19:01:48 <lifeless> #startmeeting tripleo
19:01:49 <openstack> Meeting started Tue Oct 15 19:01:48 2013 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is lifeless. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
19:01:50 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
19:01:52 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'tripleo'
19:02:13 <lifeless> #topic agenda
19:02:20 <lifeless> bugs
19:02:20 <lifeless> reviews
19:02:20 <lifeless> Projects needing releases
19:02:20 <lifeless> CD Cloud status
19:02:20 <lifeless> CI virtualized testing progress
19:02:22 <lifeless> Discuss latest comments on LXC+ISCSI bug: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/lxc/+bug/1226855
19:02:25 <lifeless> Insert one-off agenda items here
19:02:28 <lifeless> MVP1 retrospective TripleO/TripleOCloud/MVP1Retrospective
19:02:30 <lifeless> MVP2 retrospective TripleO/TripleOCloud/MVP2Retrospective
19:02:33 <lifeless> open discussion
19:02:38 <lifeless> lots of topics today, I'm going to be moving fast, so if you have something to add in a section,, don't wait
19:02:44 <lifeless> #topic bugs
19:02:50 <lifeless> #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/tripleo/
19:02:51 <lifeless> #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/diskimage-builder/
19:02:51 <lifeless> #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/os-refresh-config
19:02:51 <lifeless> #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/os-apply-config
19:02:51 <lifeless> #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/os-collect-config
19:02:53 <lifeless> #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/tuskar
19:02:55 <lifeless> #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/tuskar-ui
19:02:58 <lifeless> #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/python-tuskarclient
19:03:57 <SpamapS> only 1 critical that I see
19:04:22 <SpamapS> and that one is fix committed
19:04:42 <lifeless> bunch of untriaged on tripleo.
19:04:48 <lifeless> And the sad thing is they were filed by ATC
19:04:51 <lifeless> s
19:05:18 <lifeless> Any thoughts on how we can get folk to file bugs triaged ?
19:05:35 <derekh> so should I be able to triage, I'm guessing there should be a edit button beside importance
19:06:10 <Ng> do we necessarily want that? Some people think it's better to capture a bug in any state than hold off from capturing it because it's not fleshed out enough to be triaged
19:06:10 <lifeless> derekh: join ~tripleo on Launchpad, and then you can. And when you file there is an 'other settings' or 'more' or something which lets you set during creation.
19:06:22 <lifeless> Ng: triaged doesn't imply fleshed out.
19:06:37 <SpamapS> lifeless: I believe we can control the "what to put in the bug" message and the "thanks for filing a bug" message, so we can remind people to self-triage in there.
19:06:37 <derekh> lifeless: ahh that explains it
19:06:50 <lifeless> SpamapS: good idea
19:07:02 <SpamapS> I'll look at doing that right now
19:07:04 <lifeless> #action SpamapS to customise the reporting guidelines to encourage self triage
19:07:12 <Ng> lifeless: shouldn't it mean that we at least understand enough about the bug to be able to decide its priority and start fixing it?
19:07:21 <lifeless> Ng: yes, no in order.
19:07:55 <Ng> hmm, ok. not how I've used Triaged in the past, but I'm not opposed to it having that meaning :)
19:08:07 <Ng> (for tripleo at least :)
19:08:08 <lifeless> Ng: think of it in the original context
19:08:12 <lifeless> Ng: will the patient die?
19:08:25 * Ng nods
19:08:30 <lifeless> Ng: quick snap assessment. Then move on.
19:08:51 <derekh> "Only the team's administrators can invite a user to be a member"
19:08:54 <lifeless> We can and will tune bugs further, but having them competely uncategorised just means that I end up triaging them.
19:08:59 <lifeless> derekh: nuts, let me fix that
19:09:38 <lifeless> set to moderated
19:09:40 <lifeless> derekh: ^
19:10:16 * derekh joins ~tripleo
19:10:23 * rpodolyaka1 too
19:10:47 <lifeless> Ng: the consequence of setting a high bar for triage is that you get a massive pool of bugs noone is willing to touch because they are clear/complete/reproducable enough, but some may well be affecting everybody
19:11:09 <lifeless> Ng: clearing up a bug enough to work on it is something you only want to do *when you want to work on it*
19:11:33 <lifeless> and unless you are running short of bugs, thats never the problem. The problem is 'which bugs are most useful to fix' :)
19:11:47 <Ng> fair points, all
19:13:06 <lifeless> #action lifeless to summarise this + team joining and mail to the list
19:13:40 <lifeless> #topic reviews
19:13:47 <lifeless> http://russellbryant.net/openstack-stats/tripleo-openreviews.html
19:13:50 <lifeless> http://russellbryant.net/openstack-stats/tripleo-reviewers-30.txt
19:13:53 <lifeless> http://russellbryant.net/openstack-stats/tripleo-reviewers-90.txt
19:14:50 <lifeless> Median wait time: 1 days, 0 hours, 21 minutes
19:14:51 <lifeless> 3rd quartile wait time: 3 days, 11 hours, 41 minutes
19:15:03 <lifeless> We're losing ground
19:15:12 <lifeless> thats under
19:15:13 <lifeless> Stats since the last revision without -1 or -2 (ignoring jenkins):
19:15:39 <lifeless> 
19:15:39 <lifeless> Longest waiting reviews (based on oldest rev without nack, ignoring jenkins):
19:15:42 <lifeless> 7 days, 12 hours, 29 minutes https://review.openstack.org/50010 (Fix a couple of default config values)
19:16:14 <SpamapS> lifeless: the MVP push has narrowed our review focus and we're glossing over rather than driving to 0 I think.
19:16:15 <lifeless> Is everyone in core using the link on https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/TripleO#Review_team ?
19:16:44 <lifeless> SpamapS: most of the tuskar oriented folk are -core
19:17:06 <lifeless> SpamapS: and that 7 days one hasn't been +2'd or -1'd ; I've +2'd it.
19:17:13 <Ng> I am using the link, but I am still ignoring tuskar reviews because I still haven't poked at it
19:17:39 <lifeless> Ng: can I suggest you give +1's and -1's at least?
19:17:42 <SpamapS> Was not using the link, but it is not far off rom my "watched changes" minus heat.
19:17:52 <Ng> lifeless: you can, I will do so
19:18:29 <lsmola_> I am reviewing only tuskar, for now
19:18:30 <Ng> lifeless: if you were to knock https://review.openstack.org/#/c/50431/2 in the affirmatory, that would clear two of our oldest reviews :)
19:18:34 <lifeless> so, SpamapS you raise an interesting point, at least for the folk doing tripleo-cd mvp's.
19:18:55 <lifeless> which is do we keep driving reviews to 0 ?
19:19:33 <lifeless> SpamapS: I think we should. The kanban provides focus, but it doesn't replace our responsibility for things we've already shipped, or for team maintenance and growth
19:19:34 <SpamapS> I think we should still devote time to it. We just may not devote as much time to it.
19:20:11 <lifeless> SpamapS: so, when we sketched this, we said
19:20:14 <lifeless> unblock bottlenecks first, then unblock everyone else.
19:20:15 <lifeless> folk are still self directed - it's open source - but clear
19:20:25 <lifeless> SpamapS: I think doing reviews counts as unblocking everyone else
19:20:47 <lifeless> SpamapS: so my personal view on this is that we should review all firedrill reviews first
19:20:51 <lifeless> then all CD related reviews
19:20:56 <lifeless> then all reviews in the project
19:21:02 <lifeless> with drive-to-0 mentality
19:21:37 <SpamapS> +1 from me on that plan
19:21:50 <lifeless> lsmola_: I think it's very important that tuskar folk really understand whats going on in the rest of tripleo - whats holding you back from reviewing across the full set of projects?
19:21:53 <derekh> I agree with the order, just worry we've been a little too aggressive causing regression to creep in
19:22:09 <lifeless> SpamapS: It means less personal bandwidth for CD/MVP contributions, but more team bandwidth.
19:22:45 <SpamapS> derekh: agreed on that as well, though I think the regressions have been contained _mostly_ to tripleo-incubator
19:22:46 <lifeless> SpamapS: If the team as a whole doesn't dig in and share review load, then we can revisit this.
19:22:57 <lsmola_> lifeless, well I have been trying devtest last two weeks, so now I am still gaining confidence :-)
19:23:08 <slagle> i'm fine with the review priority, as, i still feel the average review time is pretty good
19:23:31 <SpamapS> derekh: and overall, we have a more tested solution because we have been aggressive and pushed to have a real live cloud deploying all the time.
19:23:33 <slagle> *proposed review priority, i mean
19:24:24 <lsmola_> lifeless, most of us will be testing stuff we are preparing for hongkong in like next 3 weeks, so we might not have many new patches or reviews
19:24:38 <lifeless> derekh: it's true, there have been regressions. as we work down the stack towards CI, I think that will get solved
19:24:44 <derekh> SpamapS: yup true but we've left behind the seed and undercloud , so were only catching things on the top of the stack (which is better then nothing)
19:24:58 <lifeless> lsmola_: thats fine, but reviewers have to scale as contributors do
19:25:01 <derekh> yup more CI will solve the problem
19:25:26 <lifeless> lsmola_: if you only review a thin slice, the contribution becomes asymmetric.
19:25:54 <lifeless> lsmola_: an explicit goal for me is to see as many of tuskar folk remain tripleo-core as possible, but that means:
19:26:09 <SpamapS> derekh: yeah, we went from a broad comprehensive defense strategy to a tactical surgical strike strategy. :)
19:26:16 <lifeless> - contributing as -core in a sustained period (e.g. a review a day minimum)
19:26:29 <lifeless> - and learning about the other components (by participating in reviews)
19:26:44 <lsmola_> lifeless, true that, though right now I could do just code review, so checking good programming style, cause I don know how to test most of the stuff, but I am getting into it
19:26:59 * jistr will try to lose flaps on eyes focused towards tuskarclient and do reviews elsewhere too
19:27:23 <jistr> lsmola_: yeah that's my concern too. I don't know how to test the other stuff properly.
19:27:37 <jistr> but i'll try to start at least with +/-1
19:27:46 <lifeless> lsmola_: please do - even if you can only comment on surface aspects you'll see a) other reviewers comments and b) the code and problems it's trying to solve.
19:27:51 <bnemec_> There's an interesting parallel to the Hyper-V Nova discussion here.
19:28:09 <tzumainn> jistr, that's my concern as well - and coming from a tuskar-ui background, so far my interactions have mostly been limited to tuskar-ui/tuskar
19:28:22 <bnemec> Narrow review focus vs. the project as a whole.
19:28:27 <lsmola_> lifeless, ok then
19:28:48 <lifeless> bnemec: yes, there is.
19:29:14 <SpamapS> We had something similar in Heat too with rackspace specific resource plugins.
19:29:17 <lifeless> however we're at least one OOM less code to deal with in direct terms.
19:29:54 <bnemec> Yeah, absolutely.  And review turnaround in tripleo seems to be much faster IME.
19:30:08 <lifeless> bnemec: thats deliberate :).
19:30:11 <bnemec> Which addresses a lot of the complains the hyperv people have.
19:30:15 <bnemec> *complaints
19:30:38 <lifeless> bnemec: review turnaround is crucial, I think nova needs to fix that, but I don't have a trivial 'do X' to fix it.
19:30:43 <lifeless> anyhow...
19:30:57 <lifeless> #action lifeless to summarise review meta to the list as well
19:31:48 <lifeless> #topic  Projects needing releases
19:32:04 <lifeless> SpamapS: you were going to do releases of $everything;  I'm guessing the MVP work sidetracked that?
19:32:31 <SpamapS> lifeless: and my own scatter brain.
19:32:45 <SpamapS> lifeless: will put it higher on the list
19:33:16 <lifeless> SpamapS: how about we ask someone not visibly tackling the MVP work to do it?
19:33:50 <lifeless> do we have a volunteer? Goal is to a) make sure all projects other than -incubator are correctly configured in infra/config + their own code to /do/ releases.
19:33:53 <SpamapS> lifeless: That would not bother me, but I am not worried that I won't complete the task.
19:34:07 <lifeless> SpamapS: you're a bottleneck on heat.
19:34:21 <SpamapS> I know
19:34:28 <lifeless> goal b) is then to do a release of everything pending commits
19:34:33 <SpamapS> so yeah seems to make more sense to take tasks away from me
19:34:35 <Ng> I'm happy to look at release stuff. I'll need some handholding or docs, having not done any openstack releases before
19:34:42 <lifeless> Ng: ok
19:34:51 <SpamapS> Ng: mordred and clarkb can get you through it.
19:34:59 <mordred> aroo?
19:35:03 <lifeless> #action Ng to ensure all non-incubator projects can release and get a release done of any which have unreleased code.
19:35:12 <lifeless> #topic CD Cloud status
19:35:24 <mordred> Ng: make sure you have a gpg key
19:35:38 <lifeless> We're now deploying a publically accessible cloud with admins and users setup.
19:35:45 <lifeless> mordred: Ng: -> -infra please
19:36:12 <lifeless> It's deploying quite reliably; < 3% failure, and AFAIK we manually caused all of those.
19:36:20 <lifeless> So this is big!
19:37:08 <jog0> lifeless: well we don't actually know if what we deploy works fully do we?
19:37:11 <lifeless> We're now working on preserving state (with downtime) so that folk don't have to reupload images etc.
19:37:12 <jog0> aka no tempest yet
19:37:26 <lifeless> jog0: we spawn a VM and assign a floating IP
19:37:46 <lifeless> jog0: thats not perfect, but pretty indicative.
19:38:06 * derekh is working on tempest, got side tracted, will refocus again
19:38:08 <lifeless> if you're a TripleO contributor, please do get your accounts setup
19:38:09 <jog0> lifeless: nice didn't know we were running that
19:38:27 <lifeless> see https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/TripleO/TripleOCloud for instructions
19:38:37 <lifeless> jog0: end of devtest_overcloud.sh :)
19:38:58 <lifeless> #topic CI virtualized testing progress
19:39:09 <lifeless> pleia2: is the lxc bug thing a stale subtopic ?
19:39:26 <pleia2> lifeless: it is, I'll remove it
19:39:42 <lifeless> ok, so how goes it ?
19:39:52 <pleia2> I have a local nodepool running now to debug the issues we ran into last week with iteration 1
19:40:13 <pleia2> so hopefully that will be sorted soon so we can get that completed
19:40:31 <pleia2> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/tripleo-test-cluster
19:40:33 <pleia2> for reference
19:40:44 <lifeless> cool
19:40:49 <lifeless> how is iteration two shaping up?
19:40:55 <pleia2> and based on discussion with lifeless last week I have some preliminary work done on iteration 2, but nothing shareable yet
19:41:10 <lifeless> ok, cool.
19:41:17 <lifeless> #topic MVP1 retrospective TripleO/TripleOCloud/MVP1Retrospective
19:41:33 <lifeless> http://finding-marbles.com/retr-o-mat/what-is-a-retrospective/ if you aren't aware of retrospectives
19:42:01 <lifeless> The goal here is to gather a shared pool of information about what happened during MVP1
19:42:17 <lifeless> and from that jointly decide what to do to make things better
19:42:38 <lifeless> so -
19:42:56 <lifeless> What do you guys think went well ? Both outcomes and just actions
19:43:16 <SpamapS> I think we learned a lot.
19:43:20 <lifeless> this is brainstorm mode, so please no critique of what people say
19:43:42 <SpamapS> So if an MVP is supposed to teach you, then it was a success in that light.
19:43:53 <lifeless> cool
19:44:22 <jog0> I thought we did a good job on firedrills
19:44:26 <lifeless> I think we delivered very quickly, it's immensely cool, only a week into the experiment, to have a cloud folk can use, deployed using our tooling
19:44:39 <SpamapS> specifically we learned that the tools we have built around the core work as expected on a real network
19:45:00 <lifeless> jog0: anything specific that stood out about the firedrills ?
19:45:29 <jog0> lifeless: we fixed them fairly quickly
19:45:33 <jog0> and all helped out
19:45:51 <lifeless> ok
19:46:05 <lifeless> What went poorly. Both outcomes and actions
19:46:07 <lifeless> ?
19:46:17 <derekh> define firedrill, cd-overcloud not working ?
19:46:26 <SpamapS> I think we also learned how to be a little more continuous in our own development.. handing things off.. communicating across sunsets.. etc.
19:46:41 <lifeless> derekh: a regression in anything we've delivered -
19:46:46 <lifeless> derekh: and are maintaining
19:47:06 <jog0> SpamapS: the sun never sets on TripleO development
19:47:08 <lifeless> I think we need a list of those things at some point
19:47:18 <jog0> lifeless: ++
19:47:39 <derekh> so I guess I learned I need to file more bugs, as far as I know there are 2 reason devtest is currently busted,
19:47:51 <derekh> I guess a critical bug would speed up reviews
19:48:01 <lifeless> so one thing that went poorly is that we regressed devtest
19:48:17 <lifeless> and seemed to ignore toci
19:49:00 <derekh> yup, toci have been failing since yesterday
19:49:58 <lifeless> I think we spent a lot of time fiddling directly on the cloud
19:50:04 <lifeless> rather than landing reviews to do things
19:50:09 <SpamapS> derekh: do we track bugs for toci in the tripleo project?
19:50:22 <lifeless> at one point there were 15 or some commits live on the cloud that hadn't been reviewed.
19:50:42 <derekh> SpamapS: nope we don't
19:50:48 <SpamapS> lifeless: thats interesting. From my perspective we did a good job of making sure things were at least in reviews while fiddling. I never felt that the backlog got out of hand.
19:51:12 <lifeless> SpamapS: we want CICD, which means all deploys in prod are from trunk, not from ahead-of-trunk
19:51:13 <SpamapS> derekh: Ok, because I was going to suggest that toci grow some instructions on how to debug failures. I see the fails but I don't always know what failed or how to tell.
19:51:15 <lifeless> SpamapS: we're cheating
19:51:21 <derekh> but its usually a regression in one of the other projects that causes the failur
19:51:29 <Ng> fwiw I deliberately did very little directly on the CD itself and focussed very hard on getting as much reviewing done as I could, mainyl because lifeless was spitting dozens of the things out each day
19:51:34 <SpamapS> lifeless: doh.
19:51:34 <lifeless> ok, lets switch to 'what can we do better' now
19:51:51 <derekh> SpamapS: I'll put something together
19:52:11 <lifeless> Ng: thank you:)
19:52:13 <SpamapS> lifeless: so that suggests that we need to have a playground for developers so they aren't tempted to fiddle on live.
19:52:27 <lifeless> SpamapS: no, you misunderstand
19:52:35 <lifeless> SpamapS: reviews need to be down to 15-20m latency
19:52:42 <lifeless> SpamapS: to keep the velocity up
19:53:03 <lifeless> SpamapS: well, maybe a playground would be good too!
19:53:17 * SpamapS will have to revisit his expectations so 15-20m latency gets out of the "not likely to succeed" bucket in his head.
19:53:19 <lifeless> SpamapS: but e.g. I deployed a test node without interfering with cd-overcloud to test things.
19:53:21 <jog0> lifeless: where does gating fit in this ?
19:53:34 <lifeless> jog0: gating helps avoid regressions
19:53:39 <lifeless> so things to change
19:53:45 <SpamapS> lifeless: there's no way to test turning file injection off without breaking the cloud and/or having a second cloud.
19:54:07 <lifeless> SpamapS: right, fortunately you can deploy a second undercloud with the first
19:54:16 <lifeless> SpamapS: and now we're using neutron the dhcp won't fight.
19:54:40 <lifeless> SpamapS: however! I'm not whinging about that sort of explicit manual test
19:54:44 <SpamapS> sure, it sounds like we just need to chop off a few machines for things like that.
19:54:56 <lifeless> SpamapS: I'm talking about the system sitting there running with 'review -d X' mode
19:55:17 <jog0> lifeless: anyway we can gate devtest? that would act like a playground for devs
19:55:26 <jog0> push a patch runs in a sandbox and logs are collected
19:55:29 <lifeless> jog0: pleia2 is working up to that.
19:55:30 <jog0> just like infra
19:55:32 <jog0> lifeless: woot
19:55:42 <SpamapS> lifeless: yeah, with 7 people (is that right?) spread out by many hours of timezone, we're not going to get 15-20m latency on such things. Something would have to change.
19:55:48 <lifeless> so one thing we could do is say CI is a much higher priority, and do that before stateful.
19:55:51 <pleia2> turns out infra needs some tweaking each time we add a new provider :)
19:55:51 <jog0> I think thats a good way to remve the need for human access
19:56:09 <lifeless> jog0: I think it's important, but not sufficient
19:56:26 <lifeless> jog0: the thing is that if there is a lot of inventory, people stop collaborating.
19:56:37 <lifeless> jog0: the place people collaborate is the shared code - what's in trunk.
19:56:53 <lifeless> jog0: I'm not saying where they *should*, but where they *do*, by observation.
19:57:18 <lifeless> so - brainstorm time
19:57:23 <jog0> lifeless: I am not sure if I follow
19:57:27 <lifeless> suggestions - one liners - for doing things better over the next week
19:57:44 <SpamapS> So this is all good information. I'm struggling to see how any of it will help us to keep velocity up without cherry-pick cheating.
19:58:09 <jog0> SpamapS: ++
19:58:34 <lifeless> change CD related reviews to only needing two +2's, not 'two +2's from non-the-author'
19:58:55 <SpamapS> I also don't think even 0 latency would enable "I need to screw with X for a while to see how it works."
19:59:09 <lifeless> SpamapS: like I said, I'm fine with *that*
19:59:39 <lifeless> SpamapS: I'm not talking about removing sysadmin access, I'm talking about making the standard loop 'propose a review, get it landed, it deploys automatically'
20:00:12 <SpamapS> I do agree that lower latency CD reviews will make us all more comfortable running in a mode where logging into the prod undercloud is basically seen as a massive team failure.
20:00:14 <lifeless> SpamapS: which means that everyone can /see/ whats running at any point in time, reducing hidden state
20:00:29 <Ng> I'd be ok with CD related reviews allowing a +2 from the author, although ideally with a "I'm +2ing this because I just deployed it and it works" ;)
20:00:46 <SpamapS> we have hit EOMeeting tho
20:00:49 <lifeless> we're right on running out of time
20:00:51 <jog0> lifeless: it sounds like you are saying that instead of doing: try code on metal, merge, deploy trunk, we do merge, deploy trunk
20:01:01 <lifeless> but while we have folk here lets try to get this answered
20:01:19 <SpamapS> So I suggest we discuss on the ML and in IRC over the next few days.
20:02:15 <lifeless> there isn't anyone after us.
20:02:18 <jog0> as we get further along in our CD cloud story, I asusme we will soon get to the point where we do not want to risk any potentailly breaking changes from landing
20:02:36 <lifeless> jog0: thats the CI value proposition, yes.
20:02:45 <lifeless> jog0: but also the small-changes, no inventory aspect.
20:03:00 <jog0> define inventory
20:03:02 <lifeless> jog0: and having heat self detect and rollback and things like that
20:03:08 <lifeless> jog0: code that is written but not delivered.
20:03:29 <lifeless> jog0: e.g. sitting in review or in trunk but not released.
20:03:35 <jog0> lifeless: ahh I was thinking hardware inventory that makes more sense
20:03:52 <lifeless> inventory is something you have built but are not benefiting from
20:03:58 <lifeless> it's a cost
20:04:30 <lifeless> who else is still here? derekh ? dprince ? GheRivero ?
20:04:39 * SpamapS is here
20:04:43 * Ng 
20:04:45 <slagle> i'm here :)
20:04:48 * jog0 here
20:04:57 * rpodolyaka1 here
20:04:58 <dprince> dprince: leaving in a moment.
20:05:01 <lsmola_> me too
20:05:04 * jprovazn here
20:05:05 <dkehn> here
20:05:07 <lifeless> before you go
20:05:13 * marios 
20:05:23 <lifeless> any thoughts on "change CD related reviews to only needing two +2's, not 'two +2's from
20:05:26 <lifeless> non-the-author'"
20:05:51 <lifeless> It was the only item proposed in the brainstorm :(
20:06:08 <lifeless> We probably need a retrospective retrospective ;)
20:06:11 <Ng> can we reasonably require the author to assert that their +2 is based on the change having been tested?
20:06:11 <dprince> lifeless: fine by me, can re-evaluate again later if it doesn't prove useful.
20:06:28 <lifeless> Ng: yes
20:06:31 <slagle> to me, that just means "one +2" :)
20:06:34 <dprince> Ng: +1 good idea, +2 (I manually tested this)
20:06:35 <lifeless> Ng: I think so
20:06:37 <rpodolyaka1> Ng: +1
20:06:45 <derekh> sounds ok to me, maybe we say 1 +2 from non author
20:06:52 <slagle> even requiring 2, +2's, i think we expect folks to test first
20:07:02 <slagle> although, realistically, i know that can't always happen
20:07:11 * dprince for the record I've always loved sending my own code in
20:07:20 <lifeless> I think two +2's is useful because it's saying two sets of experienced-eyeballs.
20:07:37 <lifeless> dprince: you're in core I believe :)
20:08:02 <lifeless> ok, so no objections;
20:08:14 <lifeless> #action lifeless to report CD review tweak to the list
20:08:28 <SpamapS> So, guidelines attached: +2 your own patch if you believe it is a) extremely straight forward, and b) you have a high degree of confidence it improves the situation of the CD environment.
20:08:30 <lifeless> oh, I had one more suggestion
20:08:32 <lsmola_> no objections
20:09:00 <lifeless> If anyone finds a problem with something we're supporting (as opposed to building out), they should open a firedrill card in kanban
20:09:05 <lifeless> (or get someone to open one)
20:09:13 <jog0> I agree SpamapS's guidelines
20:09:20 <Ng> I'm not sure if this is a suggestion, but just now I looked at trello to remind myself what had been done in MVP1 and I don't think we keep separate cards for tasks that have been completed for a specific MVP, which makes doing a retrospective (at least for those of us with poor memories) harder :)
20:09:27 <lsmola_> SpamapS, +1
20:09:40 <lifeless> Ng: I think we kinda did a big retrospective of the last week
20:09:45 <lifeless> Ng: perhaps we should archive all those cards now ?
20:09:51 <lsmola_> SpamapS, or +2 I guess :-)
20:09:54 <SpamapS> :)
20:10:02 <Ng> lifeless: that's a good idea
20:10:06 <lifeless> Ng: or are you suggesting a column for mvpN-done + generic-done ?
20:10:27 <Ng> lifeless: well I was thinking mvpN-done so I could look at exactly what was part of a given mvp for retrospecting
20:10:36 * SpamapS would like to see the board duplicated and frozen whenever a milestone is reached, as that would be ideal for a retrospective
20:10:42 <Ng> but if we archive things as we've retrospected them, it's clear what is relevant for the next retrospective
20:10:54 <lifeless> I don't know what will work better.
20:11:06 <SpamapS> Ok this doesn't seem nearly as important as the other question
20:11:10 <SpamapS> and we've gone well over teh hour.
20:11:16 <lifeless> yup, thanks for your patience
20:11:19 <lifeless> #endmeeting