[15:01] <bac> #startmeeting
[15:01] <MootBot> Meeting started at 09:01. The chair is bac.
[15:01] <MootBot> Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
[15:01] <bac> hi who is here?
[15:01] <abentley> me
[15:01] <adeuring> me
[15:01] <deryck> me
[15:01] <bac> sinzui just wandered off
[15:02] <bac> danilos:  ping
[15:02] <danilos> me
[15:02] <bac> gmb, EdwinGrubbs, leonardr, jelmer ping
[15:02] <leonardr> me
[15:02] <bac> bigjools:  yo
[15:02] <EdwinGrubbs> me
[15:03] <henninge> me, too
[15:03] <bigjools> me ish
[15:03] <bac> flacoste, noodles775, mars: ping
[15:03] <noodles775> here
[15:03] <mars> me
[15:04] <jelmer> me
[15:04] <sinzui> me
[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>  * New topics
[15:04] <gmb> me
[15:04] <bac>   * Format import lists so they merge well and are clear to review. RobertCollins
[15:04] <bac>   * Call for new reviewers.
[15:04] <gmb> Sorry
[15:04] <bac>   * Removing enums and errors out of interfaces.  TimPenhey
[15:04] <bac>   * Policy decisions: Reviewers Meeting or mailing list?  RobertCollins
[15:04] <bac>  * Peanut gallery
[15:04] <bac> [topic] outstanding issue
[15:04] <MootBot> New Topic:  outstanding issue
[15:05] <bac> there is just the one, coop vs shared vs inter.  that discussion has been happening on the mailing list so i don't see the need to bring it up here too.  so i won't.
[15:05] <bac> [topic] Format import lists so they merge well and are clear to review. RobertCollins
[15:05] <MootBot> New Topic:  Format import lists so they merge well and are clear to review. RobertCollins
[15:06] <bac> lifeless brought this up on the list but i was quite confused by the discussion
[15:06] <bigjools> this is the issue that came up a year (?) ago
[15:06] <bac> we discussed it in the asiapac meeting last week and it turns out, he is advocating for the one-line-per-item in lists (as we do now) plus extending that to imports
[15:06] <bac> which we discussed and rejected a year ago as bigjools said
[15:07] <bac> robert and the code team are still very much in favor in this change.
[15:07] <abentley> bac, true, dat.
[15:08]  * henninge doesn't mind either way
[15:08] <henninge> Actually, I see both formatings in our code.
[15:09] <henninge> formats, formations, formatations ???
[15:09] <henninge> ;-)
[15:09] <bigjools> I'm not sure if I care which way it is, but I do care that the files are all the same
[15:09] <gmb> bigjools, +1
[15:09] <bac> bigjools +1
[15:09] <henninge> Ouch, that is a lot of work.
[15:09] <gmb> That's the biggest bugbear.
[15:09] <flacoste> me
[15:10] <bigjools> surely we can write a tool to reformat them?
[15:10] <bac> if we do decide to make the change it'll be a big, mechanical branch.
[15:10] <sinzui> we may have such a tool
[15:10] <bigjools> JFDI
[15:10] <bac> people who do big apocalyptic branches report seeing lots of merge conflicts over imports...i personally don't see it often
[15:10] <sinzui> the migrater has a script that rewrite imports. I think we need to update its formatter
[15:11] <bac> bigjools:  before we JFDI we have to decide if that's what we really want.
[15:11] <bac> let's vote then.  are there any strong arguments for or against first?
[15:11] <bigjools> if we have a tool, we can try it out and revert it if we hate it
[15:11] <flacoste> i don't like it
[15:11] <flacoste> but only esthetics argument
[15:12] <henninge> Readability is surely on the one-liner side.
[15:12] <bigjools> flacoste: what you gain on the editor you lose in the diff.
[15:12] <henninge> with lists being alphabetical!
[15:12] <abentley> bac, the arguments pro are fewer conflicts and clearer patches.
[15:12] <flacoste> yep
[15:12] <abentley> bac, clearer patches because only the thing added/removed will show, not the whole import block for that module.
[15:12] <bac> would a single import stay on one line but two or more become a list?
[15:13] <henninge> bac: I'd like that.
[15:13] <danilos> we should just fix the very long "one-line" imports as an alternative solution (i.e. be more specific about what you are importing from)
[15:13] <abentley> bac, that would be fine by me.
[15:14] <abentley> danilos, I'm not sure what you mean by 'very long "one-line" imports'
[15:14] <flacoste> i think he means multi-line import
[15:14] <danilos> abentley, well, single-statement imports with lots of things being imported
[15:14] <flacoste> from canonical.launchpad.interfaces import A, B, C, D... over 3 lines
[15:14] <flacoste> if you import for more specific location most of them will fit on one line
[15:15] <flacoste> but it doesn't solve the conflict problem
[15:15] <flacoste> if you need to add a 3rd symbol
[15:15] <flacoste> or a second one
[15:15] <flacoste> or the readability of the patch
[15:15] <danilos> right, it does reduce the chances of it happening though (you are going to get conflicts with the proposal to split them up as well)
[15:15] <abentley> flacoste, I haven't noticed a lot of too-general imports lately, but maybe I'm not looking for them.
[15:15] <flacoste> we don't add them
[15:15] <bac> ok, let's vote
[15:15] <sinzui> There are still a lot from c.l
[15:16] <bac> [vote] Change our coding standards to require one line per item for imports
[15:16] <MootBot> Please vote on:  Change our coding standards to require one line per item for imports.
[15:16] <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
[15:16] <MootBot> E.g. /msg MootBot +1 #launchpad-meeting
[15:16] <danilos> -1
[15:16] <MootBot> -1 received from danilos. 0 for, 1 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now -1
[15:16] <abentley> +1
[15:16] <MootBot> +1 received from abentley. 1 for, 1 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 0
[15:16] <bigjools> +1 because I fancy a change :)
[15:16] <MootBot> +1 received from bigjools. 2 for, 1 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 1
[15:16] <adeuring> -1
[15:16] <MootBot> -1 received from adeuring. 2 for, 2 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 0
[15:16] <gmb> +1
[15:16] <MootBot> +1 received from gmb. 3 for, 2 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 1
[15:16] <henninge> +1 for readability
[15:16] <MootBot> +1 received from henninge. 4 for, 2 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 2
[15:16] <noodles775> +0
[15:16] <MootBot> Abstention received from noodles775. 4 for, 2 against. 1 have abstained. Count is now 2
[15:16] <sinzui> +1
[15:16] <MootBot> +1 received from sinzui. 5 for, 2 against. 1 have abstained. Count is now 3
[15:16] <mars> +0
[15:16] <MootBot> Abstention received from mars. 5 for, 2 against. 2 have abstained. Count is now 3
[15:16] <bac> -0
[15:16]  * bigjools spies a fence-sitter
[15:16] <danilos> :)
[15:17] <henninge> bac: -0 doesn't work
[15:17] <flacoste> -1
[15:17] <MootBot> -1 received from flacoste. 5 for, 3 against. 2 have abstained. Count is now 2
[15:17] <bac> -1
[15:17] <MootBot> -1 received from bac. 5 for, 4 against. 2 have abstained. Count is now 1
[15:17] <jelmer> +1
[15:17] <MootBot> +1 received from jelmer. 6 for, 4 against. 2 have abstained. Count is now 2
[15:17] <mars> fascinating :)
[15:17] <danilos> (this seems like the most interesting vote so far :)
[15:17] <bac> voting to close in ten seconds
[15:17] <deryck> +1
[15:17] <MootBot> +1 received from deryck. 7 for, 4 against. 2 have abstained. Count is now 3
[15:17] <EdwinGrubbs> -1
[15:17] <MootBot> -1 received from EdwinGrubbs. 7 for, 5 against. 2 have abstained. Count is now 2
[15:18] <gmb> Democracy in action, folks.
[15:18] <bac> #endvote
[15:18] <bac> [endvote]
[15:18] <MootBot> Final result is 7 for, 5 against. 2 abstained. Total: 2
[15:18] <henninge> plus the code team and Rob
[15:18] <bac> ok, so the voting in AsiaPac will be perfunctory.  the motion will carry as they all favor it.
[15:19] <danilos> they haven't had the chance to listen to our wonderfully founded arguments, though :)
[15:19] <bac> danilos:  yeah,i don't think that's going to sway them
[15:19] <bac> :)
[15:19] <bac> i'll seek an asiapac volunteer to update the wikis
[15:19] <danilos> bac, perhaps some beating or bribing then? :) anyway, thanks all for the vote
[15:20] <danilos> s/vote/voting/
[15:20] <bac> [topic] call for new reviewers
[15:20] <MootBot> New Topic:  call for new reviewers
[15:20] <bac> Any team leads want to nominate new mentats?
[15:20] <bac> bigjools:  ???
[15:20]  * bigjools got distracted
[15:21]  * bigjools is nominating SteveK
[15:21] <bac> you have mentor?
[15:22] <bac> hey bigjools, how about tim?
[15:22] <bigjools> yes, thumper agreed to mentor him
[15:22] <bac> i'll send an email to steve and invite him to the asiapac meeting
[15:22] <bigjools> thanks bac
[15:22] <bac> thanks bigjools for nominating him
[15:22] <bigjools> my pleasure :)
[15:23] <bac> [topic] Removing enums and errors out of interfaces.  TimPenhey
[15:23] <MootBot> New Topic:  Removing enums and errors out of interfaces.  TimPenhey
[15:23] <bac> tim sent out email about this topic last week but there was no discussion.  he asked me to bring it up here
[15:23] <bigjools> +1 million to that
[15:23] <bac> +1
[15:23] <flacoste> yep, that's a JFDI case
[15:23] <abentley> +1
[15:23] <gmb> A thousand times +1
[15:24] <danilos> +1 here as well :)
[15:24] <jelmer> +1 too. Just to be sure, that means moving them to the model code?
[15:24] <sinzui> +1
[15:24] <bac> so create lp/app/enums.py and errors.py
[15:24] <bac> err, lp/<yourapphere>/enums.py i mean
[15:25] <bac> [topic] Policy decisions: Reviewers Meeting or mailing list?  RobertCollins
[15:25] <MootBot> New Topic:  Policy decisions: Reviewers Meeting or mailing list?  RobertCollins
[15:25] <henninge> meeting!
[15:25] <bac> lifeless brought this up last week and wanted to discuss it here
[15:26] <bac> his thought is having this meeting make policy as one of its goals drags out decisions
[15:26] <bac> ML discussions can lead to quicker decision making, he argues
[15:26] <bac> thoughts?
[15:27] <flacoste> meeting are good for a sync point
[15:27] <flacoste> making policy decision on mailing list is confusing
[15:27] <abentley> Having a meeting focuses discussion.  It may increase latency, but the actual decision-making is faster, and the results are clearer.
[15:27] <henninge> I don't agree. This meeting is prove of that re the decission on import formating.
[15:27] <flacoste> well, not confusing
[15:27] <flacoste> but requires art
[15:27] <flacoste> it's often not clear when the decision is reached
[15:27] <danilos> I strongly disagree with his assertion that meetings lead to slower decision making; if anything, they lead to faster decision making imho
[15:28] <bac> i think we get more opinions in this meeting and it is easier to catch confusion and eliminate them
[15:28] <henninge> danilos: +1
[15:28] <flacoste> i think his impression might come from the AsiaPac/Ameu split
[15:28] <henninge> Also, it is the only place left were we regularly meet as developers and discuss developing - sort of.
[15:28] <flacoste> where the bullk of the devs are in Ameu
[15:28] <abentley> danilos, agreed.  ML threads tend to wander, and don't necessarily reach a conclusion.
[15:28] <bigjools> decisions in meetings, discussions about decisions on the ML, unless there's an obvious early consensus on the ML.
[15:28] <danilos> I
[15:29] <deryck> I favor the meeting, too.  Seems quicker to me, and you know when it's over. :-)
[15:29] <danilos> I did suggest him to move to Europe, was what I was trying to say :)
[15:29] <bac> henninge:  that is true and it makes this meeting sometimes be broader than the original intent.  i'm not saying that is bad, though.
[15:29] <bac> bigjools:  +1
[15:29] <danilos> bigjools, +1, and it seems most others who voice their opinion are in agreement
[15:30] <danilos> however, flacoste does point a valid thing: how do we involve our dear AsiaPac developers in the decision making better
[15:30] <abentley> danilos, hold their meeting before ours? :-)
[15:31] <bigjools> if it's a simple vote we just tally votes
[15:31] <danilos> bigjools, I seriously believe that the discussions we have are useful, so just tallying the votes is not always a true measure imho
[15:31] <bac> well, i try to bring the items from here to their meeting.  and votes continue there.  really it's the best we can do.
[15:31] <danilos> (i.e. I've been swayed before to a different opinion)
[15:31] <flacoste> like we did today for a couple of items
[15:31] <danilos> bac, right
[15:32] <bac> good feedback.  thanks.
[15:32] <danilos> anyway, I think we should keep the format, but look into other opportunities to improve it
[15:32] <bigjools> danilos: that's why I said long discussions need to be on the ML
[15:32] <bac> [topic] other items?
[15:32] <MootBot> New Topic:  other items?
[15:33] <bac> i guess not.
[15:33] <danilos> bigjools, sometimes they are short discussions ;)
[15:33] <bac> thanks for coming
[15:33] <danilos> thanks all
[15:33] <bac> #endmeeting
[15:33] <MootBot> Meeting finished at 09:33.
[15:33] <bigjools> thanks bac
[15:33] <bigjools> danilos: short is fine for meetings, long needs to go to ML.  Simple :)
[15:34] <danilos> bac, sinzui: btw, is it worthwhile to do import lines migration per-app? we've got a big branch in progress and would like to avoid having conflicts until that lands
[15:34] <bac> danilos:  that is a good idea
[15:35] <bac> danilos:  we didn't really talk about the D part of JFDI.
[15:35] <bac> it is more tech-debt
[15:35] <danilos> bac, I can imagine sinzui already hacking away at a script to do it, which is why I am saying that :)
[15:36] <bac> danilos:  he is not.  his fingers are idle at the moment.
[15:36] <danilos> bac, hopefully we don't end up with JFI :)
[15:36] <bac> that's not to say he isn't thinking about it...
[15:36] <danilos> bac, heh, thanks :)
[15:36] <sinzui> danilos, I have my own agenda of removing imports from c.l and any tool that make it easier for me to do will probably help you.
[15:37] <sinzui> danilos, I am hacking on codehosting at the moment. rosetta will be next week maybe
[15:38] <danilos> sinzui, rosetta should be completely glob-import free, so I expect it to be a much easier job :) anyway, thanks for working on that
[15:38] <sinzui> yes, code is clean too. answers and blueprints had a lot but, they were small apps
[15:38] <sinzui> I dread the registry-soyuz apps
[15:39] <bigjools> danilos: JFI - lol
[22:29] <lifeless> oh hai?
[22:30] <thumper> hey
[22:30] <thumper> bac: are we doing this now?
[22:30] <thumper> bac: or do you want to wait for StevenK?
[22:31] <sinzui> bac: is trying to talk
[22:31] <bac> thumper:  i cannot tonight
[22:31] <bac> #startmeeting
[22:31] <MootBot> Meeting started at 16:31. The chair is bac.
[22:31] <MootBot> Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
[22:31] <bac> i'm having connectivity problems too
[22:32] <bac> thumper, mwhudson, rockstar, lifeless :ping
[22:32] <rockstar> hi
[22:32] <mwhudson> hi
[22:32] <thumper> hi
[22:32] <bac> mwhudson:  i didn't know if you wanted to show up for these.  you're welcome, of course!
[22:32] <mwhudson> bac: o
[22:33] <mwhudson> i'm still doing launchpad reviews occasionally, so i think it makes sense
[22:33] <bac> ok, great
[22:33] <lifeless> yeah, Ii'm here
[22:33] <lifeless> also in a meeting with emo :P
[22:33] <lifeless> elmo
[22:34] <bac> so we had a lively meeting this morning.
[22:34] <thumper> elmo the emo?
[22:34] <thumper> that is an interesting picture
[22:34] <mwhudson> :)
[22:34] <bac> we discussed the one-import-per-line issue
[22:34] <bac> and voted
[22:35] <bac> so let's vote here and make it official
[22:35] <bac> [vote] Change our coding standards to require one line per item for imports
[22:35] <MootBot> Please vote on:  Change our coding standards to require one line per item for imports.
[22:35] <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
[22:35] <MootBot> E.g. /msg MootBot +1 #launchpad-meeting
[22:35] <mwhudson> bac: one line per item means "like bzr" ?
[22:35] <bac> mwhudson:  yep
[22:35] <rockstar> +1
[22:35] <MootBot> +1 received from rockstar. 1 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 1
[22:35] <thumper> benji had an interesting email
[22:35] <mwhudson> +1
[22:35] <MootBot> +1 received from mwhudson. 2 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 2
[22:35] <thumper> +1
[22:35] <MootBot> +1 received from thumper. 3 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 3
[22:36] <bac> i wonder how lifeless would vote...
[22:36] <bac> [endvote]
[22:36] <MootBot> Final result is 3 for, 0 against. 0 abstained. Total: 3
[22:36] <rockstar> Wait, is wgrant around?  Maybe he should have had a say too...
[22:36] <bac> total:  10 for,5 against, 2 abstained
[22:37] <bac> rockstar:  you don't need him
[22:37] <rockstar> Nice.
[22:37] <bac> so we decided it makes sense to make the change one app at a time
[22:37] <lifeless> hmm +1
[22:37] <rockstar> It really wasn't about need, but more that he contributes as well.
[22:38] <bac> total:  11 for, 5 against, 2 abstain
[22:38] <wgrant> +1, anyway.
[22:38] <bac> 12 for
[22:38] <bac> now you're all just rubbing it in
[22:38] <thumper> I'll start with code
[22:38] <rockstar> bac, wait, the chad!  It made my vote unreadable!  :)
[22:39] <bac> yeah, it's another tech-debt issue.  so update your code as you have time.
[22:39] <rockstar> thumper, of course code is going to be the first to make the change...  :)
[22:39] <bac> thanks for championing it lifeless and thumper
[22:39] <mwhudson> hooray for a definitively coloured bikeshed
[22:39] <lifeless> Pink
[22:39] <bac> \o/
[22:39] <lifeless> btw
[22:39] <lifeless> coop
[22:40] <bac> gah, not yet
[22:40] <lifeless> :)(
[22:40] <lifeless> that was :)
[22:40] <bac> we also got the good news that bigjools has asked stevek to become a reviewer and that thumper will be mentoring
[22:40]  * thumper ndos
[22:41] <thumper> nods
[22:41] <bac> as mentioned earlier it probably makes sense for him to go to the ameu meeting
[22:41] <thumper> ENOCAFFEINE
[22:41] <bac> if not, we may need to move the time here to a few hours later
[22:41] <thumper> bac: when is that?
[22:41] <bac> er, 14Z
[22:41] <thumper> bac: because AM of the AMEU meeting meens he won't be up
[22:41] <thumper> that is a midnight meeting for him
[22:41] <bac> yuk
[22:41] <thumper> or 1 am
[22:42] <thumper> not really practical
[22:42] <bac> ok.  let me discuss with him
[22:42] <bac> if we moved this meeting two hours later it would be his 930a and my 730p
[22:42] <bac> not a problem, usually, as long as i don't forget
[22:42] <thumper> that might be better...
[22:43] <mwhudson> fine for me, obviously...
[22:43] <bac> thumper:  i brought up your idea about moving enums and errors and it was met with universal praise.
[22:43] <thumper> cool
[22:43] <thumper> I'm happy with that
[22:44] <bac> lifeless:  we also discussed your idea of moving policy decisions to the mailing list rather than discussion in the reviewers meeting
[22:45] <bac> the feeling was that the meeting allows for decisions to be clarified and decided much more quickly than on mailing lists, where things tend to drag on and get muddled
[22:45] <rockstar> Yes.
[22:45] <lifeless> sure, I did mention it wasn't baked :)
[22:45] <lifeless> also btw, policy decisions is overly broard
[22:45] <lifeless> *broad*
[22:45] <rockstar> There's value in IRC meetings, methinks.
[22:45] <bac> i think we get more participation "in person" than on the ML
[22:45] <lifeless> there are policy decisions about doing revisions
[22:45] <lifeless> s/revisions/reviews/
[22:45] <bac> lifeless:  sorry if i misrepresented your idea
[22:46] <lifeless> and there are policy decisions about what the code should look like
[22:46] <lifeless> I was only speculating about the second set
[22:46] <lifeless> bac: I don't know if you did or didn't; I'm just being clear here-and-now
[22:46] <rockstar> lifeless, well, yeah, that stuff contains bike shedding in both places, so it's better on the mailing list where I can ignore it if I want.
[22:47] <lifeless> anyhow
[22:47] <lifeless> like I said - unbaked; I will bring it up if I start to feel its baked
[22:48] <lifeless> but please do think about how we can:
[22:48] <bac> in reality, discussions on IRC need to be limited to about ten minutes.  so if the topic has not been introduced before, some topics can be decided quickly while others will need to go to the ML
[22:48] <lifeless>  - bring in more community folk (not just wgrant, there are others :P) into code & design discussions
[22:48] <lifeless>  - get things that are easy to happen without waiting for a meeting
[22:49] <lifeless> bac: asgreed
[22:49] <bac> lifeless:  thanks for bringing up the idea.  you have fresh eyes and can see where we've become stodgy
[22:49]  * wgrant likes IRC for discussions, since it means you can't keep things on the iinternal list :P
[22:50] <lifeless> wgrant: FTR I only use the internal list for actually confidential discussions, or if someone starts one there.
[22:50] <mwhudson> wgrant: we have internal channels too, you know :-)
[22:50] <bac> wgrant:  we've tried to be better about that
[22:50] <wgrant> mwhudson: Shh.
[22:51] <bac> any other topics for today?
[22:51] <lifeless> ponies
[22:51] <lifeless> lamont wants one
[22:51] <bac> what happened to woody?
[22:51] <thumper> send him a picture of the storm trooper my little pony
[22:51] <lifeless> he moved on, I don't remember the details
[22:52] <bac> we're sprinting this week and the conference room came with a 3' inflatable tux as a mascot
[22:52] <lifeless> \o/
[22:52] <lifeless> where are you?
[22:52] <bac> my town
[22:52] <lifeless> noice
[22:52] <bac> carolina del norte
[22:52] <bac> carrboro, specifically
[22:53] <bac> ok, so if we've devolved into pony discussions i think we should call it a meeting
[22:53] <bac> thanks for participating
[22:53] <mwhudson> +1
[22:53] <mwhudson> thanks bac
[22:53] <thumper> thanks
[22:53] <bac> i'll let you know if we have a time change
[22:53] <bac> #endmeeting
[22:53] <MootBot> Meeting finished at 16:53.