12:01:45 <ndevos> #startmeeting
12:01:46 <zodbot> Meeting started Tue Nov 18 12:01:45 2014 UTC.  The chair is ndevos. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
12:01:46 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
12:01:56 <ndevos> Hello all, meeting agenda for today is at https://public.pad.fsfe.org/p/gluster-bug-triage
12:02:05 <ndevos> #topic Roll Call
12:02:19 <ndevos> please raise your hand if you're attending todays meeting
12:02:22 * lalatenduM is here
12:02:23 * ndevos _o/
12:03:45 * hchiramm_ is here
12:04:24 <lalatenduM> we just three ? :)
12:04:41 <ndevos> ...
12:05:22 * hagarth too
12:05:42 <ndevos> if we're only 3^W4 should we continue anyway?
12:05:57 <lalatenduM> we got jdarcy :)
12:05:59 <ndevos> ah, with jdarcy it would be 5
12:06:09 <jdarcy> Hi guys.
12:06:15 <lalatenduM> hello
12:06:28 <ndevos> #topic Status of last weeks action items
12:06:40 <ndevos> #topic hagarth will look for somebody that can act like a bug assigner manager kind of person
12:06:53 <ndevos> I wonder if there is any progress there, hagarth?
12:08:14 <ndevos> well, he said he is there, but obviously occupied?
12:08:19 <ndevos> #topic jdarcy will try the RSS-feeds and will report
12:08:25 * kkeithley1 is here, late
12:08:38 <ndevos> jdarcy: are you using the RSS feeds to track bugs?
12:08:44 <lalatenduM> kkeithley1, _0/
12:08:51 <jdarcy> I've been using them.  Good way to keep up with new bugs, though I haven't actually been doing much triage.
12:09:25 <ndevos> okay, as long as it is helpful for you, it should be helpful for others too
12:09:49 <jdarcy> Yeah, we should include that in the suggestions for would-be triageurs.
12:09:57 <ndevos> #agreed RSS feeds are helpful with keeping up on new bugs
12:10:26 <ndevos> #idea Suggest would-be triagers to use RSS-feeds for triage
12:10:34 <ndevos> #topic Humble will request the replacement of old versions by a new  "unsupported" version
12:11:07 <ndevos> hchiramm_: yesterday the old versions were still there, how is it today?
12:11:15 <hchiramm_> ndevos, same state
12:11:24 <hchiramm_> will finish it by tomo :(
12:11:30 <ndevos> okay
12:11:54 * ndevos skips the next AI, it was dependent on the "unsupported" version on
12:12:07 <ndevos> #topic hagarth should update the MAINTAINERS file, add current maintainers and new components like Snapshot
12:12:36 <hagarth> ndevos: pending .. working out some more additions to the list
12:12:40 <ndevos> hagarth: did you send a patch to update the MAINTAINERS file? I have not seen one yet?
12:12:49 <ndevos> okay, np
12:13:02 <ndevos> and, lets try this one again:
12:13:03 <ndevos> #topic hagarth will look for somebody that can act like a bug assigner manager kind of person
12:13:22 <hagarth> in progress too, I hope to close this AI in a few weeks
12:13:26 <ndevos> :)
12:13:41 <ndevos> #topic Group Triage
12:14:15 <ndevos> no NEEDINFO for  bugs@gluster.org
12:14:39 <ndevos> bug we do have many new bugs: http://goo.gl/0IqF2q
12:14:59 <ndevos> please pick a bug to triage, mention the BZ# here for locking
12:15:13 <ndevos> and when done, move to the next BZ# that was not posted in this chat
12:15:45 * ndevos locks 1165021
12:16:00 * hagarth locks 1164218
12:16:27 <jdarcy> Looks like several of these are feature requests.  Should we just mark them as such and move on?
12:16:53 <ndevos> jdarcy: yes, add FutureFeature and Triaged keyword
12:17:10 * jdarcy locks 1163588 and 1164079
12:17:24 <ndevos> jdarcy: well, Triaged only when there are enough details in the Bug
12:17:36 * kkeithley_ 1162905
12:17:39 <ndevos> but, I guess that speaks for itself
12:17:45 * ndevos 1164559
12:18:27 * hagarth 1164523
12:18:58 <ndevos> hey, I wanted 1164523
12:19:01 * lalatenduM 1165133
12:19:20 <hagarth> ndevos: looks like kkeithley_ has already looked into that
12:19:21 * ndevos takes 1163821 and 1163822
12:19:25 * hchiramm_ locks 1163161
12:20:51 * hchiramm_ locks 1163588
12:21:00 * ndevos 1163623
12:21:33 * hagarth 1163626 and 1163699
12:23:55 * hagarth 1165021
12:24:02 <lalatenduM> ndevos, kkeithley_ marked https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1165133 as easy fix
12:24:31 * ndevos 1165010
12:25:08 <ndevos> lalatenduM: yes, indeed :)
12:25:20 * jdarcy 1163561
12:25:27 * hagarth 1164775
12:25:55 * hagarth 1164559
12:27:51 <lalatenduM> hagarth, are u looking in to 1164523?
12:28:19 <hagarth> lalatenduM: kkeithley_ has updated a few fields there .. we probably need to add Triaged
12:28:28 <lalatenduM> hagarth, ok will do
12:28:38 <lalatenduM> hagarth, going through the bug
12:29:03 <jdarcy> I'm thinking 1163561 should be cloned for 3.6 and master/future
12:30:01 <kkeithley_> jdarcy: +1
12:30:10 <hagarth> +1
12:31:19 * ndevos 1163543
12:31:40 <hagarth> what is xavih's bz id?
12:32:28 <ndevos> hagarth: xhernandez@datalab.es
12:33:39 * ndevos 1163709
12:35:59 <ndevos> hagarth, kkeithley_: one of you want to triage 1164523 right?
12:36:12 <lalatenduM> ndevos, on it
12:36:25 <kkeithley_> sure, I'll just... okay, lala's got it
12:36:32 <lalatenduM> but I think kkeithley_ or hagarth will be better person for triaging it
12:36:42 <kkeithley_> I meant to add triaged keyword when I recategorized it
12:37:07 <kkeithley_> recategorized from Fedora/Gluster to Gluster/posix
12:37:16 <lalatenduM> kkeithley_, the steps to reproduce is not clear
12:37:39 <kkeithley_> do you want o set NeedInfo on it then?
12:37:47 <ndevos> I think we're getting more used to triaging bugs, the list is empty now, and we still have 20+ minutes left in the meeting
12:38:11 <hagarth> ndevos: the benefit of being scale out ;)
12:38:34 <ndevos> hagarth: the difficulty is to get people in the meeting ;)
12:38:39 <lalatenduM> kkeithley_, if you understand it and you think it is ok, need info is not required
12:38:51 <ndevos> #topic How to make it easier for would-be triagers to help out?
12:39:04 <lalatenduM> kkeithley_, is it a feature request?
12:39:06 <kkeithley_> Okay I'll add triaged to keywords. I see his description of what he was doing.
12:39:17 <kkeithley_> no, I don't think so
12:39:26 <ndevos> this topi cwas not in the agenda, but I think we can discuss it never the less
12:39:27 <lalatenduM> kkeithley_, ok
12:39:35 <ndevos> when kkeithley_ and lalatenduM are done with their bug
12:39:59 * lalatenduM is not triaging the bug anymore
12:40:06 <ndevos> :)
12:40:14 <kkeithley_> done
12:40:35 <ndevos> so, how can we attract more would-be triagers and scale out?
12:40:43 <ndevos> hagarth pointed me to http://www.mail-archive.com/openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org/msg39902.html
12:40:56 <kkeithley_> that wasn't so painful. As long as we stay on top of it
12:41:03 <ndevos> this is a discussion on how OpenStack may go about doing scale-out traige
12:41:06 <ndevos> *triage
12:41:39 <ndevos> they might have a bot sending a weekly "10  bugs to triage" email to volunteers
12:42:00 <ndevos> this is something we would be able to do too
12:42:21 <ndevos> I think - we dont have a bot yet, but that can not be that difficult
12:42:34 <kkeithley_> btw, I notice that we don't have a 3.6.1 Version, and a lot of 3.0, 3.1, 3.2, etc. Target Milestones.
12:42:43 <kkeithley_> ndevos: +1 to having a bot
12:42:45 <hagarth> ndevos: how about sending a mail on gluster-devel?
12:42:54 <hchiramm_> kkeithley_, no 3.6.1 version ?
12:43:16 <kkeithley_> nope. Or my mozilla/bugzilla is wack
12:43:17 <ndevos> hagarth: then we still do not know who is checking which bug - there is no IRC locking over email
12:43:38 <hagarth> ndevos: I think we might get more attention from gluster-devel?
12:43:39 <hchiramm_> kkeithley_, I can see 3.6.1 in Target M.
12:43:43 <kkeithley_> but bugzilla locks
12:43:58 <hagarth> we can only discuss the untriaged ones in this meeting ?
12:43:59 <kkeithley_> no, not Target Milestone, Version
12:44:28 <ndevos> well, yes, but it annoys when there is a list of bugs, you want to triage one, and have to find one in the list that is not triaged yet
12:44:58 <hagarth> ndevos: a URL which displays a bz report along with keywords?
12:45:07 <hagarth> *keywords column?
12:45:25 <ndevos> hagarth: yes, that would definitely be needed
12:45:59 <ndevos> hagarth: it would be easier for users to just click a link to one bug, instead of the hop to the report and then to a bug
12:46:06 <hagarth> ndevos: that might be easy for folks to look up the URL and pick up the untriaged ones
12:46:50 <ndevos> hagarth: but then again, we do not want to list *all* untriaged bugs, only a few so that new triagers are not overwhelmed
12:47:22 <hagarth> ndevos: yes, we can have some criteria for the report (maybe per component, on the basis of age or something like that)
12:47:23 <kkeithley_> There's no 3.6.1 in the Version: pulldown menu. Or is my Mozilla on crack?
12:47:55 <ndevos> hagarth: sure we can, but what should we include in the email?
12:48:46 <jdarcy> Excluding "FutureFeature" bugs from the un-triaged list eliminates a couple of dozen bugs.
12:49:03 <hagarth> ndevos: the URL and a call for action ?
12:49:40 <ndevos> hagarth: a URL would not trigger my interest, but a description of a bug might
12:50:07 <hagarth> ndevos: we expect developers to look into this list first
12:50:23 <ndevos> jdarcy: well, FutureFeature bugs need some form of triage too, and after that the Triaged keyword should be set
12:50:24 <hagarth> and I think an URL would be good for developers?
12:51:01 <ndevos> hagarth: yes, developers should have a url, and they should not be scared of many bugs in a report
12:51:25 <hagarth> ndevos: sure, I think both would work
12:51:26 <ndevos> I hope we can get some would-be triagers that are not developers
12:51:42 <hagarth> ndevos: +1, that is our overall intent
12:52:00 <jdarcy> ndevos: I'd say the triage for FutureFeature is fundamentally different (and involves different people) than the triage for regular bugs.
12:52:06 <jdarcy> ndevos: So they should be separate lists.
12:52:15 <ndevos> hagarth: developers should have a look at http://www.gluster.org/community/documentation/index.php/Bugzilla_Notifications and keep track of things
12:53:32 <hagarth> jdarcy, ndevos: we can probably move features out of bugzilla and open a bug for a feature only when implementation is in progress or for submitting code to gerrit
12:53:53 <ndevos> jdarcy: maybe, setting the FutureFeature keyword is one thing, and Triaged an other...
12:54:11 <jdarcy> I think it's OK to have them in BZ, but excluding them from the main triage list keeps that list shorter (and less intimidating).
12:54:18 <hagarth> ndevos: yes, we need to get more developers to look into the process.
12:54:30 <ndevos> hagarth: users expect to see feature requests in bugzilla, that is how (alsmost) all other projects do it
12:55:16 <ndevos> jdarcy: are there many bugs that have FutureFeature and not Triaged set?
12:55:31 <jdarcy> ndevos: 30-something
12:55:51 <hagarth> ndevos: different projects have different norms .. I think it is a matter of providing the right URL (again) for users to look into
12:56:07 <hagarth> ndevos: for e.g., not all of our feature pages have corresponding bugs and vice versa
12:56:38 <ndevos> hagarth: yes, there is a disconnect there, users often check bugzilla first, not the wiki
12:57:20 <ndevos> hagarth: I have updated several bugs that had a feature page, and even closed/duplicate some old bugs because new ones were created to get the patches in
12:57:44 * ndevos would like to see a bug for each feature page
12:57:55 <ndevos> and I think we discussed about that before, actually...
12:58:10 <hagarth> ndevos: we need a better process for feature management
12:58:28 <ndevos> hagarth: hah! it's already listed on http://www.gluster.org/community/documentation/index.php/Features/Feature_Template :D
12:58:30 <kkeithley_> hchiramm_: Would you please ask Rejy to add 3.6.1 to Version:, and remove all those old 3.3.x and earlier from Target Milestone:
12:58:38 <kkeithley_> lalatenduM: ^^^
12:59:03 <hchiramm_> kkeithley_, Rejy ?
12:59:21 <hagarth> ndevos: but there are other things which a bz cannot handle for feature management
12:59:40 <ndevos> jdarcy: so, we should add a report-URL for FutureFeature on the Bug Triage wiki page, and update the Triaged search to not include the FutureFeature ones?
12:59:42 <hchiramm_> kkeithley_, definitely I can ask
12:59:49 * lalatenduM reading the logs
12:59:55 <kkeithley_> Rejy Cyriac? Isn't he there in BLR? He's the new project manager for RH-Gluster. He should be able to make those changes.
13:00:02 <lalatenduM> kkeithley_, yes
13:00:06 <hchiramm_> kkeithley_, yep ..
13:00:11 <jdarcy> ndevos: That's what I'm thinking, yeah.
13:00:28 <lalatenduM> kkeithley_, but he is for downstream , isn't it?
13:00:32 <ndevos> hagarth: sure, we need the Feature page, but also at least have a reference in bugzilla so that users can find it and do not file duplicate bugs
13:00:40 <hchiramm_> kkeithley_, done
13:00:51 <hagarth> ndevos: how about directing users to feature pages first?
13:00:58 <kkeithley_> he is, but he should be able to change it. Scott Haines could.
13:01:15 <ndevos> hagarth: I tend to redirect them to that page in the bugs they file
13:01:16 <lalatenduM> kkeithley_, ok will do that than with hchiramm
13:01:28 <ndevos> and, redirect the page back to the bug :)
13:01:34 <lalatenduM> I mean will ask Rejy
13:01:52 <hagarth> ndevos: a cyclic digraph :)
13:01:57 <ndevos> users can subscribe to bug updates, updates of the feature page might be less useful?
13:02:23 <ndevos> hagarth: the wiki for the details, the bug for getting updates on posted patches, need for testing, etc
13:03:05 <ndevos> jdarcy: you want to change the URLs in the wiki page and meeting agenda?
13:03:16 <jdarcy> ndevos: OK, I can do that.
13:03:53 <ndevos> jdarcy: cool, thanks
13:04:24 <ndevos> #action jdarcy will update the Bug Triage wiki page and meeting-agenda to split FutureFeature bugs from un-Triaged ones
13:05:14 <ndevos> hagarth: any other thoughts on BZ <-> Feature Page?
13:05:27 <ndevos> or, anyone else for that matter?
13:05:37 <hagarth> ndevos: still thinking, we probably can discuss this more in tomorrow's community meeting.
13:05:57 <ndevos> hagarth: okay
13:06:16 <ndevos> I guess that closes the "Open Floor" topic too
13:06:30 <ndevos> unless someone else has something to discuss?
13:07:04 <ndevos> nobody anything to add?
13:07:18 <kkeithley_> on the topic of bugs, libgfapi symbol versions broke the build on Mac OS X.
13:07:26 <kkeithley_> I know that'll break a lot of hearts. ;-)
13:07:30 <ndevos> uh, it did?
13:07:38 <kkeithley_> yep
13:07:55 <jdarcy> Is there a different way to do symbol versions on Mac?
13:07:56 <ndevos> how is that possible? got a bug?
13:07:56 <lalatenduM> kkeithley_, is it a bug in symbolic versions?
13:08:17 <hchiramm_> lalatenduM, :(
13:08:35 <kkeithley_> no and no. Mac is just sufficiently wacky. They have their own assembler for one, and they just don't do symbol versions
13:08:46 <jdarcy> Ew.
13:08:58 <jdarcy> Darn Apple can't get anything right (he types from his MBA).
13:09:38 <hchiramm_> kkeithley_, do u know whats their mechanism similar to symbol versions ?
13:09:51 <ndevos> kkeithley_: glad we have the macros!
13:10:49 <ndevos> #endmeeting