I saw a lot of hilights today, but no jira emails. Very mysterious.
2012-01-06 00645, 2012
ruaok
I got jira emails today.
2012-01-06 00615, 2012
nikki
I guess nothing was assigned to you 'cause we were disagreeing about whether you should be assigned or not :P
2012-01-06 00618, 2012
navap
I meant, my name kept getting thrown about but I wasn't assigned anything
2012-01-06 00644, 2012
navap
Well for the record, I'm fine with getting stuff assigned to me.
2012-01-06 00617, 2012
ruaok
see, that works for me too.
2012-01-06 00625, 2012
navap
I usually go prowling through some of the components for tickets I can do and assign them to me. If there's stuff that you guys think I can take on then that makes my job easier
2012-01-06 00633, 2012
ruaok
but the jira manifesto that ocharles wrote prohibits it.
2012-01-06 00641, 2012
nikki
ollie was worried there'd be too much and you'd end up not being able to do it all, like he couldn't
2012-01-06 00643, 2012
navap
I saw ocharles made a comment about due dates, which also made sense
2012-01-06 00645, 2012
ruaok
navap: thats what I'm thinking.
2012-01-06 00617, 2012
nikki
but he was the default assignee so ended up with practically everything, whereas we're picking out specific things, so it doesn't seem the same to me :/
2012-01-06 00601, 2012
navap
Yeah
2012-01-06 00653, 2012
ruaok
well, at the office I noted two tickets that you should work on,
2012-01-06 00603, 2012
ruaok
I'll assign them to you tomorrow.
2012-01-06 00623, 2012
ruaok
and I'll finish finances for 2011 tomorrow, so then you can write the annual report too.
2012-01-06 00651, 2012
navap
Excellent :)
2012-01-06 00602, 2012
navap
I've already drafted up a bit of it
2012-01-06 00615, 2012
ruaok
the donation of servers got us in the black for 2011. but only by a few bucks.
2012-01-06 00618, 2012
ruaok
it was tight.
2012-01-06 00618, 2012
navap
And assigned a ticket to warp to get the top contributors
2012-01-06 00635, 2012
ruaok
but we're already received a 20k donation this year. :)
2012-01-06 00641, 2012
ruaok
*we've
2012-01-06 00652, 2012
navap
What was the value of the server donation?
2012-01-06 00628, 2012
ruaok
$48,242
2012-01-06 00635, 2012
navap
Wow
2012-01-06 00658, 2012
ruaok
ya, they handed over a pile of stuff. none of it was slouchy. :)
2012-01-06 00620, 2012
ruaok
and tomorrow I'm picking up a 32 port remote login box.
2012-01-06 00632, 2012
ruaok
so we can log into the console on any of our servers. from anywhere.
for me "branches that are in user testing" is test
2012-01-06 00656, 2012
ocharles
murdos: but no one tests them, because they are not against the live database
2012-01-06 00612, 2012
murdos
I think people like nikki, me are using test
2012-01-06 00616, 2012
ocharles
if we want to change it as "bleeding edge version of master" (ie, what the next release will be) it simplifies things a lot
2012-01-06 00658, 2012
murdos
but I'm bothered by the fact that beta doesn't reflect the next live version, because that way you can always discover issues on musicbrainz.org that were not appearing on beta.musicbrainz.org
2012-01-06 00616, 2012
nikki
when I asked for beta, I expected it to be stuff in master that hasn't been released yet
2012-01-06 00616, 2012
murdos
because of merge issues, ...
2012-01-06 00636, 2012
ocharles
I think we therefore need to change this workflow :)
2012-01-06 00652, 2012
ocharles
as everyone but me and warp aren't confused, and we're the least important people as far as "makes sense" goes
2012-01-06 00606, 2012
ocharles
murdos: well beta should always have the same issues as master, unless they get fixed
2012-01-06 00637, 2012
ocharles
So would people be happy if beta was just the master branch, but updated basically on every push?
2012-01-06 00658, 2012
nikki
I'd be fine with it, since that's what I expected it to be :P
2012-01-06 00608, 2012
ocharles
(in practice it's a tiny bit more fiddly than that, because not everything can go out at once)
2012-01-06 00610, 2012
murdos
+1 for me too
2012-01-06 00641, 2012
ocharles thinks
2012-01-06 00659, 2012
murdos
expected schema changes and data fix scripts, everything that has been code reviewed goes in master (and beta), and everything that is in master is pushed in production on each server release.
2012-01-06 00629, 2012
ocharles
yea, the only thing that is problematic is stuff that goes onto beta and people say "woah, this isn't ready at all"
2012-01-06 00638, 2012
ocharles
it's very hard to un-merge a branch (though it can certainly be done)
2012-01-06 00649, 2012
ocharles
the other option is to just not release until that work is done, and delay the release
2012-01-06 00622, 2012
nikki
if we find something that bad, maybe we *do* need to delay the release
2012-01-06 00642, 2012
murdos
I'm all for delaying release, in order to have polished release, rather than half-baked release
2012-01-06 00653, 2012
ocharles
well, what we'd do atm is just not release that feature at all
2012-01-06 00658, 2012
ocharles
and delay that feature to the next release
2012-01-06 00604, 2012
ocharles
this will cause us to delay the entire release until that feature is done
2012-01-06 00618, 2012
murdos
(which is what will happen for CAA if I've correctly followed discussion)
2012-01-06 00618, 2012
nikki
and I think I'd prefer delayed releases which do include the things we marked as being included over being like "we're releasing this...oh no we're not!" (like the whole "fix version: next monday... next next monday... next next next monday..." stuff we've been doing for months :P)
2012-01-06 00621, 2012
ocharles
fine with me :)
2012-01-06 00619, 2012
nikki
(of course, if something is a total disaster and it would take weeks to fix, then something like that might be ok to revert)
2012-01-06 00633, 2012
ocharles
but it's a special case which should take a specific discussion
2012-01-06 00642, 2012
ocharles
so not having that part of the general release process isn't a huge problem
2012-01-06 00658, 2012
ocharles
heh
2012-01-06 00618, 2012
ocharles
nikki, murdos: so, we have a bunch of stuff "in beta testing" atm
2012-01-06 00632, 2012
ocharles
what shall I do with them? merge to master, clear beta, and put master back there?
2012-01-06 00642, 2012
murdos
probably merge them to master, but I would like to see a list of these things before
2012-01-06 00650, 2012
murdos goes searching them in jira
2012-01-06 00606, 2012
ocharles
Well they have all passed code review :)
2012-01-06 00643, 2012
murdos
I know, this is just to know what I need to test on beta ;-) until very recently beta was not really usable, so I've not used it much
2012-01-06 00656, 2012
ocharles
sure
2012-01-06 00602, 2012
ocharles
I'm hoping to get beta blogged this month
2012-01-06 00652, 2012
ocharles
I'd like to mashup a list of 'these features are in beta testing' into it, add preferences to 'always prefer beta.musicbrainz.org', and the email problems need to be fixed
