[13:59]  * bigjools is waiting with anticipation
[14:00] <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
[14:01] <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)
[14:02] <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 ?
[14:03] <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.
[14:04] <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?
[14:05] <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
[14:06] <sinzui> barry: sorry, I thought the remark was about why it has not landed
[14:06] <barry> um, which the 800 line limit one?
[14:07] <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?
[14:08] <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
[14:09] <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 :)
[14:10] <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
[14:11] <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
[14:12] <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
[14:13] <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
[14:14]  * barry thinks stub's branches should be moved to wip
[14:14] <barry> anything else on the queue?
[14:15] <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?
[14:16] <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
[14:17] <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?
[14:18] <sinzui> I think all was well. I had very little work last Friday in fact.
[14:19] <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!
[14:20] <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)
[14:21] <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.
[14:22] <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
[14:23] <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
[14:24] <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
[14:25] <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
[14:26] <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
[14:27] <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
[14:28] <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
[14:29] <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.
[14:30] <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
[14:31] <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?
[14:32] <bigjools> off the top of my head, performance, testing, security, meeting specs
[14:33] <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'...
[14:34] <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
[14:35] <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!
[14:36] <statik> tanks barry