19:02:59 <mtaylor> #startmeeting 19:03:00 <openstack> Meeting started Tue Jan 10 19:02:59 2012 UTC. The chair is mtaylor. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 19:03:01 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. 19:03:46 <mtaylor> ayoung: do we need to add you to keystone-drivers team? 19:04:09 <jeblair> proposed item: vishy suggested: 19:04:10 <jeblair> 22:15 < vishy> jeblair: also is it possible to just put a note on the merge prop instead of blocking propsing for people that haven't signed the cla 19:04:24 <mtaylor> hrm 19:04:53 <mtaylor> I think honestly we might want to get a legal opinion from someone ... 19:05:17 <jeblair> here's why i don't want to do it that way: 19:05:22 <mtaylor> AIUI, the CLA is a requirement for contributing, and it could be argued that uploading that patch to gerrit is a contribution, whether it gets merged or not 19:05:39 <jeblair> 1) it's very clear upfront what is required _before_ you submit something 19:06:04 <jeblair> (what you said is a similar thought, i think, but even stronger) 19:06:27 <mtaylor> should we get a legal opinion from someone who isn't NAL? 19:06:33 <jeblair> 2) it's an extra hurdle people have to go through before they start using our resources 19:06:59 <jeblair> ie, i feel a little more comfortable about running pre-commit jobs on things if everyone who uploads has gone through the cla process 19:07:13 <mtaylor> that's a good point too 19:07:25 <mtaylor> and we don't need a lawyer for that one 19:07:46 <mtaylor> also - it's only really a bitch right now while we're cleaning up the cla membership for folks who are already contributors 19:07:48 <jeblair> i mean, it's no guarantee about their intentions, but it's obvious cost prohibitive to run a spambot operation using our jenkins slaves if you have to commit purjury every time you want to do it. 19:07:56 <jeblair> i agree with that as well. 19:08:00 <mtaylor> I doubt it's going to be ongoingly annyoing 19:08:28 <jeblair> 3) other large projects with CLAs get them out of the way up-front; eg, android 19:09:13 <mtaylor> jeblair: also, from that timestamp - you were working late last night :) 19:09:16 <jeblair> 3b) the built in gerrit method of handling CLAs, which I think is fairly friendly, and we should move to if we want to keep the cla in the long term (perhaps after the lawyers have a break after setting up the foundation) also does CLA upfront 19:09:30 <jeblair> (end of list) 19:09:39 * mtaylor agrees with jeblair's list 19:09:56 <jeblair> yeah, devstack gating job wasn't behaving well: 19:09:57 <jeblair> https://review.openstack.org/#change,2929 19:10:02 <jeblair> that should help 19:10:24 <jeblair> (or more specifically, RS public cloud wasn't behaving well, that should work around the problem) 19:11:10 <mtaylor> looks good 19:11:51 <mtaylor> so - speaking of requests ... we got a request from notmyname which I filed a bug for 19:12:10 <mtaylor> which is to not have votes generate automatic comment text 19:13:00 <mtaylor> I think most specifically -1 and -2 were the ones that initially generated annoyance, and the original request was to change their text ... but then as the conversation went on, the request changed to just having them not generate text at all 19:13:34 <jeblair> for jenkins, or for people? 19:14:03 <mtaylor> for people 19:14:06 <mtaylor> 10:54 <notmyname> " I don't really understand why I need/want an automated comment for my comment field I'm filling out." 19:15:03 <jeblair> does he just not want email, or also doesn't want it to show up in the web history? 19:15:36 <mtaylor> I think he doesn't want the text "I would prefer you didn't submit this" to be pre-pended to the comments that the reviewer actually writes 19:16:00 <mtaylor> so that the review would actually just be the words that the reviewer typed 19:16:49 <jeblair> ok. so those serve an important function in that they record the voting history for a review 19:17:09 <jeblair> without them, you would not be able to see that someone had, say, voted -1, then voted +2 later 19:17:22 <mtaylor> isn't that recorded by the actual +1/-1 vote? ... AH 19:17:25 <mtaylor> ok, gotcha 19:17:34 <jeblair> however, that text is easily configurable. 19:18:26 <jeblair> http://paste.openstack.org/show/4214/ 19:18:40 <jeblair> ^ current values. 19:18:40 <uvirtbot> jeblair: Error: "current" is not a valid command. 19:19:40 <jeblair> mtaylor: bug number? 19:19:49 <mtaylor> jeblair: ok - I'll try to get some feedback on what "better" values might be 19:20:16 <mtaylor> 914431 19:20:31 <mtaylor> #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/openstack-ci/+bug/914431 19:20:32 <uvirtbot> Launchpad bug 914431 in openstack-ci "remove automatic comment text from reviews" [Low,Triaged] 19:22:17 <jeblair> i updated the bug with my comments here. 19:22:27 <mtaylor> awesome 19:22:39 <mtaylor> #topic New Team Member 19:22:49 <mtaylor> for anyone who happens to be lurking - I'd like to welcome LinuxJedi to the team 19:22:50 <heckj> ?? cool 19:22:59 <LinuxJedi> hi :) 19:23:07 <LinuxJedi> mtaylor: thanks :) 19:23:16 <jeblair> welcome! 19:23:18 <heckj> welcome! 19:23:35 <mtaylor> LinuxJedi and I worked together back at MySQL AB, and then as core devs on Drizzle. he's awesome, you're all going to love him 19:24:22 <LinuxJedi> lol, not sure about that, but I'll do my best to bring some awesomeness to our team :) 19:24:29 <mtaylor> :) 19:25:01 <mtaylor> and on that note ... 19:25:10 <mtaylor> #topic expiring stale reviews 19:25:24 <heckj> +1-00! 19:25:25 <LinuxJedi> ah, my new pet script 19:25:53 <mtaylor> LinuxJedi has written some code to expire stale reviews ... we're currently going with stale == no activity for 2 weeks OR bad review plus no activity for 1 week 19:26:02 <mtaylor> anybody have any dissent on those timeframes? 19:26:20 <jeblair> i think the script is looking great so far. i'm not sure if i have dissent, as such... 19:26:22 <jeblair> but i am worried. 19:26:47 <LinuxJedi> jeblair: sorry about expiring almost everything on the dev site ;) 19:26:50 <heckj> that timeframe seems pretty reasonable to me - there's a lot of "old crap" out there now. 19:26:50 <jeblair> mtaylor: i'm not sure our patches to quantum will land in that timeframe, for instance. 19:27:00 <jeblair> LinuxJedi: no! great! that saves me so much clicking! 19:27:14 <heckj> I thought one of you hit the mailing list and received some consensus on that timing too... 19:27:18 <mtaylor> jeblair: no? 19:27:27 <mtaylor> heckj: did we? 19:27:33 <jeblair> but since you can always 'un-abandon' a review, so it's not like too much is lost. 19:27:48 <LinuxJedi> mtaylor: jaypipes updated the review to say he was happy now I think 19:27:51 <heckj> Am i recalling just an IRC conversation then? 19:28:02 <mtaylor> heckj: might have been IRC convo 19:28:02 <jaypipes> LinuxJedi: I'm always happy with you :) 19:28:12 <LinuxJedi> lol! :) 19:28:48 <mtaylor> jeblair: I agree re: un-abandon - I think it's safe enough to roll out and then deal with carnage as it happens, yeah/ 19:28:54 <jeblair> but right now, gerrit does have the useful feature of showing me patches that i've submitted that people are slacking off on. in the future, people will have to watch out for reviews being expired and take action. 19:29:36 <LinuxJedi> mtaylor: I need to do one more minor update to it today anyway (info logging goes to stdout at the moment so you will get lots of cron mail) so if timing needs to be changed then tonight is a good time to do it 19:29:39 <mtaylor> jeblair: we could add a new status :) 19:29:58 <mtaylor> jeblair: "stale" :) 19:30:16 <heckj> can we hide that state by default? 19:30:35 <mtaylor> LinuxJedi: awesome. I think 2 weeks/1 week is fine for a start 19:30:48 <jeblair> mtaylor is being slightly facetious -- adding a state is hard, but we're looking into adding "work in progress" nonetheless. 19:30:51 <mtaylor> heckj: oh, I was mostly kidding about that - jeblair is already working on adding a "work in progress" state 19:30:57 <mtaylor> jinx 19:31:03 <jeblair> i think stale is overkill, abandon is probably the right thing here. 19:31:04 <heckj> Oh - okay :-) 19:31:04 <LinuxJedi> mtaylor: cool, very easy to tune later. I can always update the script at a later date to use a config file to set it 19:31:18 <mtaylor> LinuxJedi: good point 19:31:45 <mtaylor> LinuxJedi: hey, as soon as you're happy with that script you get to write a puppet config patch! yay for first-week learning curve! :) 19:32:17 <LinuxJedi> mtaylor: yep, I was just about to look at that before I had to leave earlier, will try and get a peak tonight 19:33:11 <mtaylor> LinuxJedi: you're going to love it 19:33:33 <LinuxJedi> mtaylor: and learning a new programming language to write the thing was more learning that I expected to do already this week, let alone everything else ;) 19:34:04 * mtaylor has a new goal - make LinuxJedi learn a new langauge every week ... 19:34:12 <jeblair> sounds groovy. 19:34:16 <LinuxJedi> haha :) 19:34:18 <mtaylor> hahah 19:34:40 * LinuxJedi re-writes mtaylor's scripts in brainf**k 19:34:54 <mtaylor> awesome 19:35:49 <mtaylor> jaypipes: jeblair just filed a bug for it, but we're working on your glance config files for S3 testing and whatnot 19:36:39 <jaypipes> mtaylor: rock on brotherman. 19:37:28 <mtaylor> I think that's all we've got for this week 19:37:49 <mtaylor> next week jeblair and I will be in Australia, where this meeting starts at 6am 19:37:55 <mtaylor> so I'm not promising that it's going to happen :) 19:39:03 <mtaylor> #endmeeting