MootBotMeeting started at 05:01. The chair is barry.04:00
MootBotCommands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]04:00
barryhi everybody and welcome to this week's asiapac reviewers meeting04:01
barrywho's here today?04:01
thumperme (kind of)04:01
sinzuiWell this is looking embarrassing.04:01
spivI'm here.04:01
barrysinzui: i was going to say, if it was just you and me, we should do it when the sun is up :)04:01
barryjml: hi04:02
barryspiv, thumper hi04:02
barrymwhudson: are you around?04:02
jmlthumper is unwell and is off04:02
barrythumper: :(04:02
barry[TOPIC] agenda04:03
MootBotNew Topic:  agenda04:03
jmlmwhudson last said "afk for a little while" 4 minutes ago04:03
barryjml: okay thanks, oh well04:03
barry * Roll call04:03
barry * Next meeting04:03
barry * Action items04:03
barry * Queue status04:03
barry * Mentoring update04:03
barry * Review process04:03
barry    * '''Pre-imp calls are falling by the wayside''' (gmb)04:03
barry[TOPIC] next meeting04:03
MootBotNew Topic:  next meeting04:03
barryso, is this a good time for y'all?04:03
jmlfor me, yes.04:03
thumpernormally, but I'm somewhat uncommunicative right now04:04
spivThis is fine for me too (same timezone as jml).04:04
barrythumper: no worries.  anybody know if this is a good time for jamesh?04:04
jmlbut I'd be equally with something up to four hours earlier or two hours later, if things need rescheduling.04:04
jmlbarry: it's 11am in WA right now.04:04
jmlbarry: it *ought* to be a good time for him :)04:04
jml(the WA that's on the west coast of Australia, not the one on the west coast)04:05
barryjml, 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 good04:05
barrycool, let's keep 0300utc then04:06
barry[TOPIC] action items04:06
MootBotNew Topic:  action items04:06
barry * (continued) thumper to report on pending-reviews killer in LP04:06
thumperbarry: sorry, it's coming04:06
thumperbut nothing else to report right now04:07
barrythumper: no worries, we'll just keep continuing it if you want04:07
barrythumper: just want to be sure you don't want to ditch the whole thing :)04:07
barryjamesh: hi!04:07
thumperbarry: not just yet04:07
* barry is frightened04:08
barryjust 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 wiki04:08
barryany comments or should we just move on?04:09
jmlbarry: I don't think enforcing the 800 limit is a good idea.04:09
jmlbarry: unless that means "show a warning"04:09
thumperme neither04:09
sinzuijml: 800 + shame04:09
barryyeah, it's mostly so you have a warning04:09
barryi really think the option to override should be --isuck04:10
lifelessrather than say enforce04:10
lifelesssay 'warn' perhaps ?04:10
sinzuijml: the 800 line flag really means you need to send with the -r switch (have a review lined up)04:10
lifelessif you mean warn :>04:10
* barry speaks as someone who sucks often04:10
jmlsinzui: perhaps.04:10
barryyes, the point is you really need to arrange things with a reviewer if your >800 lines04:10
jmlI think that's fair enough. I still think you should be able to override whatever policy the tool has by default.04:11
barryi'm happy to reword this action item to be clearer about it, but i think gmb knows what we mean04:11
barryjml: definitely04:11
jmlanyway, review-submit will be an addon to send eventually.04:12
jmlbarry: cool. now I know what gmb means, I'm happy :)04:12
barry[TOPIC] queue status04:12
MootBotNew Topic:  queue status04:12
barrysome bonehead's got two branch's in the general queue04:13
jmljust to be clear04:13
jmlare we supposed to send emails *and* hack wiki?04:13
barryjml: i don't know anymore.  i do, but that's just me04:14
jmlok :)04:14
barryi fully intend to ask tomorrow's on-caller to review these branches though04:14
lifelesssomeone should patch submit-review to edit the wiki04:14
jmlthere's also at least one email sent that's not on the wiki page and has no assigned reviewer04:14
jmllifeless: yes. it's getting close to that already.04:15
barryjml: it's still the responsibility of the dev to get his branches reviewed04:15
* barry still likes the pending-reviews page tho04:15
barryit tells me we have 5 pink branches04:15
barryi know about stub's two04:16
barryjml: what's up with your use-inmemory-proxies branch?04:16
jmlbarry: shelved, for the time being.04:16
barryjml: should we move that to wip?04:16
jmlbarry: yeah, probably.04:17
barryjml: i'll let you do that :)04:17
barryany other queue-related comments?04:17
jmlnone from me04:18
barry[TOPIC] mentoring update04:18
MootBotNew Topic:  mentoring update04:18
barryi don't think there are any asiapac mentors or mentorees04:18
barryare there any of you guys who /aren't/ already reviewers?04:18
sinzuiThat was to requirement for mwhudson to emigrate.04:19
jmlbarry: all australasian LP hackers are reviewers04:19
jmlwe even have a non-LP hacker who's a reviewer :)04:19
barryjml: excellent!04:20
jmla veritable superabundance of reviewers.04:20
barryyou need to hire more grunts04:20
barry[TOPIC] review process04:20
MootBotNew Topic:  review process04:20
barry    * '''Pre-imp calls are falling by the wayside''' (gmb)04:20
jmlWhat does that mean?04:21
barrypeople 'round here slacking on pre-impl calls04:21
barryhave you noticed that? is it a problem? and if so what do we do about it?04:21
barryhere'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 one04:21
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
jmlI've observed that people aren't rigorous about calling someone before they begin work on a branch.04:22
jmlI don't think that's a problem.04:22
jameshI think I've done only two pre-impl calls with people in the last month (and only one was actually voice)04:23
barrylet 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
jmlthe way we'd measure it being a problem is if reviewers were asking for branches to be re-implemented :)04:23
jmlbarry: that's hard to discern. The code I get to review is generally very clear.04:24
barryi'm curious about the rate of needs-reply branches.04:24
jmlthe sample is limited, because we are increasing the size of the review team.04:24
barryjml: many of the branches i've reviewed lately have been merge-* right off the bat (i.e. very good quality)04:24
mwhudsonsomething that's definitely happening is that i'm basically only reviewing things from the code team04:25
jmlneeds-reply doesn't always mean lower quality04:25
mwhudsonand occasionally jamesh04:25
barryjml: no, you're right, but it's an indicator that the branch maybe wasn't quite ready to code yet04:25
jmlI often flag things needs-reply because I don't understand a part of the problem domain.04:25
barrymwhudson: interesting04:25
jmlyeah, I'd agree w/ mwhudson on that.04:26
barryis that basically geography?04:26
jmlI also almost always get code or bzr ppl to do my pre-impl calls04:26
jameshwell, it isn't that surprising that NZ reviewers mainly have overlap with NZ and AU coders04:26
barryjamesh: yep04:27
jameshfor pre-implementation calls, it is even more of an issue04:27
jameshsince that's real time when reviewing might not be04:27
barrycool, so basically you don't feel that the current rate of pre-impl's is a problem?04:27
jmlno :)04:27
mwhudsoni don't know how much of a problem this is, it reduces the cross-team spread of knowledge a bit04:28
mwhudsonbarry: no04:28
barrymwhudson: good point.04:28
jameshwhile there might not be as many formal pre-impl calls as there once were, people do consult others on IRC about implementation issues04:28
jamesh(at least in this time zone)04:28
barryif it's not a problem, i'm definitely not going to try to "fix" it then :)04:29
barrythanks, this has been good feedback04:29
barryso... that's it from me.  we have 15 minutes if anybody has anything not on the agenda, or messages to convey to ameu04:29
* jml has nothing on topic04:30
barrycool.  time for the colbert report then :)04:30
MootBotMeeting finished at 05:31.04:30
barrythanks everyone!  g'night :)04:30
mwhudsonthanks barry04:31
jmlthanks barry04:31
mwhudson(and sorry for being late)04:31
barrymwhudson: 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!