[14:54]  * gmb goes to grab a drink
[15:00] <barry> #startmeeting
[15:00]  * barry hopes somebody will kick mootbot
[15:00] <barry> anyway...
[15:00] <barry> welcome to this week's launchpad ameu reviewers meeting.  who's here today?
[15:00] <bigjools> me-ow
[15:00] <allenap> me
[15:00] <gmb> me
[15:00] <bac> me
[15:01]  * barry knows abentley sent his apologies
[15:01] <cprov> me
[15:01] <BjornT> me
[15:01] <salgado> me
[15:01] <sinzu1> me
[15:01] <sinzui> me
[15:01] <EdwinGrubbs> me
[15:01] <barry> flacoste: ping
[15:01] <intellectronica> me
[15:02] <barry> danilos: ping
[15:02] <barry> [TOPIC] agenda
[15:03] <barry>  * Roll call
[15:03] <barry>  * Next meeting
[15:03] <barry>  * Action items
[15:03] <barry>  * Queue status
[15:03] <barry>  * Mentoring update
[15:03] <barry>  * Review process
[15:03] <barry>    * watch for dead end links ([[https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/launchpad/+bug/254436|bug 254436]] - flacoste)
[15:03] <barry> [TOPIC] next meeting
[15:03] <barry> week += 1?
[15:03] <barry> anybody know they won't be here?
[15:04] <sinzui> I may not
[15:04] <gmb> I won't be.
[15:04] <sinzui> That depends upon my connectivity next week
[15:04] <barry> cool.  please update the apologies section on ReviewerMeetingAgenda
[15:04] <barry> [TOPIC]  * Action items
[15:05] <barry>  * intellectronica to write up guidelines on check_permission in the wiki and email the ml for additional input
[15:05] <intellectronica> i haven't done that, but have done my other action items.
[15:05] <barry> intellectronica: rock on, thanks
[15:05] <barry>  * intellectronica to start a list on the wiki of devs/available platforms
[15:05] <barry> done
[15:06] <barry>  * intellectronica to start the ball rolling on an email to the ml re: multiple browsers/platforms
[15:06] <barry> done
[15:06] <barry>  * Queue status
[15:06] <barry> nothing much from me here. does anybody have any comments?
[15:07]  * sinzui reprimands himself for not updating pending review 
[15:07]  * barry can't kill of PR fast enough
[15:07] <barry> [TOPIC]
[15:07] <barry>  * Mentoring update
[15:07] <barry> i don't think we have any mentors currently?
[15:08] <barry> just abentley i believe
[15:08] <intellectronica> do we have more people we want to invite, then?
[15:08] <barry> intellectronica: my question exactly :)
[15:08] <flacoste> me
[15:09] <barry> we had talked about mars and leonardr
[15:09] <barry> any other suggestions?
[15:10] <barry> anyway, send them to me if you have them
[15:10] <barry> [TOPIC] review process
[15:10] <barry> not much from me here, except that i did my first merge proposal this week
[15:10] <barry> tim and i talked about some improvements to that code and tim sent an email to the list about our discussions
[15:11] <barry> i think with those additions, this is going to be really nice
[15:11] <barry> diffs on the web and all-email reviewers are still a little ways off, but iiuc are being actively worked on
[15:11] <barry> does anybody else have comments about merge proposals?
[15:13] <barry> anyway, i'd like to encourage people to try them out, submit bugs, send emails, etc.  tim and co are very interested in making it fit with our process
[15:13] <barry>    * watch for dead end links ([[https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/launchpad/+bug/254436|bug 254436]] - flacoste)
[15:13] <BjornT> one thing i noticed is that it's really hard to follow the reviews by e-mail
[15:13] <sinzui> We ultimately need something can can do branch analysis like out make lint.
[15:13] <flacoste> see bug report :-)
[15:14] <barry> BjornT: yep.  this is being actively worked on.  tim knows we want to do reviews by email
[15:14]  * flacoste is n't really here sorry
[15:14] <flacoste> we might postpone
[15:14] <barry> flacoste: next week?
[15:14] <barry> flacoste: ok
[15:15] <barry> wow. shortest meeting evar.  does anybody have anything not on the agenda?
[15:16] <barry> one thing from me then: if you have any suggestions for improving this meeting, making it more relevant or, um, interesting please let me know.  i want to take joey and kiko's lead and make sure you're getting benefit out of these meetings
[15:17] <kiko> one trick
[15:17] <kiko> is to get the people coming to the meeting
[15:17] <kiko> to raise most of the agenda, preferrably in advance
[15:17] <kiko> is there an easy place to coordinate this -- i.e. add agenda topics, etc?
[15:18] <intellectronica> kiko: https://launchpad.canonical.com/ReviewerMeetingAgenda
[15:18] <barry> kiko: yes
[15:18] <kiko> and traditionally, how much of it is boilerplate and how much is dynamic?
[15:18] <barry> kiko: a lot of it is boilerplate
[15:19] <barry> which i'm not sure is very helpful to folks.  e.g. the mentor update is useless to asiapac
[15:19] <barry> queue status is occasionally useful
[15:19] <kiko> right
[15:19] <kiko> yeah, I hear lots of debate about that
[15:19] <kiko> so to add some spice to this conversation
[15:20] <kiko> how about I throw up a topic of controversy?
[15:20] <barry> kiko: puke away
[15:20] <kiko> blech
[15:20] <barry> "throw up"
[15:20] <kiko> could we avoid the need to do pre-merge reviews for certain types of change that we want to encourage?
[15:21] <kiko> pre-merge reviews are something that does add a set of handoffs to our process
[15:21] <kiko> in many cases I think the benefits outweigh the cost
[15:21] <kiko> but are there cases where a post-merge review would be smarter?
[15:22] <intellectronica> i can't imagine such a case. do you have an example?
[15:23] <kiko> really?
[15:23] <kiko> wow
[15:23] <kiko> I must have done my job well of convincing us of pre-merge reviews! :)
[15:23] <bigjools> refactoring?
[15:23] <BjornT> for simple straightforward changes it would make sense, but it's hard to identify them
[15:23] <kiko> I thought refactorings too, if there was a good pre-imp call
[15:24] <bigjools> are we heading back to r=trivial ? :)
[15:24] <gmb> If we're talking about a textual change, fixing a typo or some such, maybe, but it'd have to be very, very, very trivial.
[15:24] <kiko> this is a bit different
[15:24] <kiko> as a reviewee
[15:24] <kiko> do you think you always get value out of a review?
[15:24] <kiko> and do you think the value outweighs the cost?
[15:24] <kiko> I'd like you all to think back to single-person projects you might have worked on
[15:24] <intellectronica> it's so cheap to get something reviewed these days, that the overhead is very low (unless it's hours before the pqm deadline)
[15:25] <kiko> where you could check in code very quickly without asking anybody
[15:25] <kiko> is your productivity different there and here?
[15:25] <bac> yes i get value.  either improvements are suggested or i get the affirmation that the approach made sense and was sound.
[15:25] <barry> kiko: yes. productivity is different.  one thing that might be interesting is to relax the requirement /if/ we could do some kind of real-time pair programming
[15:26] <intellectronica> that's, basically, what trivial used to be. i thought it was ok to have it and was a bit sorry that it was gone. but for almost everything else, yes, you do get something out of a review
[15:26] <barry> kiko: iow, if you and i pair on a particular task, chances are we're already reviewing each other's code so it'll (presumably) be higher quality
[15:26] <barry> otoh, doing that in our distributed environment is challenging
[15:27] <allenap> If we relax the requirements, I'm worried that what seems like a good idea might get coded and merged before we appreciate why it's not a good idea.
[15:27] <barry> intellectronica, kiko also note that we're encouraging drive-bys, which takes care of many previously r=trivials
[15:27] <EdwinGrubbs> herb: I'm still getting the 404 error when accessing <https://api.staging.launchpad.net/projects>. Unfortunately, you have to authenticate using the REST API to even see the error. Can you check in the logs to see if IP 12.231.120.224 is still getting redirected to product.html?
[15:27] <intellectronica> barry: i think an interesting formulation of that could be that the goal is two have at least two developers behind a branch, and let them agree how they manage that
[15:27] <BjornT> as i understand it, kiko wasn't suggesting dropping the reviews, but exchanging some pre-merge reveiws with post-merge reviews
[15:27] <barry> intellectronica: interesting
[15:28] <EdwinGrubbs> herb: fyi, my IP is 12.231.120.224 and not an IP related to the rewrite rule. I wasn't clear before.
[15:28] <barry> i personally don't find arch-commits the most conducive format for that though
[15:28] <barry> though i realize others do
[15:28] <allenap> Because merged code starts running on edge, and thus mangling production data, post-merge reviews might be too late.
[15:28] <kiko> what BjornT said, exactly (sorry, phone call)
[15:28] <EdwinGrubbs> herb_: I'm still getting the 404 error when accessing https://api.staging.launchpad.net/projects;. Unfortunately, you have to authenticate using the REST API to even see the error. Can you check in the logs to see if my IP 12.231.120.224 is still getting redirected to product.html?
[15:29] <barry> EdwinGrubbs: -> #launchpad-code ?
[15:29] <kiko> EdwinGrubbs, why are you asking about this in -meeting?
[15:29] <EdwinGrubbs> barry: oops soory
[15:29] <kiko> oops
[15:29] <BjornT> allenap: this would only be for certain changes, though. for example, if you have a really detailed pre-implementation call, and the changes seem straightforward
[15:30]  * barry laments that few people have pre-impl calls these days :/
[15:30] <BjornT> barry: something like this might encourage people :)
[15:30]  * gmb makes a point of having at least an pre-imp IRC chat now
[15:31] <barry> kiko: i think this is an interesting discussion.  can you take it to the ml to get non-reviewer input?
[15:31] <intellectronica> how about that suggestion? instead of reviewer, rename that post to copilot. you can agree to just have a pre-imp, hack together, hack then get reviewed, or just rubber stamp (if it's a trivial)
[15:31] <kiko> barry, no, but you can :)
[15:31] <allenap> I think that's true - about promoting calls.
[15:31] <kiko> I don't want to own this discussion, just to stimulate it
[15:31] <barry> kiko: i might not be able to do justice to your enthusiasm :)
[15:32] <kiko> barry, try harder <wink>
[15:32]  * barry tries to get stimulated
[15:32] <barry> kiko: okay :)
[15:33] <barry> intellectronica: yes, let's explore that too
[15:33] <allenap> Oh, bad images.
[15:33] <barry> allenap: oh, you've seen them?! :)
[15:33] <barry> [ACTION] barry will, er, stimulate discussion on post-merge reviews and pair-programming
[15:34] <barry> kiko: thanks for bringing this up
[15:34] <barry> any other topics today?
[15:34] <kiko> barry, you're welcome
[15:35]  * sinzui wonders who his stimulating partner will be in pair programming
[15:35]  * gmb remembers this is a public channel; behaves
[15:35] <barry> i think that's a sign that we're done
[15:35] <barry> #endmeeting
[15:35] <bigjools> +1
[15:35] <barry> thanks everyone! :)
[15:36] <intellectronica> cheers barry
[15:36] <gmb> Thanks barry