start by asking why there was none.14:22
flacostewe usually have on on the foundations team14:22
intellectronicai sometimes think that pre-imp calls are not the right emphasis14:23
barryi've been thinking about something similar: any branch that gets a needs-reply represents a flaw in the process14:23
flacostehold your horses barry14:23
barrymaybe one cause is that there wasn't sufficient pre-impl call14:23
flacostethere are many needs-reply that aren't serious14:24
sinzuiI write my notes/pre-imp material like a cover letter and send it to flacoste for discussion.14:24
intellectronicawhat 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 code14:24
intellectronicasinzui: i think that's an /excellent/ idea14:24
sinzuiintellectronica: the format or sending it to flacoste?14:24
intellectronicai should do this more often, and maybe we should even consider establishing this as a process14:24
flacostei can testify that sinzui techinque works very well14:24
bigjoolsI think you can recommend it but make it optional, personally I prefer the phone call14:25
jtvFankly I rarely feel something is ready to code until I've written the codeā€”in my head if nowhere else.14:25
flacostebigjools: we do have a phone14:25
barrysinzui: does this pre-impl letter turn into your review cover letter?14:25
flacostebigjools: after I read the notes14:25
sinzuibigjools: My letter is a start of a phone call and sometime gobby14:25
intellectronicabigjools: sure, phone call is great, but it's short, and you can easily miss things14:25
flacosteactually sinzui is modest here14:26
bigjoolswriting a note is great for some, sure14:26
bigjoolsbut it won't always work for me14:26
flacostebecause his notes often includes high-level version of what will become his tests14:26
sinzuibarry: the pre-imp letter has tests and rules, the cover letter has implementation detail. Both would read like a spec14:26
flacostebigjools: you should see it as the start of practicing TDD :-)14:27
barryvery interesting14:27
bigjoolsha :)14:27
bigjoolsWhat I tend to do is to write notes during the phone call14:27
intellectronicaexactly, 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 predictable14:27
bigjoolsperhaps a better approach would be to establish a pre-imp template?14:28
flacostean A5!14:28
barrya TPS report!14:28
intellectronicabigjools: i think that can be useful, like we have for specs14:28
sinzuiflacoste: we better add inkscape to lp deps then14:28
jtvI 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
jtvCould we just "review" the cover letter?14:29
flacostein my book, the template would be very bare14:29
bigjoolsI think it's more to direct the conversation to make sure you don't miss salient points14:29
jtvDanilo's been quoting my cover letters in reviews, which is sort of a first step towards reviewing cover letters.14:29
flacostebigjools: the idea of the pre-impl call is to discuss a design, not to come up with one14:30
jtvA template that makes sure you don't miss any salient points is likely to look exactly like the review checklist.14:30
bigjoolsDid I say it was?14:30
barryflacoste: right14:30
flacostebigjools: no, you didn't14:31
flacosteit's just that having on paper the overall plan makes it easier to see if you miss salient points during the convesation14:31
barryso, are there any concrete proposals?14:31
bigjoolsmaybe the word "template" is wrong, "guidelines" is better14:31
bigjoolsoff the top of my head, performance, testing, security, meeting specs14:32
intellectronicaactually, 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
barryi guess we should move this discussion to the mailing list.  i'm not sure there are any action items here14:34
bigjoolsother than to remind people to have a pre-imp :)14:34
barrybigjools: right :)14:34
barry[ACTION] barry to remind people to have pre-impl calls14:34
MootBotACTION received:  barry to remind people to have pre-impl calls14:34
barrywell, that's it for me.  does anybody have anything not on the agenda?14:35
MootBotMeeting finished at 15:36.14:35
* jtv is sunstroked today. Never mind jtv.14:35
barrythanks everyone!14:35
bigjoolsthanks barry14:35
jtvbarry: thank you!14:35
statiktanks barry14:36
=== 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!