| barry | #startmeeting | 04:00 |
|---|---|---|
| MootBot | Meeting started at 05:01. The chair is barry. | 04:00 |
| MootBot | Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE] | 04:00 |
| barry | hi everybody and welcome to this week's asiapac reviewers meeting | 04:01 |
| barry | who's here today? | 04:01 |
| sinzui | me | 04:01 |
| thumper | me (kind of) | 04:01 |
| sinzui | Well this is looking embarrassing. | 04:01 |
| spiv | I'm here. | 04:01 |
| barry | sinzui: i was going to say, if it was just you and me, we should do it when the sun is up :) | 04:01 |
| jml | hi | 04:02 |
| barry | jml: hi | 04:02 |
| barry | spiv, thumper hi | 04:02 |
| barry | mwhudson: are you around? | 04:02 |
| jml | thumper is unwell and is off | 04:02 |
| barry | thumper: :( | 04:02 |
| barry | [TOPIC] agenda | 04:03 |
| MootBot | New Topic: agenda | 04:03 |
| jml | mwhudson last said "afk for a little while" 4 minutes ago | 04:03 |
| barry | jml: okay thanks, oh well | 04:03 |
| barry | * Roll call | 04:03 |
| barry | * Next meeting | 04:03 |
| barry | * Action items | 04:03 |
| barry | * Queue status | 04:03 |
| barry | * Mentoring update | 04:03 |
| barry | * Review process | 04:03 |
| barry | * '''Pre-imp calls are falling by the wayside''' (gmb) | 04:03 |
| barry | [TOPIC] next meeting | 04:03 |
| MootBot | New Topic: next meeting | 04:03 |
| barry | so, is this a good time for y'all? | 04:03 |
| jml | for me, yes. | 04:03 |
| thumper | normally, but I'm somewhat uncommunicative right now | 04:04 |
| spiv | This is fine for me too (same timezone as jml). | 04:04 |
| barry | thumper: no worries. anybody know if this is a good time for jamesh? | 04:04 |
| jml | but I'd be equally with something up to four hours earlier or two hours later, if things need rescheduling. | 04:04 |
| jml | barry: it's 11am in WA right now. | 04:04 |
| jml | barry: it *ought* to be a good time for him :) | 04:04 |
| barry | :) | 04:05 |
| jml | (the WA that's on the west coast of Australia, not the one on the west coast) | 04:05 |
| barry | jml, naw, i was thinking maybe 1 hour earlier, but this works just fine for me too. in daylight saving's its 11pm, and i fake-tivo the daily show so it's all good | 04:05 |
| jml | :) | 04:06 |
| barry | cool, let's keep 0300utc then | 04:06 |
| jml | +1 | 04:06 |
| barry | [TOPIC] action items | 04:06 |
| MootBot | New Topic: action items | 04:06 |
| barry | * (continued) thumper to report on pending-reviews killer in LP | 04:06 |
| thumper | barry: sorry, it's coming | 04:06 |
| thumper | but nothing else to report right now | 04:07 |
| barry | thumper: no worries, we'll just keep continuing it if you want | 04:07 |
| thumper | yeah | 04:07 |
| barry | thumper: just want to be sure you don't want to ditch the whole thing :) | 04:07 |
| barry | jamesh: hi! | 04:07 |
| jamesh | hi | 04:07 |
| thumper | barry: not just yet | 04:07 |
| lifeless | boo! | 04:08 |
| barry | cool | 04:08 |
| * barry is frightened | 04:08 | |
| barry | just for completeness, here are the ameu action items: | 04:08 |
| barry | * gmb to hack review-submit to enforce 800 line limit. | 04:08 |
| barry | * schwuk to work with mwhudson to get instructions for running loggerhead onto the wiki | 04:08 |
| barry | any comments or should we just move on? | 04:09 |
| jml | barry: I don't think enforcing the 800 limit is a good idea. | 04:09 |
| jml | barry: unless that means "show a warning" | 04:09 |
| thumper | me neither | 04:09 |
| sinzui | jml: 800 + shame | 04:09 |
| barry | yeah, it's mostly so you have a warning | 04:09 |
| barry | i really think the option to override should be --isuck | 04:10 |
| lifeless | rather than say enforce | 04:10 |
| lifeless | say 'warn' perhaps ? | 04:10 |
| sinzui | jml: the 800 line flag really means you need to send with the -r switch (have a review lined up) | 04:10 |
| lifeless | if you mean warn :> | 04:10 |
| * barry speaks as someone who sucks often | 04:10 | |
| jml | sinzui: perhaps. | 04:10 |
| barry | yes, the point is you really need to arrange things with a reviewer if your >800 lines | 04:10 |
| jml | I think that's fair enough. I still think you should be able to override whatever policy the tool has by default. | 04:11 |
| barry | i'm happy to reword this action item to be clearer about it, but i think gmb knows what we mean | 04:11 |
| barry | jml: definitely | 04:11 |
| jml | anyway, review-submit will be an addon to send eventually. | 04:12 |
| jml | barry: cool. now I know what gmb means, I'm happy :) | 04:12 |
| barry | cool! | 04:12 |
| barry | [TOPIC] queue status | 04:12 |
| MootBot | New Topic: queue status | 04:12 |
| barry | some bonehead's got two branch's in the general queue | 04:13 |
| jml | :) | 04:13 |
| barry | :-D | 04:13 |
| jml | just to be clear | 04:13 |
| jml | are we supposed to send emails *and* hack wiki? | 04:13 |
| barry | jml: i don't know anymore. i do, but that's just me | 04:14 |
| jml | hah! | 04:14 |
| jml | ok :) | 04:14 |
| barry | i fully intend to ask tomorrow's on-caller to review these branches though | 04:14 |
| lifeless | someone should patch submit-review to edit the wiki | 04:14 |
| jml | there's also at least one email sent that's not on the wiki page and has no assigned reviewer | 04:14 |
| jml | lifeless: yes. it's getting close to that already. | 04:15 |
| barry | jml: it's still the responsibility of the dev to get his branches reviewed | 04:15 |
| jml | *nod* | 04:15 |
| * barry still likes the pending-reviews page tho | 04:15 | |
| barry | it tells me we have 5 pink branches | 04:15 |
| barry | i know about stub's two | 04:16 |
| barry | jml: what's up with your use-inmemory-proxies branch? | 04:16 |
| jml | barry: shelved, for the time being. | 04:16 |
| barry | jml: should we move that to wip? | 04:16 |
| jml | barry: yeah, probably. | 04:17 |
| barry | jml: i'll let you do that :) | 04:17 |
| jml | ok | 04:17 |
| barry | thanks | 04:17 |
| barry | any other queue-related comments? | 04:17 |
| jml | none from me | 04:18 |
| barry | [TOPIC] mentoring update | 04:18 |
| MootBot | New Topic: mentoring update | 04:18 |
| barry | i don't think there are any asiapac mentors or mentorees | 04:18 |
| barry | are there any of you guys who /aren't/ already reviewers? | 04:18 |
| sinzui | That was to requirement for mwhudson to emigrate. | 04:19 |
| jml | barry: all australasian LP hackers are reviewers | 04:19 |
| jml | we even have a non-LP hacker who's a reviewer :) | 04:19 |
| barry | jml: excellent! | 04:20 |
| jml | a veritable superabundance of reviewers. | 04:20 |
| barry | you need to hire more grunts | 04:20 |
| barry | [TOPIC] review process | 04:20 |
| MootBot | New Topic: review process | 04:20 |
| barry | * '''Pre-imp calls are falling by the wayside''' (gmb) | 04:20 |
| jml | What does that mean? | 04:21 |
| barry | people 'round here slacking on pre-impl calls | 04:21 |
| barry | have you noticed that? is it a problem? and if so what do we do about it? | 04:21 |
| barry | here's specifically what gmb says: | 04:21 |
| 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 | 04:21 |
| 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? | 04:21 |
| mwhudson | oopsie | 04:22 |
| jml | I've observed that people aren't rigorous about calling someone before they begin work on a branch. | 04:22 |
| jml | I don't think that's a problem. | 04:22 |
| jamesh | I think I've done only two pre-impl calls with people in the last month (and only one was actually voice) | 04:23 |
| barry | let me ask: how have the quality of branches been lately when first submitted for review? has it been getting better, worse, or about the same? | 04:23 |
| jml | the way we'd measure it being a problem is if reviewers were asking for branches to be re-implemented :) | 04:23 |
| jml | barry: that's hard to discern. The code I get to review is generally very clear. | 04:24 |
| barry | i'm curious about the rate of needs-reply branches. | 04:24 |
| jml | the sample is limited, because we are increasing the size of the review team. | 04:24 |
| barry | jml: many of the branches i've reviewed lately have been merge-* right off the bat (i.e. very good quality) | 04:24 |
| mwhudson | something that's definitely happening is that i'm basically only reviewing things from the code team | 04:25 |
| jml | needs-reply doesn't always mean lower quality | 04:25 |
| mwhudson | and occasionally jamesh | 04:25 |
| barry | jml: no, you're right, but it's an indicator that the branch maybe wasn't quite ready to code yet | 04:25 |
| jml | I often flag things needs-reply because I don't understand a part of the problem domain. | 04:25 |
| barry | mwhudson: interesting | 04:25 |
| jml | yeah, I'd agree w/ mwhudson on that. | 04:26 |
| barry | is that basically geography? | 04:26 |
| jml | I also almost always get code or bzr ppl to do my pre-impl calls | 04:26 |
| jamesh | well, it isn't that surprising that NZ reviewers mainly have overlap with NZ and AU coders | 04:26 |
| mwhudson | indeed | 04:26 |
| barry | jamesh: yep | 04:27 |
| jamesh | for pre-implementation calls, it is even more of an issue | 04:27 |
| jamesh | since that's real time when reviewing might not be | 04:27 |
| barry | cool, so basically you don't feel that the current rate of pre-impl's is a problem? | 04:27 |
| jml | no :) | 04:27 |
| mwhudson | i don't know how much of a problem this is, it reduces the cross-team spread of knowledge a bit | 04:28 |
| mwhudson | barry: no | 04:28 |
| barry | mwhudson: good point. | 04:28 |
| jamesh | while there might not be as many formal pre-impl calls as there once were, people do consult others on IRC about implementation issues | 04:28 |
| jamesh | (at least in this time zone) | 04:28 |
| barry | if it's not a problem, i'm definitely not going to try to "fix" it then :) | 04:29 |
| barry | thanks, this has been good feedback | 04:29 |
| barry | so... that's it from me. we have 15 minutes if anybody has anything not on the agenda, or messages to convey to ameu | 04:29 |
| * jml has nothing on topic | 04:30 | |
| barry | cool. time for the colbert report then :) | 04:30 |
| mwhudson | :) | 04:30 |
| barry | #endmeeting | 04:30 |
| MootBot | Meeting finished at 05:31. | 04:30 |
| barry | thanks everyone! g'night :) | 04:30 |
| mwhudson | thanks barry | 04:31 |
| jml | thanks barry | 04:31 |
| mwhudson | (and sorry for being late) | 04:31 |
| barry | mwhudson: no worries. talk to you guys soon... | 04:31 |
| === cprov is now known as cprov-afk | ||
| === cprov-afk is now known as cprov | ||
| === mrevell is now known as mrevell-lunch | ||
| === mrevell-lunch is now known as mrevell | ||
| === vednis is now known as mars | ||
| === salgado is now known as salgado-lunch | ||
| === salgado-lunch is now known as salgado | ||
| === Seveaz is now known as Seveas | ||
| === mwhudson_ is now known as mwhudson | ||
| === mwhudson_ is now known as mwhudson | ||
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!