[15:00] <bac> #startmeeting
[15:00] <MootBot> Meeting started at 09:00. The chair is bac.
[15:00] <MootBot> Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
[15:00] <bac> hi, who is here today?
[15:00] <gmb> me
[15:00] <sinzui> me
[15:00] <bac> for the launchpad reviewers meeting
[15:01] <danilos> me
[15:01] <gary_poster> me
[15:01] <abentley> me
[15:01] <gary_poster> (mars will probably be absent)
[15:01] <bac> bigjools ping
[15:02] <bac> EdwinGrubbs: ping
[15:02] <BjornT> me
[15:02] <EdwinGrubbs> me
[15:02] <bigjools> \o
[15:02] <leonardr> me
[15:02] <adeuring> me
[15:02] <noodles775> me
[15:03] <bac> team leads would you ping your absent folks
[15:03] <deryck> me
[15:03] <gary_poster> (foundations is as here as we're going to get)
[15:03] <bac> gary_poster: thanks
[15:03] <henninge> me
[15:03] <gary_poster> np
[15:03] <bac> hi intellectronica, jelmer
[15:04] <henninge> hi bac ;)
[15:04] <jelmer> hi Brad
[15:04] <bac> ok, let's get started and hopefully some stragglers will appear
[15:04] <bac> [topic] agenda
[15:04] <MootBot> New Topic:  agenda
[15:04] <bac> * Roll call
[15:04] <bac>  * Agenda
[15:04] <bac>  * Outstanding actions
[15:04] <bac>  * Mentoring update
[15:04] <bac>  * New topics
[15:04] <bac>    * ec2 failures update - bac
[15:04] <bac>    * Reviewer move to Friday? - bac
[15:04] <bac>  * Peanut gallery
[15:05] <bac> [topic] outstanding actions
[15:05] <MootBot> New Topic:  outstanding actions
[15:05] <bac> there are only two outstanding actions...both assigned to me.
[15:05] <bac> but i'm batting .500
[15:05] <bac>  * bac to write community reviewer and contributor policy and announce it on the list. -- done
[15:06] <bac> i got that out, as promised, before leaving for UDS.
[15:06] <bac> but remain stalled on:
[15:06] <bac> * bac to define new doctest policy regarding what is "testable documentation".
[15:06] <bac> i'll try to get to that next week
[15:06] <bac> [topic]   * ec2 failures update - bac
[15:06] <MootBot> New Topic:    * ec2 failures update - bac
[15:07] <bac> actually, i was hoping to have mars give us an update but he's not here today
[15:07] <gary_poster> I can summarize maybe
[15:07] <bac> sinzui reported in our standup that work has been done but it is still very much a problem
[15:07] <bac> yes, gary_poster?
[15:08] <gary_poster> mars has been investigating the problems on ec2 test.  As a workaround, he has disabled the Windmill tests on ec2.  This is obviously very suboptimal, but considered to be less sub-optimal than ec2 break one out of four times, which I gather is the rough stat.
[15:08] <gary_poster> He will continue to try to figure out and address the underlying cauase so he can reinstate the windmill tests in ec2
[15:09]  * bac saw about 60% failure last time he tried
[15:09] <gary_poster> note that windmill tests still run in buildbot
[15:09] <gary_poster> so this is a testfix risk
[15:09] <gary_poster> hopefully I didn't get anything wrong; that's what I understand.  done.
[15:10] <bac> gary_poster: when tests hang, and the script kills itself after timing out, does it send a farewell email?  i think that would be a useful addition if not.
[15:10] <gary_poster> bac, that is on mars' backlog, and in fact will be one of the next things he does to address, yes.
[15:11] <bac> ok, great
[15:11] <bac> gary_poster: when were the windmill tests disabled?
[15:12] <gary_poster> bac, IIRC, Monday, with issues; issues were resolved yesterday
[15:12] <bac> sinzui: did you see your tests disappear after that or before?
[15:12] <sinzui> One disappeared yesterday afternoon
[15:13] <gary_poster> sinzui, bac, we'll need to bring this up to mars.  Would you like me to take that action ite,?
[15:13] <gary_poster> item
[15:13] <bac> we should all keep an eye on our ec2 tests and report to mars instances of them disappearing.
[15:13] <gary_poster> +1
[15:13] <bac> gary_poster: that would be great.
[15:13] <gary_poster> ok
[15:13] <bac> [action] gary to follow up with mars on ec2 problems.
[15:13] <MootBot> ACTION received:  gary to follow up with mars on ec2 problems.
[15:14] <sinzui> gary_poster, I think my branch was within a few hours of the mailmanlayer shutoff. the issue may be fixed
[15:14] <gary_poster> sinzui: ack wll pass along, thanks
[15:14] <bac> [topic] * Reviewer move to Friday? - bac
[15:14] <MootBot> New Topic:  * Reviewer move to Friday? - bac
[15:14] <bac> our pool of reviewers has been pretty hard hit lately with personel changes
[15:14] <bac> https://dev.launchpad.net/ReviewerSchedule
[15:15] <bac> right now, on fridays we only have adeuring working
[15:15] <bac> would gmb or henninge entertain the idea of moving to friday?
[15:16] <gmb> bac, I believe adeuring is a Friday reviewer; I wonder if it's the best thing for hte bugs team to lose two devs on the same day... Not sure it matters though.
[15:16] <adeuring> not that I would mind sharing reviews with gmb or henninge, but I think if we have somebody in a US timezone would be better
[15:16] <bac> adeuring: yes it would be better
[15:16] <bac> adeuring: but of the active reviewers in the americas we're spread pretty thin
[15:17] <adeuring> right
[15:17] <gmb> bac, I'm happy to do it if deryck's okay with the change.
[15:17] <bac> i could move to friday but that leaves an americas hole on tuesday
[15:17] <henninge> I don't mind moving to Fridays
[15:17] <deryck> I don't know if I want gmb and adeuring sidelined fridays
[15:17] <bac> deryck: ok.  henninge do you mind moving again?
[15:18] <henninge> bac: no problem at all
[15:18] <henninge> but, as was said, the problem is America
[15:18]  * henninge wonders if he should move west ...
[15:18] <bac> henninge: let's not bring politics into the meeting
[15:18] <henninge> lol
[15:19] <henninge> But I was talking about the whole continent anyway ...
[15:19] <bac> henninge: why don't you try friday and if seems we have a problem i'll then switch
[15:19] <henninge> It's in the way of any girl that wants to sail around the world...
[15:19] <bac> [action] henninge to move to friday review EU review slot
[15:19] <MootBot> ACTION received:  henninge to move to friday review EU review slot
[15:19] <intellectronica> bac: on the same subject, note that there's a slot freein on monday EU. when i'm gone there will be no reviewer until abentley gets workin, and judging by the last few mondays there's a lot of activity around that time.
[15:20] <bac> intellectronica: i know.  i was hoping you'd change your mind before then.  :)
[15:20] <henninge> intellectronica: where are you going, what did I miss?
[15:20] <bac> intellectronica: you can always help out on mondays as a community reviewer!
[15:20] <intellectronica> wow, i managed to omit all those Gs. i'm not lolcat speaking, it was as accident
[15:20] <intellectronica> :)
[15:21] <bac> intellectronica: what is the date for you leaving?
[15:21] <intellectronica> henninge: i'm leaving launchpad at the end of next week.
[15:22] <henninge> intellectronica: oh, too bad :(
[15:22] <henninge> ;)
[15:22] <bac> in light of that, perhaps it would make more sense for henninge to move to eu-monday and i move to friday
[15:22] <intellectronica> henninge: what can i do, all those monday review shifts finally got to me
[15:22] <henninge> :)
[15:23] <bac> henninge: let's talk about it off-line.
[15:23] <henninge> bac: ok
[15:23] <bac> [topic] peanut gallery
[15:23] <MootBot> New Topic:  peanut gallery
[15:23] <bac> any new topics?
[15:23] <sinzui> orphaned commits
[15:24] <sinzui> This is the what we have so far: https://wiki.canonical.com/Launchpad/QATeam/OrphanedCommits/10.05-devel
[15:25] <sinzui> Ursinha, noted that this class of landing was not tracked with bug tags last release
[15:25] <bac> hard to have a bug tag with no bug.
[15:25] <gary_poster> FWIW, If we talk about this here, I'd be +1 on this simply leading to someone taking an action item to raise this on the mailing list
[15:26] <sinzui> In the examples I saw related to the registry team they were contributor branches that were not linked to bugs
[15:26]  * mars is guilty of submitting build system cleanups without bugs.
[15:26] <sinzui> Do we want contributor work to always have a link to a bug/spec
[15:27] <bac> i think reviewers should be on the look out for any MP that isn't linked to a bug.  not saying it isn't sometimes appropriate but it should raise a flag.
[15:27] <intellectronica> sinzui: with contributor work it's even more important, because you want to help contributors plan and track the work before they start
[15:27] <bac> intellectronica: agreed.  so sinzui's suggestion is a good one, IMO.
[15:28] <sinzui> Or in my case, remove part of the branch a week later because the feature is causing errors
[15:28] <bac> but only 2 of the 10.05 orphans are from community
[15:29] <sinzui> yes, there is another issue, but in the lp engineer case, flacoste assumes these are on the kanban board
[15:30] <bac> sinzui: well, that does help.  but if we're going to track qa with bug tags then it would make sense to *require* a bug or we lose all QA testing...unless we employ a separate tracking mechanism.
[15:31] <BjornT> bac: if all we want is to track qa, filing a bug automatically sounds like a good idea
[15:31] <bac> BjornT: at what point?
[15:33]  * gary_poster idly thinks of a flag for branches that says "addresses" rather than "fixes"
[15:33] <sinzui> The tags are hard to visualise at the moment since the page is missing: http://people.canonical.com/~lpqateam/test-plan-report-10.05.html
[15:33] <BjornT> bac: the script that scans commits and add qa tags probably
[15:33] <gary_poster> where addresses means that it is an incremental step towards a bug
[15:33] <gary_poster> but does not actually resolve a bug
[15:34]  * gary_poster suspects this is a can of worms
[15:34] <henninge> BjornT: so it should create a bug if none is linked to the commit?
[15:35] <BjornT> henninge: if all we want is to track QA, yes, why not?
[15:35] <mars> gary_poster, that's why I'm not going to touch it :)
[15:35] <gary_poster> :-)
[15:35] <bac> sinzui: would you take an item to talk to QA and then make a proposal on the list, taking into account BjornT's suggestion?
[15:35] <henninge> BjornT: sounds like a good idea. Let's see if Ursinha likes it, too.
[15:35] <sinzui> yes
[15:36] <bac> thanks curtis
[15:36] <bac> [action] sinzui to talk to QA about our QA tracking problem and create a proposal on the mailing list
[15:36] <MootBot> ACTION received:  sinzui to talk to QA about our QA tracking problem and create a proposal on the mailing list
[15:36] <bac> any other topic?
[15:36] <bac> 3
[15:36] <bac> 2
[15:37] <bac> 1
[15:37] <bac> thanks for coming everyone.
[15:37] <bac> #endmeeting
[15:37] <MootBot> Meeting finished at 09:37.
[15:37] <mars> thanks bac
[15:37] <henninge> so, intellectronica, which team won you over and how? ;-)
[15:38] <intellectronica> henninge: the summer won me over. in a couple of weeks i'll be out of employment and ready to rock'n'roll :D
[15:39] <henninge> intellectronica: oh, because you said "leaving launchpad", I thought it was within the company.
[15:40] <henninge> intellectronica: so you have nothing new lined up yet?
[15:40] <intellectronica> henninge: nothing at all (other than some fun-related plans)
[15:41] <henninge> intellectronica: well, have fun, then! ;-D
[15:41] <intellectronica> henninge: thanks!
[16:12]  * Ursinha reads the backlog
 bac: if all we want is to track qa, filing a bug automatically sounds like a good idea
[16:12] <Ursinha> we dropped out that idea because some of the commits aren't really bugs
[16:13] <Ursinha> henninge, ^
[16:13] <henninge> BjornT: ^ ;)
[16:13] <henninge> Ursinha: I think that is the  point.
[16:13] <henninge> Ursinha: To track even those commits that aren't really bugs.
[16:14] <Ursinha> henninge, that's how the script would initially work, but I dropped the idea after chatting with francis
[16:14] <Ursinha> henninge, and why would we need that?
[16:14] <henninge> Ursinha: we were talking about orphaned commits.
[16:16] <Ursinha> henninge, I see now... but the point is that the orphaned commits aren't all the commits the don't mention bugs, but only those which should and don't
[16:16] <Ursinha> s/the don't/that dont/
[16:19] <Ursinha> henninge, I guess that not a lot of those supposedly orphaned commits are really orphaned, maybe we could fix that by adding the bug tag to the commit message?
[16:19] <Ursinha> henninge, making that a pqm requirement, maybe
[16:21] <henninge> Ursinha: I am not sure they have bugs. It did not sound like that.
[16:22] <Ursinha> henninge, and they should?
[16:22]  * henninge has little own experience, he always files bugs...
[16:22] <Ursinha> henninge, that's why I love you :P
[16:23]  * henninge blushes
[16:23] <henninge> Ursinha: well, jtv trained me that way ...
[16:23] <Ursinha> henninge, I love him too :)
[16:24] <henninge> Ursinha: The question was "Should all commits have a bug so they are qa'ble".
[16:24] <Ursinha> henninge, my personal opinion is no
[16:24] <henninge> I was not aware of the definition for orphaned commits that you just gave.
[16:24] <henninge> "should have bug bug don't"
[16:25] <Ursinha> henninge, the idea of having a bug attached to a commit is to track the qa you have to do on it
[16:25] <henninge> Ursinha: you are the authority on QA here, so if that is your opinion, we are fine, I guess ... ;)
[16:25] <henninge> on the bug, you mean
[16:25] <Ursinha> of course having a bug for real fixes is needed to track problems and future reference
[16:25] <Ursinha> but now we really need to care about fixes that need qa, those need bugs
[16:26] <henninge> so the rule should be "If the fix will need qa, attach a bug. If it doesn't a bug is optional?"
[16:27] <henninge> Ursinha: don't all fixes need QA?
[16:28] <Ursinha> henninge, I thought so, but it turns out some are just adjustments that not necessarily can be qaed
[16:28] <henninge> Ursinha: I'll put that on the agenda for next week's meeting.
[16:29] <Ursinha> henninge, well, speaking roughly in practical qa terms, yes, but I'd like to have bugs to all problems we have, even the ones that result in commits we can't test
[16:29] <Ursinha> but that's my wish :)
[16:30] <Ursinha> or the ones that don't even need commits to lp tree to be fixed :)
[22:33] <bac> thumper, rockstar: up for a reviewers meeting?
[22:33] <rockstar> bac, havin' our standup right now.
[22:33] <thumper> I might have to skip it this week
[22:33] <bac> rockstar: why do you schedule the standup during our meeting time?  :)
[22:34] <bac> thumper: ok.  not much said but talk about broken ec2  and rearranging of OCR schedules due to all the people moving around.
[22:34] <bac> next week...