= ReviewerMeeting20081203 =

== summary ==

 * rockstar graduates
 * sabbaticals
   * everyone needs a break now and then
   * remember your peers are still reviewing!
   * 2-8 weeks
   * arrange with barry so he can make sure there's adequate coverage
 * barry to propose a standard cover letter template
 * watch out for new celebrities
   * if the celebrity exists in production, add sampledata
   * if not, then added it through a db patch

== logs ==

{{{
Dec 03 10:00:20 <barry>	#startmeeting
Dec 03 10:00:21 <MootBot>	Meeting started at 09:00. The chair is barry.
Dec 03 10:00:21 <MootBot>	Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
Dec 03 10:00:35 <barry>	hello everybody and welcome to this week's ameu reviewers meeting.  who's here today?
Dec 03 10:00:56 <bigjools>	me
Dec 03 10:00:57 <intellectronica>	mö
Dec 03 10:01:26 <bac>	me
Dec 03 10:01:32 <salgado>	me
Dec 03 10:02:13 <mars>	me
Dec 03 10:02:27 <barry>	wow, light attendance today <wink>
Dec 03 10:02:32 <flacoste>	me
Dec 03 10:03:48 <barry>	allenap, BjornT, EdwinGrubbs, gmb, rockstar ping
Dec 03 10:03:53 <allenap>	me
Dec 03 10:03:56 <EdwinGrubbs>	me
Dec 03 10:04:06 <barry>	danilos: ping
Dec 03 10:04:06 <gmb>	me
Dec 03 10:04:14 <bac>	abel?
Dec 03 10:04:53 <barry>	[TOPIC] agenda
Dec 03 10:04:54 <MootBot>	New Topic:  agenda
Dec 03 10:04:59 *	adeuring (n=abel@pD9573A64.dip.t-dialin.net) has joined #launchpad-meeting
Dec 03 10:05:03 <barry>	 * Roll call
Dec 03 10:05:03 <barry>	 * Graduations
Dec 03 10:05:03 <barry>	 * Is OCR still relevant in a world with merge proposals? (barry)
Dec 03 10:05:03 <barry>	 * Sabbaticals? (barry)
Dec 03 10:05:03 <barry>	 * Do we need a standard cover letter template for merge proposals? (barry)
Dec 03 10:05:03 <barry>	   * https://pastebin.canonical.com/11767/
Dec 03 10:05:03 <barry>	 * If there's time, the old boring script
Dec 03 10:05:03 <barry>	   * Next meeting
Dec 03 10:05:03 <barry>	   * Action items
Dec 03 10:05:03 <barry>	   * Mentoring update
Dec 03 10:05:03 <barry>	   * Queue status
Dec 03 10:05:03 <adeuring>	me
Dec 03 10:05:27 <barry>	[TOPIC]  * Graduations
Dec 03 10:05:27 <MootBot>	New Topic:   * Graduations
Dec 03 10:05:53 <barry>	so bac recommends graduation for rockstar, but since he blew us off today... :)
Dec 03 10:05:59 <sinzui>	me
Dec 03 10:06:27 <barry>	naw.  so rockstar graduates.  congratulations rockstar-in-abstentia
Dec 03 10:06:36 <intellectronica>	go rockstar!
Dec 03 10:06:41 <bac>	whoo!
Dec 03 10:07:04 <flacoste>	yeah
Dec 03 10:07:11 <flacoste>	it should be a rule
Dec 03 10:07:17 <bac>	rockstar's reviews have been very attentive and he asks lots of good questions.  he's ready to be graduated.
Dec 03 10:07:20 <flacoste>	if you miss the reviewer meeting of your graduation
Dec 03 10:07:28 <bac>	he needs to work on his attendance, though!
Dec 03 10:07:29 <flacoste>	you get to be on probation for one more month :-)
Dec 03 10:07:56 <flacoste>	that might seems unfair for the mentor
Dec 03 10:08:00 <bac>	flacoste: i'm ok with another month of probation if you'll pick up the mentoring
Dec 03 10:08:14 <flacoste>	but mentoring is also about instigating reliability in the mentee :-p
Dec 03 10:08:16 <barry>	flacoste: right!  or we can just publicly mock him relentlessly at his graduation announcement
Dec 03 10:08:28 <flacoste>	barry: that's probably funnier
Dec 03 10:08:51 <barry>	let the mocking begin
Dec 03 10:08:58 <danilos>	me
Dec 03 10:09:03 <danilos>	late but still me
Dec 03 10:09:07 <intellectronica>	maybe he should attend meetings even on days when we don't, for a month
Dec 03 10:09:34 *	barry thinks he should /run/ the meetings (including asiapac) for a month
Dec 03 10:10:04 <barry>	moving on, but don't let that stop you if you come up with a good zinger...
Dec 03 10:10:14 <barry>	[TOPIC]  * Is OCR still relevant in a world with merge proposals? (barry)
Dec 03 10:10:15 <MootBot>	New Topic:   * Is OCR still relevant in a world with merge proposals? (barry)
Dec 03 10:11:05 <barry>	so, i've had a few people mention that ocr seems "weird" now that we have merge-proposals.  so i'll open the floor to discussion: do we want to keep ocr now and if so, in its current form or change it?
Dec 03 10:11:14 <bigjools>	weird, how?
Dec 03 10:11:39 <barry>	in that it's less about getting a review RIGHT NOW than it is spending time popping things off the top of the queue
Dec 03 10:11:42 <intellectronica>	i don't see how it's weird. you still want to encourage high velocity, and you still need some mechanism for allocation of reviews
Dec 03 10:11:57 <sinzui>	I say yes, they are relevant. I know who will be taking the review. I have someone I can discuss the matter with *before* the merge proposal it made
Dec 03 10:12:08 <gmb>	I agree with... well, all of the above.
Dec 03 10:12:14 <bigjools>	OCR is still very relevant for velocity
Dec 03 10:12:22 <gmb>	barry: Otherwise MP just becomes the new PR.
Dec 03 10:12:35 <mars>	gmb, agreed
Dec 03 10:12:36 <allenap>	It encourages people to *seek* a review rather than letting branches sit around.
Dec 03 10:12:48 <bigjools>	without it we'd go back to the days of 2+ days reviews, chasing reviewers and getting frustrated
Dec 03 10:13:03 <bigjools>	and who would allocate?
Dec 03 10:13:09 <bac>	i do see people creating MPs but then not showing up to ask for OC reviews.  so i tend to pop things off the MP stack and then hope they are around for questions.
Dec 03 10:13:30 *	mars didn't know there was a MP stack
Dec 03 10:13:45 <intellectronica>	bac: that shouldn't happen. it's a coder's responsibility to make sure that they're branch gets reviewed
Dec 03 10:13:50 *	bac wishes there were a real stack instead of an unordered list
Dec 03 10:13:52 <gmb>	I sometimes create an MP so that I can make sure I ask for a review *tomorrow*, but I don't expect someone to JFDI if I don't ask.
Dec 03 10:14:46 <bac>	just like when using PR if no one asks for an OCR we would pull things off the general queue.  same, same.
Dec 03 10:15:00 <barry>	btw, i'm not saying /i/ think we should get rid of ocr.  i'm just bringing up some things i've heard so we have a chance to discuss them
Dec 03 10:15:58 <barry>	okay, so does anybody disagree with keeping ocr the way we have it now?
Dec 03 10:16:12 <barry>	5
Dec 03 10:16:17 <intellectronica>	bac: yes, but that should be the exeception. the review process is so much more powerful when you can chat about it in real time
Dec 03 10:16:25 <barry>	4
Dec 03 10:16:31 <barry>	3
Dec 03 10:16:35 <barry>	2
Dec 03 10:16:38 <bac>	intellectronica: agreed.  just sharing what often happens on tuesdays
Dec 03 10:16:41 <barry>	1
Dec 03 10:16:44 <barry>	cool, thanks
Dec 03 10:16:51 <barry>	[TOPIC]  * Sabbaticals? (barry)
Dec 03 10:16:52 <MootBot>	New Topic:   * Sabbaticals? (barry)
Dec 03 10:17:31 <mars>	+1 for sabbaticals
Dec 03 10:17:39 <barry>	on a related note, there's been some requests for sabbaticals and/or half day review slots.  we have pretty good coverage for euro and america these days, so perhaps we could institute some kind of rotation
Dec 03 10:17:46 <mars>	everyone needs a break from routine once in a while
Dec 03 10:17:46 <barry>	thoughts?
Dec 03 10:17:52 <bac>	i think i originally introduced the idea then promptly forgot about it.
Dec 03 10:18:05 <intellectronica>	i was thinking about it a bit since i made the request
Dec 03 10:18:08 <bac>	i think it's a good idea so reviewers don't get burned out.
Dec 03 10:18:14 <gmb>	+1
Dec 03 10:18:21 <sinzui>	I recall the backlogs we have when foundations or registry team are sprinting.
Dec 03 10:18:29 <intellectronica>	i think that regulating this too much will not work well, because reviewers know best when they really need a break
Dec 03 10:18:43 <intellectronica>	perhaps instead, each reviewer should have an allowance
Dec 03 10:18:47 <sinzui>	Sabbaticals are fine so long as someone is sill available to do the reviews.
Dec 03 10:18:55 <intellectronica>	much like leave days from work
Dec 03 10:18:57 <mars>	sinzui, right
Dec 03 10:18:59 <gmb>	sinzui: But we have some overlap now. Those backlogs occurred because foundations/registry were splinting and we didn't do anything to deal with the hole.
Dec 03 10:19:04 <bigjools>	sinzui: +1 sensible
Dec 03 10:19:04 <gmb>	splinting?
Dec 03 10:19:09 <gmb>	Whatevr.
Dec 03 10:19:13 <intellectronica>	sinzui: i don't think that's a problem these days. we have many reviewers
Dec 03 10:19:33 <intellectronica>	gmb: you're turning japanese?
Dec 03 10:19:38 <barry>	intellectronica: except in exceptional circumstances perhaps, but we can deal with those
Dec 03 10:19:43 <gmb>	intellectronica: Appalentry so.
Dec 03 10:20:07 *	gmb wonders who we should offend at next week's meeting
Dec 03 10:20:26 <bac>	i suspect if we have the concept of sabbaticals they will rarely be used.  but it's good to know there is a socially-approved mechanism for declaring you need a break.
Dec 03 10:20:28 <barry>	so, not counting mentats, we have 2 more reviewers than we have ocr slots, so there is room for breaks
Dec 03 10:20:47 <sinzui>	intellectronica: correct, yet if all the sabbatical takers abandon Wednesday, there is a problem. I am suggesting the we need to move who is working the slots now that we can afford to give reviewers a break from reviewing
Dec 03 10:20:59 <intellectronica>	what if every reviewer had, say, 10 leave shifts a year, which they are responsible to coordinate, make sure someone is there to replace them, etc?
Dec 03 10:21:16 <gmb>	sinzui: We need floating reviewers.
Dec 03 10:21:20 <intellectronica>	sinzui: yes, just like normal leave. you don't allow everyone to take time off at the same time. you coordinate
Dec 03 10:21:42 <barry>	gmb: i don't mind floating (i think :)
Dec 03 10:21:58 <gmb>	barry: Likewise, once al-maisan has graduated.
Dec 03 10:22:00 <bac>	sounds too formal for me.  i'd prefer people just announce they need a month off, whatever, and barry busts anyone that seems to be abusive.
Dec 03 10:22:09 <barry>	how long should a sabbatical be?  1 week, 1 cycle, up to the reviewer?
Dec 03 10:22:17 <barry>	gmb: cool
Dec 03 10:22:32 <bigjools>	we're all consenting adults - please, leave it to common sense
Dec 03 10:22:35 <intellectronica>	i think that 2-8 weeks
Dec 03 10:22:44 <bigjools>	don;t wrap it up in more red tape
Dec 03 10:22:50 <bac>	bigjools: +1
Dec 03 10:22:52 <barry>	bac: i am all for more opportunities to wield my power
Dec 03 10:22:53 <gmb>	+1
Dec 03 10:23:19 <intellectronica>	+1. my suggestion was just because i didn't like the idea of organised rotation
Dec 03 10:23:44 *	salgado is now known as salgado-lunch
Dec 03 10:24:03 <bac>	salgado takes a sabbatical from this discussion
Dec 03 10:24:05 <barry>	okay, sounds good.  so if you need a break, please come see me and i'll coordinate to make sure we have proper coverage. please be mindful that your teammates may also need breaks now and then
Dec 03 10:24:35 <barry>	okay, thanks everyone.  good discussion
Dec 03 10:24:48 <barry>	[TOPIC]  * Do we need a standard cover letter template for merge proposals? (barry)
Dec 03 10:24:48 <MootBot>	New Topic:   * Do we need a standard cover letter template for merge proposals? (barry)
Dec 03 10:25:02 <barry>	i've been using this: https://pastebin.canonical.com/11767/
Dec 03 10:25:23 <intellectronica>	everything that's standard, should be part of the form
Dec 03 10:25:29 <barry>	and experimenting with a == diff == section at the end so the whole thing is in one cover letter
Dec 03 10:26:00 <barry>	1) do we want a standard form; 2) is this one a good start; 3) if so, what's missing?
Dec 03 10:26:25 <adeuring>	lint output?
Dec 03 10:26:27 <bac>	the bug *should* be redundant as the MP should be linked
Dec 03 10:26:36 <flacoste>	well
Dec 03 10:26:40 <flacoste>	bug report are often cryptic
Dec 03 10:26:53 <flacoste>	so having a summary of the issue at the top of the cover letter is usually good
Dec 03 10:27:09 <barry>	adeuring: lint output, good addition
Dec 03 10:27:12 <flacoste>	plus it's easier on the Thailand/Australia/NZ folks
Dec 03 10:27:21 <flacoste>	save a trip to Launchpad
Dec 03 10:27:48 <gmb>	flacoste: They chose to live on the wrong side of the internet.
Dec 03 10:27:55 <gmb>	Bugger 'em.
Dec 03 10:28:05 *	gmb jokes, because thumper is bigger than he is
Dec 03 10:28:27 <sinzui>	I often have a == rules == section that defines the scope of the fix.
Dec 03 10:28:33 <barry>	flacoste: i agree.  i've found it's good to have a summary there
Dec 03 10:28:48 <intellectronica>	sinzui: what does "the scope of the fix" mean?
Dec 03 10:29:15 <barry>	sinzui: i think that's what my "proposed fix" section is for iiuc
Dec 03 10:29:27 <bac>	ok, ok, my point is we agreed earlier that we should use --fixes or another mechanism to link the bug.  i've been requesting it when not done.
Dec 03 10:30:11 <barry>	bac: yes, definitely --fixes is a good thing, but under the = Bug XXXXX = section, i usually put a summary of what the bug is about
Dec 03 10:30:17 <intellectronica>	right, and the scope of the fix should usually be the bug
Dec 03 10:30:33 <bac>	barry: yes, good idea.
Dec 03 10:30:58 <barry>	does anybody disagree that we should have a standard form?
Dec 03 10:31:19 <sinzui>	intellectronica: I write down what the crucial changes that need to happen. There are lots of other things that can complicate the fix, or introduce feature creep.
Dec 03 10:31:22 <intellectronica>	i agree, but i think that we should aim at making it part of launchpad itself, not some kind of template
Dec 03 10:31:52 <intellectronica>	sinzui: makes sense. that's something that is always good to have
Dec 03 10:32:02 <barry>	intellectronica: agreed, but don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good :)
Dec 03 10:32:06 <bigjools>	intellectronica: +1
Dec 03 10:32:36 <bigjools>	greasemonkey script? :)
Dec 03 10:32:45 <intellectronica>	huh?
Dec 03 10:32:51 <sinzui>	intellectronica: I started doing it to make myself focus on the fix. I kept doing it because I could point to that when the branch is a CP candidate.
Dec 03 10:32:52 <barry>	bigjools: api/bzr plugin? :)
Dec 03 10:33:35 <barry>	sinzui: also, i'm trying hard to start filliing out the template as soon as i start the branch, and not to wait until the mp is posted
Dec 03 10:33:37 <gmb>	barry: We could start by repurposing bzr write-cover-letter...
Dec 03 10:33:40 <bigjools>	barry: or that!
Dec 03 10:33:52 <allenap>	If this template is good it should go in the tree I think.
Dec 03 10:34:00 <sinzui>	barry: I have a macro that prompts me for it
Dec 03 10:34:05 <barry>	gmb: i'm thinking something like that
Dec 03 10:34:13 <barry>	sinzui: gedit macro?
Dec 03 10:34:18 <sinzui>	yes
Dec 03 10:34:22 <barry>	cool
Dec 03 10:35:35 <barry>	if there are no objections, i'll take this to the mailing list
Dec 03 10:35:59 <barry>	and if anybody wants to work on a plugin to use it, i'll help out
Dec 03 10:36:41 *	gmb wishes he had time
Dec 03 10:36:43 <bigjools>	api support through lpreview would be awesome
Dec 03 10:36:57 <barry>	gmb: forced vacation is coming up :)
Dec 03 10:36:59 <flacoste>	gmb: time is left-brain illusion, you have it :-)
Dec 03 10:37:19 <gmb>	barry: Really? I thought it was UDS...
Dec 03 10:37:19 *	bigjools concentrates hard like Hiro
Dec 03 10:37:40 <barry>	anyway, that's everything on my list.  does anybody have an item not on the agenda?
Dec 03 10:38:01 <bigjools>	barry: I did add something
Dec 03 10:38:09 <bigjools>	but it's not on your agenda here for some reason
Dec 03 10:38:15 *	barry refreshes
Dec 03 10:38:24 <barry>	[TOPIC]  * Gotchas with new celebrities (Julian)
Dec 03 10:38:25 <MootBot>	New Topic:   * Gotchas with new celebrities (Julian)
Dec 03 10:38:30 <barry>	bigjools: the floor is yours
Dec 03 10:39:02 <bigjools>	We had a problem in the week with an oops being generated because Celso added a new celebrity and some bugs code on edge was trying to iterate over them
Dec 03 10:39:23 <bigjools>	so it's just a heads up to say, if you add celebrities, remember to find a LOSA to patch the DB as well
Dec 03 10:39:33 <bigjools>	EOF
Dec 03 10:40:35 <intellectronica>	surely we can find a better way?...
Dec 03 10:40:43 <intellectronica>	i won't remember this
Dec 03 10:40:44 <bigjools>	don't iterate over celebs? :)
Dec 03 10:40:55 <bigjools>	why does it need to do that anyway?
Dec 03 10:41:07 <intellectronica>	either that, or test on startup?
Dec 03 10:41:07 <gmb>	bigjools: which file?
Dec 03 10:41:20 <bigjools>	gmb: I can't remember, let me take a look
Dec 03 10:41:23 <gmb>	ok
Dec 03 10:41:25 <allenap>	There's some code that checks if a bug tracker is a celebrity, in which case deletion is forbidden.
Dec 03 10:41:38 <gmb>	Hum.
Dec 03 10:41:42 <allenap>	It does it by iterating through all the celebs.
Dec 03 10:42:08 *	rockstar mes
Dec 03 10:42:17 <gmb>	allenap: Let's discuss this outside the meeting
Dec 03 10:42:22 <allenap>	Yep.
Dec 03 10:42:44 <sinzui>	doesn't adding a celebrity require a DB patch? I had to do that when working with the janitor
Dec 03 10:43:01 <gmb>	sinzui: Not necessarily.
Dec 03 10:43:10 <gmb>	And usually, no.
Dec 03 10:43:11 <flacoste>	gmb: well kind oif
Dec 03 10:43:15 <bigjools>	sinzui: just a new row
Dec 03 10:43:15 <flacoste>	actually it does
Dec 03 10:43:16 <gmb>	sampledata change
Dec 03 10:43:24 <flacoste>	yeah, right
Dec 03 10:43:30 <flacoste>	but you should do that using a db patch
Dec 03 10:43:39 <flacoste>	so that it's applied automatically on roll-out
Dec 03 10:43:42 <gmb>	flacoste: Unless you're adding something as a celeb that already exists in prod.
Dec 03 10:43:52 <flacoste>	right
Dec 03 10:44:12 <bigjools>	gmb: OOPS-1063EC95
Dec 03 10:44:18 <gmb>	flacoste: Is that in our guidelines for adding a celebrity?
Dec 03 10:44:20 <gmb>	bigjools: Ta
Dec 03 10:44:31 <barry>	that makes sense then: if the celeb exists on prod, add sample data.  if not, db patch is necessary to add it in both places
Dec 03 10:44:32 <flacoste>	gmb: using a db patch?
Dec 03 10:44:35 <gmb>	flacoste: Yes
Dec 03 10:44:35 <barry>	does that make sense?
Dec 03 10:44:42 <flacoste>	i'm not even sure we have formalized guidlines on this
Dec 03 10:45:00 <flacoste>	but yes, barry's suggestion is sane
Dec 03 10:45:14 <flacoste>	and by using a db patch, your code won't run on edge
Dec 03 10:45:21 <flacoste>	until the DB has the celebrity
Dec 03 10:45:40 <bigjools>	hmmm that's kinda restrictive
Dec 03 10:46:04 <flacoste>	bigjools: well, that's the policy, there might be reason to do otherwise
Dec 03 10:46:14 <barry>	flacoste: i agree
Dec 03 10:46:17 <flacoste>	but in that case, you should know what you are doing
Dec 03 10:46:21 <bigjools>	okay
Dec 03 10:46:23 <flacoste>	and not trigger an OOPS on edge :-)
Dec 03 10:46:47 <bigjools>	I'm entirely innocent (this time)
Dec 03 10:46:50 <bigjools>	:)
Dec 03 10:47:07 <flacoste>	bigjools and innocence together, i can't believe it
Dec 03 10:47:26 <barry>	[ACTION] someone capture celeb addition policy in dev wiki, when the reviewer-tips have been moved from the old wiki
Dec 03 10:47:27 <MootBot>	ACTION received:  someone capture celeb addition policy in dev wiki, when the reviewer-tips have been moved from the old wiki
Dec 03 10:47:49 <flacoste>	barry, that's an action that will never happen!
Dec 03 10:47:56 *	bigjools considers kicking sand at flacoste at the TL sprint
Dec 03 10:47:56 <barry>	flacoste: indeed :)
Dec 03 10:48:09 <barry>	anyway, that's all the time we have today
Dec 03 10:48:21 <barry>	#endmeeting
}}}