| *** openstackgerrit has quit IRC | 00:19 | |
| *** openstackgerrit has joined #storyboard | 00:20 | |
| *** openstackgerrit has quit IRC | 00:34 | |
| *** openstackgerrit has joined #storyboard | 00:35 | |
| *** openstackgerrit has quit IRC | 00:49 | |
| *** openstackgerrit has joined #storyboard | 00:50 | |
| *** jang has joined #storyboard | 01:00 | |
| *** jang has quit IRC | 01:07 | |
| *** jang has joined #storyboard | 01:23 | |
| *** jang has quit IRC | 01:36 | |
| *** ilyashakhat_ has joined #storyboard | 02:58 | |
| *** anteaya has quit IRC | 03:03 | |
| *** ilyashakhat has quit IRC | 03:03 | |
| *** anteaya has joined #storyboard | 03:04 | |
| *** jang has joined #storyboard | 04:06 | |
| *** jang has quit IRC | 04:20 | |
| *** jcoufal has joined #storyboard | 06:53 | |
| ttx | krotscheck: about tasks vs. commits... yes, the idea is to be able to track tasks that don't result in a commit. For example we track a "Security advisory publication" task within security bugs. So we have a task against an "ossa" project but which is not linked to a commit | 07:20 |
|---|---|---|
| ttx | krotscheck: There was also some pushback against strict 1:1 mapping of tasks and commits, especially for featrues that result in 10-20 commits | 07:21 |
| ttx | krotscheck: about "Tags" in MVP1.1, that would be having at least the free-form tags as described in https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/StoryBoard/Story_Tags | 07:23 |
| ttx | krotscheck: And I agree on the "edge case" that the -specs thing just created... having a -specs task on those feature stories won't be enough | 07:24 |
| * ttx starts to wonder if we have to specialcase design tasks in StoryBoard. Like tracking which -specs repo is attached to which project, and when someone proposes to file a "Nova" feature, propose to create a task for nova-specs in addition to the "nova" implementation task. | 07:26 | |
| *** hashar has joined #storyboard | 07:56 | |
| *** miqui has quit IRC | 11:20 | |
| *** miqui has joined #storyboard | 12:57 | |
| *** mfer has joined #storyboard | 13:25 | |
| *** MaxV_ has joined #storyboard | 14:02 | |
| *** MaxV_ has quit IRC | 14:06 | |
| krotscheck | ttx: Yeah on that last part. I wonder if it makes sense to make “Design” a first class citizen of a story - since stories can have either technical design, UI design, API design, etc. | 14:21 |
| krotscheck | ttx: I think the long term assumption though is that spec creation can go into storyboard. | 14:21 |
| krotscheck | ttx: Though... | 14:22 |
| ttx | krotscheck: it's difficult to make a final call until we know where that experiment with -speccs repo is going | 14:22 |
| krotscheck | ttx: Well, we’ve got a lot of people around ehre that believe in the Unix Philosophy of One-Tool-One-Action. | 14:22 |
| krotscheck | ttx: So maybe a design tool becomes its own thing, and we end up with SSO across all of our tools? | 14:23 |
| krotscheck | ttx: True. Also, it’s not like design docs are anywhere on our roadmap. | 14:23 |
| krotscheck | ttx: So for now I think I’ll just gather more info about what people do/want to do when they design software. | 14:23 |
| ttx | I think for the time being we can track them as commits to a specs repo | 14:23 |
| ttx | and once the experiment is over we deice the best way to integrate that workflow in the UI | 14:24 |
| ttx | decide* | 14:24 |
| ttx | About "tasks" do you think that would be clearer if they were called "Steps" or "Work items" or "Commits" ? | 14:25 |
| ttx | krotscheck: ^ | 14:25 |
| krotscheck | ttx: I’m undecided - part of it is education, right? People will become used to the pattern. | 14:26 |
| *** david-lyle has joined #storyboard | 14:26 | |
| ttx | yes. I expect that heavy users of Launchpad won't have any issue adjusting. Part of the reason experienced people are so excited is because we bring the Launchpad Bugs story/task concept to Features. | 14:27 |
| ttx | It's because people who tried to track cross-project "things" had such a hard time doing so in LP Blueprints | 14:28 |
| krotscheck | ttx: Right - we’ve got a lot of people with Jira experience coming and being confused. | 14:28 |
| krotscheck | ttx: See, the more I think about it the more I feel that project association is a Story tag, rather than a task field. | 14:28 |
| ttx | That's why they want to jump and use it today, to end the pain :) They don't realize they would trade one pain for another. SB currently still has too many rough edges | 14:28 |
| ttx | krotscheck: interesting. So you wouldn't have projects associated to tasks ? | 14:29 |
| krotscheck | ttx: I… probably not, but maybe? See, when I work on a story, I need to keep in mind the things that have to happen on all related projects. Load it into brain RAM as it were. | 14:32 |
| ttx | krotscheck: We need to preserve the ability to autoclose most tasks from Gerrit, but then we might not need a to have a task-project association for that. You need a task-commit association for that. | 14:32 |
| krotscheck | ttx: Or a story-commit association. | 14:32 |
| ttx | krotscheck: hmm, yes indeed | 14:33 |
| ttx | krotscheck: you still want to have "open tasks" to express that the story isn't complete though. | 14:34 |
| krotscheck | So about that. | 14:34 |
| NikitaKonovalov | why not make a task-commit association, but if a task is solved withot a commit, may be there should be a separate status for that& | 14:34 |
| krotscheck | One thing James Polley pointed out during his UX session is that the lifecycle of a story actually goes beyond the work performed on commits. It starts with a Blueprint, goes into specs, then commit work happens, discussion on landing the patch happens, and then it’s staged for the next big release. | 14:35 |
| krotscheck | (where staged means ‘in master’) | 14:35 |
| ttx | krotscheck: actually, in most cases, it's landed in several steps | 14:36 |
| ttx | so the commit work, discussion and staged landing happens in several parallel threads | 14:36 |
| ttx | or "tasks" | 14:36 |
| krotscheck | ttx: Hee heee, threading | 14:36 |
| * krotscheck wishes python could thread well. | 14:37 | |
| ttx | from a release management perspective, we need to be able to track completion of a feature... see how far it is from being completed. So we can have a number of work items and autoclose them from commits | 14:37 |
| krotscheck | ttx: Feature == story, yes? | 14:37 |
| ttx | yes, in that context | 14:37 |
| krotscheck | Or, say, a story can describe a feature. | 14:37 |
| krotscheck | (or a bug - I know) | 14:38 |
| ttx | yep | 14:38 |
| ttx | The difference between bugs and features: | 14:38 |
| ttx | - features may have multiple tasks affecting same code repo (work items) | 14:38 |
| ttx | - bugs may have backporting tasks affecting same code repo (but different branches) | 14:39 |
| ttx | - both may affect multiple code repositories | 14:39 |
| ttx | Code repo == project in that context | 14:39 |
| ttx | The trick is to support both behaviors. My original POC idea was to actually differentiate them and have two separate UI for bugs and blueprints | 14:40 |
| NikitaKonovalov | btw, there is no way to mark a story as a bug right now | 14:40 |
| ttx | so that people would not create backport tasks on a feature, for example | 14:41 |
| NikitaKonovalov | I think it's time to restore that is_bug flag for a story | 14:41 |
| ttx | but then I thought that a generic story could support both behaviors, with the same story/task abstraction | 14:41 |
| ttx | that gives you a single UI, but less hints at sane behavior | 14:41 |
| krotscheck | NikitaKonovalov: Just a checkbox? | 14:42 |
| ttx | krotscheck: do you think that we should expose the fact that bugs and features are fundamentally different by exposing two UI behaviors ? Or just let people work with "stories" ? | 14:42 |
| krotscheck | ttx: I think it can. We can do view switching in the UI that’ll make them appear very different. | 14:42 |
| NikitaKonovalov | krotscheck: may be a ckeckbox | 14:43 |
| krotscheck | ttx: Honestly? I think it’s a fun discussion to have but I’m not going to waste too many actual design cycles on it until we get infra on board :) | 14:43 |
| ttx | from a DB perspective they are pretty similar. from a UI/behavior perspective they are different.. From a PI perspective, not sure :) | 14:43 |
| ttx | API* | 14:43 |
| NikitaKonovalov | but if we go for tagging of stories, then a "Bug" or a "Feature" tag will do that work | 14:43 |
| krotscheck | NikitaKonovalov: I like that approach. | 14:43 |
| krotscheck | I have _no_ idea what that UI would look like though. | 14:44 |
| phschwartz | I would think separate UI behaviors between bugs and features is a flawed approach as you would want everyone to focus on things from the story level. Just what I have been instilled on from PM classes I have taken. | 14:44 |
| NikitaKonovalov | as for UI, let's draw a bug icon near to the description | 14:45 |
| NikitaKonovalov | for a bug story | 14:45 |
| ttx | NikitaKonovalov: +1 | 14:45 |
| krotscheck | We have bug icons! | 14:45 |
| phschwartz | NikitaKonovalov: +1 I think that is all that should be needed difference wise. | 14:45 |
| ttx | At this point we don't need much more than a story category and the UI showing it | 14:46 |
| ttx | then release reports can show "featrues" separated from "bugs" | 14:46 |
| krotscheck | ttx: So, 1.1? | 14:47 |
| ttx | In the future we may want to get smart and prevent some behavior in one case vs. the other (like "no backports in features"), but I don't think we need to right now | 14:47 |
| krotscheck | I’ve got all the design session stories in storyboard btw. | 14:47 |
| krotscheck | And yolanda’s going to be able to contribute some as well (She’s in spain) | 14:48 |
| ttx | I'd say 1.1.1 | 14:48 |
| ttx | (or 1.2) | 14:48 |
| ttx | it's really needed for projects that do releases | 14:48 |
| ttx | projects that do CD (1.1) don't need the distinction that much | 14:49 |
| krotscheck | Ok, I won’t tag it for a release yet then. | 14:49 |
| ttx | and infra is all CD | 14:49 |
| ttx | or single-channel | 14:49 |
| * ttx is back to security bug triaging, yet another hat he wears | 14:50 | |
| ttx | hope to have a bit of time to go through reviews later | 14:50 |
| krotscheck | ttx: Did you see NikitaKonovalov’s nomination for storyboard-core? | 14:53 |
| krotscheck | Oh, you did. good | 14:53 |
| *** tteggel has quit IRC | 15:30 | |
| *** tteggel has joined #storyboard | 15:33 | |
| *** hashar has quit IRC | 16:01 | |
| miqui | krotscheck: the framework to generate the UI is not django...its? | 16:13 |
| miqui | you told me during summit, but forgot sorry... | 16:13 |
| openstackgerrit | A change was merged to openstack-infra/storyboard-webclient: Small refactor for preferences https://review.openstack.org/94332 | 16:15 |
| ttx | miqui: static javascript webclient - Angular and Bootstrap powered | 16:22 |
| openstackgerrit | A change was merged to openstack-infra/storyboard: Added priorities to tasks https://review.openstack.org/91675 | 16:39 |
| openstackgerrit | A change was merged to openstack-infra/storyboard: Updated documentation to include instructions for prod-proxy mode. https://review.openstack.org/94279 | 16:45 |
| openstackgerrit | A change was merged to openstack-infra/storyboard-webclient: Some project ui/ux updates https://review.openstack.org/91196 | 16:48 |
| *** jcoufal has quit IRC | 17:11 | |
| miqui | ..thanks ttx | 17:26 |
| krotscheck | miqui: AngularJS | 18:00 |
| krotscheck | The backend is Pecan/WSME | 18:01 |
| miqui | thanks krotscheck... | 18:02 |
| *** jcoufal has joined #storyboard | 18:19 | |
| *** jcoufal has quit IRC | 18:29 | |
| *** jcoufal has joined #storyboard | 18:30 | |
| krotscheck | Hrm. msd-resize has an onload bug :/ | 18:32 |
| *** jcoufal has quit IRC | 18:55 | |
| *** jeblair has joined #storyboard | 19:08 | |
| krotscheck | ARGH | 19:18 |
| *** jang has joined #storyboard | 19:23 | |
| *** hashar has joined #storyboard | 19:47 | |
| *** miqui has quit IRC | 20:26 | |
| openstackgerrit | Michael Krotscheck proposed a change to openstack-infra/storyboard-webclient: Textareas now autoresize their height. https://review.openstack.org/92939 | 20:35 |
| *** davidlenwell has joined #storyboard | 21:13 | |
| *** hashar has quit IRC | 21:16 | |
| davidlenwell | Hello everybody! | 21:18 |
| davidlenwell | So we at refstack are thinking we might want to use storyboard.. | 21:18 |
| krotscheck | Hey tehre davidlenwell ! | 21:22 |
| krotscheck | Tell me more? | 21:22 |
| davidlenwell | well two things.. one.. we want to support you in your efforts to make this thing | 21:29 |
| davidlenwell | two.. we need a thing that isn't launch pad to track things | 21:30 |
| *** mfer has quit IRC | 21:44 | |
| *** david-lyle has quit IRC | 22:18 | |
| *** david-lyle has joined #storyboard | 22:18 | |
| *** david-lyle has quit IRC | 22:19 | |
| openstackgerrit | Michael Krotscheck proposed a change to openstack-infra/storyboard-webclient: Added search icon to typeahead fields https://review.openstack.org/94273 | 22:50 |
| *** openstackgerrit has quit IRC | 23:19 | |
| *** openstackgerrit has joined #storyboard | 23:20 | |
| krotscheck | Ugh, sorry davidlenwell, something came up and I lost track of this channel | 23:56 |
| davidlenwell | no worries | 23:57 |
| davidlenwell | I figure with anything openstack related the conversation is going to happen out of sync | 23:57 |
| krotscheck | Support would be awesome. Do you want to hack away at it or are you more interested in UI work or... | 23:57 |
| openstackgerrit | Michael Krotscheck proposed a change to openstack-infra/storyboard: Removed tabs, changed to four spaces. https://review.openstack.org/94280 | 23:58 |
| davidlenwell | either or both | 23:58 |
| krotscheck | Well, the current goal is to bring infra up, because they don’t have any requirements re: releases. | 23:58 |
| davidlenwell | I'm a strong front end and back end dev.. but im also ptl of the refstack project and we are all interested in jumping on board and using it to manatge our project | 23:58 |
| krotscheck | All of those requirements are already in storyboard.openstack.org with [1.1] in the title. | 23:59 |
| davidlenwell | my project is simular to theres in that we don't have a release schedule with the rest of openstack | 23:59 |
| krotscheck | I’m concerned though that you’re going to trade the pain of launchpad for the pain of storyboard, because storyboard is still rough around the edges. | 23:59 |
| krotscheck | :) | 23:59 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.14.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!