Not logged in - Log In / Register





10:00:10 > barry: #startmeeting
10:00:12 < MootBot: Meeting started at 09:00. The chair is barry.
10:00:12 < MootBot: Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
10:00:24 > barry: hello everybody and welcome to this week's ameu reviewer's meeting.  who's here today?
10:00:35 < noodles775: me
10:00:38 < henninge: me
10:00:51 < bac: me
10:00:54 < danilos: me
10:01:11 > barry: gmb sends his apologies
10:01:19 < bigjools: me
10:01:23 < adeuring: me
10:02:00 < flacoste: me
10:02:07 < henninge: jtv has better things^W^W^W cannot be here either ...
10:02:12 < henninge: ;)
10:02:15 > barry: henninge: thanks :)
10:02:31 > barry: flacoste, gary_poster, salgado, cprov, allenap, mars, sinzui ping
10:02:36 < salgado: me
10:02:41 < cprov: me
10:02:41 < sinzui: me
10:02:41 < flacoste: re-me
10:02:41 < allenap: me
10:02:43 < gary_poster: me
10:02:48 > barry: flacoste: oops!
10:02:49 -!- deryck:03:03 > barry: [TOPIC] agenda
10:03:04 < MootBot: New Topic:  agenda
10:03:07 < flacoste: barry: that's ok, you are used to pinging me
10:03:19 > barry:  * Roll call
10:03:19 > barry:  * Action items
10:03:19 > barry:  * UI review call update
10:03:19 > barry:  * `__iter__()` in model objects? [cprov, barry]
10:03:22 > barry:  * mkstemp()/open() combination leaks file-descriptors [cprov]
10:03:25 > barry:  * Guidelines changes for tests checking systems pre-requisites (specific umasks, app configurations) [maxb, cprov]
10:03:30 > barry:  * Invalid markup; The <script> tag requires a close tag (Do not: <script type="text/javascript" src="..."/>) [Curtis]
10:03:33 > barry:  * 4-space indents for CSS styles [barry]
10:03:35 > barry:  * Peanut gallery (anything not on the agenda)
10:03:38 > barry:  
10:03:41 > barry: flacoste: :)
10:03:44 > barry: [TOPIC] action items
10:03:45 < MootBot: New Topic:  action items
10:03:49 > barry:  * gary_poster and barry will transfer review guidelines from the old wiki and old old wiki to the new wiki
10:03:54 > barry: we suck
10:04:01 < gary_poster: yup, joint suckage
10:04:22 > barry: gary_poster: that sounds icky :)
10:04:40 < gary_poster: heh, yeah, I thought that after I read it too
10:04:49 > barry: [TOPIC]  * UI review call update
10:04:50 < MootBot: New Topic:   * UI review call update
10:05:02 > barry: gary_poster: let's get together later today to plan that out
10:05:10 < gary_poster: +1
10:05:26 > barry: i was not on the ui review call because of the us holiday.  was anybody here on that call, and was anything interesting discussed?
10:05:54 < noodles775: barry: it was canceled as there was only intellectronica jtv and myself.
10:06:16 > barry: noodles775: cool, thanks
10:06:34 > barry: [TOPIC]  * `__iter__()` in model objects? [cprov, barry]
10:06:36 < MootBot: New Topic:   * `__iter__()` in model objects? [cprov, barry]
10:06:43 > barry: cprov: do you remember what this one was about?
10:06:44 -!- intellectronica:06:48 < intellectronica: me too
10:07:43 < cprov: barry: well, it's about the how confusing it is to read code that iterate over a distroseries and get distroarchseries ;)
10:08:55 > barry: cprov: so, it being more readable to do something like "for das in ds.distro_arch_series:" than "for das in ds"?
10:09:01 < bigjools: are you saying __iter__ should be confined to collections?
10:09:38 < cprov: bigjools: being more radical, I think we should never need __iter__ in content classes.
10:09:47 < bigjools: that's what I mean :)
10:09:47 > barry: bigjools: i was going to say, object's that have only one natural iteration, but i think your rule is better
10:10:06 < cprov: bigjools: iterate of a multiple-join (ish) property.
10:10:31 < cprov: s/of/over, sorry.
10:11:27 > barry: cprov: i think +1.  you'll never be confused by naming the property explicitly.  i can only think that maybe it would be okay for IFnordSet to have an __iter__ that iterates over IFnords
10:11:45 < sinzui: I agree
10:12:01 < cprov: agreed
10:12:12 > barry: beauty.  any objections?
10:12:29 > barry: 5...4...3...2...1
10:12:36 > barry: [TOPIC]  * mkstemp()/open() combination leaks file-descriptors [cprov]
10:12:37 < MootBot: New Topic:   * mkstemp()/open() combination leaks file-descriptors [cprov]
10:12:46 > barry: (got a few for cprov today :)
10:13:23 < cprov: barry: everyone know mkstemp returns and open file descriptor, right ?
10:13:46 > * barry does
10:13:55 < flacoste: fire
10:14:14 < cprov: barry: and if it is not bound to the file you open afterwards it won't be automatically released by python.
10:14:23 < cprov: when you close the file.
10:14:32 < flacoste: why use mkstemp?
10:14:49 < flacoste: i usually prefer creating a temporary directory
10:14:52 < flacoste: and creating files in it
10:15:00 < flacoste: and removing the directory at end of test
10:15:37 < flacoste: using addCleanup
10:15:56 > barry: flacoste: yes, and if you need a tempfile and don't want to hassle with a directory, you should probably close the fd right after mkstemp() and reopen the file name with open()
10:16:09 < cprov: flacoste: that's a good point for testing use-cases
10:16:38 < cprov: flacoste: soyuz uses temp files in production workflows as well.
10:16:49 > barry: <cough>with-statement</cough> :)
10:17:37 < bigjools: how's that python2.6 readiness coming along then barry? :)
10:17:48 > * barry looks at gary_poster and flacoste 
10:17:50 < gary_poster: it's coming. :-) 2.5 first
10:17:58 < wgrant: The 2.5 status is actually pretty good.
10:18:06 < wgrant: Mostly benign failures.
10:18:27 < bigjools: then let's JFDI
10:18:35 > barry: my new machine arrives today (hopefully) and i'm going straight to karmic.  i'll be itchin' and bitchin' for 2.6 :)
10:18:53 < cprov: anyway, the message I was trying to pass is: be aware of msktemp() ... open() callsites. They should be mkstemp()...os.close(fd)
10:18:54 < allenap: barry: Or use os.fdopen().
10:19:05 < sinzui: benign failures? Does it apologise before going belly up?
10:19:12 -!- Ursinha:19:22 > barry: allenap: yep; though i almost always want the filename for various purposes
10:20:19 > barry: cprov: +1, thanks.  so, when you're reviewing code, watch out for mkstemp(), mkdtemp(), open() or anything else that acquires external resources.  ask your dev "are you properly releasing this resource, and if so, where?"
10:20:42 < allenap: barry: I think you get that with fdopen though? It returns a file object for the fd, and the second element of the tuple returned from mkstemp() is the filename.
10:21:42 > barry: allenap: yep, if you want the file object and the filename
10:21:56 > barry: cprov: thanks for this topic.  i have one more for ya
10:22:09 > barry: [TOPIC]  * Guidelines changes for tests checking systems pre-requisites (specific umasks, app configurations) [maxb, cprov]
10:22:10 < MootBot: New Topic:   * Guidelines changes for tests checking systems pre-requisites (specific umasks, app configurations) [maxb, cprov]
10:23:08 < cprov: IIRC, it was specifically about our test suite running on system with use a non-default umask (022)
10:23:46 < wgrant: (and the devscripts config issue)
10:23:53 < cprov: in lp.archivepublisher there as few tests that check files permission
10:24:15 > barry: cprov: well, that's under user control, right?  or does our test suite set the umask?  are you aware of specific umask failures in our test suite?  i remember fixing a bunch of those when i first came on board because i use umask 0002
10:25:34 < cprov: barry: I don't remember exactly which tests failed for maxb. Do you run the test suite locally frequently ?
10:25:45 < * maxb:26:01 < maxb: and reads scrollback
10:26:30 > barry: cprov: i can't get through the whole thing on my current dev box.  we'll see about my new one (drive faster fedex!)
10:26:50 < maxb: barry: umask 0002 currently breaks some (one?) soyuz test
10:27:02 > barry: in general though, i would say that any test that is umask sensitive is broken
10:27:19 < wgrant: There is only one.
10:27:25 > barry: maxb: is there a bug on that?  imo, it's a broken test
10:27:52 < maxb: The point of the action item is to suggest that the test guidelines should stipulate either that tests should set the appropriate environment, or should check and error clearly if they can't
10:28:07 < cprov: barry: right, I agreed, the test should adjust umask to the expected value.
10:28:11 < maxb: I don't think there's a bug at present, /me scribbles note
10:28:16 > barry: maxb, cprov +1
10:28:35 < sinzui: the tests or the code should set the mask? if there is a test for the mask, I believe the code should set it
10:28:53 > barry: so, as you review branches, be aware of code that might be sensitive to environmental issues, and question whether the tests are fragile because of that
10:29:42 > barry: sinzui: agreed
10:30:51 > barry: cprov, maxb thanks for bringing this up.  anything else on this topic?
10:31:27 < cprov: barry: possibly, there is a pending change in our guideline.
10:31:50 < cprov: barry: we use to rely on a pristine ubuntu env for testing and deploying LP
10:32:30 < cprov: barry: from what we've discussed code sensitive to environment changes should set/ensure the expected configurations now.
10:32:34 > barry: cprov: but umask is really part of the user env, not ubuntu env
10:33:03 < flacoste: and even relying on a prisitine ubuntu env is broken
10:33:05 < cprov: barry: right, extent ubuntu env to 'default ubuntu user env'
10:33:16 < maxb: Relying on a pristine environment to run the testsuite is developer-unfriendly
10:33:21 < flacoste: exactly
10:33:40 > barry: cprov: would you take an action item to update our guidelines with this change?
10:33:55 < cprov: right, and that's the change that should be included in our guidelines.
10:34:05 < cprov: barry: yes, sure.
10:34:12 > barry: cprov: great, thanks.
10:34:41 > barry: [ACTION] cprov to update guidelines to clarify how code sensitive to env changes should be written
10:34:43 < MootBot: ACTION received:  cprov to update guidelines to clarify how code sensitive to env changes should be written
10:35:08 > barry: thanks again for bringing this up
10:35:20 > barry: [TOPIC]  * Invalid markup; The <script> tag requires a close tag (Do not: <script type="text/javascript" src="..."/>) [Curtis]
10:35:22 < MootBot: New Topic:   * Invalid markup; The <script> tag requires a close tag (Do not: <script type="text/javascript" src="..."/>) [Curtis]
10:35:31 < sinzui: The HTML 4.x spec requires that the script element have a close tag.
10:35:36 < sinzui: Do not do this: <script type="text/javascript" src="..."/> because the template will not fix our mistake
10:35:55 < sinzui: I saw the compact form in the DSP index and added the issue to todays agenda
10:36:14 < intellectronica: can we lint for this?
10:36:20 < sinzui: two hours later cprov reported that half the content of the apge was missing. I closed the tag and made it work
10:36:31 < sinzui: intellectronica: We need a HTML processor
10:36:37 < * sinzui:36:45 < intellectronica: we currently use xmllint, but we miss the opportunity to automatically discover things that are html
10:37:12 < sinzui: We use a bastardised version my navellint script that I wrote 7 years ago
10:37:23 < noodles775: wont a standard (x)html validator pick that up? (and help us get all our pages valid?)
10:37:36 < sinzui: I am now using an all python script that has a HTML validator
10:37:41 < noodles775: :)
10:38:10 < sinzui: noodles775: comtact is always correct for XML. this is an issue of schema/DTD validity
10:38:34 < sinzui: noodles775: and this is really hard given that PT is generating  HTML, it is not HTML
10:38:47 < noodles775: sinzui: yes, but I thought the w3c xhhtml validator pointed ... ah, ok.
10:39:48 < noodles775: So we could validate pages as part of our stories - but that's a separate topic I guess.
10:40:10 < sinzui: We know this has not happened often because Forefox hates it. The issue was fixed within a day of it landing.
10:40:32 < sinzui: noodles775: That is not a story though.
10:40:40 > barry: sinzui: is it just the <script> tag or other tags too?
10:40:47 < sinzui: We have a checker that runs over stanging
10:40:56 < noodles775: True (just convenient given we've rendered the content)
10:41:07 < sinzui: <script> is the only one that comes to mind.
10:41:23 > barry: cool
10:41:24 < sinzui: noodles775: I do not
10:41:54 < sinzui: noodles775: I render content in view tests. stories just hop from link to link and verify messages that the user sees
10:42:40 < noodles775: sinzui: yes - I don't mean that you output the content in the story (urgh), just that the time taken to render the content has already happened when you call click().
10:42:59 < sinzui: noodles775: another way of putting the issue is that users do not look at the source, we only care about the test that is seen and the links that are traversed
10:43:29 < noodles775: Yes, I agree - it's not the place for validation.
10:43:37 < intellectronica: i really don't think we should do validation in tests. that's what lint is fo
10:43:59 < sinzui: noodles775: given that content/markup is conditional in most templates, that does is using luck to test
10:44:24 > barry: we also often get false positives when linting our pts
10:44:39 < flacoste: we could have a builder runs the test suite in validation mode
10:44:45 < noodles775: intellectronica: sure, but if we wanted to do that, it would mean that lint would need render templates. It would be easier to simply run an external validator over, I think.
10:44:55 < sinzui: intellectronica: I agree. We want to trust the template engine makes sane markup. that requires up to create sane templates. This is really an issue where HTML 4.x is not XML.
10:46:02 > barry: folks.  we're out of time.  i don't think we'll solve this here, although let's keep sinzui's specific recommendation in mind.  we can talk more about pt validation on list
10:46:06 < sinzui: There is also the issue were we do this: <p></p>; which is also invalid. a <p> must contain content
10:46:12 -!- lifeless: 148 (No route to host)]
10:46:42 > barry: #endmeeting


19:00:43 > barry: #startmeeting
19:00:44 < MootBot: Meeting started at 18:00. The chair is barry.
19:00:44 < MootBot: Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
19:00:50 -!- bigjools:00:54 > barry: jml, rockstar, mwhudson hi!
19:01:02 < mwhudson: barry: hello
19:01:04 < rockstar: Hi barry
19:01:16 < jml: hi
19:01:38 > barry: so, shall i do a quick update from ameu?
19:01:58 < jml: yes please
19:02:00 > barry: there was no ui meeting on monday, so nothing to report there
19:02:09 > barry: * `__iter__()` in model objects?
19:02:29 > barry: we agreed that __iter__ should be avoided except in the case of IFnordSets iterating over IFnords
19:02:40 > barry: i should say "except possibly"
19:02:51 > barry: no mandate, but it's okay
19:03:01 < jml: what was the reasoning?
19:03:26 > barry: for things that aren't naturally collections, it's hard to know from looking at the call site what you're iterating over
19:04:05 > barry: cprov had a specific example that came up in a review and __iter__() just made things harder to understand
19:04:32 > barry: * mkstemp()/open() combination leaks file-descriptors
19:05:00 > barry: reviewers have to watch out for these calls when the code does not clearly close the open fd they return
19:05:01 < rockstar: Ah yes.  I reviewed a fix for this last week.
19:05:19 > barry: general call for questioning the opening/leaking of resources
19:05:34 > barry: when you see it in a review, make sure that the resource is being closed
19:06:10 < jml: barry, one nice workaround in test code is to have a wrapper method that calls mkstemp and then calls addCleanup appropriately
19:06:30 < jml: and then returns what mkstemp returns
19:06:35 > barry: jml: right.  that was brought up (or something along those lines)
19:06:42 < jml: naturally, that won't stop prod leaks
19:07:45 > barry: flacoste suggested using mkdtemp  and then creating files as needed in the directory, blowing the whole dir away in the cleanup
19:08:04 < jml: I tend to do that.
19:08:17 > barry: yep
19:08:48 > barry: * Guidelines changes for tests checking systems pre-requisites (specific umasks, app configurations)
19:09:03 > barry: this came up because maxb got bit by a umask sensitivity in the tests
19:09:21 > barry: and i remembered fixing a bunch of these ages ago when i first joined
19:09:28 > barry: (cause my umask isn't 022)
19:10:03 > barry: the general rule is, if the code requires a specific umask, then put it in the code and test for it, otherwise fiddle the umask in the test
19:10:24 > barry: the general guideline is, don't assume the user env is the default ubuntu user env
19:10:26 < jml: ok.
19:10:36 < mwhudson: i guess the hard part is that most of the time you won't realize you're depending on the umask
19:11:03 < mwhudson: but it's a good principle i guess
19:11:11 > barry: mwhudson: right.  i think in general we're pretty good right now.  maxb found one failing test in archives which was checking a file perm, and thus relying on umask
19:11:47 < mwhudson: oh right
19:11:55 > barry: * Invalid markup; The <script> tag requires a close tag (Do not: <script type="text/javascript" src="..."/>)
19:12:07 < maxb: the other aspect was invocations of devscripts tools which could be affected by ~/.devscripts. I'm going to do some grepping and liberally sprinkle --no-conf around
19:12:14 < jml: well, the more likely mistake is code that fails because it implicitly relies on a umask and is not tested
19:12:23 > barry: maxb: ah, i didn't know about that one
19:12:42 < jml: maxb, I didn't know about that _directory_
19:13:10 > * barry neither
19:13:31 < * mwhudson:13:36 < mwhudson: maxb: tell us, what does it do? :)
19:14:10 < mwhudson: barry: shouldn't invalid <script> tags be caught by make lint?
19:14:22 < maxb: directory? ~/.devscripts is a conf file for tweaking the behaviour of the devscripts tools
19:14:32 < mwhudson: oh right
19:14:52 < maxb: when you tweak the behaviour of dch.... the tests get a bit upset :-)
19:15:11 < jml: oh right.
19:15:12 > barry: mwhudson: problem is, our lint only checks the templates, not the generated html
19:15:47 < mwhudson: barry: oh yes
19:16:05 < mwhudson: barry: and we have to generate <script> tags in strange ways because TAL*(&(*&(*&)(*
19:17:06 < jml: so!
19:17:07 > barry: right.  curtis gave some good background on what we do now, and what he hopes to do later.  there was some discussion about validating the html in the tests, which nobody much liked, validating on staging (or was it edge), etc.  no resolution for what we'd eventually like to do
19:17:33 > barry: so reviewers just have to watch out for that
19:17:46 > barry: and empty <p></p> which apparently ain't kosher either
19:17:56 > barry: that's it for ameu update
19:18:02 < jml: yay
19:18:04 < mwhudson: barry: is chameleon brain dead in the same way in this respect?
19:18:17 < jml: barry, one thing on the __iter__ guidelines.
19:18:18 > barry: mwhudson: didn't come up, and i don't know
19:18:26 > barry: jml: k
19:18:40 < mwhudson: jml: operator overloading is evil, don't do it?
19:18:43 < * mwhudson:18:43 < jml: barry, I'd prefer it if we wrote that up as "don't use __iter__ for things that aren't obviously collections"
19:19:02 < jml: mwhudson, operator overloading is great.
19:19:23 > barry: jml: that's how bigjools worded it, which seemed perfect to me
19:19:30 < jml: barry, cool.
19:19:39 < mwhudson: jml: when correctly applied, yes
19:19:55 < jml: barry, I was a little worried about restricting it to IFooSet or whatever.
19:19:56 < mwhudson: branch_set[id] was not a good application :)
19:19:59 > barry: so.  i will now open the floor to y'all.  anything on your mind today?
19:20:00 < jml: mwhudson, agreed.
19:20:25 < * jml:20:38 > barry: jml: ga-head
19:20:45 < jml: two things
19:21:10 < jml: the first is that I don't know the canonical page to get code review policy from...
19:21:13 < jml: is is ?
19:21:53 < jml: if so, it's a lot of stuff
19:22:42 < jml: the second is that I've been telling people to use the cover letter template as checklist, and not feel obliged to fill in every section.
19:23:31 < jml: which may have been overstepping the mark
19:23:33 > barry: jml: #1 do you mean canonical page for our coding guidelines, or for requesting reviews?
19:23:43 < jml: barry, guidelines
19:23:55 < jml: barry, what I have to look at as a reviewer / patch submitter to see if a patch passes.
19:24:28 > barry: yeah, that's the page, although gary and i have an action item we suck at to migrate stuff on the internal wiki (and old old internal wiki) into here.  it would be nice to find some time to clean those pages up too, but don't hold your breaht
19:24:31 > barry: er, breath
19:25:05 < mwhudson: barry: go go go!
19:25:06 < mwhudson: :)
19:25:17 < jml: barry, I understand the difficulty
19:25:23 < jml: and it sure is a tedious task
19:26:02 > barry: jml: but i understand the need to clarify and make concise.  seems like a general problem with wiki info (he says nearly completing this month's chr penance)
19:26:15 < jml: but at the rate we are accruing legislation, I'd be quite surprised if any reviewer had everything in their head...
19:26:24 > * barry does :)
19:26:40 < jml: barry, problem is, how can we tell :)
19:26:47 > barry: jml: just ask me :)
19:26:52 < jml: haha
19:26:54 > barry: but that's a joke.  i really don't either
19:27:38 > barry: jml: i wouldn't be surprised to see a lot of stuff slip through, but at least if either the dev or reviewer remembers, they have a place to look
19:27:39 < mwhudson: barry: can i call you at 4am to ask for clarification?
19:27:57 > barry: mwhudson: sure.  your 4am
19:28:04 < mwhudson: barry: :)
19:28:06 > barry: :)
19:28:23 < jml: barry, having those pages cleaned up would be great.
19:28:43 > barry: jml: seriously though, i'm very sympathetic, i just don't have a good answer
19:28:56 < jml: np
19:29:11 < * mwhudson:29:16 < jml: the other thing was the cover letter
19:29:42 > barry: cover letter, right!  do you use the lpreview-body bzr plugin?
19:29:47 < jml: no, I don't.
19:30:03 < jml: but also, I don't tell other people to do so.
19:30:15 > barry: it's pretty simple, but it gives you a standard template in the mailer of you choice, and i do think it's a good idea to fill everything out
19:30:18 > barry: it's also not hard
19:30:47 < jml: I agree with the spirit of it
19:30:59 > barry: jml: but... ?
19:31:15 < jml: but I don't feel like telling community contributors to fill out another form before I review their patch
19:31:33 < jml: and I'm happy enough if people demonstrate that they've thought about each of the items on
19:31:43 > barry: jml: that's a good point.  we get paid to do menial tasks :)
19:31:57 < mwhudson: i think the point is that the reviewee gets the information to the reviewer
19:32:05 < mwhudson: the cover letter template is a handy checklist, no more
19:32:12 < jml: mwhudson, thank you :)
19:32:17 < jml: barry, what he said.
19:32:24 < mwhudson: checklists are great, btw
19:32:29 < rockstar: Just mentioning you've thought about it should suffice.
19:32:30 < * jml:32:48 > barry: agreed!  i'm all for streamlining the process, especially for community contributors
19:32:56 < * rockstar:33:15 < jml: barry, as for me, I like using the web ui, just so I can be using the web ui :)
19:33:20 < mwhudson: sounds like resounding agreement
19:33:33 < jml: yay
19:33:51 < * jml:34:01 > barry: yep.  though i do have to say that when i'm reviewing i find a filled out cover letter to be very helpful.  tbh, when i'm submitting a branch too
19:35:02 > barry: there might also be a difference between the ameu workflow and asiapac workflow, as in how interactive you can be, how big the queue is, etc.
19:35:10 > barry: so i say, use what works for you
19:35:17 < jml: +1
19:35:52 < mwhudson: i think we should certainly recommend the cover letter
19:36:31 > barry: mwhudson: i'd go a little further.  if you're queuing up for +activereviews, a cover letter is much more important.  if you're doing a highly interactive one, much less so
19:36:41 < mwhudson: barry: right
19:36:59 > barry: as you say, the important thing is to communicate the info, however that happens
19:37:24 < jml: btw
19:37:27 < jml: putting it out there
19:37:48 < jml: a flagon of $BEVERAGE to whoever makes a tool that submits a branch to Launchpad via ec2test based only on the MP page.
19:38:17 > barry: tarmac?
19:38:21 < rockstar: jml, you mean like Tarmac?
19:38:29 < jml: rockstar, I don't know!
19:38:32 < rockstar: I'm sure we could probably do something like that.
19:38:43 < rockstar: jml, let's talk after this.
19:38:53 < mwhudson: jml: get rockstar to do it, he won't ask for a flagon of single malt
19:38:59 > barry: rockstar: is a switch to tarmac in the cards after 3.0?
19:39:21 < rockstar: barry, well, lp-oops is using it, and some ubuone folks.  We're working out kinks still.
19:39:22 < mwhudson: abentley asked in today's call what PQM still does for us
19:39:42 < rockstar: abentley broke Tarmac by changing the API - another hint that we need a versioned API.
19:39:45 < mwhudson: over and above us just merging and pushing
19:39:45 > barry: mwhudson: that's easy.  it crashes and obfuscates
19:39:52 < rockstar: :)
19:40:02 < jml: it checks for db changes in devel
19:40:07 < jml: it enforces the testfix thing
19:40:15 < rockstar: We can do this all very easily in Tarmac.
19:40:19 < jml: (whether that is _for_ us or _against_ us is an open question)
19:40:40 < rockstar: If all we're doing is merging, I'm not even sure why PQM does a build at all.
19:40:49 > barry: testfix thing: hopefully much more transparently than pqm
19:41:04 > barry: pqm does /not/ run in 5 minutes
19:41:17 < rockstar: I think Tarmac will be a lot more useful when we have merge queues.
19:41:39 > barry: btw, did someone make ec2 --headless detach more quickly recently?
19:41:54 < jml: not I.
19:42:14 < mwhudson: barry: a new AMI for ec2test will help a lot there
19:42:19 < mwhudson: barry: i intend to do that today
19:42:47 > barry: fantastic.  it did not seem to take 45m the last time i used it (more like 5-10 which was a pleasant surprise)
19:43:00 > barry: could have been luck i s'pose
19:43:00 < mwhudson: two things are very variable
19:43:06 < mwhudson: 1) instance launch time
19:43:09 < jml: rockstar, what I want is "submit", for it to take the commit message, target branch and reviewer info and submit it to ec2test.
19:43:10 < mwhudson: 2) make schema time
19:43:20 < jml: rockstar, tarmac's README implies it does something else.
19:43:24 < mwhudson: (making schema before detaching is insane, but...)
19:43:46 > barry: mwhudson: yep.  would be nice to detach asap
19:43:55 < rockstar: jml, yea, like I said, we should talk after the meeting.  I'm sure my documentation skills are pure suckage.
19:44:11 < mwhudson: barry: i hope to get to that before I run out of BE time
19:44:13 < * jml:)
19:44:17 > barry: rockstar: use sphinx
19:44:20 < mwhudson: (or sanity, whichever comes first)
19:44:27 > barry: jml: yes.  i think we're done.  any objections?
19:44:31 < mwhudson: nope
19:44:33 < rockstar: Nope.
19:44:37 > barry: #endmeeting

ReviewerMeeting20090909 (last edited 2009-09-10 02:34:34 by barry)