[01:00] <bac> lifeless, thumper, rockstar, mwhudson, StevenK: ping
[01:00] <bac> #startmeeting
[01:00] <MootBot> Meeting started at 19:00. The chair is bac.
[01:00] <MootBot> Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
[01:00] <thumper> here
[01:00]  * rockstar  
[01:00] <bac> hi guys
[01:01] <lifeless> hi
[01:01] <bac> thumper: did you see that article about the dunedin psycho murderer?
[01:01] <lifeless> only here vaguely
[01:01] <thumper> bac: ah... no
[01:01] <thumper> when?
[01:01] <bac> it's in the New Yorker magazin
[01:01] <bac> i threw a link up on FB
[01:02] <mwhudson> hi
[01:02] <bac> [topic] agenda
[01:02] <MootBot> New Topic:  agenda
[01:02] <bac> * Roll call
[01:02] <bac>  * Agenda
[01:02] <bac>  * Outstanding actions
[01:02] <bac>  * New topics
[01:02] <bac>   * Mentat update.
[01:02] <bac>   * Some of the UI reviewers have graduated, but ReviewerSchedule indicates that no one has graduated. Same for UI/Reviews, which still lists people who've left the team.
[01:02] <bac>   * https://dev.launchpad.net/ArchitectureGuide as per the epic - will reviewers please start discussing the values and metrics during reviews?
[01:02] <bac>   * Assertion errors and the webservice (gary)
[01:02] <bac>  * Peanut gallery
[01:02] <bac> i guess we're all here but steven
[01:03] <bac> [topic] mentat update
[01:03] <MootBot> New Topic:  mentat update
[01:03] <bac> thumper: has steven been getting any more reviews?
[01:03] <thumper> not that I've noticed
[01:03] <thumper> but it has been week 3
[01:03] <bac> i made an appeal to the AMEU people to direct some towards him if they weren't pressed for time
[01:03]  * thumper nods
[01:03] <bac> we'll see if that happens.  i'm not optimistic it will.
[01:04] <thumper> heh
[01:04] <thumper> everything is urgent
[01:04] <bac> especially with team leads breathing down your neck to move those kanban cards...
[01:04] <bac> thumper: well, do what you can...
[01:05] <bac> i mentioned lifeless had thoughts about changing the metric for branch size.  i only meant to introduce it but the idea generated lots of reaction
[01:05] <bac> so, lifeless, i apologize for not getting up with you last week to form a proposal as we agreed.
[01:06] <rockstar> bac, what kinds of reactions?
[01:06]  * rockstar COULD read the backchat, but is lazy.
[01:07] <bac> "too vague", "not a metric"
[01:07] <bac> nothing terribly hostile
[01:08] <rockstar> bac, the backchat indicates no interest in change at all, which is disheartening to me.
[01:08] <bac> i tried to introduce robert's idea:  https://dev.launchpad.net/ArchitectureGuide as per the epic - will reviewers please start discussing the values and metrics during reviews?
[01:08] <bac> rockstar: well, it was not presented properly and i think there were just some knee jerk reactions
[01:08] <rockstar> bac, okay.
[01:08]  * bac hopes he didn't poison the well
[01:09] <rockstar> bac, as for me and my house, I will keep my diffs small.
[01:09] <bac> lifeless: i think we'll need an email about what you'd like to see wrt the ArchitectureGuide
[01:09] <rockstar> :)
[01:09] <bac> rockstar: your wife starting to hack launchpad?
[01:10] <thumper> bac: no, that is choco
[01:10] <bac> finally gary raised a point about assertion errors and the API
[01:10] <thumper> he has his own facebook account don't you know
[01:10] <bac> rs=bac for any work by choco
[01:10] <rockstar> bac, assertion errors and the API is also something I wonder about.
[01:10] <bac> choco a fine LSD if ever there was one
[01:11] <lifeless> bac: huh, why?
[01:11] <bac> gary and benji have been looking at exception handling and the API.  they want to put together a white list of acceptable exceptions for the API.
[01:11] <lifeless> bac: what I wrote is what I want
[01:11] <bac> work to be forthcoming
[01:11] <lifeless> bac: I can send a mail, but its all there already
[01:12] <lifeless> in the meeting log from last meeting, which I saw you edit on the wiki :P
[01:12] <rockstar> bac, a whitelist?  Really?  I don't like that idea.
[01:12] <bac> lifeless: i think an email hitting the hightlights will be more effective than just posting a URL for people to read.
[01:13] <rockstar> bac, for instance, we raise BranchMergeProposalExists in the case where someone proposes a merge against a branch where one already exists.
[01:13] <rockstar> I think that's much more helpful than say, an assertion error.
[01:14] <bac> lifeless: i like what you're encouraging, but i think a lot of reviewers have a fixed way they work, certain things they look for, etc.  IMO it'll take some effort to change habits.
[01:14] <bac> rockstar: yes, i think that's the direction gary is headed.
[01:14] <bac> rockstar: that's much better than raising an AssertionError
[01:15] <rockstar> bac, okay.  My concern is that, for a whitelist, when we add an exception, we have to add it to the whitelist.
[01:15] <rockstar> Currently, to make it API-compatible, we just annotate the exception with webservice_error()
[01:16] <bac> rockstar: valid points you can raise when gary makes his proposal.  this was just a head up, i think.
[01:16] <rockstar> bac, ah, okay.
[01:16] <lifeless> bac: perhaps we can refine it here then
[01:17] <lifeless> bac: the idea is that they - check the metrics; discuss the patch in the context of the values & goals on that page.
[01:17] <bac> rockstar: gary and benji also made the reminder that assert() shouldn't be used as it can be optimized away...
[01:17] <rockstar> bac, yeah.  assert() is less helpful than an AssertionError
[01:18] <lifeless> FWIW assert and -O aren't relevant for us, though I agree in principle (and we don't use assert() for that very reason in bzr)
[01:18] <mwhudson> it is (or at least was) also surprisingly common for people to break lines by doing
[01:18] <mwhudson> assert (condition,
[01:18] <mwhudson>     message)
[01:19] <rockstar> mwhudson, ew.
[01:19] <mwhudson> anyway, there seems to be a lot of talk here about partially presented ideas :-)
[01:19] <bac> mwhudson: yeah, i used to see syntactically correct but completely wrong asserts a lot
[01:21] <rockstar> bac, it looks like we're summing up here.  I have a proposal.
[01:22] <bac> lifeless: i agree with your ideas regarding the values and goals.
[01:22] <rockstar> (a full proposal)
[01:22] <bac> lifeless: i just don't know how to make it happen, other than what you're already doing, which is very helpful.
[01:22] <bac> rockstar: sure
[01:23] <lifeless> bac: ok, so I'll send a short message asking for this.
[01:23] <rockstar> bac, I propose that we abolish the "javascript" review, and just make it a regular code review.
[01:23] <lifeless> bac: and perhaps you could follow up in the review team meetings asking whether folk are finding this to work well?
[01:23] <bac> lifeless: certainly
[01:24] <rockstar> bac, I'll be updating the JavascriptReviewGuidelines a bit more, as I've learned a bunch about writing high performance javascript recently, and our code makes me cringe.
[01:24] <rockstar> I think we could make everyone a javascripter if they had to review javascript and have things explained to them.
[01:25] <thumper> +1 to rockstar's proposal
[01:25] <bac> rockstar: i look forward to hearing what you've learned.
[01:26] <rockstar> bac, there will be an email today or tomorrow.
[01:26] <bac> becoming more competent in JS is one of my goals...
[01:26] <rockstar> (and I'll be participating in performance Tuesday from now on)
[01:27] <bac> is there anything else you'd like to talk about?
[01:27] <rockstar> Not from me.
[01:28] <bac> thumper: when you see StevenK would you remind him of the meeting time?
[01:28] <thumper> bac: ack
[01:28] <bac> thanks guys.
[01:28] <bac> #endmeeting
[01:28] <MootBot> Meeting finished at 19:28.
[22:09] <Ursinha> OOPS-1713EB2282
[22:09] <ubot5`> https://lp-oops.canonical.com/oops.py/?oopsid=1713EB2282