[15:01] <barry> #startmeeting
[15:01] <MootBot> Meeting started at 09:01. The chair is barry.
[15:01] <MootBot> Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
[15:01] <barry> hi everyone and welcome to this week's ameu reviewers meeting.  who's here today?
[15:01] <danilos> me
[15:01] <bigjools> me
[15:02] <barry> wow
[15:02] <bigjools> everyone must be busy with something else, can't think what
[15:03] <intellectronica> me
[15:03] <barry> intellectronica, gary_poster cprov salgado sinzui noodles775 jml allenap EdwinGrubbs rockstar bac ping
[15:03] <noodles775> me
[15:03] <jml> hi
[15:03] <cprov> me
[15:03] <salgado> me
[15:03] <bac> barry: apologies
[15:03] <gary_poster> me
[15:03] <barry> no worries
[15:03] <barry> [TOPIC] agenda
[15:03] <MootBot> New Topic:  agenda
[15:04] <barry>  * Roll call
[15:04] <barry>  * Action items
[15:04] <barry>  * UI review call update
[15:04] <barry>  * Linked artifacts (e.g. screenshots) from bugs and merge proposals should not disappear [bac]
[15:04] <barry>  * Peanut gallery (anything not on the agenda)
[15:04] <barry>  
[15:04] <barry>  
[15:04] <barry> [TOPIC] * Action items
[15:04] <MootBot> New Topic:  * Action items
[15:04] <barry>  * gary_poster and barry will transfer review guidelines from the old wiki and old old wiki to the new wiki
[15:04] <barry> postponed until after 3.0
[15:04] <gary_poster> bah :-)
[15:04] <EdwinGrubbs> me
[15:04] <barry>  * cprov to update guidelines to clarify how code sensitive to env changes should be written
[15:04] <cprov> barry: shhh, sorry again
[15:05] <barry> cprov: no worries
[15:05] <barry> [TOPIC]  * UI review call update
[15:05] <MootBot> New Topic:   * UI review call update
[15:05] <barry> beuno: hi!  would you like to say a few words here?
[15:06] <flacoste> me
[15:06] <bigjools> doesn't look like it :)
[15:07] <barry> it doesn't ;)
[15:07] <barry> anyway...
[15:07] <henninge> me ;)
[15:07] <barry> [TOPIC]  * Linked artifacts (e.g. screenshots) from bugs and merge proposals should not disappear [bac]
[15:07] <MootBot> New Topic:   * Linked artifacts (e.g. screenshots) from bugs and merge proposals should not disappear [bac]
[15:07] <bac> hi
[15:07] <beuno> barry, hi
[15:07] <beuno> me
[15:07] <bac> doing QA i found screenshot links where the item was no longer there.  very frustrating.  that is all.
[15:07] <beuno> I love you guys
[15:08] <barry> beuno: :)
[15:08] <beuno> and you've done an amazing job at 3.0
[15:08] <intellectronica> bac: best to always use an upload, then?
[15:08] <beuno> UI reviews went so well, I want them to be done everywhere else
[15:08] <bac> intellectronica: probably.  or just don't prematurely purge on rookery.
[15:09] <barry> bac: agreed!  i would also strongly urge people to file a bug, link that bug to your branch, and include demo/qa plan in your cover letter.  as i'm qa'ing things this week i find it very difficult when those things are missing
[15:09] <barry> beuno: things are looking good, are they not? :)
[15:09] <jml> also, we should allow attachments on merge proposals.
[15:10] <beuno> barry, yes. There are a few "critical" issues on major pages
[15:10] <barry> jml: +1
[15:10] <beuno> like the bug page, mps and branch index
[15:10] <beuno> some of them have been addressed
[15:10] <beuno> and some of them, we won't have time
[15:10] <beuno> lesson of the day:  don't levae the biggest pages last
[15:10] <jml> which, of course, means that the merge proposals page should use the same attachment infrastructure as bugs.
[15:11] <barry> beuno: we're going to have to cp them after the release
[15:11] <barry> bac has basically said "keep qa'ing but if you find something, it's too late now"
[15:11] <intellectronica> jml: there are various opportunities to share infrastructure that we should consider now
[15:11] <beuno> barry, right, it's fixable
[15:11] <beuno> in general, it's an awesome launchpad
[15:11] <beuno> all tempaltes have been converted
[15:11]  * barry is just amazed we actually converted all 375 templates
[15:12] <beuno> even with me sneaking away for 2 weeks
[15:12] <jml> barry, me too!
[15:12] <beuno> you guys rocked the house
[15:12] <jml> intellectronica, very much so. MPs already use bugs comment infrastructure, largely.
[15:13] <barry> beuno: can we do a post-mortem after 3.0 is released, and maybe when you're done sprinting, etc. to evaluate the 3.0 process?  and also to think about what needs to be done post-3.0 and what's on the plate for 4.0?
[15:13] <barry> beuno: it would be great to evaluate what we just did before we leap headfirst into 4.0
[15:14] <beuno> barry, absolutely
[15:15] <barry> great!
[15:15] <barry> [TOPIC] peanut gallery
[15:15] <MootBot> New Topic:  peanut gallery
[15:15] <barry> that's everything on the agenda, does anybody else have anything for today?
[15:16] <flacoste> barry, beuno: we are putting a 3.0 retrospective at the TL meeting
[15:16] <jml> barry, nope.
[15:16] <beuno> flacoste, perfect
[15:16] <barry> jml: i think you're right, so...
[15:16] <barry> #endmeeting
[15:16] <MootBot> Meeting finished at 09:16.
[15:16] <flacoste> barry: ideally, TL would be able to do a retrospective with their team
[15:16] <flacoste> before then
[15:16] <barry> thanks everyone and have a happy qa day
[15:16] <flacoste> but i'm not sure it's practical
[15:17] <barry> flacoste: isn't the tl next week?
[15:17] <flacoste> barry: it is
[15:17] <flacoste> but sinzui is sprinting this week for example
[15:18] <flacoste> the southern hemisphere has basically a day less in this week
[15:18] <flacoste> etc.
[15:18] <flacoste> we are releasing
[15:18] <barry> flacoste: exactly :)
[15:18] <barry> anyway... see you back at the ranch
[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> hello and welcome to this week's asiapac reviewers meeting.  who's here today?
[23:30] <mwhudson> i am!
[23:30] <thumper> hey
[23:30] <wgrant> moi
[23:30] <thumper> barry: rockstar may be lying down
[23:31] <barry> excellent
[23:31] <barry> thumper: cool
[23:31] <barry> thumper, mwhudson y'know your evil plan to increase the number of antipodeans is backfiring
[23:31] <thumper> why?
[23:31] <barry> jml
[23:32] <barry> ;)
[23:32] <barry> anyway...
[23:32] <barry> not much happened in ameu
[23:32] <mwhudson> the plan hadn't really got far enough that you could call it evil...
[23:33] <barry> bac requested that folks keep their screen shots around long enough to do qa.  some screen shots were not attached to the bug, but instead were on rookery, and got deleted
[23:33] <thumper> I'd like to be able to add attachments to a code review
[23:33] <barry> it's recommended to attach them to the bug, or at least keep them around until the end of the cycle
[23:33] <barry> thumper: that came up too
[23:33]  * thumper adds it to the wish list
[23:33] <thumper> barry: you can attach them to the mail
[23:34] <thumper> barry: and we could link them on the UI
[23:34] <bac> barry:  you woke me up for that?  lies back down to monitor the release
[23:34] <barry> thumper: yep!
[23:34] <thumper> barry: the images are stored in the librarian (I think)
[23:34] <thumper> barry: I'll test
[23:34] <barry> cool, thanks
[23:34] <thumper> perhaps not today
[23:35] <barry> thumper: in the original mp request is probably the most important
[23:35] <barry> the only other thing from ameu is: lp 3.0 is awesome and beuno loves you
[23:35] <barry> that's all i have.  what's up with you?
[23:36] <wgrant> I can no longer complain about the lack of public ec2test.
[23:37] <barry> wgrant: we have that now?
[23:37] <mwhudson> well, he does
[23:37] <mwhudson> it's not actually 'public' yet
[23:37] <barry> mwhudson: cool
[23:37] <mwhudson> because i need to land ec2test changes
[23:37] <thumper> I don't have anything review specific to bring up
[23:38] <mwhudson> i guess we could mention that review diffs will be a bit different post rollout?
[23:38] <thumper> perhaps
[23:38] <barry> mwhudson: how so?
[23:38] <thumper> pushing will cause the diff to be updated
[23:38] <mwhudson> they'll update on push
[23:38] <mwhudson> and they're merge --preview diffs, not diff -r ancestor: diffs
[23:38] <mwhudson> (so you can get conflicts)
[23:39] <mwhudson> thumper: are the old diffs kept around?
[23:39] <thumper> kinda
[23:39] <thumper> not really
[23:39] <thumper> yet
[23:39] <barry> updates are nice
[23:39] <mwhudson> thumper: there was this idea of linking a code review comment to the diff it applied to, i guess that's not done yet?
[23:39] <thumper> there is
[23:39] <thumper> but that is a db patch
[23:39] <mwhudson> right
[23:39] <barry> mwhudson: what's the reason behind the merge --preview diffs?  to be explicit about conflicts?
[23:40] <thumper> that is the only way we can get reasonable diffs
[23:40] <thumper> barry: because if you merge the target
[23:40] <mwhudson> barry: conflictyness seems interesting to the reviewer
[23:40] <thumper> barry: you don't want the merged details in the diff
[23:41] <barry> thanks.  how does this affect support for dependent branches?
[23:41] <mwhudson> another thing, jml has this half-written branch that will pull all the details for an ec2 test run from the merge proposal
[23:41] <thumper> heh
[23:41] <thumper> well
[23:41] <thumper> right now they aren't really supported
[23:41] <thumper> abentley is working on fixing the dependant branch support
[23:41] <thumper> being renamed to "prerequisite branch"
[23:41] <mwhudson> which i think will be a useful improvement
[23:42] <thumper> mwhudson: including commit message?
[23:42] <mwhudson> thumper: i presume so
[23:42] <barry> mwhudson: where useful == awesome
[23:42] <thumper> barry: part of this would be to get LP to somehow work well with pipes
[23:42] <thumper> barry: have you used bzr-pipelines yet?
[23:43] <thumper> barry: IMO if you like looms, you'll love pipelines
[23:43] <barry> thumper: i keep meaning to.  i know they are the official goodness to use instead of looms
[23:43] <thumper> barry: they just work better with LP as they are branch based
[23:43] <barry> honestly though, i haven't had many branch stacks during these last two cycles
[23:43] <thumper> :)
[23:43] <jml> including commit message.
[23:44] <jml> it assembles the [r=...] gunk from the mp
[23:44] <jml> and takes the actual text of the commit message from the mp too
[23:44] <jml> (but iirc, you can override it)
[23:44] <barry> jml: my last commit message is usually meaningless, e.g. 'pick some lint' or 'merge rf'
[23:44] <thumper> barry: the proposal has a commit message field
[23:45] <thumper> barry: not set very often right now. tarmac uses it
[23:45] <barry> i'll have to start using that.  i've basically ignored the Subject: field until now
[23:45] <barry> but it all sounds cool
[23:45] <thumper> barry: it isn't the subject
[23:45] <barry> thumper: isn't that last commit message stuffed into the subject in a 'bzr send'?  or is that something else?
[23:46] <thumper> barry: we don't do anything with that subject
[23:46] <barry> thumper: that's why i've started to ignore it
[23:46] <thumper> barry: but the commit message is a different bit
[23:47] <barry> i have one other thing i'd like to ask y'all
[23:48] <thumper> shoot
[23:48] <barry> is this time still the best for the asiapac meetings?
[23:48] <thumper> still good for me
[23:48] <thumper> although we change next week
[23:48] <thumper> daylight savings kicks in
[23:48]  * thumper thinks
[23:48] <thumper> so becomes one hour later
[23:48] <barry> personally, i wouldn't mind moving it earlier by an hour (or more) but i want to make sure we continue to meet at a good time for you
[23:49] <thumper> I'm fine with this time
[23:49] <barry> thumper: you just blew my mind
[23:49] <thumper> could be fine an hour earlier too as of next week
[23:49] <barry> so that means 2130 utc?
[23:49] <thumper> mwhudson: got any preference?
[23:49] <thumper> barry: yes
[23:50]  * mwhudson blinks his attention back, sorry about that
[23:50] <mwhudson> 2130 utc next week is 0930 local?
[23:50] <mwhudson> that's fine with me
[23:50] <barry> i'll probably bitch and moan again by 01-nov when we fall out of daylight savings, but for now that would be great
[23:50] <thumper> mwhudson: 2130 utc next week is 1030 local
[23:51] <thumper> mwhudson: daylight savings sunday
[23:51] <mwhudson> oh right
[23:51] <mwhudson> that's completely fine
[23:51] <barry> great!  2130 it is
[23:51] <barry> that's all for me
[23:51] <mwhudson> another hour earlier would be ok, though risks bumping into our standup
[23:51] <thumper> barry: well, in nov it would be another hour earlier for you
[23:51] <thumper> barry: which would make it what?
[23:51] <mwhudson> an hour earlier than that would be ok, though that's getting a little early here (0830)
[23:52] <barry> thumper: i think it would make it 1630 for me which would be perfect
[23:52] <thumper> mwhudson: I was talking about US going out of daylight savings
[23:52] <mwhudson> thumper: i'm just being general
[23:52] <mwhudson> thumper: now jml is off, we can go earlier, is the basic summary
[23:52] <thumper> right
[23:52] <barry> right
[23:53] <thumper> we could do 20:30 utc
[23:53] <barry> 2130 should be fine now and after 01-nov
[23:53] <barry> if not, it's good to know we can push it a bit, but probably not necessary
[23:53] <barry> anyway...
[23:53] <barry> anything else guys?
[23:53] <thumper> what about 2100 ?
[23:54] <thumper> barry: it used to collide withour standup
[23:54] <thumper> barry: but we moved that
[23:54] <barry> thumper: ah cool.  2100 is fine too
[23:54] <thumper> mwhudson: 2100?
[23:54] <mwhudson> thumper: yes, fine
[23:54] <thumper> barry, mwhudson: sold!
[23:54] <barry> beauty
[23:55] <barry> thanks guys... i think we're done!
[23:55] <barry> #endmeeting
[23:55] <MootBot> Meeting finished at 17:55.
[23:55] <thumper> thanks barry
[23:55] <barry> cheers