| gmann | :) | 00:05 |
|---|---|---|
| spotz | Yeah I shufflled a few to the top and will order those that I like | 00:16 |
| *** lajoskatona_ is now known as lajoskatona | 00:31 | |
| *** odyssey4me is now known as Guest652 | 12:40 | |
| jungleboyj | gmann: I got it. Thank you! | 14:17 |
| jungleboyj | For those that want to give input on the Z release name: https://twitter.com/jungleboyj/status/1486344910693441541 | 14:27 |
| *** dansmith is now known as Guest661 | 14:38 | |
| dansmith_ | gmann: so, this is working: https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/grenade/+/826101/5 | 16:09 |
| dansmith_ | gmann: I assume at some point we need to reconvene a meeting of people interested in a tick-tock release plan to settle on .. a plan | 16:09 |
| *** dansmith_ is now known as dansmith | 16:09 | |
| gmann | dansmith: nice, thanks for working on that. yeah, how about scheduling it next week or 2nd week of feb? | 17:12 |
| dansmith | gmann: sure, sounds good | 17:35 |
| dansmith | maybe we can ask for interested parties in the meeting tomorrow | 17:35 |
| gmann | sure. | 17:43 |
| *** dansmith is now known as Guest688 | 19:01 | |
| ade_lee__ | Guest688, gmann - hey - would be great to get review/+1 on https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/governance/+/816587 | 19:40 |
| ade_lee__ | I think we're almost there? | 19:40 |
| *** Guest688 is now known as dansmith | 19:40 | |
| *** dansmith is now known as dansmith_ | 19:41 | |
| *** dansmith_ is now known as dansmith | 19:41 | |
| dansmith | ade_lee__: ack, added to tab queue | 19:42 |
| ade_lee__ | mnaser, ricolin ^^ | 19:42 |
| ade_lee__ | dansmith, thanks | 19:42 |
| dansmith | so does anyone know how to get gerrit to stop showing old comments? | 19:44 |
| dansmith | assume it's because of the upgrade yesterday, but I've just been ignoring them all day | 19:45 |
| fungi | can you elaborate on what you mean by "old comments"? | 19:45 |
| fungi | what is it showing that it didn't previously? | 19:45 |
| dansmith | seems like it now shows comments from old patchsets, either where they go in the file, or stacked at the top under "original comment position not found in this patchset" | 19:45 |
| fungi | have an example? i rarely use the webui so an not sure quite what you're describing | 19:46 |
| dansmith | https://imgur.com/a/GrVD9F1 | 19:47 |
| dansmith | every comment that no longer applies is stacked at the top, in a non-sensical manner as you can see | 19:47 |
| dansmith | "from patcheset 2" | 19:47 |
| dansmith | the ones that still fit, are shown inline, even though this is patchset 5 and they're no longer valid | 19:47 |
| dansmith | everything I've looked at today is like this | 19:47 |
| fungi | interesting, so it's trying to thread together comments from earlier patchsets | 19:47 |
| fungi | clarkb: ^ do you recall seeing that called out in the release notes? | 19:48 |
| fungi | i'm checking to see if i can find a preference toggle for it | 19:48 |
| clarkb | 3.3 did that too and I think 3.2 | 19:49 |
| clarkb | I don't think that is new to this ugprade but to polygerrit | 19:49 |
| clarkb | it doesn't know where to place them so it does its "best" | 19:49 |
| dansmith | I've never seen this before today, fwiw | 19:49 |
| clarkb | I definitely saw it on 3.3 in the past | 19:49 |
| dansmith | it's horribly distracting | 19:49 |
| clarkb | fuzzier if it was on 3.2, but I'm fairly certain this isn't a new thing I think it came with polygerrit | 19:50 |
| dansmith | surely there's some way to turn it off? | 19:50 |
| clarkb | I don't think so? I don't know what else gerrit could do? | 19:50 |
| dansmith | not show me comments from six months ago that no longer apply? | 19:50 |
| dansmith | I'm confused | 19:50 |
| clarkb | oh! I see | 19:51 |
| dansmith | that screenshot is patchset 5, why do I need to see typo comments from patchset 2? | 19:51 |
| clarkb | I thought you meant render in some other location | 19:51 |
| clarkb | the reaosn for that is because they are all unresolved | 19:51 |
| dansmith | so we have to resolve every comment manually now? | 19:51 |
| clarkb | If someone resolves those comments it shouldn't try to show them to you anymore iirc | 19:51 |
| dansmith | that's a whole lotta clicking | 19:52 |
| clarkb | well not each comment, I think it does them by thread. But ya | 19:52 |
| fungi | is that related to the "attention set" stuff from 3.3? | 19:52 |
| clarkb | fungi: it might be. | 19:52 |
| dansmith | that's madness | 19:52 |
| clarkb | actually ya I think that is the underlying feature | 19:52 |
| fungi | like if you're not in the attention set for a comment you don't need to resolve it? | 19:52 |
| clarkb | because it needs to keep track of who's atetntion is required | 19:52 |
| dansmith | I don't even reply to comments that I'm just going to fix, like typos especially | 19:52 |
| fungi | dansmith: if it helps, i'm the same way | 19:53 |
| fungi | i rarely reply to comments if i'm just going to do whatever they ask | 19:53 |
| clarkb | well gertty gets this "wrong" by resolving all of its comments and dangling the comments it responds to | 19:53 |
| clarkb | But ya I think the idea is to feed info to attention sets so that people know who needs to go next on a change | 19:53 |
| dansmith | fungi: I mean seriously, that's like a ton of clicking on each PS revision now, and either (a) you have to chase people to resolve their comments so you can read the thing, or someone else marks them resolved who didn't actually resolve them | 19:54 |
| dansmith | either way, we'll wear out our mouse buttons | 19:54 |
| fungi | it certainly does seem inconvenient | 19:55 |
| clarkb | https://gerrit-review.googlesource.com/Documentation/user-attention-set.html are the docs on it | 19:56 |
| fungi | any ideas on how we can make it less of a treadmill? | 19:56 |
| clarkb | it mentions unresolved comments for merged and abandoned changes | 19:56 |
| dansmith | "but you can disable it by setting enableAttentionSet to false." | 19:56 |
| clarkb | I mean I haven't had any problems with it... I dunno what I'm doing differently | 19:56 |
| dansmith | that disables all of the attention stuff I assume, but tbh that has been noise since it was introduced, IMHO | 19:57 |
| dansmith | I don't know anyone specifically using it | 19:57 |
| clarkb | and I work with a lot of people that use gertty which gets it completely wrong :) | 19:57 |
| clarkb | dansmith: my biggest concern with globally disabling it is gerrit has a habit of introducing these features then force enabling them a few releases later | 19:57 |
| fungi | yeah, i expect gertty's commenting functionality needs a fresh coat of paint since the switch to patchset level comments and all that | 19:58 |
| clarkb | it is better for us to give them feedback through use and improve it. Than ignore it until we can't anymore then be stuck with something more broken | 19:58 |
| dansmith | yeah, I'm sure that's an eventuality, but still.. | 19:58 |
| dansmith | I mean, I wish there was at least a user pref to "hide unresolved comments from a billion years ago" | 19:58 |
| clarkb | ya or even if we made it so the default state of a comment was resolved or somet third state of "don't put this in the binary resolved toggling treadmill" | 19:59 |
| clarkb | I can write an email to their mailing list providing this input to see if they have any good ideas for improving it | 20:00 |
| dansmith | cool, seems like there should be a middle ground between "treadmill" and "global nuke of all attention set features" | 20:00 |
| dansmith | clarkb: thank you for doing that on our behalf | 20:01 |
| clarkb | basically Most of our users don't use the unresolved resolved togging of comments through their back and forth interactions as they have many years of experience with older gerrit that didn't have this functionality and it leads to a lot of mouse clicking. One problem with this is that unresolved comments from ancient patchsets continue to show up on new patchsets even though | 20:02 |
| clarkb | they are no longer revelant and the original comment position cannot be found. Is there some way we can make the default state of a comments "resolved" or some new state that isn't expected to be explicitly toggled later? Maybe the necessary changes can be made on a per user basis? | 20:02 |
| clarkb | dansmith: any concern with me sharing your imgur link? | 20:02 |
| fungi | fwiw, i like that gertty automatically resolves any comments when a new patchset is pushed, though i agree the threading could use work | 20:04 |
| clarkb | fungi: I don't like it because it orphans the comments you are replying to | 20:04 |
| clarkb | fungi: I haven't been able to figure out how to resolve a comment if it has been replied to by gertty | 20:05 |
| clarkb | But its not the end of the world I basically just accept the comment threads will have two colors mixed throughout | 20:05 |
| fungi | yeah, ideally pushing a new patchset would automatically resolve any unresolved comments from previous revisions | 20:06 |
| fungi | that was effectively the behavior before 3.3, i think | 20:06 |
| fungi | since comments from earlier patchsets weren't displayed | 20:07 |
| dansmith | clarkb: no, but let me get you another | 20:15 |
| dansmith | because the things at the top are annoying, but the real annoying ones are the 6mo old ones in the middle | 20:16 |
| clarkb | got it | 20:16 |
| dansmith | https://imgur.com/a/KtQOnYu | 20:17 |
| dansmith | patchset 16, showing unresolved comments from patchset 5, from last summer | 20:17 |
| fungi | that really does help make the case ;) | 20:23 |
| dansmith | ...yeah... | 20:31 |
| clarkb | fungi: dansmith: https://groups.google.com/g/repo-discuss/c/evFgN3tTwxE/m/t9B5UOcSAQAJ hopefully I captured that properly | 22:31 |
| dansmith | clarkb: sure, looks great, thanks for doing that | 22:42 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.17.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!