[08:03] Hm, I am not sure if I should be OCR today given that I am to do r-c reviews, too. [08:34] goodmoring === jelmer is now known as Guest97522 === Guest97522 is now known as jelmer === mrevell is now known as mrevell-lunch === mrevell-lunch is now known as mrevell === henninge changed the topic of #launchpad-reviews to: On call: henning || Reviewing: - || queue: [] || This channel is logged: http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/ || https://code.launchpad.net/launchpad/+activereviews === henninge changed the topic of #launchpad-reviews to: On call: henninge || Reviewing: - || queue: [] || This channel is logged: http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/ || https://code.launchpad.net/launchpad/+activereviews === henninge changed the topic of #launchpad-reviews to: On call: - || Reviewing: - || queue: [] || This channel is logged: http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/ || https://code.launchpad.net/launchpad/+activereviews === abentley changed the topic of #launchpad-reviews to: On call: abentley || Reviewing: - || queue: [] || This channel is logged: http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/ || https://code.launchpad.net/launchpad/+activereviews === deryck is now known as deryck[lunch] === benji is now known as benji-lunch === deryck[lunch] is now known as deryck === benji-lunch is now known as benji [20:25] abentley: https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~thumper/launchpad/recipe-binary-builds/+merge/40686 [20:26] http://people.canonical.com/~tim/recipe-latest-builds.png === abentley changed the topic of #launchpad-reviews to: On call: abentley || Reviewing: thumper || queue: [] || This channel is logged: http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/ || https://code.launchpad.net/launchpad/+activereviews [21:26] thumper: It looks like you're showing the start time and estimated start time for binary builds, even though the times for sourcepackagerecipe builds are completion times. Was this intentional? [21:27] no... I don't think so [21:29] Sorry, what do you mean? "I don't think it was intentional"? "I don't think I'm showing the start time"? "I don't think the times for sourcepackagerecipe builds are completion times"? [21:29] abentley: :) [21:30] abentley: I wasn't intentionally showing different things [21:30] I copied the binary build time stuff from their build-index page [21:30] I hadn't realised that our times were completed times [21:30] thumper: It wouldn't hurt to change the title of that column from "Time" to "completion time" or something. [21:30] perhaps we should change ours to be start time too? [21:31] thumper: I figure that you don't really care when a build will start, you care when it will be done. [21:32] abentley: well... we are showing the status... [21:32] Sure, but I don't get the relevance. [21:32] I'd rather see "started 3 minutes ago" than "in 5 minutes" [21:32] if you read the status then the time we see things like: [21:33] * thumper skips examples [21:33] perhaps we should have a build ETA as well [21:33] do we know that? [21:33] thumper: Sure. That's what we show for source package recipe builds. [21:34] if we can say "started 5 minutes ago (ETA 6 minutes) [21:34] or something [21:34] thumper: And then when it completes we go back to showing "started 11 minutes ago"? [21:34] no... [21:35] when it's complete we show the finished time [21:35] thumper: If we're going to show a start and end time all the time, why not just have two columns? [21:35] we only show "started 11 minutes ago" when it is building [21:35] we only care about both times when it is actually building [21:35] before it is building we mostly care about when it will start [21:36] thumper: But after 6 minutes, it should be finished building. [21:36] when it's done we care about when it finished [21:36] abentley: sure [21:36] Before it is building I mostly care about when it will finish. [21:36] While it is building I mostly care about when it will finish. [21:36] and here is part of the problem [21:36] the expectation that is shown is when the recipe will be finished [21:36] not the binary build [21:37] so showing an expected completed time (according to some) should include the binary times [21:37] ah... [21:38] the build estimates come from past history? [21:38] thumper: Sure. [21:38] thumper: On the first build, we guess 10 minutes. [21:38] so... what you are saying is we should show ETA to build completion for the binary buids [21:39] thumper: Yes, I think we should. [21:39] ok [21:39] thumper: I'm okay with the idea of adding another column for the estimated (or actual) start time. [21:40] thumper: I would rather not put both times into the same column, like "started 5 minutes ago (ETA 6 minutes)" [21:41] hmm... [21:42] I'll poke it and see how it looks [21:42] thumper: okay. [21:43] thumper: Whatever we settle on, I want the times in that column to consistently refer to either the start or the finish. [21:43] * thumper nods === abentley changed the topic of #launchpad-reviews to: On call: - || Reviewing: - || queue: [] || This channel is logged: http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/ || https://code.launchpad.net/launchpad/+activereviews [21:54] thumper: It looks like you're also deliberately changing sourcepackagerecipe build date display. I didn't notice this before. [21:55] thumper: I wanted to reduce the amount of status-based switching that goes on in these TAL templates, but your changes introduce that. [21:55] yeah... [21:55] I changed it after messing with the binary buids [21:56] thumper: I'm still pleased with the way I did it, and I'd rather we did binary builds that way. [21:59] thumper: The less logic in the TAL, the better.