Summary of IRC Meeting in #aurora at Mon May 19 18:23:13 2014: Attendees: wickman, jfarrell, mchucarroll, wfarner, kts, dlester, mansu
- Preface - Action: wfarner to investigate fixing tests outside of git repo - Action: wickman to add a section to the contributors guide outlining specific reviewer escalation protocol IRC log follows: ## Preface ## [Mon May 19 18:24:08 2014] <kts>: so should we prioritize making all tests work within the source distribution tarball? [Mon May 19 18:24:51 2014] <mchucarroll>: I think so - if I were evaluating mesos, the first thing Iâd do is download it and trying running its tests. [Mon May 19 18:25:32 2014] <wfarner>: +1, tests should pass in release dists [Mon May 19 18:25:43 2014] <kts>: any volunteers to take that on? [Mon May 19 18:26:26 2014] <mchucarroll>: If no else is willing, Iâll do it. [Mon May 19 18:26:51 2014] <wfarner>: i can evaluate it - proximity to kts may make it go more swiftly [Mon May 19 18:27:31 2014] <kts>: all right then [Mon May 19 18:27:43 2014] <kts>: #action wfarner to investigate fixing tests outside of git repo [Mon May 19 18:28:17 2014] <kts>: other than that, there didn't seem to be other blockers for the release candidate [Mon May 19 18:28:35 2014] <kts>: a couple cosmetic changes (changelog, filenames) [Mon May 19 18:29:11 2014] <kts>: so I'll work with wfarner to get -rc1 out [Mon May 19 18:29:20 2014] <kts>: any other agenda items? [Mon May 19 18:29:44 2014] <mansu>: I have a question about the apache infrastructure [Mon May 19 18:30:12 2014] <mansu>: Recently the rb and email have been very slow and it's very annoying to use. [Mon May 19 18:30:19 2014] <mansu>: atleast for me [Mon May 19 18:30:23 2014] <wickman>: I'd like to get feedback on https://reviews.apache.org/r/21402/ or at least have kts/jfarrell unvolunteer [Mon May 19 18:30:28 2014] <mansu>: is there something we can do about it? [Mon May 19 18:30:29 2014] <wickman>: (python checkstyle hooks) [Mon May 19 18:31:25 2014] <mchucarroll>: Brian, I can take a look at those if youâd like. [Mon May 19 18:31:46 2014] <wfarner>: mansu: we can discuss with jfarrell. probably not much action we can take in this meeting [Mon May 19 18:31:58 2014] <kts>: mansu: I imagine the asf infra folks have been busy with https://blogs.apache.org/infra/entry/mail_outage [Mon May 19 18:32:23 2014] <wfarner>: i do know jfarrell investigated this last week and discovered an issue causing jenkins to crash regularly [Mon May 19 18:32:42 2014] <wickman>: mchucarroll: thanks! per protocol i'd still like to have kts/jfarrell opt out via the reviewboard. but all feedback welcome. [Mon May 19 18:33:00 2014] <kts>: wickman: just took a look [Mon May 19 18:33:05 2014] <wickman>: kts: ty [Mon May 19 18:33:05 2014] <mansu>: ok [Mon May 19 18:33:19 2014] <mchucarroll>: What *is* protocol. Iâve been told, on several occasions, to just change the âpeopleâ line to match whoever actually reviewed it. [Mon May 19 18:33:44 2014] <wickman>: mchucarroll: i was under the impression that the people had to explicitly unvolunteer via comment, then we can choose to reassign. but perhaps i'm misstaken. [Mon May 19 18:34:23 2014] <wfarner>: self-optout is my preference, i don't like the idea of removing people without giving fair notice [Mon May 19 18:34:38 2014] <mchucarroll>: Thatâs why Iâm asking - I thought that was the rule, but got corrected on several occasions; since Iâm not the only one whoâs uncertain, and weâve got the whole gang here, we should clarify, and have it recorded in the meeting notes for reference. [Mon May 19 18:35:29 2014] <wfarner>: anyone against giving 2 business day warning before removing a reviewer without their explicit request on the review? [Mon May 19 18:35:41 2014] <wfarner>: barring that, anyone in favor? [Mon May 19 18:35:54 2014] <wickman>: wfarner: sgtm [Mon May 19 18:36:27 2014] <wickman>: wfarner: in any case, we should add this explicitly in the contributors guide [Mon May 19 18:36:37 2014] <mchucarroll>: 2 business days seems a bit high? We should expect turnaround of a review in less than 2 business days; having to leave it that long after giving notice seems very slow. [Mon May 19 18:37:48 2014] <kts>: maybe we should assign reviewers sooner? like maybe have a contributor field on tickets that are opened [Mon May 19 18:37:52 2014] <wfarner>: my assumption is that complete silence even after being pinged (rather than lack of review bandwidth) is rare [Mon May 19 18:38:43 2014] <kts>: I sometimes get a deluge of reviews and only learn about them via the people column [Mon May 19 18:40:07 2014] <kts>: maybe a premature optimization though [Mon May 19 18:42:45 2014] <wickman>: #action wickman to add a section to the contributors guide outlining specific reviewer escalation protocol [Mon May 19 18:42:50 2014] <jfarrell>: late, but here [Mon May 19 18:43:35 2014] <dlester>: jfarrell: welcome! [Mon May 19 18:43:53 2014] <dlester>: Anything else to discuss? [Mon May 19 18:44:31 2014] <kts>: looks like that's it [Mon May 19 18:44:36 2014] <kts>: ASFBot: meeting stop Meeting ended at Mon May 19 18:44:36 2014
