| *** adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting | 00:45 | |
| *** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk | 01:01 | |
| *** GasbaKid has quit IRC | 01:14 | |
| *** dendro-afk is now known as dendrobates | 01:32 | |
| *** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk | 02:05 | |
| *** littleidea has quit IRC | 02:14 | |
| *** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting | 02:54 | |
| *** adjohn has quit IRC | 03:20 | |
| *** adjohn has joined #openstack-meeting | 03:29 | |
| *** littleidea_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:01 | |
| *** littleidea has quit IRC | 05:03 | |
| *** littleidea_ is now known as littleidea | 05:03 | |
| *** littleidea_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:37 | |
| *** littleidea has quit IRC | 05:40 | |
| *** littleidea_ is now known as littleidea | 05:40 | |
| *** littleidea has quit IRC | 07:25 | |
| *** gasbakid has joined #openstack-meeting | 08:46 | |
| *** adjohn has quit IRC | 08:58 | |
| *** jsgotangco has joined #openstack-meeting | 09:00 | |
| *** jsgotangco has quit IRC | 09:02 | |
| *** jsgotangco has joined #openstack-meeting | 09:03 | |
| *** jsgotangco has quit IRC | 09:14 | |
| *** gasbakid has quit IRC | 09:38 | |
| *** GasbaKid has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:14 | |
| *** dendro-afk is now known as dendrobates | 13:45 | |
| *** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:50 | |
| *** littleidea has quit IRC | 13:58 | |
| *** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk | 14:10 | |
| *** DigitalFlux has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:17 | |
| *** dendro-afk is now known as dendrobates | 14:18 | |
| *** pvo has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:29 | |
| *** DigitalFlux has quit IRC | 14:30 | |
| *** DigitalFlux has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:35 | |
| *** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:57 | |
| *** DigitalFlux has quit IRC | 15:08 | |
| *** DigitalFlux has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:12 | |
| *** DigitalFlux has quit IRC | 15:29 | |
| *** creiht has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:42 | |
| *** GasbaKid has quit IRC | 15:52 | |
| *** littleidea has quit IRC | 15:54 | |
| *** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk | 17:05 | |
| *** dendro-afk is now known as dendrobates | 17:34 | |
| *** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk | 19:04 | |
| *** dendro-afk is now known as dendrobates | 19:05 | |
| *** hub_cap has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:03 | |
| *** pvo has quit IRC | 20:19 | |
| *** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk | 20:26 | |
| *** ttx has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:27 | |
| *** berendt has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:36 | |
| *** eday has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:41 | |
| *** Daviey has quit IRC | 20:41 | |
| *** Adri2000 has quit IRC | 20:41 | |
| *** arun has quit IRC | 20:41 | |
| *** xtoddx has quit IRC | 20:41 | |
| *** berendt has quit IRC | 20:42 | |
| *** berendt has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:42 | |
| *** ewanmellor has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:57 | |
| zul | hi | 20:58 |
|---|---|---|
| * creiht bows | 21:00 | |
| *** Daviey has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:00 | |
| *** Adri2000 has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:00 | |
| *** arun has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:00 | |
| *** xtoddx has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:00 | |
| ttx | 'lo | 21:00 |
| *** annegentle has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:00 | |
| *** jk0 has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:01 | |
| ttx | ok, let's get started ! | 21:01 |
| ttx | #startmeeting | 21:01 |
| openstack | Meeting started Tue Feb 22 21:01:25 2011 UTC. The chair is ttx. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 21:01 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. | 21:01 |
| ttx | Welcome to our weekly OpenStack team meeting... | 21:01 |
| soren | o/ | 21:01 |
| ttx | Today's agenda: | 21:01 |
| ttx | #link http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings | 21:01 |
| soren | Is it too late to add stuff to the agenda? | 21:01 |
| ttx | soren: no | 21:02 |
| soren | \o/ | 21:02 |
| ttx | if you do it reaalllly quick. | 21:02 |
| ttx | #topic Actions from previous meeting | 21:02 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Actions from previous meeting" | 21:02 | |
| ttx | * ttx and johnpur to ensure the stability goals are defined and properly tracked | 21:02 |
| ttx | We started the discussion, and a few threads have spawned on the ML. | 21:02 |
| ttx | As part of the "release status" topic in the meeting I'll track the number of new bugs (which reflects testing) and fixed bugs (which reflects stabilization effort). | 21:03 |
| ttx | * ttx to create the diablo series: DONE | 21:03 |
| ttx | * ttx to target bugs to 2011.1.1 and post proposed list of fixes for last-minute comments: DONE | 21:03 |
| ttx | * POC to rule on point release policy for the different projects | 21:04 |
| ttx | Any POC member available to comment ? Last time Ewan said you were waiting on some answers from the distributions side. | 21:04 |
| *** kpepple has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:04 | |
| soren | Uh.. | 21:04 |
| *** dendro-afk is now known as dendrobates | 21:04 | |
| *** jk0 has quit IRC | 21:05 | |
| *** comstud has quit IRC | 21:05 | |
| *** _cerberus_ has quit IRC | 21:05 | |
| *** zul has quit IRC | 21:05 | |
| *** antonym has quit IRC | 21:05 | |
| *** berendt has quit IRC | 21:05 | |
| *** deshantm has quit IRC | 21:05 | |
| *** soren has quit IRC | 21:05 | |
| *** Daviey has quit IRC | 21:05 | |
| *** Adri2000 has quit IRC | 21:05 | |
| *** arun has quit IRC | 21:05 | |
| *** kpepple has quit IRC | 21:05 | |
| *** xtoddx has quit IRC | 21:05 | |
| *** sleepsonthefloor has quit IRC | 21:05 | |
| *** glenc has quit IRC | 21:05 | |
| *** blamar has quit IRC | 21:05 | |
| *** dendrobates has quit IRC | 21:05 | |
| *** ewanmellor has quit IRC | 21:05 | |
| *** annegentle has quit IRC | 21:05 | |
| *** uvirtbot has quit IRC | 21:05 | |
| *** jbarratt has quit IRC | 21:05 | |
| *** eday has quit IRC | 21:05 | |
| *** westmaas_away has quit IRC | 21:05 | |
| *** chmouel has quit IRC | 21:05 | |
| *** vishy has quit IRC | 21:05 | |
| *** RichiH has quit IRC | 21:05 | |
| *** alekibango has quit IRC | 21:05 | |
| *** anticw has quit IRC | 21:05 | |
| *** termie has quit IRC | 21:05 | |
| *** ke4qqq has quit IRC | 21:05 | |
| *** ttx has quit IRC | 21:05 | |
| *** troytoman-away has quit IRC | 21:05 | |
| *** jeremyb has quit IRC | 21:05 | |
| creiht | hrm | 21:06 |
| * creiht waits | 21:06 | |
| creiht | :) | 21:06 |
| *** jk0_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:08 | |
| *** chmouel has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:08 | |
| *** jeremyb has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:08 | |
| *** dendrobates has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:08 | |
| *** ke4qqq has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:08 | |
| *** RichiH has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:08 | |
| *** termie has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:08 | |
| *** blamar has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:08 | |
| *** vishy has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:08 | |
| *** uvirtbot has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:08 | |
| *** anticw has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:08 | |
| *** westmaas_away has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:08 | |
| *** glenc has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:08 | |
| *** troytoman-away has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:08 | |
| *** sleepsonthefloor has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:08 | |
| *** jbarratt has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:08 | |
| *** alekibango has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:08 | |
| *** ttx has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:08 | |
| *** eday has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:08 | |
| *** ewanmellor has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:08 | |
| *** Daviey has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:08 | |
| *** Adri2000 has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:08 | |
| *** arun has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:08 | |
| *** xtoddx has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:08 | |
| *** annegentle has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:08 | |
| *** kpepple has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:08 | |
| *** soren has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:08 | |
| *** deshantm has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:08 | |
| *** berendt has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:08 | |
| *** zul has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:08 | |
| *** _cerberus_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:08 | |
| *** antonym has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:08 | |
| creiht | yay for netsplits :/ | 21:08 |
| soren | \œ/ | 21:09 |
| dendrobates | thanks annegentle | 21:09 |
| soren | craptastic timing for a netsplit. | 21:09 |
| annegentle | "# follow up with a unified release plan that takes into accounts division of upstream/downstream labor and support time frames (jbryce, 21:25:39)" | 21:09 |
| ttx | annegentle: thanks ! | 21:09 |
| * ttx likes to facilitate, though those are a bit of a testing pain. | 21:09 | |
| ttx | ok, moving on | 21:09 |
| ttx | #topic Current release stage: Development | 21:09 |
| ttx | We are almost at half-time for this cycle feature merge window. | 21:09 |
| ttx | we lost the meetbot | 21:09 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Current release stage: Development" | 21:09 | |
| ttx | oh, no it catches up | 21:09 |
| ttx | #info The next date is BranchMergeProposalFreeze, on March 17. You should have your feature branches proposed before that date. | 21:09 |
| ttx | #topic Cactus Release status | 21:09 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Cactus Release status" | 21:09 | |
| ttx | #link http://wiki.openstack.org/releasestatus/ | 21:09 |
| ttx | I'd like to make sure this reflects what you plan to work on for Cactus, so please take 2 minutes to check | 21:10 |
| ttx | If your stuff is missing please ping dendrobates (nova), jaypipes (glance) or creiht (swift) | 21:10 |
| ttx | Also if your stuff is listed but with an incorrect state (like it's marked "not started" while you started it), feel free to fix implementation status on the blueprint itself. See: | 21:10 |
| ttx | #link http://wiki.openstack.org/BlueprintsLifecycle#Blueprints_Fields_reference | 21:10 |
| ewanmellor | dendrobates: xenapi-basic-network-injection is ready for approval. The branch is already subject to merge request too. | 21:11 |
| ttx | dendrobates: I'd like to have priorities set on the remaining nova specs. Can you get to that soon ? | 21:11 |
| dendrobates | yes, by tomorrow | 21:11 |
| ttx | #action dendrobates to set priorities for last nova specs | 21:11 |
| ttx | jaypipes: Could you set tentative assignees for the unassigned Glance specs ? You can always fix that later | 21:12 |
| ttx | hm, no jaypipes | 21:12 |
| ttx | #action jaypipes to set tentative assignees for Glance specs | 21:12 |
| ttx | creiht: same for https://blueprints.launchpad.net/swift/+spec/cactus-checksum-get | 21:12 |
| creiht | ttx: done | 21:12 |
| ewanmellor | dendrobates: Also xenapi-vlan-network-manager is Pending Approval. | 21:13 |
| ttx | cool. | 21:13 |
| ttx | On the completion rate, based on the data I have: | 21:13 |
| dendrobates | ewanmellor: I'm on it. | 21:13 |
| ttx | #info Glance is 38% completed, 6% proposed, 13% in progress, 43% not started | 21:13 |
| ttx | #info Nova is 3% completed, 17% proposed, 54% in progress, 9% not started | 21:13 |
| vishy | o/ | 21:13 |
| ttx | #info Swift is 0% completed, 0% proposed, 25% in progress, 75% not started | 21:14 |
| ttx | Nothing critical, but it's pretty obvious we need to land the already-proposed branches | 21:14 |
| ewanmellor | dendrobates: Thanks! | 21:14 |
| ttx | #info We have 23 merge proposals open on Nova, 2 on Glance and 4 on Swift. | 21:14 |
| ttx | Hopefully the recent nova-core additions and the set up of daily reviewers will help in clearing the backlog. | 21:14 |
| ttx | On the stabilization effort: | 21:14 |
| ttx | #info 39 new bugs filed, 28 bugfixes merged over the last week | 21:15 |
| *** jk0 has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:15 | |
| ttx | That's quite impressive. | 21:15 |
| *** jk0_ has quit IRC | 21:15 | |
| ttx | Specail thanks to newcomers that help test, file and fix bugs | 21:15 |
| *** justinsb has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:15 | |
| ttx | Any question on the Cactus release status ? | 21:16 |
| ttx | alrighty | 21:16 |
| ttx | #topic Nova 2011.1.1 release status | 21:16 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Nova 2011.1.1 release status" | 21:16 | |
| *** berendt has quit IRC | 21:16 | |
| ttx | So we are now ready to land branches at https://code.launchpad.net/~hudson-openstack/nova/bexar/+activereviews -- please review and approve them, if possible today | 21:17 |
| ttx | #action nova-core to review and approve proposals blocking 2011.1.1 | 21:17 |
| ttx | If that's done, I'll generate candidate tarballs and Ubuntu packages tomorrow, which we'll use to test that the targeted bugs have indeed been fixed, and that we didn't introduce regressions. | 21:17 |
| ttx | I'll ping some of you for bugfix validation. Everyone else feel free to spend some cycles on checking the candidates when they will be available. | 21:18 |
| ttx | If everything goes well, we'll release Nova 2011.1.1 early next week. | 21:18 |
| ttx | Questions ? | 21:18 |
| soren | Nope. | 21:18 |
| ttx | #topic Review days for nova-core | 21:19 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Review days for nova-core" | 21:19 | |
| ttx | soren: floor is yours. | 21:19 |
| *** berendt has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:19 | |
| soren | Cool. | 21:20 |
| soren | So, the proposal that's been floating on the mailing list is that each day, there will be a member of nova-core who's responsible for doing reviews. | 21:20 |
| soren | Everyone else is still encouraged to do reviews, of course. | 21:21 |
| soren | It's meant as a tool to guarantee that proposed branches don't rot because noone wants to look at them. | 21:21 |
| soren | If it's your review day, you have to review stuff that is still outstanding. | 21:21 |
| soren | As a corrolary, if you're not ready to accept this responsibility, you don't get to be part of nova-core anymore. | 21:22 |
| *** berendt_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:22 | |
| soren | That ensures currency of that team. | 21:22 |
| justinsb | Do we need one or two core approves to get something merged? | 21:22 |
| soren | Two. | 21:22 |
| creiht | It seems a bit silly to me to have "assigned days" | 21:22 |
| termie | There was a different (though not exclusive) proposal to require core devs to explicitly target their reviews to people appropriate for the review | 21:22 |
| soren | So if the branch is perfect, it should never take more than two days to get something merged. | 21:22 |
| vishy | soren: If the review is about an unfamiliar section of the code, should the guideline be to review for coding style and explicitely target someone who is familiar with that section? | 21:23 |
| jk0 | I like the idea of targeting core reviewers | 21:23 |
| soren | I think it would be perfectly reasonable for the first person reviewing that branch to target other reviewers. | 21:23 |
| jk0 | it might take one person out of context 10x as long to review code | 21:23 |
| justinsb | Why don't we have two people 'on base', so that things can get done same-day? | 21:23 |
| soren | Like, if it's a network related one, you might expliclity add vishy as a reviewer. | 21:23 |
| kpepple | soren: +1 | 21:23 |
| creiht | Would it also be reasonable to have 2 reviews, with at least 1 core reviewer? | 21:24 |
| creiht | That would seem to encourage outside reviews more | 21:24 |
| termie | justinsb: i don't think same day is always the best if the extra day lets somebody with relevant opinions get a chance to look at it | 21:24 |
| creiht | otherwise, a non-core review seems pointless | 21:24 |
| soren | creiht: So far, the requirement has been two core devs. | 21:24 |
| creiht | soren: I know, that's why I am offering an alternative | 21:24 |
| jk0 | creiht: ++, that leaves little incentive for non-core reviews | 21:24 |
| *** berendt has quit IRC | 21:24 | |
| termie | creiht: non-core reviews still elicit changes in the code | 21:24 |
| soren | creiht: Reviews are not only a tool for getting stuff merged. It's a way for reviewer and proposer to both improve. | 21:24 |
| soren | creiht: So no, I wouldn't say a non-core review is pointless at all. | 21:25 |
| jk0 | not pointless, but it might be harder to get non-core reviews | 21:25 |
| soren | creiht: Oh, right I see what you're saying. | 21:25 |
| creiht | soren: From the reviewers point of view, it feels pointless | 21:25 |
| ttx | incentive for non-core reviews is to get noticed as a potential -core member | 21:25 |
| justinsb | How about this: there's a daily core reviewer that does a faster first review (for style etc), and they ping the domain-expert core member once it's OK in terms of style. | 21:25 |
| soren | creiht: With all due respect, then I think you're doing review wrong :) | 21:25 |
| ttx | you have to do non-core reviews to convince people that you're a good reviewer | 21:25 |
| termie | justinsb: that sounds pretty good | 21:25 |
| creiht | wow | 21:26 |
| vishy | justinsb: +1, they can also do extensive reviews for the parts of code that they are familiar with | 21:26 |
| creiht | I'm just trying to get more interest in getting outsiders to review | 21:26 |
| creiht | but meh | 21:26 |
| jk0 | here's another way to look at it | 21:26 |
| vishy | soren: i think he's talking about the non-core reviewers POV | 21:26 |
| jk0 | personally I am more familiar with xenapi, and have no dev envs available for testing kvm (for example) | 21:26 |
| creiht | glad trunk never breaks for nova because you have 2 *core* reviewers | 21:26 |
| jk0 | how can one do a thorough kvm review w/o having a kvm test env? | 21:27 |
| vishy | soren: as in if you aren't in core, why bother to review, because it doesn't "seem" to help | 21:27 |
| soren | creiht: The "problem" is that we have no group in between nova-core and "complete stranger who happens to manage to click a button on a web ui". | 21:27 |
| termie | vishy, soren, creiht: reviews help as much as contributing code | 21:27 |
| termie | contirbuting code does not require core status, neither does reviewing | 21:28 |
| ttx | vishy: maybe we should make it more obvious that it helps, even if it doesn't strictly count toward acceptance ? | 21:28 |
| vishy | termie: i understand that, but to a new contributor i can see how it would feel "pointless" | 21:28 |
| soren | vishy: What termie says, basically. | 21:28 |
| creiht | termie: I agree, and is why I am making suggestions in an effort to try to increase the chance that you get others to review | 21:28 |
| vishy | ttx: +1 | 21:28 |
| creiht | soren: I would suggest that it would be the core reviewer who would determine if an outsiders review is reasonable | 21:28 |
| soren | The point of review isn't one of gatekeeping. It's just as much about improving as a programmer and to get to learn the code base. This is true for both reviewer and proposer. | 21:28 |
| jk0 | any feedback on not being able to give a thorough review if you don't have a particular test env? | 21:28 |
| ttx | My point is that if you want to join nova-core, you should do "community" reviews, that should help with your application | 21:29 |
| termie | ttx: one could think of it this way: it is unlikely that points raised in a treview by a non-core member would not be addressed | 21:29 |
| vishy | can we create a master list somewhere (wiki perhaps) of sections of the code, where people can mention that they want to be included in reviews about a section | 21:29 |
| vishy | the daily person can use the list to assign one (or more) specific reviews | 21:29 |
| soren | vishy: That sounds like a good idea. | 21:29 |
| ttx | we clearly need reference docs about reviews :) | 21:29 |
| creiht | a review board! | 21:30 |
| vishy | ttx: i think termie volunteered to do that | 21:30 |
| termie | ttx: that's an action item for me | 21:30 |
| creiht | :) | 21:30 |
| soren | Does anyone have strong feelings against the corolary? | 21:30 |
| soren | "corollary" | 21:30 |
| jk0 | I have a concern | 21:30 |
| jk0 | any feedback on not being able to give a thorough review if you don't have a particular test env? | 21:30 |
| soren | Shoot. | 21:30 |
| vishy | jk0: style review + request a specific review from someone | 21:30 |
| termie | jk0: point the review at somebody else so they can check also | 21:30 |
| jk0 | I personally like to test as much as possible unless it's an obvious one-liner | 21:31 |
| vishy | using the wiki | 21:31 |
| soren | jk0: It kind of feeds back into our need for better test infrastructure. | 21:31 |
| vishy | +3 for functional testing of arbitrary branches | 21:31 |
| soren | jk0: Ideally, we | 21:31 |
| soren | 'd have means for testing any/all sort of setup. | 21:31 |
| * creiht would hope someone actually tries to run the code they review | 21:31 | |
| jk0 | creiht: that's my point.. right now, we really can't | 21:32 |
| jk0 | so I think that wiki would be a good idea | 21:32 |
| soren | jk0: Do you have specific examples? | 21:32 |
| jk0 | yep, for example we only use XenServer in our labs | 21:32 |
| termie | soren, jk0: his specific examples were kvm vs xen | 21:32 |
| jk0 | so there's no way for us to test something that requires kvm or anything else like that | 21:32 |
| ttx | I think we are drifting from the main subject, which is "review days, yes or no" | 21:32 |
| *** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk | 21:33 | |
| jk0 | I think the review days would work if we ensured we all had the appropriate testing envs | 21:33 |
| soren | creiht: Re: your suggestion above: Do you have a specific proposal? How would you differentiate between someone who just created an lp account and went and randomly clicked approve on stuff vs someone who's actually a useful reviewer? | 21:33 |
| ttx | jk0: oh, I see your point. | 21:33 |
| vishy | +1 for review days (with primary job being to find another tester if you can't test it) | 21:33 |
| ttx | jk0: currently you have the choice to ignore branches you can't test | 21:34 |
| justinsb | I don't think a reviewer can ever test all environments, so that implies that we'll need to have automated testing. Which also implies that trunk is going to be 'unstable'. Once it passes testing, we could auto-merge it with a 'tested-trunk' branch | 21:34 |
| ttx | jk0: with the proposal, if you can't test you have to point the review to someone that can. | 21:34 |
| jk0 | that sounds good to me | 21:35 |
| soren | Reposting: Does anyone have strong feelings against the corollary (removing people from nova-core that cannot accept a review day every N days (where N is the number of human beings on the nova-core team)? | 21:35 |
| ttx | jk0: not perfect by any means, but probably better that what we have now | 21:35 |
| jk0 | it should work -- we just need that wiki vishy mentioned where everyone lists their preferences | 21:35 |
| creiht | It is my opinion that if you have to assign days to people to get reviews done, then you are doing it wrong | 21:35 |
| ttx | soren: someone should be able to skip one day for various reasons without losing -core | 21:36 |
| soren | ttx: Certainly. | 21:36 |
| soren | creiht: We saw it very clearly coming up to feature freeze last time. | 21:36 |
| soren | creiht: Very few people were doing reviews. Most were just working on their own, new features. | 21:37 |
| creiht | I'm not saying the problem wasn't there, I just don't think that is the right way to solve it | 21:37 |
| eday | creiht: I kind of agree, what if we have lots of API branches, but all the API experts don't have a "day" for a while? Seems like we should keep it open and just point folks out more | 21:37 |
| jk0 | perhaps we should just try targeting reviews for a while before assigning days? | 21:38 |
| jk0 | set that wiki up, see who can review it, and point it to them | 21:38 |
| annegentle | soren: you'd have to run a schedule and have people swap review days if it landed on a day they couldn't do | 21:38 |
| annegentle | soren: I think you'll have to have a certain percentage of missed review days before removing from core | 21:38 |
| justinsb | ttx: Or they could swap! | 21:38 |
| soren | eday: If the reviewer-of-the-day identifies it as a API sort of branch, they would assign it to API people. If a review is assigned to you, you're not supposed to wait two weeks until your review day comes up. | 21:38 |
| soren | Again, this is not meant as an excuse for people to postpone doing reviews. It's meant to ensure that reviews get done. | 21:39 |
| eday | soren: ok, so it's more of a review manager/assignee (and can handle simple reviews)? | 21:39 |
| creiht | How about everyone do the responsible thing, and get reviews done? | 21:39 |
| creiht | :) | 21:39 |
| soren | annegentle: Sure, sure, we're reasonable people. Mostly. | 21:39 |
| eday | err, assigner | 21:39 |
| ttx | creiht: eh. | 21:39 |
| soren | creiht: I wish it were that simple. | 21:40 |
| soren | eday: I guess you could phrase it that way. | 21:40 |
| eday | soren: I do think giving someone the review cattle prod is a good idea | 21:40 |
| ttx | we can always backpedal if we realize that review days are not efficiently solving the nova review backlog | 21:40 |
| jk0 | in theory there should never be a backlog :) | 21:41 |
| ttx | jk0: exactly. | 21:41 |
| ttx | soren: do you have what you need out of this, can we move on ? | 21:42 |
| soren | Ok, I'll send out an e-mail to all current nova-core members to see if anyone doesn't want to be part of this. If they say no, they're off the team. The rest end up on a schedule on the wiki where people of course are free to swap, etc., etc. | 21:42 |
| soren | ttx: Yes, thanks. | 21:42 |
| ttx | #topic Open discussion | 21:42 |
| creiht | lol | 21:42 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Open discussion" | 21:42 | |
| eday | I'd like to announce the new queue service will be named: burrow | 21:42 |
| creiht | soren: shouldn't that have to go through the POC first? :) | 21:43 |
| vishy | \o/ | 21:43 |
| ttx | we can continue to discuss how much more responsible swift core reviewers are :) | 21:43 |
| * ttx looks up burrow in a dictionary | 21:43 | |
| soren | It's like a warren, isn't it? | 21:43 |
| vishy | soren: aye | 21:43 |
| eday | burrow: A burrow is a hole or tunnel dug into the ground by an animal. | 21:43 |
| vishy | soren: lots of little rabbits? | 21:44 |
| annegentle | nice, it's a noun and a verb :) | 21:44 |
| eday | soren: warren was already taken by a ruby amqp project | 21:44 |
| soren | Imagine that. | 21:44 |
| soren | :) | 21:44 |
| * ttx looks up urbandictionary for funnier definitions | 21:44 | |
| soren | creiht: At this point, I don't know. | 21:44 |
| eday | AND, we'll be going with Erlang. More later on the ML, but there seems to be more enthusiasm there. If it is a mistake, we'll make the mistake faster with Erlang too :) | 21:45 |
| eday | if you're an Erlang pro and want to be on the burrow-core list for reviews, let me know :) | 21:46 |
| * vishy is not a pro, but I'll subscribe nonetheless | 21:47 | |
| vishy | POC isn't necessary for internal project decisions | 21:47 |
| creiht | vishy: My only question was on core team removal | 21:48 |
| vishy | but we may need to draft the proposal | 21:48 |
| creiht | true | 21:48 |
| vishy | because it overrides the POC one | 21:48 |
| *** Daviey has quit IRC | 21:49 | |
| *** Adri2000 has quit IRC | 21:49 | |
| *** arun has quit IRC | 21:49 | |
| *** kpepple has quit IRC | 21:49 | |
| *** xtoddx has quit IRC | 21:49 | |
| *** kpepple has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:50 | |
| *** xtoddx has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:50 | |
| *** arun has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:50 | |
| *** Adri2000 has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:50 | |
| *** Daviey has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:50 | |
| ttx | "to be lazy, lame, or without purpose." | 21:50 |
| ttx | sounds good. | 21:50 |
| ttx | any other news people want to share before we close the bar ? | 21:50 |
| ttx | #info the new queue service will be named: burrow | 21:50 |
| ttx | ok, I guess we are done | 21:50 |
| ttx | #endmeeting | 21:50 |
| ttx | Thanks everyone! | 21:50 |
| * ttx wonders if MeetBot recorded that one with the splits. | 21:50 | |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Openstack Meetings: http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/" | 21:50 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Tue Feb 22 21:50:30 2011 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 21:50 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-02-22-21.01.html | 21:50 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-02-22-21.01.txt | 21:50 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-02-22-21.01.log.html | 21:50 |
| soren | lol | 21:50 |
| soren | Don't know if it's just the server I'm connected to, but those 8 things from ttx arrived simultaneously. | 21:51 |
| ttx | ah. | 21:51 |
| *** annegentle has left #openstack-meeting | 21:51 | |
| *** ewanmellor has quit IRC | 21:51 | |
| soren | Very effcient way to close a meeting :) | 21:51 |
| ttx | nobody was answering me :) | 21:51 |
| *** creiht has left #openstack-meeting | 21:52 | |
| * ttx should ask his Freenode friends to move the maintenance window out of our meeting | 21:52 | |
| *** jk0 has left #openstack-meeting | 21:52 | |
| *** littleidea has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:54 | |
| *** berendt_ has left #openstack-meeting | 21:55 | |
| *** eday has left #openstack-meeting | 21:56 | |
| *** hub_cap has quit IRC | 21:57 | |
| *** glenc has quit IRC | 23:38 | |
| *** glenc has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:39 | |
| *** romain_lenglet_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:51 | |
| *** romain_lenglet_ has quit IRC | 23:54 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.14.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!