[15:00] <barry> #startmeeting
[15:00] <MootBot> Meeting started at 09:00. The chair is barry.
[15:00] <MootBot> Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
[15:00] <barry> hello everybody and welcome to this week's ameu reviewers meeting.  who's here today?
[15:00] <bigjools> me
[15:00] <intellectronica> mö
[15:01] <bac> me
[15:01] <salgado> me
[15:02] <mars> me
[15:02] <barry> wow, light attendance today <wink>
[15:02] <flacoste> me
[15:03] <barry> allenap, BjornT, EdwinGrubbs, gmb, rockstar ping
[15:03] <allenap> me
[15:03] <EdwinGrubbs> me
[15:04] <gmb> me
[15:04] <barry> danilos: ping
[15:04] <bac> abel?
[15:04] <barry> [TOPIC] agenda
[15:04] <MootBot> New Topic:  agenda
[15:05] <adeuring> me
[15:05] <barry>  * Roll call
[15:05] <barry>  * Graduations
[15:05] <barry>  * Is OCR still relevant in a world with merge proposals? (barry)
[15:05] <barry>  * Sabbaticals? (barry)
[15:05] <barry>  * Do we need a standard cover letter template for merge proposals? (barry)
[15:05] <barry>    * https://pastebin.canonical.com/11767/
[15:05] <barry>  * If there's time, the old boring script
[15:05] <barry>    * Next meeting
[15:05] <barry>    * Action items
[15:05] <barry>    * Mentoring update
[15:05] <barry>    * Queue status
[15:05] <barry> [TOPIC]  * Graduations
[15:05] <MootBot> New Topic:   * Graduations
[15:05] <barry> so bac recommends graduation for rockstar, but since he blew us off today... :)
[15:05] <sinzui> me
[15:06] <barry> naw.  so rockstar graduates.  congratulations rockstar-in-abstentia
[15:06] <intellectronica> go rockstar!
[15:06] <bac> whoo!
[15:07] <flacoste> yeah
[15:07] <flacoste> it should be a rule
[15:07] <bac> rockstar's reviews have been very attentive and he asks lots of good questions.  he's ready to be graduated.
[15:07] <flacoste> if you miss the reviewer meeting of your graduation
[15:07] <flacoste> you get to be on probation for one more month :-)
[15:07] <bac> he needs to work on his attendance, though!
[15:07] <flacoste> that might seems unfair for the mentor
[15:08] <bac> flacoste: i'm ok with another month of probation if you'll pick up the mentoring
[15:08] <flacoste> but mentoring is also about instigating reliability in the mentee :-p
[15:08] <barry> flacoste: right!  or we can just publicly mock him relentlessly at his graduation announcement
[15:08] <flacoste> barry: that's probably funnier
[15:08] <barry> let the mocking begin
[15:08] <danilos> me
[15:09] <danilos> late but still me
[15:09] <intellectronica> maybe he should attend meetings even on days when we don't, for a month
[15:09]  * barry thinks he should /run/ the meetings (including asiapac) for a month
[15:10] <barry> moving on, but don't let that stop you if you come up with a good zinger...
[15:10] <barry> [TOPIC]  * Is OCR still relevant in a world with merge proposals? (barry)
[15:10] <MootBot> New Topic:   * Is OCR still relevant in a world with merge proposals? (barry)
[15:11] <barry> so, i've had a few people mention that ocr seems "weird" now that we have merge-proposals.  so i'll open the floor to discussion: do we want to keep ocr now and if so, in its current form or change it?
[15:11] <bigjools> weird, how?
[15:11] <barry> in that it's less about getting a review RIGHT NOW than it is spending time popping things off the top of the queue
[15:11] <intellectronica> i don't see how it's weird. you still want to encourage high velocity, and you still need some mechanism for allocation of reviews
[15:11] <sinzui> I say yes, they are relevant. I know who will be taking the review. I have someone I can discuss the matter with *before* the merge proposal it made
[15:12] <gmb> I agree with... well, all of the above.
[15:12] <bigjools> OCR is still very relevant for velocity
[15:12] <gmb> barry: Otherwise MP just becomes the new PR.
[15:12] <mars> gmb, agreed
[15:12] <allenap> It encourages people to *seek* a review rather than letting branches sit around.
[15:12] <bigjools> without it we'd go back to the days of 2+ days reviews, chasing reviewers and getting frustrated
[15:13] <bigjools> and who would allocate?
[15:13] <bac> i do see people creating MPs but then not showing up to ask for OC reviews.  so i tend to pop things off the MP stack and then hope they are around for questions.
[15:13]  * mars didn't know there was a MP stack
[15:13] <intellectronica> bac: that shouldn't happen. it's a coder's responsibility to make sure that they're branch gets reviewed
[15:13]  * bac wishes there were a real stack instead of an unordered list
[15:13] <gmb> I sometimes create an MP so that I can make sure I ask for a review *tomorrow*, but I don't expect someone to JFDI if I don't ask.
[15:14] <bac> just like when using PR if no one asks for an OCR we would pull things off the general queue.  same, same.
[15:15] <barry> btw, i'm not saying /i/ think we should get rid of ocr.  i'm just bringing up some things i've heard so we have a chance to discuss them
[15:15] <barry> okay, so does anybody disagree with keeping ocr the way we have it now?
[15:16] <barry> 5
[15:16] <intellectronica> bac: yes, but that should be the exeception. the review process is so much more powerful when you can chat about it in real time
[15:16] <barry> 4
[15:16] <barry> 3
[15:16] <barry> 2
[15:16] <bac> intellectronica: agreed.  just sharing what often happens on tuesdays
[15:16] <barry> 1
[15:16] <barry> cool, thanks
[15:16] <barry> [TOPIC]  * Sabbaticals? (barry)
[15:16] <MootBot> New Topic:   * Sabbaticals? (barry)
[15:17] <mars> +1 for sabbaticals
[15:17] <barry> on a related note, there's been some requests for sabbaticals and/or half day review slots.  we have pretty good coverage for euro and america these days, so perhaps we could institute some kind of rotation
[15:17] <mars> everyone needs a break from routine once in a while
[15:17] <barry> thoughts?
[15:17] <bac> i think i originally introduced the idea then promptly forgot about it.
[15:18] <intellectronica> i was thinking about it a bit since i made the request
[15:18] <bac> i think it's a good idea so reviewers don't get burned out.
[15:18] <gmb> +1
[15:18] <sinzui> I recall the backlogs we have when foundations or registry team are sprinting.
[15:18] <intellectronica> i think that regulating this too much will not work well, because reviewers know best when they really need a break
[15:18] <intellectronica> perhaps instead, each reviewer should have an allowance
[15:18] <sinzui> Sabbaticals are fine so long as someone is sill available to do the reviews.
[15:18] <intellectronica> much like leave days from work
[15:18] <mars> sinzui, right
[15:18] <gmb> sinzui: But we have some overlap now. Those backlogs occurred because foundations/registry were splinting and we didn't do anything to deal with the hole.
[15:19] <bigjools> sinzui: +1 sensible
[15:19] <gmb> splinting?
[15:19] <gmb> Whatevr.
[15:19] <intellectronica> sinzui: i don't think that's a problem these days. we have many reviewers
[15:19] <intellectronica> gmb: you're turning japanese?
[15:19] <barry> intellectronica: except in exceptional circumstances perhaps, but we can deal with those
[15:19] <gmb> intellectronica: Appalentry so.
[15:20]  * gmb wonders who we should offend at next week's meeting
[15:20] <bac> i suspect if we have the concept of sabbaticals they will rarely be used.  but it's good to know there is a socially-approved mechanism for declaring you need a break.
[15:20] <barry> so, not counting mentats, we have 2 more reviewers than we have ocr slots, so there is room for breaks
[15:20] <sinzui> intellectronica: correct, yet if all the sabbatical takers abandon Wednesday, there is a problem. I am suggesting the we need to move who is working the slots now that we can afford to give reviewers a break from reviewing
[15:20] <intellectronica> what if every reviewer had, say, 10 leave shifts a year, which they are responsible to coordinate, make sure someone is there to replace them, etc?
[15:21] <gmb> sinzui: We need floating reviewers.
[15:21] <intellectronica> sinzui: yes, just like normal leave. you don't allow everyone to take time off at the same time. you coordinate
[15:21] <barry> gmb: i don't mind floating (i think :)
[15:21] <gmb> barry: Likewise, once al-maisan has graduated.
[15:22] <bac> sounds too formal for me.  i'd prefer people just announce they need a month off, whatever, and barry busts anyone that seems to be abusive.
[15:22] <barry> how long should a sabbatical be?  1 week, 1 cycle, up to the reviewer?
[15:22] <barry> gmb: cool
[15:22] <bigjools> we're all consenting adults - please, leave it to common sense
[15:22] <intellectronica> i think that 2-8 weeks
[15:22] <bigjools> don;t wrap it up in more red tape
[15:22] <bac> bigjools: +1
[15:22] <barry> bac: i am all for more opportunities to wield my power
[15:22] <gmb> +1
[15:23] <intellectronica> +1. my suggestion was just because i didn't like the idea of organised rotation
[15:24] <bac> salgado takes a sabbatical from this discussion
[15:24] <barry> okay, sounds good.  so if you need a break, please come see me and i'll coordinate to make sure we have proper coverage. please be mindful that your teammates may also need breaks now and then
[15:24] <barry> okay, thanks everyone.  good discussion
[15:24] <barry> [TOPIC]  * Do we need a standard cover letter template for merge proposals? (barry)
[15:24] <MootBot> New Topic:   * Do we need a standard cover letter template for merge proposals? (barry)
[15:25] <barry> i've been using this: https://pastebin.canonical.com/11767/
[15:25] <intellectronica> everything that's standard, should be part of the form
[15:25] <barry> and experimenting with a == diff == section at the end so the whole thing is in one cover letter
[15:26] <barry> 1) do we want a standard form; 2) is this one a good start; 3) if so, what's missing?
[15:26] <adeuring> lint output?
[15:26] <bac> the bug *should* be redundant as the MP should be linked
[15:26] <flacoste> well
[15:26] <flacoste> bug report are often cryptic
[15:26] <flacoste> so having a summary of the issue at the top of the cover letter is usually good
[15:27] <barry> adeuring: lint output, good addition
[15:27] <flacoste> plus it's easier on the Thailand/Australia/NZ folks
[15:27] <flacoste> save a trip to Launchpad
[15:27] <gmb> flacoste: They chose to live on the wrong side of the internet.
[15:27] <gmb> Bugger 'em.
[15:28]  * gmb jokes, because thumper is bigger than he is
[15:28] <sinzui> I often have a == rules == section that defines the scope of the fix.
[15:28] <barry> flacoste: i agree.  i've found it's good to have a summary there
[15:28] <intellectronica> sinzui: what does "the scope of the fix" mean?
[15:29] <barry> sinzui: i think that's what my "proposed fix" section is for iiuc
[15:29] <bac> ok, ok, my point is we agreed earlier that we should use --fixes or another mechanism to link the bug.  i've been requesting it when not done.
[15:30] <barry> bac: yes, definitely --fixes is a good thing, but under the = Bug XXXXX = section, i usually put a summary of what the bug is about
[15:30] <intellectronica> right, and the scope of the fix should usually be the bug
[15:30] <bac> barry: yes, good idea.
[15:30] <barry> does anybody disagree that we should have a standard form?
[15:31] <sinzui> intellectronica: I write down what the crucial changes that need to happen. There are lots of other things that can complicate the fix, or introduce feature creep.
[15:31] <intellectronica> i agree, but i think that we should aim at making it part of launchpad itself, not some kind of template
[15:31] <intellectronica> sinzui: makes sense. that's something that is always good to have
[15:32] <barry> intellectronica: agreed, but don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good :)
[15:32] <bigjools> intellectronica: +1
[15:32] <bigjools> greasemonkey script? :)
[15:32] <intellectronica> huh?
[15:32] <sinzui> intellectronica: I started doing it to make myself focus on the fix. I kept doing it because I could point to that when the branch is a CP candidate.
[15:32] <barry> bigjools: api/bzr plugin? :)
[15:33] <barry> sinzui: also, i'm trying hard to start filliing out the template as soon as i start the branch, and not to wait until the mp is posted
[15:33] <gmb> barry: We could start by repurposing bzr write-cover-letter...
[15:33] <bigjools> barry: or that!
[15:33] <allenap> If this template is good it should go in the tree I think.
[15:34] <sinzui> barry: I have a macro that prompts me for it
[15:34] <barry> gmb: i'm thinking something like that
[15:34] <barry> sinzui: gedit macro?
[15:34] <sinzui> yes
[15:34] <barry> cool
[15:35] <barry> if there are no objections, i'll take this to the mailing list
[15:36] <barry> and if anybody wants to work on a plugin to use it, i'll help out
[15:36]  * gmb wishes he had time
[15:36] <bigjools> api support through lpreview would be awesome
[15:36] <barry> gmb: forced vacation is coming up :)
[15:36] <flacoste> gmb: time is left-brain illusion, you have it :-)
[15:37] <gmb> barry: Really? I thought it was UDS...
[15:37]  * bigjools concentrates hard like Hiro
[15:37] <barry> anyway, that's everything on my list.  does anybody have an item not on the agenda?
[15:38] <bigjools> barry: I did add something
[15:38] <bigjools> but it's not on your agenda here for some reason
[15:38]  * barry refreshes
[15:38] <barry> [TOPIC]  * Gotchas with new celebrities (Julian)
[15:38] <MootBot> New Topic:   * Gotchas with new celebrities (Julian)
[15:38] <barry> bigjools: the floor is yours
[15:39] <bigjools> We had a problem in the week with an oops being generated because Celso added a new celebrity and some bugs code on edge was trying to iterate over them
[15:39] <bigjools> so it's just a heads up to say, if you add celebrities, remember to find a LOSA to patch the DB as well
[15:39] <bigjools> EOF
[15:40] <intellectronica> surely we can find a better way?...
[15:40] <intellectronica> i won't remember this
[15:40] <bigjools> don't iterate over celebs? :)
[15:40] <bigjools> why does it need to do that anyway?
[15:41] <intellectronica> either that, or test on startup?
[15:41] <gmb> bigjools: which file?
[15:41] <bigjools> gmb: I can't remember, let me take a look
[15:41] <gmb> ok
[15:41] <allenap> There's some code that checks if a bug tracker is a celebrity, in which case deletion is forbidden.
[15:41] <gmb> Hum.
[15:41] <allenap> It does it by iterating through all the celebs.
[15:42]  * rockstar mes
[15:42] <gmb> allenap: Let's discuss this outside the meeting
[15:42] <allenap> Yep.
[15:42] <sinzui> doesn't adding a celebrity require a DB patch? I had to do that when working with the janitor
[15:43] <gmb> sinzui: Not necessarily.
[15:43] <gmb> And usually, no.
[15:43] <flacoste> gmb: well kind oif
[15:43] <bigjools> sinzui: just a new row
[15:43] <flacoste> actually it does
[15:43] <gmb> sampledata change
[15:43] <flacoste> yeah, right
[15:43] <flacoste> but you should do that using a db patch
[15:43] <flacoste> so that it's applied automatically on roll-out
[15:43] <gmb> flacoste: Unless you're adding something as a celeb that already exists in prod.
[15:43] <flacoste> right
[15:44] <bigjools> gmb: OOPS-1063EC95
[15:44] <gmb> flacoste: Is that in our guidelines for adding a celebrity?
[15:44] <gmb> bigjools: Ta
[15:44] <flacoste> gmb: using a db patch?
[15:44] <barry> that makes sense then: if the celeb exists on prod, add sample data.  if not, db patch is necessary to add it in both places
[15:44] <gmb> flacoste: Yes
[15:44] <barry> does that make sense?
[15:44] <flacoste> i'm not even sure we have formalized guidlines on this
[15:45] <flacoste> but yes, barry's suggestion is sane
[15:45] <flacoste> and by using a db patch, your code won't run on edge
[15:45] <flacoste> until the DB has the celebrity
[15:45] <bigjools> hmmm that's kinda restrictive
[15:46] <flacoste> bigjools: well, that's the policy, there might be reason to do otherwise
[15:46] <barry> flacoste: i agree
[15:46] <flacoste> but in that case, you should know what you are doing
[15:46] <bigjools> okay
[15:46] <flacoste> and not trigger an OOPS on edge :-)
[15:46] <bigjools> I'm entirely innocent (this time)
[15:46] <bigjools> :)
[15:47] <flacoste> bigjools and innocence together, i can't believe it
[15:47] <barry> [ACTION] someone capture celeb addition policy in dev wiki, when the reviewer-tips have been moved from the old wiki
[15:47] <MootBot> ACTION received:  someone capture celeb addition policy in dev wiki, when the reviewer-tips have been moved from the old wiki
[15:47] <flacoste> barry, that's an action that will never happen!
[15:47]  * bigjools considers kicking sand at flacoste at the TL sprint
[15:47] <barry> flacoste: indeed :)
[15:48] <barry> anyway, that's all the time we have today
[15:48] <barry> #endmeeting
[15:48] <MootBot> Meeting finished at 09:48.
[15:48] <barry> thanks everyone!
[15:48] <intellectronica> thanks barry
[15:48] <bigjools> thanks barry
[15:48] <barry> see y'all back a the ranch
[15:48] <flacoste> bigjools: sand will be nice change from snow!
[15:50] <bigjools> flacoste: amen brother :)
[15:51] <bigjools> it's warm here today, we're 4C
[15:57] <flacoste> 0C here!
[15:58] <al-maisan> Hello there and sorry for being late
[15:58] <flacoste> with a dull grey sky
[15:58] <bigjools> ah well it was bright blue here but it's nearly dark now :)
[15:59] <flacoste> bright blue is nice!
[15:59] <flacoste> dull grey kills my productivity
[16:00] <bigjools> I hear ya
[16:01]  * gmb is waiting for the snow to come