[14:59] <henninge> Hi jtv!
[15:00] <jtv> hi henninge!
[15:00] <danilos> hi jtv!
[15:00] <danilos> hi henninge!
[15:00] <abentley> Hi danilos, jtv, henninge!
[15:01]  * mars wonders if he has the right meeting - looks like translations
[15:01] <jtv> hi abentley!
[15:01] <danilos> hi abentley!
[15:01] <rockstar> Hey, code's here too!
[15:01] <jtv> mars: we arrive by team now, like the Olympics
[15:01] <henninge> Hi rockstar!
[15:01] <danilos> ok, ok, we can stop this :)
[15:01] <abentley> Hi rockstar!
[15:01] <abentley> Hi mars!
[15:01] <mars> jtv, heh, so who gets to light the MootBot flame?
[15:01] <danilos> heh
[15:01] <mars> hi abentley!
[15:02]  * jtv plots out n² for some ballpark values of n
[15:02] <bac> hi barry?
[15:02] <rockstar> It's really early for me.  This is my least favorite meeting of the week.
[15:02] <sinzui1> barry lost his connection 3 minutes
[15:02] <sinzui1> ago
[15:02] <mars> rockstar, could be worse - look at thumper's TL calls :)
[15:02] <rockstar> mars, yes, those would be even worse.
[15:09] <mars> barry!
[15:09] <barry> irc sucks for me today
[15:09] <barry> sorry
[15:09] <sinzui> barry: your back for our meeting?
[15:09] <barry> #startmeeting
[15:09] <MootBot> Meeting started at 09:09. The chair is barry.
[15:09] <MootBot> Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
[15:10] <barry> hi everyone.  who's here today?
[15:10] <EdwinGrubbs> me
[15:10] <jtv> me
[15:10] <BjornT> me
[15:10] <mars> me
[15:10] <bac> me
[15:10] <henninge> me
[15:10] <abentley> me
[15:10] <adeuring> me
[15:10] <gary_poster_> me did not send the email *and* is not around for to give reviews today, again.
[15:10] <jtv> and danilos, too
[15:10] <gmb> me
[15:10] <danilos> me
[15:11]  * mars pokes flacoste
[15:11] <flacoste> me
[15:11] <barry> gary_poster_: ack
[15:11] <salgado> me
[15:12] <barry> allenap: ping
[15:12] <barry> cprov: ping
[15:12] <allenap> me
[15:12] <cprov> me
[15:12] <sinzui> me
[15:12] <barry> gmb: ping
[15:12] <barry> oops, gmb sorry
[15:12] <gmb> still me...
[15:12] <barry> noodles775: ping
[15:13] <barry> rockstar: ping
[15:13] <noodles775> me :)
[15:13] <rockstar> me
[15:13] <barry> [TOPIC] agenda
[15:13] <MootBot> New Topic:  agenda
[15:13] <barry> very light day today i thik
[15:13] <barry>     * Roll call
[15:13] <barry>     * Action items
[15:13] <barry>     * Mentoring update
[15:13] <barry>     * Peanut gallery (anything not on the agenda)
[15:13] <barry> [TOPIC] mentoring update
[15:14] <MootBot> New Topic:  mentoring update
[15:14] <barry> anything to report ?
[15:14] <henninge> I hear I graduated?
[15:14] <adeuring> yes, that's at least my proposal
[15:14] <henninge> Sorry for missing last week's meeting ...
[15:14] <barry> henninge: you did. i will send out the announcement today.  congratulations!
[15:14] <cprov> barry: noodles775 is almost there.
[15:14] <barry> cprov: fantastic
[15:15] <henninge> barry, adeuring. Thank you!
[15:15] <jtv> barry missed the opportunity for a cruel joke there
[15:15] <barry> jtv: :)
[15:15] <barry> henninge: you can switch from euro/friday if you want
[15:15] <henninge> anybody any suggestion?
[15:15] <barry> henninge: we have good euro coverage, so it's up to you.  if anyone else wants to switch, that's fine too
[15:16] <barry> i just want at least one person for each euro day
[15:16] <henninge> I think I had look a Tuesdays
[15:16] <barry> and remember al-maisan is on loan to ubuntu
[15:16] <barry> henninge: cool, just ping me when you decide
[15:17] <henninge> ok
[15:17] <barry> who is currently /not/ a reviewer (other than team leads)?  i know about deryck and leonardr
[15:18] <jtv> barry: I'm a reviewer but without OCR slot
[15:18] <jtv> (was holding this for the peanut gallery)
[15:18] <barry> jtv: let's get you a slot!
[15:18] <henninge> barry: noodles775 and me were the only ones when we started.
[15:18] <barry> jtv: what would work for you?
[15:19] <henninge> barry: so since onyl deryck has joined lately, I guess that is all.
[15:19] <jtv> barry: working day when I'm here starts 06:00 UTC.
[15:19] <barry> henninge: right.  and deryck has started doing js reviews
[15:19] <jtv> any glaring holes in the schedule for the hours after that?
[15:20] <barry> jtv: so america probably doesn't work for ya :)
[15:20] <jtv> barry: nyet, comrade
[15:20] <barry> jtv: we have two wholes in asia on tuesday and wednesday
[15:20] <jtv> barry: oh, you're beginning to spell like an Asian
[15:20] <barry> jtv: but other than that we have pretty good coverage.  you're always welcome to double up on a euro slot
[15:21] <danilos> jtv, henninge: it would be nice not to have you guys taken up on the same day to OCR
[15:21] <barry> jtv: sorry, i meant too hoales
[15:21] <henninge> danilos: I was just thinking that
[15:21] <jtv> barry: ohh, hoales
[15:21] <intellectronica> me (apologies for joining late)
[15:21] <jtv> so we're looking at a swap, not a hole
[15:21] <jtv> s/at/for/
[15:22] <gmb> jtv: How about Tuesday?
[15:22]  * gmb just wants an easier life ...
[15:22] <barry> gmb: or henninge on tuesday and jtv on friday?
[15:22] <jtv> gmb: yes, that would work
[15:22] <gmb> Either way works for me.
[15:22] <henninge> me on tuesday, jtv on wednesday.
[15:23] <jtv> barry: disadvantage of friday is: one needs-reply can bump your branch across my weekend.
[15:23] <henninge> friday gets pretty crowded, too.
[15:23] <henninge> reviewer-wise
[15:23] <jtv> which is just great for week 3's
[15:23] <henninge> yeah
[15:24] <barry> jtv, henninge why don't you guys work it out.  i'm fine with whatever you decide, just let me know
[15:24] <barry> i do think friday is well covered either way
[15:24] <jtv> barry: aye-aye
[15:24] <barry> thanks!
[15:24] <henninge> barry: me on tuesday, jtv on wednesday. My favorite.
[15:24] <barry> henninge: works for me.  jtv?
[15:24] <jtv> henninge: shall we do this out-of-channel?
[15:24] <jtv> oh
[15:24] <jtv> yeah, sure
[15:25] <barry> [AGREED] henninge to move to euro/tue, jtv to euro/wed
[15:25] <MootBot> AGREED received:  henninge to move to euro/tue, jtv to euro/wed
[15:25]  * jtv conspicuously fails to race to the needs-review queue Right Now
[15:25] <barry> [TOPIC] peanut gallery
[15:25] <MootBot> New Topic:  peanut gallery
[15:25] <barry> anybody have any topics not on the agenda?
[15:26] <flacoste> mars:
[15:26] <flacoste> ?
[15:26] <noodles775> Maybe the import error lint (F040...)
[15:26] <barry> noodles775: can you elaborate?
[15:26] <mars> barry, I have one
[15:26] <noodles775> There seems to be disagreement whether the lint warning about import errors should be disabled or left...
[15:26] <barry> mars: you're next
[15:27] <noodles775> Currently many files complain about this (i think after the code-reorgs...)
[15:27] <flacoste> noodles775: i think it's more buildout related actually
[15:27] <flacoste> i don't kjnow
[15:27] <abentley> noodles775 is describing lint failure messages when anything imports from canonical.launchpad
[15:27] <flacoste> but i also noticed that pylint is reporting crack error
[15:27] <barry> flacoste: maybe pylint doesn't have the correct sys.path?
[15:27] <flacoste> barry: it probably doesn't
[15:28] <gary_poster_> I'll look...
[15:28] <barry> flacoste: let's fix pylint if possible
[15:28] <barry> gary_poster_: thanks!
[15:28] <sinzui> We have other pylint issues
[15:28] <barry> [ACTION] gary_poster_ to look at bogus pylint import failures
[15:28] <MootBot> ACTION received:  gary_poster_ to look at bogus pylint import failures
[15:28] <danilos> we've seen them before buildout as well
[15:28] <sinzui> pylnt is different on jaunty and hardy
[15:28] <sinzui> They support different error messages
[15:28] <flacoste> yeah the utilities lint script should probably be moved to be generated by buildout
[15:28] <flacoste> so that it has the correct sys.path
[15:28] <bac> gary_poster_: if you fix the problem please look to remove directives in code which disable that warning
[15:28] <barry> flacoste: +1
[15:29] <flacoste> gary_poster is on leave for the next week
[15:29] <flacoste> so that will wait for 2 weeks at least
[15:29] <gary_poster_> bac, barry, flacoste, ok.  I'm out for a week and a day starting tomorrow, so I was intending to just diagnose
[15:29] <barry> gary_poster_: diagnose is fine.  please submit a bug report
[15:29] <gary_poster_> barry: ack, cool
[15:30] <barry> gary_poster_: thanks
[15:30] <barry> sinzui: as for the other pylint problems.  new bug report, or tack onto the one gary_poster 's going to file?
[15:31] <gary_poster> the interface stuff sinzui was mentioning in the review channel seemed unrelated, IIUC
[15:31] <sinzui> If we control the version of pylint, the we do not need to second guess what warning and suppressions are supported
[15:31] <noodles775> gary_poster: just fyi, an example here: https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~michael.nelson/launchpad/bug-376320-add-ppa-name-to-builder-status/+merge/7236
[15:31] <gary_poster> noodles775: gotcha.  looks very suspiciously buildout related, yes
[15:32] <sinzui> gary_poster: the interface/adapter stuff is not new, but in jaunty the frequency of false positives has increased
[15:32] <barry> cool, thanks guys.  let's move on to mars's issue
[15:32] <gary_poster> gotcha.  sounds like a legitimate problem, worthy of a bug report, maybe
[15:32] <sinzui> gary_poster: I don't think we can teach pylint about differed_import
[15:33] <mars> thanks barry
[15:33] <mars> ok, something for the JavaScript writers in the room
[15:33] <gary_poster> deferred, maybe not
[15:33] <mars> about two weeks ago QA started an experiment to bring manual testing into the JavaScript review pipeline
[15:33] <mars> https://wiki.canonical.com/Launchpad/Experiments/JavascriptTesting
[15:33]  * sinzui has pondered replacing his navel-lint script with apure python script that only enforces his rules.
[15:34] <mars> the idea is to have QA look at the work in different browsers during the code review step
[15:35] <mars> since it should be easier to catch and fix UI and browser issues while the branch is in development, rather than after-the-fact, on staging
[15:35] <mars> By the way, this is unrelated to the [js] landing tag
[15:36] <barry> mars: since after this cycle, it's all ui from here on out, should we enforce this experiment for the next cycle at least, if not all of the rest of 3.0?
[15:36] <mars> barry, I was going to ask for volunteers, rather than a team-wide experiment
[15:36] <mars> but it could work both ways
[15:36] <mars> the process is pretty simple
[15:37] <barry> what do others think?
[15:37] <intellectronica> i think it would be better to have everyone participate
[15:37] <rockstar> barry, I think it should be enforced now.
[15:37] <intellectronica> we don't really have time for partial experimentation. if we find that there are problems, we'll fix them
[15:37] <barry> i don't want to start this cycle, but i'd be willing to enforce it for 2.2.7
[15:38] <gmb> One thing to bear in mind here
[15:38] <gmb> Is sabdfl's edict at UDS:
[15:38] <gmb> UI reviews shouldn't be blockers to landing things.
[15:38] <gmb> Does this come under that?
[15:38] <intellectronica> that's a different thing
[15:38] <intellectronica> and no, it doesn't come under that
[15:39] <flacoste> "UI reviews shouldn't be blockers to landing things."
[15:39] <barry> gmb: right, separate.  and remember we have [ui=rs] (with the understanding that you'll back fill that review later)
[15:39] <flacoste> !?!
[15:39] <flacoste> that's the first i heard of it
[15:39] <flacoste> and not what we are applying now
[15:39] <mars> gmb, that's a design review, rather than "I just denied IE users access to the site"
[15:39] <rockstar> gmb, yes, this is the first I've heard of it too.
[15:39] <intellectronica> imperfect UI can be fixed (and anyway it's often a matter of taste). broken code is really bad and the shortest time to fixing is too long
[15:39] <flacoste> beuno's review are blocking
[15:39] <gmb> flacoste, rockstar: He said it in a Launchpad gripe session for, IIRC, the community team (could be wrong about which track it was in; it was all a blur).
[15:39] <intellectronica> yeah, i also never heard about ui reviews not blocking, b.t.w
[15:39] <jtv> flacoste: that's exactly the part that he said we shouldn't be blocking on.
[15:40] <gmb> What jtv said
[15:40] <flacoste> that's new
[15:40] <sinzui> The principle problem with UI reviews blocking is that developers are not submitting designs to beuno *before* they write code
[15:40] <flacoste> and should be discussed
[15:40] <flacoste> i don't agree
[15:40] <rockstar> gmb, I think we need clarification on what he meant, because as it is now, beuno's reviews block.
[15:40] <flacoste> we are very bad at fixing thigns later
[15:40] <intellectronica> are UI reviews a bottleneck at the moment? i didn't have that impression
[15:40] <gmb> So why does ui=rs exist then?
[15:40] <flacoste> for trivial stuff
[15:40] <gmb> intellectronica: A bit. It depends how much of a fight beuno and kiko get into.
[15:40] <flacoste> it's not uised anyway
[15:41] <sinzui> gmb: I can get rs if I designed the UI with beuno *first*
[15:41] <barry> flacoste: no.  ui=rs exists explicitly not to block on beuno's review
[15:41] <intellectronica> gmb: for trivial landings or when you absolutely can't get a ui review and are very confident
[15:41]  * barry remembers discussion that very fact with the man himself :)
[15:41] <rockstar> flacoste, the fact that we are bad at fixing things later is another issue.
[15:41] <intellectronica> gmb: surely if there's a disagreement it's even more important to resolve it before landing
[15:41] <sinzui> I am doing UI review *before* code, and I don't start until Martin and seen my proposal
[15:41] <rockstar> sinzui, I am doing the same.
[15:41] <gmb> intellectronica: Right, but I've had branches wait up to three weeks because of UI disagreements + week 4.
[15:42] <gmb> I'm not saying that we should just land things without talking to Martin.
[15:42] <jtv> I believe full UI reviews were ultimately to be for "real" design decisions, not for "does it look okay like this."
[15:42] <rockstar> sinzui, because often, more code changes happen on UI review than code review.
[15:42] <gmb> That's just crackpottery.
[15:42] <sinzui> rockstar: :)
[15:42] <intellectronica> gmb: sounds like you have to work a bit on your social engineering skills ;)
[15:42] <mars> jtv, good point
[15:42] <jtv> just repeating...
[15:42] <barry> rockstar: yes!  it's the 80/20 rule
[15:42] <flacoste> gmb: we should do a root-cause-analysis on your experience
[15:42] <rockstar> sinzui, also, I dread UI reviews, where I don't dread code reviews, so I do the band-aid thing.
[15:43] <barry> or its inverse. or something.
[15:43] <flacoste> anwyay, that's kind of besides the current discussion i think
[15:43] <flacoste> if we want to discuss UI reviews, we should bring that separately as another topic
[15:43] <gmb> flacoste: Well, I've got another big UI branch coming up in the next couple of days, so let's analyse that one rather than rehash my previous experience.
[15:43] <barry> flacoste: good point.
[15:43] <barry> let's take up ui review issues on the ml please
[15:44] <barry> as for js, let's vote on requiring the experiment for all devs in 2.2.7
[15:44] <rockstar> So, with the current QA plan, at least they can defer it.  I think we should request a review from them (so they get an email) but not block on it.
[15:44] <mars> barry, so!  full-team experiment for manual UI testing next cycle?
[15:44] <barry> [VOTE] require full-team experiment for manual ui testing in 2.2.7
[15:44] <MootBot> Please vote on:  require full-team experiment for manual ui testing in 2.2.7.
[15:44] <MootBot> Public votes can be registered by saying +1/-1/+0 in the channel, private votes by messaging the channel followed by +1/-1/+0  to MootBot
[15:44] <MootBot> E.g. /msg MootBot +1 #launchpad-meeting
[15:44] <barry> +1
[15:44] <MootBot> +1 received from barry. 1 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 1
[15:44] <mars> rockstar, we'll see if they get swamped - it's their call
[15:44] <mars> +1
[15:44] <MootBot> +1 received from mars. 2 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 2
[15:45] <gmb> +0
[15:45] <adeuring> +0
[15:45] <MootBot> Abstention received from gmb. 2 for, 0 against. 1 have abstained. Count is now 2
[15:45] <MootBot> Abstention received from adeuring. 2 for, 0 against. 2 have abstained. Count is now 2
[15:45] <rockstar> +0
[15:45] <MootBot> Abstention received from rockstar. 2 for, 0 against. 3 have abstained. Count is now 2
[15:45] <bac> +0
[15:45] <MootBot> Abstention received from bac. 2 for, 0 against. 4 have abstained. Count is now 2
[15:45] <jtv> +0
[15:45] <MootBot> Abstention received from jtv. 2 for, 0 against. 5 have abstained. Count is now 2
[15:45] <gary_poster> +0
[15:45] <MootBot> Abstention received from gary_poster. 2 for, 0 against. 6 have abstained. Count is now 2
[15:45] <noodles775> +0
[15:45] <MootBot> Abstention received from noodles775. 2 for, 0 against. 7 have abstained. Count is now 2
[15:46] <henninge> +1
[15:46] <MootBot> +1 received from henninge. 3 for, 0 against. 7 have abstained. Count is now 3
[15:46] <jtv> maybe we haven't talked this through enough; I for one don't have a clear picture of how it would fit into the process.
[15:46] <intellectronica> +1
[15:46] <MootBot> +1 received from intellectronica. 4 for, 0 against. 7 have abstained. Count is now 4
[15:46] <flacoste> +0
[15:46] <MootBot> Abstention received from flacoste. 4 for, 0 against. 8 have abstained. Count is now 4
[15:46] <flacoste> actually, that should be a +1
[15:46] <sinzui> What really is manual UI testing? What how do I know it is successful
[15:46] <flacoste> +1
[15:46]  * sinzui cannot vote, and wants to
[15:47] <mars> sinzui, I was about to get to that, then a car hit my topic :)
[15:47] <barry> sinzui: it's outlined on the wiki page
[15:47]  * gmb apologises for DUI.
[15:47] <intellectronica> sinzui: ideally, we should prepare test plans with clear predicates, but sometimes it will be just monkeying about with the interface
[15:47] <mars> the process is simple: you write up a manual test plan in the cover letter
[15:47] <abentley> -0
[15:47] <abentley> +0
[15:47] <MootBot> Abstention received from abentley. 4 for, 0 against. 9 have abstained. Count is now 4
[15:47] <mars> QA follows it for the A and C browsers
[15:48] <jtv> mars: who is responsible for making sure the branch goes all the way through the process?  Still the reviewee as usual?
[15:48] <mars> jtv, yes
[15:48] <flacoste> actually, i'm -1 on a full team experiment at this point
[15:48] <flacoste> not that it matters :-)
[15:48] <sinzui> I don't think this test can be performed by the team if they do not posses all the A-grade browsers
[15:48] <intellectronica> flacoste: why? and it does matter
[15:49] <mars> jtv, QA handles wrangling the people with the browsers for testing
[15:49] <flacoste> well, i don't have a veto :-)
[15:49] <mars> sinzui, we do
[15:49] <jtv> flacoste: I think that brings you to a total of 3 votes  :-)
[15:49] <barry> sinzui: devs don't but qa does
[15:49] <flacoste> i think the experiment is too vague at this point to make the whole team follow it
[15:49] <intellectronica> sinzui: iiuc diogo and ursula have access to all platforms, and it's up to them to delegate the work if and when they feel they can't handle the load
[15:49] <mars> sinzui, we do have the browsers.  QA has access to them, and to the pool of people who have registered as having the alternative environemnets
[15:49] <flacoste> and given that 2.2.7 is all-UI
[15:49] <flacoste> it could degenerate
[15:49]  * noodles775 is unsure *how* i can go about fixing my branch if it fails for IE6 on XP? XP licenses as per the email?
[15:50] <intellectronica> flacoste: it's clear in my mind. could it be that it's not adequately expressed?
[15:50] <flacoste> noodles775: you disable the feature for IE :-)
[15:50] <flacoste> intellectronica: probably
[15:50] <mars> noodles775, disable the feature, yes
[15:50] <flacoste> and we haven't experimented it at all yet
[15:50] <flacoste> (i think)
[15:50] <sinzui> our China OEMs are using IE6 on XP. They are not permitted to change browser or OS
[15:50] <intellectronica> flacoste: that's why experimenting during the remainder of 2.2.6 can help doing the real thing for 2.2.7
[15:50] <sinzui> They do not like Launchpad
[15:51] <noodles775> flacoste, mars: ok, FF3 on OSX?
[15:51] <jtv> sinzui: my shoes are broken, I don't like pavements :)
[15:51] <mars> sinzui, that's what we are addressing with this
[15:51] <barry> intellectronica, mars so perhaps volunteers for 2.2.6 to flesh out the process so everyone understands it?
[15:51] <flacoste> intellectronica: so let's do a two-weeks experiment using volunteers
[15:51] <mars> noodles775, not a concern, just the browser, not the environment
[15:51] <barry> btw, if the experiment is a failure we don't need to keep running it for the whole cycle!
[15:51] <noodles775> ok
[15:51] <sinzui> jtv: I bought new All-stars and Doc Martins in London because I had holes in my shoes
[15:51] <mars> noodles775, Opera on Linux is fine, no need for Opera on Win/OSX
[15:51] <jtv> flacoste: sounds good to me—reviewers could encourage reviewees to participate
[15:52] <jtv> flacoste: ...and if people don't want to, note a probable point for improvement
[15:52] <flacoste> that's the idea, volunteering reviewers
[15:52] <flacoste> are to make sure that the process is followed
[15:53] <sinzui> When using safari (Webkit) can we substitute Konqueror or Epiphany-webkit?
[15:53] <barry> we've gone over, and i apologize for that.  i will really try to fix my irc by next week
[15:53] <flacoste> if all the AJAX-team reviewers volunteer
[15:53] <mars> flacoste, I'll rely on barry's experiement experience here, but I do agree with your points, there is risk because it hasn't been tried yet
[15:53] <intellectronica> i rather do it for the remainder of 2.2.6 rather than two weeks, for simplicity, but either way is fine. i agree that a limited experiment is a good idea
[15:53] <flacoste> we kind of have a de-facto whole team experiment
[15:53]  * Ursinha reads
[15:53] <mars> sinzui, that I'm not sure about
[15:53]  * sinzui want to add small devices to to list
[15:53] <intellectronica> i'll most definitely volunteer, as i'm sure everyone from the bugs team will ;)
[15:53] <mars> sinzui, for Konqueror, no, you absolutely can not
[15:53] <sinzui> mars: they run the webkit version
[15:54] <barry> let's defer the whole-team decision until we see how the volunteer experiment works for the rest of 2.2.6
[15:54] <sinzui> Epiphany is on tip
[15:54] <mars> sinzui, heh, nice try, but no, the Webkit Konqueror is *not* Safari
[15:54] <flacoste> volunteers should sign up on the JavaScript experiment page
[15:54] <mars> I know, I tried it
[15:54] <sinzui> mars: 4.2 is I thought
[15:54] <barry> flacoste: +1 thanks
[15:54] <sinzui> QT
[15:54] <flacoste> and
[15:54] <jtv> barry: may haev to start a new vote before the bot gets confused
[15:54] <flacoste> we should put the link to the experiment in the launchpad-reviews channel
[15:54] <flacoste> for OCR
[15:54] <mars> sinzui, the engine, sure.  But it still doesn't work the same as Safari.
[15:55] <barry> #endvote
[15:55] <flacoste> so that dev can look if they need to follow-it
[15:55]  * barry knows a sure fire way to end the vote...
[15:55] <barry> #endmeeting
[15:55] <MootBot> Vote is in progress. Finishing now.
[15:55] <MootBot> Final result is 4 for, 0 against. 9 abstained. Total: 4
[15:55] <MootBot> Meeting finished at 09:55.
[15:55] <barry> thanks everybody!
[15:55] <intellectronica> thanks barry
[15:55] <jtv> thanks barry!
[15:55] <EdwinGrubbs> sinzui, mars: I had some good results using Arora to test webkit after I disabled its network caching.
[15:55] <sinzui> flacoste: can we engineer a JS oops AJAX lib that run in staging/edge clients and send us reports when our users know we broke something
[15:56] <mars> sinzui, yes, we can try.  It's on my Todo list
[15:56] <mars> sinzui, well, my Todo wishlist :)
[15:57] <flacoste> sinzui: we can anything, priorities, priorities, priorities
[15:59] <sinzui> flacoste: I think that by putting enough eyes on the problem (per the Open Source mantra) there will not be a problem
[15:59] <sinzui> We use automated testing because we do not have enough eyes
[15:59] <sinzui> JS + automated testing is painful
[16:00] <sinzui> so using oopses might be the best way to verify scripts
[16:00] <abentley> sinzui: JS + manual testing is also painful
[16:01] <sinzui> abentley: test for the sake of testing is painful. but users of staging and edge do not mind testing for us because we provide them newer services
[23:30] <thumper> hi barry
[23:30] <barry> #startmeeting
[23:30] <MootBot> Meeting started at 17:30. The chair is barry.
[23:30] <MootBot> Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
[23:30] <barry> hi thumper
[23:30] <barry> jml, mwhudson hi
[23:30] <mwhudson> hello
[23:31] <jml> hi
[23:31] <barry> [TOPIC] agenda
[23:31] <MootBot> New Topic:  agenda
[23:31] <barry> # Roll call
[23:31] <barry> # Action items
[23:31] <barry> # Mentoring update
[23:31] <barry> # Peanut gallery (anything not on the agenda)
[23:31] <barry> [TOPIC] mentoring update
[23:31] <MootBot> New Topic:  mentoring update
[23:32] <barry> just wanted to let you know that henninge has graduated
[23:32] <thumper> cool
[23:32] <barry> [TOPIC] peanut gallery
[23:32] <MootBot> New Topic:  peanut gallery
[23:32] <thumper> I've got a few things
[23:33] <barry> thumper: go ahead
[23:33] <thumper> the launchpad code team have moved all interface enums to lp.code.enums module
[23:33] <thumper> you may want to consider this too
[23:33] <thumper> also looking into trying out lp.code.errors for our exceptions
[23:33] <thumper> moving the enums reduces circular dependency issues
[23:33] <thumper> as they only rely on lazr.enum
[23:33] <barry> thumper: very nice
[23:33]  * jml has one item.
[23:33] <thumper> it was mentioned in the team lead call this morning
[23:34] <thumper> and foundations and registry may do the same
[23:34] <thumper> although I don't think foundations has any...
[23:34] <barry> thumper: +1
[23:34] <barry> registry has a lot
[23:34] <barry> thumper: did you talk at all about making .enums a package?
[23:34] <thumper> I'm done
[23:35] <thumper> barry: not exactly
[23:35] <barry> i'm a little concerned about having really huge modules
[23:35] <thumper> why make it a package than a module?
[23:35] <thumper> would the enums/__init__.py pull them in?
[23:36] <barry> thumper: no, but maybe that would just re-introduce the circs
[23:36] <barry> in any event, it's not a big deal for now at least
[23:36]  * barry was just curious
[23:36]  * thumper nods
[23:36] <thumper> lets see how it goes
[23:36] <barry> thumper: +1.  thanks.  did you have another issue?
[23:36] <thumper> there are advantages to just having one module
[23:36] <thumper> to get enums
[23:36] <thumper> from
[23:36] <thumper> like not having to think :)
[23:36] <barry> :)
[23:36] <jml> barry: does beuno attend a reviewers meeting?
[23:36]  * thumper passes floor to jml
[23:37] <barry> jml: he does not.  probably should though
[23:37] <thumper> perhaps I should pass the talking-stick to jml
[23:37] <jml> barry: even if it's just every second week, it'd probably be useful.
[23:37] <barry> jml: +1 i'll ask him to (i think he did at one point)
[23:38] <barry> jml: you're up
[23:38]  * barry has one when you're done
[23:38] <jml> barry: that was my topic :)
[23:38] <barry> jml: cool!
[23:38] <barry> at the ameu meeting, mars brought this up: https://wiki.canonical.com/Launchpad/Experiments/JavascriptTesting
[23:39]  * thumper looks
[23:39] <barry> the idea is to put qa in the critical path for branch approval.  this is manual js testing by qa
[23:39] <thumper> hmm..
[23:39]  * mwhudson mutters something about a "fix verified" bug status
[23:39] <barry> mars and company are asking for volunteers for 2.2.6 and we're considering making it mandatory team-wide (as an experiment) for 2.2.7
[23:39] <thumper> seems like a branch blocker
[23:40] <barry> that's not decided yet though
[23:40] <thumper> "fix confirmed" ?
[23:40] <barry> thumper: it could be yes
[23:40] <thumper> how would the qa be done?
[23:40] <jml> barry: I'll try to have a look at the page later on today
[23:40] <thumper> if it wasn't landed on trunk?
[23:41] <mwhudson> ec2!
[23:41] <barry> thumper: i think qa would run the branch and try it with the A and C browsers
[23:41] <jml> barry: my first reaction is "I thought we were trying to improve UI velocity"
[23:41] <barry> jml: btw, this is separate from ui=* and the js tags on pqm commits
[23:41] <barry> it's also separate from ui reviews
[23:42] <thumper> is it going to be a requested review from the qa team that has to be approved?
[23:42] <barry> thumper: i believe that's the idea
[23:42] <thumper> hmm...
[23:42] <jml> barry: this seems to confirm my impression that this will slow down branches :)
[23:42] <barry> ;)
[23:42] <thumper> I'm with jml on the velocity issue
[23:43] <barry> anyway, i just wanted to make you aware of the discussion at ameu :)
[23:43] <thumper> I was also going to raise the UI review not being blocking issue
[23:43] <jml> barry: thanks.
[23:43] <barry> that's all i have
[23:43] <jml> barry: I'd like to read this page & send my thoughts on later.
[23:43] <barry> jml: please do!
[23:43] <mwhudson> maybe we could have something like, if it works, the qa person should submit the branch
[23:43] <mwhudson> 1 less handoff
[23:44] <barry> that's an interesting idea too
[23:44] <mwhudson> or say, it's something the code reviewer should do
[23:45] <barry> anything else guys?
[23:45] <mwhudson> if we can build tools to make it easy
[23:45]  * thumper wants branch merge queues in LP
[23:45] <jml> barry: a low priority thing
[23:45] <mwhudson> thumper: yes
[23:45] <mwhudson> thumper: also, a pony
[23:46] <jml> barry: have you ever looked at the bzr developer docs?
[23:46] <barry> jml: it's been a while
[23:46] <jml> barry: http://doc.bazaar-vcs.org/latest/developers/index.html
[23:46] <jml> barry: maybe this is something we can work towards before, during & after open sourcing
[23:47] <barry> yes!  i'd also like to take a shot at sphinxing our docstrings
[23:47] <jml> doctests, itym
[23:47] <barry> both actually, as we markup more of our docstrings
[23:47] <mwhudson> there's still nightly pydoctor output
[23:48] <jml> right. was about to mention :)
[23:48] <mwhudson> at https://devpad.canonical.com/~mwh/canonicalapi/
[23:49] <thumper> :(
[23:49] <thumper> we don't have much documentation for lp.code
[23:49] <jml> barry: anyway, what I mean is -- *I* get lost trying to find our reviewer, developer, testing docs & guidelines
[23:49] <jml> barry: it's an oral tradition for me
[23:49] <mwhudson> (i get emailed a list of which docstrings aren't valid reST every night...)
[23:49] <jml> (which is why these meetings are so valuable)
[23:49] <barry> jml: i hear ya
[23:50] <barry> mwhudson: any chance you can send those to launchpad@?  would make a nice email nag to reduce techdebt
[23:50] <jml> better yet, any chance you can get 'make lint' to tell us about them.
[23:50] <barry> or that
[23:50] <mwhudson> i would really really really like it if it was someone's job to make the developer experience better
[23:51] <thumper> foundations?
[23:51] <mwhudson> barry/jml: yes, am wary of spamming launchpad@ more
[23:51] <jml> me too.
[23:51] <mwhudson> thumper: a nice idea, it's not what they actually do though
[23:51] <barry> i'm not.  i already have too much spam, so a little more won't hurt :)
[23:51]  * jml tries.
[23:51] <mwhudson> jml: file a bug about having make lint warn about this?
[23:51] <barry> mwhudson: me too.  *especially* after we open source. i'm hoping to find time to actually work on that
[23:52] <jml> ok.
[23:52] <mwhudson> jml: it's not that we don't try, it's that it's noone's main responsibility
[23:53] <barry> mwhudson: exactly
[23:53] <jml> mwhudson: agreed.
[23:53] <jml> I think we're coming to a close here.
[23:53] <thumper> agreed
[23:54] <barry> and with that...
[23:54] <barry> #endmeeting
[23:54] <MootBot> Meeting finished at 17:54.
[23:54] <mwhudson> thanks barry
[23:54] <barry> thanks guys
[23:54] <thumper> thanks barry
[23:54] <jml> mwhudson: https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/launchpad/+bug/385736
[23:55] <mwhudson> jml: thanks