[16:21] <nigelb> bdmurray: There is a new tag to be added to the script suggested by seb 'patch-needsinput' when the patch is awaiting input from something else to be integrated in
[17:15] <BlackZ> nigelb: in the bug #544910 I have unsubscribed ~ubuntu-reviewers since ~ubuntu-sponsors is subscribed, you subscribed it
[17:15] <ubot4> Launchpad bug 544910 in aiccu (Debian) (and 1 other project) "Upgrade to 10.04 beta1 blocked by aiccu (affects: 4) (heat: 28)" [Unknown,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/544910
[17:16] <nigelb> BlackZ: its a script and yeah, something is wrong with it.  I'm working on it
[17:16] <BlackZ> nigelb: just for info :)
[17:17] <nigelb> The script was *not* supposed to do that.  I wonder why :x
[17:17] <BlackZ> heh
[17:17] <BlackZ> nigelb: can you show me the code?
[17:18] <nigelb> hold on
[17:18] <nigelb> http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~nigelbabu/ubuntu-review-overview/trunk/annotate/head:/clean-sweep.py
[17:18] <nigelb> if you find something wrong, poke me or branch and request merge.
[17:19] <BlackZ> sure, I will
[17:19] <BlackZ> nigelb: actually, what's wrong with it?
[17:19] <nigelb> well, it works perfectly
[17:19] <nigelb> only its failing for some bugs.  I'm trying to find the error log.
[17:20] <nigelb> It takes a whole 12 hours to run, main problme
[17:21] <vish> nigelb: that tag was not why seb suggested it , and it does not solve what we wanted!
[17:21] <vish> bdmurray: too ^
[17:22] <nigelb> vish: what the... I thought this was sorted out
[17:23] <vish> nigelb: hrm? when?
[17:23] <vish> nigelb: you have been coding till now ;p
[17:23] <BlackZ> nigelb: OK, I will take a look at it later :)
[17:23] <nigelb> vish: yeah, reportbug + python is crazy
[17:23] <nigelb> I was up till 4 last night
[17:23] <nigelb> or today morning rather
[17:28] <nigelb> vish: ok, so about the tag.  seb proposed patch-needsinput where its awaiting input from someone else, in this case he particularly talked about design.  I extended that to any issue where its blocked on something else.  What exactly is the problem with that?
[17:31] <vish> nigelb: for design bugs needing input , patch is already present , how does a design advocate get to the bug? [there is a design advocates being formed to do such work]
[17:31] <vish> nigelb: the reviewer has to tag them
[17:32] <nigelb> vish: there is going to be a team of people who will be taking decisions?
[17:33] <vish> nigelb: yes
[17:33] <vish> nigelb: there is going to be design advocates , who will be looking into such bugs
[17:34] <nigelb> vish: easy then, subscribe then to the bug and then can look for the tag patch-needsinput
[17:34] <vish> nigelb: who is going to subscribe them?
[17:34] <vish> reviewer again ;)
[17:34] <nigelb> not really
[17:34] <nigelb> oh yeah, right
[17:34] <nigelb> thats's fine by me
[17:35] <nigelb> just let me know when there is such a team and we can add that to the workflow
[17:35] <vish> nigelb: there is no lp team being formed , [unofficial is the ayatan UX team for now]
[17:36] <nigelb> well, then we'll just subscribe that team
[17:36] <vish> nigelb: hence tag the design bugs now , and later we can get the team subscribed
[17:36] <nigelb> I can do a design tag separately for bugs that are design related but that can't be done by reviewers
[17:36] <nigelb> ayatana would have to do that
[17:37] <vish> nigelb: how will ayatan know of the bugs with patches?
[17:37] <vish> that are waiting design review
[17:37] <nigelb> who else will know?
[17:37] <vish> nigelb: the reviewer!
[17:37] <nigelb> that is my problem.  how does a reviewer know something is awaiting design review
[17:38] <vish> nigelb: add a new button , add new icon , those are the kind of bugs
[17:38] <nigelb> See the whole thing is for ubuntu-speific packages which is not our main focus.  In fact, I'm trying to get those packages out of patch review.
[17:39] <nigelb> Our whole effort is to give the patches in LP to the right upstream so they can make a call on it
[17:39] <vish> nigelb: well , you have subscribed the reviewers lot of those bugs
[17:39] <vish> nigelb: i told persia this and he insisted they need to be in the review team's perview
[17:39] <nigelb> I know.  I have to write up the blacklist procedure, which I've not even started - real life is a bit hectic
[17:39] <nigelb> Just give me a few days -  one at a time
[17:40] <nigelb> right now I'm focusing on something else.  The patch subscription script that I'm running is failining on some bugs and I have to figure out why
[17:40]  * nigelb ==> dinner
[19:19] <vish> nigelb: talk to persia before you waste time on a blacklist... he specifically didnt want packages blacklisted
[19:20] <nigelb> vish: actually we both came up with it
[19:21] <vish> nigelb: better to check again. i doubt he would have mentioned excluding packages ;)
[19:22] <vish> nigelb: anyway ubuntu specific packages are several , SC , synaptic , Update-manager and there are design patches there too..
[19:22] <nigelb> vish: It ws discussed at uds too
[19:22] <nigelb> actually one of my WIs
[19:25] <vish> nigelb: thats a weird decision , so we are to exclude all ubuntu specific patches now?
[19:25] <vish> rather packages*
[19:26] <vish> what happens to those patches , and who checks those?
[19:29] <nigelb> nope
[19:29] <nigelb> we *dont* exclude anything arbitarily
[19:30] <nigelb> we give developers/maintainers an *option* to exclude their packages from review
[19:31] <vish> nigelb: hmm , right but if the maintainer has not excluded their packages and prefers the review team. again we are still left with the design bugs those will need tags :s
[19:32] <nigelb> yes, people who notice that something is design related has to tag it design
[19:32] <nigelb> we'll tag everything that needs input as patch-needsinput
[19:33] <vish> nigelb: again , you are not solving the problem the tag was requested for.  that design tag will have to be tagged by the reviewer
[19:33] <vish> nigelb: who else would know about the tags?
[19:34] <nigelb> vish: I do *NOT* want a tag for design input, one for kernel input, one for server input
[19:35] <vish> nigelb: what you suggest is patch-needsinput + a design tag , which works for me
[19:35] <nigelb> yep
[19:35] <vish> nigelb: what i mention is that the "design" tagging should be part of the reviewers work flow
[19:35] <nigelb> Also, I can't have everyone know that something requires design input, so the ayatana team might want to take of it
[19:36] <nigelb> how is a reviewer expected to know that?
[19:36] <vish> nigelb: how will the ayatana team know of the bug's existance?
[19:36] <vish> nigelb: if a reviewer is tagging needsinput , without knowing it is a design input , what is he requesting input for?
[19:36] <nigelb> well, aren't you folks subscribed to everything design related?
[19:37] <nigelb> vish: you see it would be a reviewer tagging it that way
[19:37] <nigelb> thats where you're confused
[19:37] <nigelb> most of the time its dx that will do that needsinput tagging
[19:38] <vish> nigelb: nope , the dx need to be notified about the bug and patch
[19:38] <nigelb> vish: The thing is, the reviewer *won't* know why it is not in.  Its not our call when something makes it in
[19:38] <nigelb> the review only says "this works"
[19:39] <vish> nigelb: right , then why would he tag it "needsinput"?
[19:39] <nigelb> to remove it from the review queue
[19:40] <nigelb> that is why seb proposed the tag, because even though the patch works, only thing its not it because of the needsinput
[19:40] <nigelb> only thing its not *in* is because its needs input
[19:40] <vish> nigelb: you are not getting the point , if he thinks it works , he should just request upload , why would he think about inout?
[19:40] <vish> input*
[19:41] <nigelb> er, you seem to be lost
[19:41] <nigelb> We have a bug A
[19:41] <nigelb> ther is a patch to add a button to do foo
[19:41] <nigelb> patch works, no regressions
[19:42] <nigelb> but it needs a design decision, so its marked as needsinput because it doesn't need review anymore
[19:42] <vish> nigelb: yes , so it is the reviewer thinking it needs design input, right?
[19:42] <nigelb> I was hoping the maintainer marked as such
[19:43] <nigelb> for example, if its software center, mvo has to mark it as needsinput
[19:43] <vish> just to be clear .. who is marking it as "needsinput"  ?
[19:46] <nigelb> I'm not clear.  I wwant to talk to seb on monday.
[19:46] <nigelb> Hence not added to wiki or script if you noticed.
[19:47] <vish> nigelb: right , the the reviewers dont even have to bother about the needsinput tag.. we leave it to the maintainer  , but have it in the script
[19:47] <vish> then the*
[19:47] <nigelb> yup. Need to do that.
[19:48] <nigelb> Like I said, busy doing postmortem on the script for cleansweep project
[19:49] <vish> nigelb: yup , hence left it .. but since you mentioned it for inclusion to the script had to make it clear it is not solid yet
[19:49] <vish> ;)
[19:50] <vish> the ping to bd_murray ^
[19:51] <nigelb> I'm trying to get it to a process where I dont' have to ping him.  Like putting it to a branch and his branch getting updated every 24 hours
[19:51] <nigelb> his local copy rather