=== Ursinha-afk is now known as Ursinha === mrevell is now known as mrevell-lunch === mrevell-lunch is now known as mrevell === Ursinha is now known as Ursinha-lunch [15:00] #startmeeting [15:00] Meeting started at 09:00. The chair is bac. [15:00] Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE] [15:00] me [15:00] hello, who is here today? [15:00] me [15:00] me [15:00] me [15:00] me [15:00] me [15:00] me [15:00] me [15:00] me [15:00] me [15:00] me [15:00] * benji things it should be "I" :P [15:00] me [15:01] benji, "moo" is always fun [15:01] heh [15:01] me [15:02] me [15:02] me [15:02] Me === allenap` is now known as allenap [15:02] me [15:02] oh, capital "Me" is here as well [15:03] great, let's start. pretty light agenda today [15:03] [topic] agenda [15:03] New Topic: agenda [15:03] * Roll call [15:03] * Agenda [15:03] * Outstanding actions [15:03] * Mentat update. [15:03] * Salgado (ui) [15:03] * StevenK (code) [15:03] * MRevell (ui) [15:03] * New items [15:03] * Should reviewers expect the review template to be used? - abentley [15:03] * Integrating test timing into reviews, recap. -bac [15:03] * Peanut gallery [15:03] [topic] mentat update [15:03] New Topic: mentat update [15:03] salgado, getting any more UI reviews? [15:03] bac, benji should be in mentat update [15:04] nope [15:04] mrevell, getting any? [15:04] thanks, gary_poster [15:04] bac, No. [15:04] haven't done any in a long while [15:04] I will have one tomorrow [15:04] bac: i'm in the mentoring process as well. [15:04] I've also asked henninge to be my UI mentor as well, so I'll be starting as UI reviewer one of these days as well [15:04] salgado, me too [15:04] sorry benji and jcsackett. updated on the wiki now [15:04] np [15:04] perhaps there's no need for UI reviewers anymore [15:05] danilos: why? [15:05] salgado, may be should agree that mentoring ui <= 3 month [15:05] flacoste, why would I want to be, or why there might not be a need? [15:05] salgado, maybe you should graduate next week because you have all the experience you are ever going to get [15:05] flacoste, it's just that people haven't been getting any UI branches for review [15:05] danilos, there's certainly a need for UI review, but maybe not one so frequent as to demand specialized reviewers. [15:05] sinzui: +1 [15:06] benji has been doing a good job, but we haven't been getting very many requests for reviews on Wednesday [15:06] sinzui, well, I'm not sure a time limit is a good idea as in some periods (like now) we may stay a long time without doing any reviews [15:06] flacoste, i.e. mrevell and salgado hasn't gotten any in a week, so I am wondering if it's smart to try to achieve that specialization with unused workforce we've got [15:06] EdwinGrubbs: i've found the same thing on thursdays--i think maybe it's an end of year slow down? [15:06] jcsackett: probably is [15:07] I have not had that many, either. [15:07] jcsackett, flacoste: but with the BugJam on perhaps it'll pick up? [15:07] danilos, fwiw, I was doing 3 or so reviews a week when I started. just lately there doesn't seem to have been many people working on UI [15:07] fwiw, monday OCR is rarely busy. [15:07] bac: number of reviews should yes [15:07] salgado, danilos: yeah, UI reviews usually come in burst [15:07] when a new feature is developped [15:08] salgado, right, thanks; I don't want to become a mentat as well and thus distribute the low UI activity over more people [15:08] danilos: perhaps you have a point that we don't need new UI reviewers in the pipeline if we can't get enough to get the current mentats trained. [15:08] bac, right, that was my point [15:08] bac: maybe get a queue of people willing to be UI and phase them in when the next feature rush begins? [15:08] danilos, Sorry, I thought you meant the whole concept was outdated. [15:09] abentley: yeah, me too [15:09] abentley, oh no, sorry for confusing you guys :) [15:09] [topic] Should reviewers expect the review template to be used? - abentley [15:09] New Topic: Should reviewers expect the review template to be used? - abentley [15:10] Back when I started, there was a template that was expected to be used for code review. [15:10] It's basically preserved in the lpreview_body plugin. [15:10] It expects a summary, pre-implementation notes, implementation details, lint, etc. [15:11] I use it, but I find that basically no one else does. [15:11] abentley: i always use it and really like it when others do. [15:11] Okay, maybe that's too strong. [15:11] abentley: that template was provided to me when i started. i've seen it from a few others (though sometimes not with all sections). [15:11] I use it sometimes. It's massive overkill for simple branches. [15:11] There are a bunch of people not using it. [15:11] personally i like it because i'm both lazy and forgetful. it helps with both. [15:11] I don't use it. there I owned up to it. ;) [15:12] * deryck looks around at the rest of the room [15:12] I feel it's too prescriptive. [15:12] bigjools: the sections that are overkill are easily deleted or marked 'n/a' [15:12] bac, +1 [15:12] deryck: could you unpack that a bit? not sure what you mean. [15:12] that's extra hassle, particularly if I use the web ui [15:12] actually, web ui is the major problem there [15:12] bigjools: oh. i *never* use the web ui... [15:12] i most often use the web ui to submit branches [15:13] (ok, i don't submit that many anymore...) [15:13] i use the web ui, and find that pasting in the template as a starting point isn't that big a deal. [15:13] more people may be using it soon, if the switch to using tarmac is successful [15:13] i'd use the template [15:13] it == the web [15:13] if it was easy to get at [15:13] gary_poster, why? [15:13] gary_poster: why? [15:13] if the branch is cleaning up, or a trivial bug, I find that template too prescriptive, annoying to edit and a waste of time. [15:13] because you'll be able to submit without using a commandline if you want [15:13] however, it's useful for a more complex change [15:14] gary_poster, I think you are talking about lp-land, not lp-propose. [15:14] It'd be nice if it the template was available in the web interface as well, not just in "bzr send". [15:14] oh, you are right, abentley. thanks, sorry [15:14] I'm also guilty of not using the template now that I've switched to using the web interface primarily for proposing merges. [15:15] jelmer, it's not just in bzr send, it's also in lp-propose, and that's preferred. [15:15] not using template: me too. [15:15] jelmer, I don't see how the web site is going to run lint on your local machine :-) [15:15] I stopped using lint when it kept coming up with a million* false positives [15:15] Personally, I think it's a useful reminder of key things. [15:16] Like who the pre-implementation call was with. [15:16] I agree it's overkill for trivial bugs. [15:17] pre-imp details are the most useful thing on that template [15:17] bigjools, it's pretty good for me now. [15:17] bigjools, lint is pretty good for me, I mean. [15:17] abentley: indeed; I use it as a checklist; I make sure that I've considered every item on the template, even if I don't include it [15:17] ok I'll try it again, thanks [15:17] i guess the bigger issue is whether reviewers think the merge proposals are providing all of the expected information, whether people use the available tools, or not. [15:18] abentley: does lp-propose submit the template on the web UI? [15:18] bac, also, if we're going to include test execution times, it would be sensible to add them to the template. [15:18] * flacoste doesn't know about lp-propose [15:18] s/expected/useful and pertinent/ [15:18] those that i see that use the template tend to cover all of the bases. doesn't do a thing about the quality of the prose, though. [15:19] flacoste, it opens up your editor to edit the description, then loads the proposal in the browser when it's done. [15:19] bac: dev writes in code :-p [15:19] abentley: then I should be using that! [15:19] abentley: that sounds like the coolest thing ever. [15:19] i think it might just be that people don't know about lp-propose [15:19] I find it's hard to find out about it [15:19] * jcsackett never heard about it. [15:19] bac: that's part of my issue with the template, sometime those who use it, just list a bunch of info, rather than writing a couple paragraphs explaining what is happening in the code, which is often more useful to me. [15:19] I used to have one of previous submit plugins with the template, but now I type most of the relevant sections out of my head [15:20] abentley: i think part of the problem is new people don't know how to use your plug-in and some experienced folks forgot. could you send out a reminder email or a pointer to the wiki? [15:20] I was vaguely aware of it, but didn't know it was the proper way to propose merges instead of the web UI. [15:20] it's simply hard to find what the latest and best way to submit MPs is (i.e. appropriate plugin and such: I knew nothing about lp-propose either) [15:20] jelmer: it sounds like it's a wrapper around the uI, which is exactly what we need [15:20] jelmer, I meant that it's preferred over "bzr send", not necessarily the web UI. [15:21] danilos, yes, that is odd - we used to do that just fine (years ago, when I joined) [15:21] danilos, it ships as part of bzr :-P [15:21] abentley: don't you still need lpreview_body to actually get the template though? [15:21] jelmer, yes, you do. [15:22] abentley, heh, right, that's probably why it's harder for people to find out about it: if you are not actively looking for it and you've been using something like lpreview_body or whatever in the past, you wonder why it doesn't work as well anymore [15:22] jelmer, since it's packaged, we could add it to lp-developer-dependencies, if it's not already. [15:22] (and I was actually stuck on whatever was before lpreview_body with my "lpsend" as the alias) [15:23] abentley: I think that's a good idea [15:23] abentley: can you send that reminder email and pursue getting it added to lp-d-d? [15:23] danilos, I bear some blame, since I wrote it and didn't promote it. [15:23] bac, Sure. [15:23] abentley: thanks for bringing up the topic...and for writing the tool. [15:23] moving on [15:23] [topic] Integrating test timing into reviews. --bac [15:23] New Topic: Integrating test timing into reviews. --bac [15:24] last week we started the discussion about paying attention to test timing. we've had a lot of discussioin on the mailing list about what that means. [15:24] has anyone tried and have successes or failures to report? [15:25] Aaron added two tests yesterday, timing was 2 seconds [15:25] timing info on its own means nothing to me [15:25] TBH, I didn't know how far to pursue it - how much was setup, how much existing tests, what it ok? [15:25] 'what is ok' [15:26] bac: given that we are planning on rewriting the persistence layer and that there is controversy on the metrics side [15:26] why don't we move on to another aspect? [15:26] and revisit this later, once the story around persistence and tests is more clear [15:26] francis, sure we can do that [15:26] well, that's not an edict! [15:26] just proposing [15:26] i unwisely thought this would be an easy one to start with [15:26] I concur :) [15:27] i'll propose something next week [15:27] [topic] peanuts [15:27] New Topic: peanuts [15:27] o/ [15:28] yes bigjools? [15:28] Who's seen A Charlie Brown Christmas this year? :-) [15:28] are you really left handed? [15:28] ... [15:28] bac, that was him with his back turned on us [15:28] :-) [15:28] * bigjools is speechless for the first time in ages [15:28] anyway [15:28] but he's also a slow typist (especially with only one hand) [15:29] * gary_poster laughs [15:29] * bigjools sees the gutter approaching [15:29] lol [15:29] I want to talk about the mailing list thread that jelmer brought up [15:29] regarding api only functions in model classes [15:29] bigjools: thanks, I forgot about that [15:30] I think it's a good idea to prepend api_ in front of any method that's only used in the api [15:30] * danilos is still behind on his mail [15:30] anyone got any comments? [15:30] bigjools, I think it's a good idea. [15:30] (with liberal use of export_as of course) [15:30] other than that we should have made API a separate layer in the first place? no :) [15:31] I assume that's coming [15:31] anyway, "api_" as the prefix for API-only methods is probably good [15:31] this is a stopgap [15:31] bigjools, it makes me sad that the API has the zope naming convetion, though. [15:31] abentley: is that documented somewhere? [15:31] we should change that *now* if we can [15:31] but it might be too late [15:31] jelmer, Not as a special thing. All our code has the zope naming convention. === Ursinha-lunch is now known as Ursinha [15:31] danilos, makes sense: model -> views (HTML), model -> api-layer (JSON) [15:31] abentley: I found a couple of methods which explicitly used "export_method_as" and used names with underscores and lowercase characters. [15:31] I think it's too late myself [15:31] bigjools: a while ago we decided it was too late [15:32] consistency is more valuable IMO [15:32] and now it's even later [15:32] :( [15:32] gary_poster, definitely too late for 1.0 :-( [15:32] yup [15:32] maybe on the next version bump? [15:32] then we can make everything consistent [15:32] it's a bit of a mess right now [15:33] E_TOOMUCHWORK [15:33] at least imo [15:33] * gary_poster thinks that the webservice will get attention separately [15:33] I think it's valuable work - we don't have anyone looking at our whole api, other than the people who use it [15:33] of course, we can choose when the next version bump will be [15:33] i.e., this is the worng forum [15:33] gary_poster, +1 [15:33] gary_poster + 1 [15:33] looking at the whole api: that was to have been what leonardr did soon :-) [15:33] gary_poster: yep [15:33] anyway, votes for api_ ? [15:33] bigjools, +1 [15:34] bigjools, +1 [15:34] sure, _1 [15:34] +1 [15:34] heh [15:34] +1 [15:34] + [15:34] +1 [15:34] :) [15:34] +1 [15:34] is underbar 1 even less than -1? ;) [15:34] it's a wunderbar [15:34] +1 [15:34] heh, yeah, maybe so :-) [15:34] +0 [15:34] bigjools: looks like you have a winner [15:34] motion carried [15:34] bigjools: will you update the style guide? [15:35] if I can remember where it is [15:35] :) [15:35] Alternatively, I'd be happy to update it [15:35] bigjools, I am guessing dev.launchpad.net/StyleGuide :) [15:35] nope, but it does give useful hints :) [15:35] what! it's in an obvious place? I'd never have thought to look there. [15:35] any other topics? [15:37] i'll look at the list of people who will be around next wednesday and cancel this meeting if it looks too low. [15:37] thanks for coming everyone [15:37] thanks bac [15:37] #endmeeting [15:37] Meeting finished at 09:37. [15:37] cheers bac [15:37] thanks bac [15:37] cheers [15:37] thank you [15:37] Ta [15:37] thanks, bac. [15:38] thanks, bac. [15:39] leonardr: your "and now it's even later" comment made me think of TMBG's "Older" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ltJ8kK4G90&feature=related) === Ursinha is now known as Ursinha-afk === Ursinha-afk is now known as Ursinha === leonardr is now known as leonardr-afk === benji is now known as benji-lunch === benji-lunch is now known as benji === Ursinha is now known as Ursinha-brb === leonardr-afk is now known as leonardr === Ursinha-brb is now known as Ursinha