Not logged in - Log In / Register



ameu log

Feb 11 10:00:37 <barry> #startmeeting
Feb 11 10:00:38 <MootBot>       Meeting started at 09:00. The chair is barry.
Feb 11 10:00:38 <MootBot>       Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
Feb 11 10:00:52 <barry> hello everyone and welcome to this week's ameu reviewer's meeting.  who's here today?
Feb 11 10:00:55 <danilos>       me
Feb 11 10:00:56 <EdwinGrubbs>   me
Feb 11 10:00:58 <mars>  me
Feb 11 10:01:23 *       flacoste (n=francis@canonical/launchpad/flacoste) has joined #launchpad-meeting
Feb 11 10:01:29 <bigjools>      me
Feb 11 10:01:38 <bac>   me
Feb 11 10:01:51 *       jtv ( has joined #launchpad-meeting
Feb 11 10:02:16 <barry> jtv: hi!
Feb 11 10:02:24 <barry> adeuring: ping
Feb 11 10:02:24 <jtv>   hi barry!
Feb 11 10:02:29 <barry> allenap: ping?
Feb 11 10:02:35 <adeuring>      whoops, me
Feb 11 10:02:37 <salgado>       me!
Feb 11 10:02:45 <barry> BjornT: ping
Feb 11 10:02:46 <gary_poster>   me
Feb 11 10:02:52 <barry> cprov: ping
Feb 11 10:02:56 <BjornT>        me
Feb 11 10:03:13 <barry> gmb: ping
Feb 11 10:03:18 <barry> intellectronica: ping
Feb 11 10:03:23 <gmb>   me
Feb 11 10:03:31 <barry> rockstar: ping
Feb 11 10:03:34 <intellectronica>       me
Feb 11 10:03:42 <jtv>   me
Feb 11 10:03:43 <barry> sinzui: ping
Feb 11 10:03:52 <sinzui>        hi barry
Feb 11 10:03:53 <flacoste>      me
Feb 11 10:04:00 <barry> hi everyone
Feb 11 10:04:01 <sinzui>        me
Feb 11 10:04:07 <barry> [TOPIC] agenda
Feb 11 10:04:08 <MootBot>       New Topic:  agenda
Feb 11 10:04:23 *       al-maisan ( has joined #launchpad-meeting
Feb 11 10:04:46 <barry>  * Roll call
Feb 11 10:04:46 <barry>  * asiapac meeting time change
Feb 11 10:04:46 <barry>  * deprecate zapi and ztapi in favor of zope.component APIs, gary
Feb 11 10:04:46 <barry>  * Action items
Feb 11 10:04:46 <barry>  * Mentoring update
Feb 11 10:04:46 <barry>  * Peanut gallery (anything not on the agenda)
Feb 11 10:05:07 <barry> [TOPIC]  * asiapac meeting time change
Feb 11 10:05:08 <MootBot>       New Topic:   * asiapac meeting time change
Feb 11 10:05:50 <barry> so just a quick note that we've changed the date and time of the asiapac meeting.  10pm my time was just too difficult for me to remember, so now it's wednesdays utc 2300
Feb 11 10:06:05 <barry> which i think also makes it easier to communicate between the two review teams
Feb 11 10:06:17 <barry> just in case y'all wanted to drop by :)
Feb 11 10:06:40 <danilos>       in case I have no idea what to do at midnight, I might ;)
Feb 11 10:06:51 <barry> :)
Feb 11 10:06:56 <barry> [TOPIC]  * deprecate zapi and ztapi in favor of zope.component APIs, gary
Feb 11 10:06:57 <MootBot>       New Topic:   * deprecate zapi and ztapi in favor of zope.component APIs, gary
Feb 11 10:07:03 <barry> gary_poster: the floor is yours
Feb 11 10:07:04 <flacoste>      for US fols, that's nice, we'll be able to drop by
Feb 11 10:07:12 <gary_poster>   :-) k
Feb 11 10:07:23 <barry> flacoste: yep.  we don't have jamesh's tz to worry about any more :)
Feb 11 10:07:30 <gary_poster>   Zope deprecated zapi and ztapi quite awhile ago
Feb 11 10:07:49 <gary_poster>   Jim Fulton significantly refactored the zope.component API so that it was easier to use it directly
Feb 11 10:08:10 <gary_poster>   these APIs are more parallel (register/unregister for instance for adapters and utilities)
Feb 11 10:08:30 <rockstar>      me
Feb 11 10:08:46 <gary_poster>   and also don't hide how views work as adapters, for instance, behind what I believe to be an unnecessary and ultimately confusing veil
Feb 11 10:09:18 <gary_poster>   I think we (probably me) should come up with a cheat sheet on "if you were doing this, try doing this"
Feb 11 10:09:36 <gary_poster>   but Zope is already leaving that stuff behind, and I think we should too
Feb 11 10:09:47 <barry> gary_poster: what kinds of things do we commonly do now that would be better off w/o zapi?
Feb 11 10:09:51 <sinzui>        I only see zapi and ztapi in old code. I have never reviewed code that added it.
Feb 11 10:09:58 <barry> gary_poster: % fc lib/canonical zapi | wc -l
Feb 11 10:09:58 <barry> 23
Feb 11 10:10:25 <gary_poster>   sinzui: so, do you mean, it is already effectively deprecated?
Feb 11 10:10:42 <sinzui>        gary_poster: I think so
Feb 11 10:10:56 <barry> sinzui: 23 hits on zapi, 35 hits on ztapi
Feb 11 10:11:03 <barry> which doesn't seem like much
Feb 11 10:11:15 <gary_poster>   barry: zapi should be completely unnecessary.  same with ztapi.  It's just cruft, keeping people from understanding the actual use of the component code, for no particular win
Feb 11 10:11:35 <gary_poster>   ok, so maybe simple proposal:
Feb 11 10:11:45 <sinzui>        gary_poster: I only know what Phillip wrote in his book. I think flacoste/SteveA have driven us from using it in the past two years.
Feb 11 10:12:12 <gary_poster>   1) Someone (I?) does (do) a branch that rips out the remainder
Feb 11 10:12:15 <barry> maybe the newest code is in l/c/lazr/rest/
Feb 11 10:12:22 <gary_poster>   2) that policy is official
Feb 11 10:12:31 <allenap>       me
Feb 11 10:12:37 <gary_poster>   the reason that this came up is that I saw leonardr use it
Feb 11 10:12:43 <barry> +1, +1
Feb 11 10:12:56 <gary_poster>   ok
Feb 11 10:13:08 <gary_poster>   at least that was non-controversial ;-)
Feb 11 10:13:09 <barry> gary_poster: maybe start with lib/canonical/lazr?
Feb 11 10:13:20 <gary_poster>   yeah
Feb 11 10:13:33 <jtv>   gary_poster: it was the "(I?)" part that sold us
Feb 11 10:13:43 <gary_poster>   lol :-)
Feb 11 10:14:11 <gary_poster>   k, done, unless someone else wants to say something
Feb 11 10:14:14 <barry> jtv: are you saying that gary_poster is our jerry maguire?
Feb 11 10:14:21 <barry> gary_poster: thanks
Feb 11 10:14:25 <gary_poster>   :-)
Feb 11 10:14:39 <barry> [TOPIC]  * Action items
Feb 11 10:14:40 <MootBot>       New Topic:   * Action items
Feb 11 10:14:46 *       abentley ( has joined #launchpad-meeting
Feb 11 10:14:49 <barry>  * abentley to email ml and gustavo with suggestions for improving storm
Feb 11 10:14:55 <barry> abentley: just in time! :)
Feb 11 10:14:56 <abentley>      barry: Done.
Feb 11 10:15:00 <jtv>   barry: EPOPCULTREF
Feb 11 10:15:06 <abentley>      barry: Response was not very positive.
Feb 11 10:15:14 <gary_poster>   heh
Feb 11 10:15:22 <barry> abentley: yeah
Feb 11 10:15:32 <gary_poster>   conversation with stub seemed potentially fruitful though
Feb 11 10:15:58 <abentley>      In fact, he said if we like the SQLObject api, we should use the shim
Feb 11 10:17:08 <flacoste>      well
Feb 11 10:17:09 <barry> what do you guys think?  personally, i prefer both native storm query syntax and native storm class definitions
Feb 11 10:17:13 <flacoste>      that has some drawbacks
Feb 11 10:17:20 <flacoste>      and I don't think the shim is what we want to use
Feb 11 10:17:30 <flacoste>      native storm query: yes
Feb 11 10:17:36 <flacoste>      native storm class defs: not sure at all
Feb 11 10:17:37 <abentley>      I think stores should be optional.
Feb 11 10:17:53 <abentley>      Most of the time, we don't want or need them.
Feb 11 10:18:01 <flacoste>      the problem with the shim is that the results objects are incompatible
Feb 11 10:18:53 <bigjools>      as I found to my cost
Feb 11 10:19:16 <abentley>      Okay, so if we make our own base class, would that be acceptable?
Feb 11 10:19:41 <barry> flacoste: what would you propose instead for class defs?  base class/metaclass?
Feb 11 10:20:06 <flacoste>      base class is probably best
Feb 11 10:20:08 <barry> abentley: not outside the realm of possibility
Feb 11 10:20:19 <flacoste>      as metaclass usually makes people's brain explode
Feb 11 10:20:28 <barry> flacoste: indeed
Feb 11 10:20:54 <barry> flacoste: how would that change the attribute definition syntax?
Feb 11 10:21:26 <flacoste>      i think we might need a metaclass for that, i don't know
Feb 11 10:21:38 <flacoste>      and maybe the native storm syntax isn't that bad
Feb 11 10:21:44 <barry> flacoste: i think we would, but i guess my question is: what would you do differently?
Feb 11 10:21:52 <flacoste>      it's just that I agree with abentley that the ID stuff is kind of boring
Feb 11 10:22:00 <barry> true
Feb 11 10:22:04 <flacoste>      well, the attribute names for instance
Feb 11 10:22:10 <flacoste>      field_id instead of fieldID
Feb 11 10:22:26 <bigjools>      the only real problem with Storm syntax for me is importing a gazillion content classes
Feb 11 10:23:41 <allenap>       bigjools: That does have the advantage that things break hard when classes are changed.
Feb 11 10:23:54 <allenap>       and early.
Feb 11 10:23:57 <barry> is anybody motivated enough to try an experiment here?
Feb 11 10:23:58 <abentley>      bigjools: Not seeing the connection.
Feb 11 10:24:17 <bigjools>      abentley: if you use Python expressions for the query joins ...
Feb 11 10:24:56 <abentley>      bigjools: Is that compared to raw SQL with SQLObject?
Feb 11 10:25:21 <bigjools>      yes. if you write a string in SQL then you don't have the import pain, but then Storm can't work out the FROM tables
Feb 11 10:25:47 <jtv>   barry: what experiment did you have in mind?
Feb 11 10:26:06 <flacoste>      barry: well, i think abentley's gripes are good, so if he's willing to try to cook up a base class that suits him, that would be a good start
Feb 11 10:26:07 <bigjools>      allenap: that's a great point
Feb 11 10:26:31 <abentley>      flacoste: Sure, I'm happy to start with that.  Metaclass foo later.
Feb 11 10:26:31 <barry> jtv: a base class/metaclass to make various common boring or painful things easier
Feb 11 10:27:49 <barry> abentley: cool.  i know there's an experiments page somewhere but my firefox is misbehaving right now
Feb 11 10:28:26 <barry> [ACTION] abentley to experiment with a base class to ease the pain and boredom with storm
Feb 11 10:28:27 <MootBot>       ACTION received:  abentley to experiment with a base class to ease the pain and boredom with storm
Feb 11 10:29:02 <barry>  * flacoste to take dead zone reviews issue to ml
Feb 11 10:29:08 <flacoste>      done
Feb 11 10:29:13 <flacoste>      not sure of the resolution there
Feb 11 10:29:14 <flacoste>      though
Feb 11 10:29:21 <barry> flacoste: me neither
Feb 11 10:29:43 <barry> jtv: what do you think about that thread?
Feb 11 10:30:20 <barry> jtv: i think you and stub get weighted more heavily here as you're the most tz challenged
Feb 11 10:31:19 *       barry taps the mic and asks "is this thing still on?"
Feb 11 10:31:25 <jtv>   barry: I do agree, just slightly concerned about having yet more ways to write a database class
Feb 11 10:31:40 <barry> jtv: TOOWTDI
Feb 11 10:31:40 <jtv>   barry: sorry, hard to type at this temperature
Feb 11 10:31:40 <rockstar>      jtv, +1
Feb 11 10:31:49 <barry> jtv: and you're dutch so it should be obvious to you
Feb 11 10:31:55 <gary_poster>   :-)
Feb 11 10:32:23 <barry> jtv: sorry, i meant the dead zone review thread
Feb 11 10:32:29 <jtv>   barry: ahhh
Feb 11 10:33:03 <jtv>   barry: I thought we already were discussing that on the ml
Feb 11 10:33:37 *       jtv reads back
Feb 11 10:33:48 <barry> jtv: we are, just wanted to give you a higher bandwidth channel.  but it's okay, we can continue on the ml
Feb 11 10:34:09 <jtv>   barry: yes, sorry, having that one line added in the middle changed the meaning of my backlog
Feb 11 10:34:46 <jtv>   I think we agreed that cover letters are good, and possibly better than asking a reviewer personally
Feb 11 10:35:37 <barry> cover letters + mp + (maybe?) irc topic?
Feb 11 10:35:47 <jtv>   barry: ah yes, the topic line, I liked that
Feb 11 10:36:17 <barry> jtv: cool.  let's see if we can make that work. we can always try something else if need be
Feb 11 10:36:23 <jtv>   maybe a "candidate queue"?
Feb 11 10:36:31 <jtv>   after all, the "queue" is what an OCR has accepted
Feb 11 10:36:54 <jtv>   or a "review backlog"
Feb 11 10:37:08 <barry> jtv: backlog: xxx in the topic?
Feb 11 10:37:22 *       andrea-bs (n=andrea-b@ubuntu/member/beeseek.developer.andrea-bs) has joined #launchpad-meeting
Feb 11 10:37:24 <jtv>   barry: looks lovely
Feb 11 10:37:28 <danilos>       we can have two queues, one for on call, another for backlog, with OCRs reviewing alternately one from each
Feb 11 10:37:43 <barry> danilos: +1
Feb 11 10:37:51 <jtv>   oh, practical problem: how does the next reviewer know which *branch*?  that's too long to record in the topic
Feb 11 10:38:20 <barry> jtv: give an mp #?
Feb 11 10:38:27 <danilos>       how about just using links to bugs or MPs?
Feb 11 10:38:55 <jtv>   Yeah, nick:mp# would do it for me
Feb 11 10:39:27 <barry> danilos: i think that makes the topic too long
Feb 11 10:39:28 <abentley>      hmm: The MP ids are unique.  Maybe we should provide a direct link to them.
Feb 11 10:39:45 <danilos>       abentley: yeah, that would be an improvement (something like we have for bugs)
Feb 11 10:40:12 <barry> abentley: do you mean, have the bot recognize "mp 1234"?
Feb 11 10:40:18 <danilos>       barry: I meant only bug ids (and bugs will point to branches, which will point to mps :)
Feb 11 10:40:31 <barry> danilos: ah yes, fair enough
Feb 11 10:40:54 <danilos>       I'd prefer a bookmarklet :)
Feb 11 10:41:01 <jtv>   danilos: good idea, but blueprint names get longer
Feb 11 10:41:13 <danilos>       jtv: they are also not linked to branches afaik
Feb 11 10:41:21 <abentley>      barry: No, I meant to be able to put as a url.
Feb 11 10:41:38 <barry> abentley, jtv, danilos let's see if we can hash out the details on the ml
Feb 11 10:41:46 <jtv>   danilos: good point :)
Feb 11 10:42:14 <barry> only a couple of minutes left, so...
Feb 11 10:42:25 <barry>  * gary to email list about RENormalizing test, investigate alternate inline spellings
Feb 11 10:42:50 <gary_poster>   done.  See how to do it.  doctest not easily extensible for this, so will need to hack.
Feb 11 10:42:50 <barry> i think that one's done
Feb 11 10:42:58 <barry> gary_poster: thanks
Feb 11 10:43:00 <barry>  * barry to add `pretty()` functions to reviewers docs
Feb 11 10:43:03 <barry> i suck, not done
Feb 11 10:43:08 <barry>  * flacoste to work on API reviewer cheat sheet
Feb 11 10:43:12 <flacoste>      i suck, not done
Feb 11 10:43:25 <barry> [TOPIC] peanut gallery
Feb 11 10:43:26 <MootBot>       New Topic:  peanut gallery
Feb 11 10:43:32 <danilos>       I'd like to raise one issue here
Feb 11 10:43:33 <barry> does anybody have anything not on the agenda?
Feb 11 10:43:40 <barry> danilos: go4it
Feb 11 10:43:45 <flacoste>      if it's not done next week, i change my name to flacoste_hoover
Feb 11 10:43:48 <danilos>       the lightness of our reviews makes them not be that useful anymore as a learning tool
Feb 11 10:43:53 <barry> flacoste: :)
Feb 11 10:44:12 <danilos>       we need to reiterate some points even if they are not necessarily what we expect developer to do
Feb 11 10:44:23 <flacoste>      what do you mean?
Feb 11 10:44:28 <flacoste>      or can you give an example?
Feb 11 10:44:31 <danilos>       eg. concrete example I have: we should mention LaunchpadForm for any form which is not using it
Feb 11 10:44:44 <flacoste>      good point
Feb 11 10:44:57 <danilos>       Henning was not aware of LaunchpadForm and hacked around even though he modified quite a few forms before
Feb 11 10:45:43 <danilos>       just a question for reviewers to ask: "why is this not using this and that infrastructure we have"
Feb 11 10:46:11 <barry> danilos: +1
Feb 11 10:46:32 <gmb>   I didn't realise that our reviews were that shallow.
Feb 11 10:46:39 *       bigjools fears for future Soyuz reviews
Feb 11 10:47:01 <gmb>   Just last week EdwinGrubbs pointed out a much easier way for me to do something that I'd spent ages hacking around with.
Feb 11 10:47:01 <danilos>       (even if reviewer knows the answer, we should help developers get to learn more about existing infrastructure, since there's so much of it)
Feb 11 10:47:27 <bigjools>      we need an infrastructure cheat sheet
Feb 11 10:47:28 <gmb>   bigjools: The only way you can have a shallow soyuz review is if the person doing the review is dead.
Feb 11 10:47:37 <al-maisan>     :)
Feb 11 10:47:37 <gary_poster>   :-)
Feb 11 10:47:43 <flacoste>      lol
Feb 11 10:47:45 <bigjools>      gmb: that can be arranged!
Feb 11 10:47:54 <danilos>       bigjools: the idea is not to force people to switch to new infrastructure, just to be aware of it, and understand why it's not being used
Feb 11 10:48:28 <bigjools>      danilos: that's fine - I just know that we have lots of, er, legacy code shall we say, done before a lot of the infrastructure was in place
Feb 11 10:48:40 <bac>   it works the other way too.  yesterday i saw something cool sinzui was doing in a doctest i was reviewing and adopted it.
Feb 11 10:48:49 <danilos>       bac: indeed
Feb 11 10:49:00 <bigjools>      bac: yes, that's a great reason to be a reviewer
Feb 11 10:49:04 <danilos>       anyway, we're over time already, and I think I am done
Feb 11 10:49:05 <barry> bac: we should find a way to share those insights across the team!
Feb 11 10:49:21 <barry> danilos: thanks. and apologies for going over
Feb 11 10:49:25 *       sinzui just wanted the code to be readible
Feb 11 10:49:28 <danilos>       barry: we've tried so far to do that using wikis and mailing lists, but it doesn't really work out
Feb 11 10:49:34 <mars>  danilos, how about cleaning up technical debt as a learning exercise, rather than reviewing or using a cheat sheet?
Feb 11 10:49:39 *       barry will eagerly await bac's email describing this insight :)
Feb 11 10:49:54 <bigjools>      I would like a cheat sheet, personally
Feb 11 10:50:01 <mars>  that's how I started - fixing callsites, submitting 2000-line patches...
Feb 11 10:50:04 <jtv>   mars: it's not always stuff you'd easily recognize as tech debt
Feb 11 10:50:06 <gary_poster>   cheat sheets get awfully big
Feb 11 10:50:07 <bigjools>      then the info is shared
Feb 11 10:50:16 <gary_poster>   we already have some
Feb 11 10:50:20 <danilos>       gary_poster: only if you want to cheat in everything you do :)
Feb 11 10:50:23 <gary_poster>   that are really really big
Feb 11 10:50:25 <gary_poster>   :-)
Feb 11 10:50:30 <bigjools>      gary_poster: they can't get bigger than the doctests we have though :)
Feb 11 10:50:38 <gary_poster>   heh
Feb 11 10:50:43 <barry> :)
Feb 11 10:50:51 <barry> anyway.  let's break for today
Feb 11 10:50:56 <barry> #endmeeting

asiapac log

Feb 11 18:01:06 <barry> #startmeeting
Feb 11 18:01:07 <MootBot>       Meeting started at 17:01. The chair is barry.
Feb 11 18:01:07 <MootBot>       Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
Feb 11 18:01:25 <barry> hello and welcome to the first of our newly scheduled asiapac reviewers meetings.  who's here today?
Feb 11 18:01:44 *       barry pings jml thumper and mwhudson 
Feb 11 18:01:48 <mwhudson>      hello
Feb 11 18:02:03 *       thumper pongs
Feb 11 18:02:05 <thumper>       :)
Feb 11 18:02:18 <jml>   barry: hi
Feb 11 18:02:33 <barry> yay!  how's it going guys?
Feb 11 18:02:41 <thumper>       busy
Feb 11 18:02:58 <jml>   yeah, very busy
Feb 11 18:03:01 <thumper>       too many things to do at once
Feb 11 18:03:06 <barry> mwhudson: very very busy?
Feb 11 18:03:06 <jml>   people keep finding bugs in our software
Feb 11 18:03:08 <thumper>       oh, and I have a dentist appt in 1 hour
Feb 11 18:03:19 <mwhudson>      barry: you guessed it!
Feb 11 18:03:24 <thumper>       which I need to walk to
Feb 11 18:03:32 <barry> well then, we'll make this quick!
Feb 11 18:03:36 <barry> [TOPIC] agenda
Feb 11 18:03:37 <MootBot>       New Topic:  agenda
Feb 11 18:03:52 <barry> * Roll call
Feb 11 18:03:52 <barry>  * asiapac meeting time change
Feb 11 18:03:52 <barry>  * deprecate zapi and ztapi in favor of zope.component APIs, gary
Feb 11 18:03:52 <barry>  * Action items
Feb 11 18:03:52 <barry>  * Mentoring update
Feb 11 18:03:52 <barry>  * Peanut gallery (anything not on the agenda)
Feb 11 18:04:09 <barry> that's basically copied from the ameu meeting this morning, which i have not had time to write up yet
Feb 11 18:04:14 <thumper>       ok
Feb 11 18:04:27 <mwhudson>      well the first one seems to have worked
Feb 11 18:04:32 <barry> indeed!
Feb 11 18:04:43 <barry> [TOPIC]  * deprecate zapi and ztapi in favor of zope.component APIs, gary
Feb 11 18:04:44 <MootBot>       New Topic:   * deprecate zapi and ztapi in favor of zope.component APIs, gary
Feb 11 18:04:55 <barry> let me see if i can channel gary_poster 
Feb 11 18:05:11 <thumper>       do anyone outside foundations care?
Feb 11 18:05:22 <jml>   barry_imposter
Feb 11 18:05:26 <thumper>       haha
Feb 11 18:05:44 <barry> thumper: probably not.  there's only about 70 hits for both in our code base
Feb 11 18:05:48 <mwhudson>      i've used ztapi in a test i think once
Feb 11 18:05:49 <barry> and most of those are in very old code
Feb 11 18:05:52 <mwhudson>      i won't do it again :)
Feb 11 18:05:57 <mwhudson>      next
Feb 11 18:06:02 <barry> mwhudson: yeah, you better not.  gary_poster is a big guy
Feb 11 18:06:18 <barry> [TOPIC]  * Action items
Feb 11 18:06:19 <MootBot>       New Topic:   * Action items
Feb 11 18:06:23 <mwhudson>      i can't imagine him as a brawler though some how
Feb 11 18:06:32 <barry> :)
Feb 11 18:06:34 <barry>  * abentley to email ml and gustavo with suggestions for improving storm
Feb 11 18:06:50 <jml>   I think that's been done for some time :)
Feb 11 18:07:15 <barry> abentley: right.  though today we talked about an experiment that abentley will conduct to see if he can create a base class that makes some annoyances simpler
Feb 11 18:07:23 <barry> we still do not want to use the sqlobject shim
Feb 11 18:07:26 *       mthaddon_ ( has joined #launchpad-meeting
Feb 11 18:07:42 <jml>   barry: sure.
Feb 11 18:07:48 <barry> we were generally agreed that native storm class defs and queries are fine with us
Feb 11 18:08:01 <jml>   ok.
Feb 11 18:08:04 <barry> though foo_id is boring
Feb 11 18:08:13 <barry> and needing to specify the store is boring
Feb 11 18:08:20 <barry> we'll see what he comes up with
Feb 11 18:08:25 <thumper>       LPStorm class?
Feb 11 18:08:26 <jml>   it's also complicated :)
Feb 11 18:08:35 <mwhudson>      do you have to have the foo_id as a separate definition?
Feb 11 18:08:40 <jml>   barry: so I guess this is out-of-scope for reviewer meetings for the moment?
Feb 11 18:08:43 <barry> thumper: something like that, tho i suspect a metaclass may be necessary
Feb 11 18:08:48 <thumper>       mwhudson: I believe so
Feb 11 18:08:58 <barry> mwhudson: yep
Feb 11 18:09:09 <thumper>       I've seen both field_id and fieldID
Feb 11 18:09:13 <thumper>       do we have a standard?
Feb 11 18:09:16 <barry> mwhudson: foo_id = Int(primary=True); foo = Reference(foo_id,
Feb 11 18:09:24 <barry> thumper: we do not
Feb 11 18:09:30 *       barry prefers and uses foo_id
Feb 11 18:09:30 *       thumper votes for field_id
Feb 11 18:09:34 <barry> thumper: rock on
Feb 11 18:09:40 <mwhudson>      barry: wouldn't foo = Reference(Int(primary=True), work?
Feb 11 18:09:49 <barry> mwhudson: interesting!  dunno
Feb 11 18:09:54 <thumper>       barry: can you add an agenda item to add it for the next reviewer meeting
Feb 11 18:10:09 <mwhudson>      if it does, i think we can write a convenience class....
Feb 11 18:10:14 <barry> [ACTION] barry will add foo_id vs fooID to next reviewers meeting
Feb 11 18:10:14 *       mthaddon has quit (Operation timed out)
Feb 11 18:10:15 <MootBot>       ACTION received:  barry will add foo_id vs fooID to next reviewers meeting
Feb 11 18:10:20 <mwhudson>      FKeyIDRef or something
Feb 11 18:10:22 <thumper>       mwhudson: sometimes you need to do field.foo_id.is_in([1,2,3])
Feb 11 18:10:30 <jml>   mwhudson: best. name. evar. :P
Feb 11 18:10:38 <mwhudson>      ah ok
Feb 11 18:10:39 <thumper>       mwhudson: a bit hard to do without a defined foo_id
Feb 11 18:10:48 <mwhudson>      i should mention this on the list i guess
Feb 11 18:10:55 <barry> mwhudson: please do
Feb 11 18:10:55 *       salgado-afk has quit ("Leaving")
Feb 11 18:11:01 <barry> next?
Feb 11 18:11:08 <thumper>       ya
Feb 11 18:11:09 <thumper>       yarp
Feb 11 18:11:13 <barry>  * flacoste to take dead zone reviews issue to ml
Feb 11 18:11:18 <barry> he did this
Feb 11 18:11:44 <barry> jtv was at our meeting and i think we've decided on mp + cover + an irc cue 
Feb 11 18:12:08 <barry> basically jtv and stub would add a cue to the, er queue to let ocrs know that thye have branches they'd like reviewed
Feb 11 18:12:28 <barry> or something like that.  i don't remember the details, but i'll write it up when i go through the minutes
Feb 11 18:13:00 <thumper>       I've also cleaned up the claiming a team review
Feb 11 18:13:07 <thumper>       so we should have less pending team review
Feb 11 18:13:09 <thumper>       s
Feb 11 18:13:12 <thumper>       when someone has done one
Feb 11 18:13:16 <mwhudson>      i guess in time, jtv and stub will end up reviewing each other's branches a lot
Feb 11 18:13:30 <barry> yep, stubs a mentat now
Feb 11 18:13:40 <jml>   thumper: the remaining issue is that it's still hard to see which branches need review.
Feb 11 18:13:44 <thumper>       action for me: make sure a default reviewer is added through bzr send if none specified
Feb 11 18:13:56 *       thumper thinks
Feb 11 18:14:02 <thumper>       if we have a bug for this
Feb 11 18:14:15 <barry> thumper: yes please.  and btw, i used bzr send for the first time yesterday. awesome sauce
Feb 11 18:14:17 <thumper>       increase its priority
Feb 11 18:14:20 <jml>   thumper: partly because the mp status isn't always updated.
Feb 11 18:14:28 <thumper>       barry: just wait for the changes with jml is reviewing
Feb 11 18:14:37 <thumper>       jml: I've got some ideas
Feb 11 18:14:44 <thumper>       lets make the views better
Feb 11 18:15:04 <jml>   thumper: partly because there aren't clear mp statuses for "reviewed, waiting on reply"
Feb 11 18:15:07 *       barry *can't* wait :)
Feb 11 18:15:17 <thumper>       jml: lets make one
Feb 11 18:15:30 <thumper>       jml: we use a decorated class now anyway
Feb 11 18:15:38 <jml>   thumper: let's talk about it after :)
Feb 11 18:15:41 <thumper>       jml: let's just invent a new status column
Feb 11 18:15:44 *       thumper nods
Feb 11 18:15:49 <barry> sounds good.  thanks guys
Feb 11 18:16:09 <barry>  * gary to email list about RENormalizing test, investigate alternate inline spellings
Feb 11 18:16:13 <barry> he did this
Feb 11 18:16:17 <barry> doctest is hard to extend
Feb 11 18:16:28 <barry> 'nuff said
Feb 11 18:16:42 *       jml coughs politely
Feb 11 18:16:50 *       mwhudson is tempted to say "two wrongs don't make a right"
Feb 11 18:16:54 <barry> :)
Feb 11 18:17:17 <barry> both flacoste and i suck at our two action items so i won't even mention them
Feb 11 18:17:35 <mwhudson>      if you can't specify this close-to-inline, it's a terrible terrible idea
Feb 11 18:17:35 <jml>   barry: you probably should :)
Feb 11 18:17:46 <mwhudson>      otherwise, it's just terrible, perhaps
Feb 11 18:17:48 <barry>  * barry to add `pretty()` functions to reviewers docs
Feb 11 18:17:52 <barry>  * flacoste to work on API reviewer cheat sheet
Feb 11 18:18:03 *       abentley ( has left #launchpad-meeting
Feb 11 18:18:05 <jml>   these are both good ideas.
Feb 11 18:18:07 <barry> mwhudson: we all agree on that!
Feb 11 18:18:14 <mwhudson>      good
Feb 11 18:18:28 <barry> jml: yep, we should suck less and do more
Feb 11 18:18:54 <barry> anyway, that's about it for my list.  do you guys have anything y'all want to talk about?
Feb 11 18:19:43 <thumper>       I'm working my way through the code-review bugs
Feb 11 18:19:57 <thumper>       if people have a strong opinion about something
Feb 11 18:20:02 <thumper>       they should contact me directly
Feb 11 18:20:12 <jml>   barry: I have a couple of things
Feb 11 18:20:12 <thumper>       otherwise they'll be fixed in thumper-priority
Feb 11 18:20:22 <mwhudson>      i guess i could say the same about loggerhead/codebrowse
Feb 11 18:20:34 <barry> thumper: isn't that thumpertime?
Feb 11 18:20:37 <barry> thumper: thanks
Feb 11 18:20:41 <barry> jml: go ahead
Feb 11 18:20:45 <thumper>       barry: something like that :)
Feb 11 18:20:49 <jml>   first, the reviewer checklist
Feb 11 18:21:04 <jml>   1. it's getting kind of long
Feb 11 18:21:09 <jml>   2, it's hard to find
Feb 11 18:21:21 <jml>   the first one is a someday/maybe thing
Feb 11 18:22:00 <jml>   i.e. it doesn't matter too much, but it would be nice if it were shorter and more usable
Feb 11 18:22:16 <jml>   but I actually don't know where to find the latest version :)
Feb 11 18:22:28 <barry> agreed, agreed. it's on My List to garden it and move it to
Feb 11 18:22:34 <jml>   cool.
Feb 11 18:22:44 <jml>   second, mentoring
Feb 11 18:23:00 <jml>   I'm mentoring stub, and I don't feel I'm doing a particularly good job of it.
Feb 11 18:23:16 <barry> jml: because of the tz?
Feb 11 18:23:22 <jml>   barry: partly
Feb 11 18:23:45 <jml>   barry: in more than one way, actually. there's not a huge deal of overlap, for a start.
Feb 11 18:24:12 <jml>   barry: but also my OCR day is busiest in the morning, as people from the Americas submit things on their Thursday evening.
Feb 11 18:24:58 <barry> jml: and you overlap with stub in the morning?
Feb 11 18:25:12 <jml>   my afternoon.
Feb 11 18:25:13 <thumper>       stub's morning
Feb 11 18:25:59 <barry> jml: i can chat with flacoste and/or stub if you want to see if we can line someone else up
Feb 11 18:26:05 <jml>   also, are there any docs on mentoring on the wiki?
Feb 11 18:26:19 <barry> jml: some i think, but probably not much
Feb 11 18:26:30 <jml>   barry: that might be a good idea. let's leave it for another week though & see how it goes.
Feb 11 18:26:42 <mwhudson>      overlapping in the mentees morning isn't really the right end of things, i guess
Feb 11 18:26:45 <barry> jml: sounds good
Feb 11 18:27:21 <jml>   that's it from me.
Feb 11 18:27:23 <barry> that tz is just a challenge all around unfortunately
Feb 11 18:27:45 <barry> cool, thanks jml.  anything else guys?
Feb 11 18:27:52 <thumper>       nope
Feb 11 18:28:00 <mwhudson>      nope
Feb 11 18:28:11 <barry> guess we're done!
Feb 11 18:28:14 <barry> #endmeeting

ReviewerMeeting20090211 (last edited 2009-02-18 14:51:56 by barry)