►
From YouTube: 2023-09-20 Code Review Weekly
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
B
C
B
C
A
The
weekly
sync
for
code
review
group,
not
working
group-
that
was
another
call
hi
everybody.
A
B
A
Working
group
yeah
I,
like
I,
like
the
task
force
like
we're
a
force
of
tasks
like
task
force,
I.
C
A
That,
anyway,
so
status
I
wanted
to
give
a
bit
of
an
update,
because
we're
trying
to
clarify
this
work
as
we
go
and
there's
a
lot
of
uncertainty
and
some
questions
that
we're
figuring
out
as
we
go
so
we've
broken
down
the
work,
I'm
gonna
try
to
type
as
I
as
I
write
as
type
as
I
speak.
A
Some
of
the
open
issues
might
not
result
in
a
lot
of
work
being
done,
especially
the
the
first
two,
but
we
wanted
to
stop
and
think
whether
we
should
update
those
two
states,
because
essentially
the
big
bulk
of
this
work
can
be
summarized
in
right.
Now
we
just
play
one
thing:
that's
wrong
with
EMR
at
a
time
and
when
you
solve
that
surprise,
here's
another
thing-
that's
not
done
yet.
A
A
B
C
A
Yes,
so
we
have
we
double
checked
with
with
engineers,
and
this
seems
to
be
like
make
sense,
together
with
the
other
work,
we
have
in
flight
to
display
the
list
of
reasons
that
the
the
Mr
is
not
ready
to
be
merged,
yet
that's
also
related,
but
there's
one
particular
I'm.
Sorry,
my
cough
there's.
C
A
Particular
thing
that's
being
uncovered,
I.
Think
it's
important
for
us
to
be
aware.
A
What
we
consider
to
be
merge
checks
are
not
necessarily
checks
that
the
back
end
does
today,
namely
Patrick
uncovered
that
there's
some
scenarios
that
are
not
covered
by
the
merge
request,
mergable
action,
I
guess
one
of
them
is
the
Jiro
Association
missing,
and
the
Shah
mismatch
and
I'm
guessing
number
request
dependencies
as
well.
I'm,
not
sure
so
it
just
feels
like
we
need
to
so
we're
not
going
to
be
able
to
mer
to
deliver
these
solid
ones.
A
A
So
where
does
that?
Leave
us
just
probably
be
a
bit
slow
to
deliver
the
whole
thing
instead
of
being
able
to
deliver
in
16-6,
we
might
run
over
a
little
bit
to
167.,
but
all
in
all,
I
just
wanted
to
share
that
here.
The
the
other
part
is
that
the
once
we
have
the
lists
of
reasons
there's
some
potential
ux
things
we
want
to
iterate
later
right
now,
we'll
be
displaying
the
merge
checks
that
failed,
but
should
we
have
some
way
of
showing
the
merge
requests
that
were
done
like
I?
A
There's
some
diverging
opinion
there,
but
the
back
end
is
being
built
agnostically,
so
it's
it
just
gives
the
results
of
the
checks
and
then
the
front
end
will
work
with
it
through
graphql
queries,
yeah.
What
else
did
I
want
to
know?
I.
A
It
yeah
right
so
that's
kind
of
like
where
I
I'll
just
cut
it
off.
Phil
is
looking
into
it.
There
are
some
issues
that
are
with
Thomas
and
stanislav.
Just
to
you
know,
spread
the
knowledge
there,
but
the
first
part
is
the
work
that
Patrick
is
doing
to
provide
that
information
of
the
checks
and
then
displaying
it
with
his,
which
is
also
with
Phil
yeah
correct.
B
B
A
No
I
think
I
think
Matthew
has
been
giving
us
a
lot
of
responses
where
we
need
I.
Think
I
got
all
the
questions.
I
had
responded
by
him
and
then
we
ended
off
to
the
engineer
what
we
decide.
What
we're
realizing
we
were
discussing
this
me
and
Phil
was.
It
seems
like
the
kind
of
work
that
we're
definitely
going
to
be
uncovering
things
that
we
didn't
plan
for.
A
So
it's
okay
to
go
with
with
what
we
have
at
the
moment
and
we'll
we'll
improvise
as
we
go,
but
yeah
I
think
we
will
definitely
get
into
better
shape
than
what
we
were
before,
both
in
the
code
base
and
the
UI
for
the
user.
So
I
think
it's
good.
It's
a
good
step
through
it
definitely.
B
B
Yeah
I'll
I'll,
make
sure
Matthew
knows
just
given
everything
else.
That's
what
I
was
trying
to
figure
out
if
Matthew's
the
right
person,
which
I
think
he
is
because
of
the
work
on.
B
B
You
earlier
you
mentioned
16
7,
sort
of
like
domestic,
not
holding
you
to
it.
Target
sure.
C
B
It's
just
the
is
that
16
7
gets
us
into
like,
let's
just
say
it's
16.
at
the
end
of
16
7,
the
merge
widget
is
simplified.
Like
we've
done
the
simplifying
work
we
haven't
done.
The
work
for
Autumn.
C
B
A
The
list
of
checks
is
the
first
thing
we're
going
to
do.
That's
that's
before
all
of
this.
It
will
be
behind
the
future
flag
anyway,
because
it
won't
be
complete
to
begin
with,
but
that
one
will
definitely
be
part
of
it.
The
outer
merge,
tweaks
they're,
not
necessarily
have
to
be
held
up
so,
for
example,
status.
A
Lab,
has
an
issue
this
Milestone
to
add
to
cover
one
of
these
situations,
one
of
the
scenarios
I
don't
have
the
details
on
my
top
of
my
mind,
but
I
think
Matthew
was
looking
into
it
so,
but
that
work
is
still
ongoing.
A
The
reason
for
that
is
because
the
little
section
of
the
ready
to
merge,
which
is
where
I
think
the
auto
merge
will
manifest
itself,
is
not
being
changed,
that's
being
maintained,
as
it
is
we'll
just
Port
it
to
this
new
way
of
displaying
things
and
then
eventually,
once
this
is
in
place,
we
can
look
into
the
ready
to
merge
and
simplify
all
the
logic
and
all
that
stuff
inside
for
the
benefit
of
pipeline
team
pipeline
authoring.
A
I
can
remember
that's
the
other
issue,
that's
in
the
Epic,
but
we're
not
really
focusing
too
much
we're
still
addressing
the
other
part
of
the
problem,
but
already
emerge
where
you
manifest,
whether
it's
Auto,
merge
or
not,
I
think
we
can
work
on
that
in
parallel,
they're,
not
being
they're
not
going
to
be
affected.
B
So
we're
not
saying
like
16
7
for
this
and
then
two
to
three
Milestones
of
Auto
merge
work
to
get
done.
We're
probably
like
again
not
holding
just
if
we're
using
16-7
of
the
thing
it's
like
16
7
is
is
like
closer
to
everything
and
then
there's
probably
a
milestone
or
two
of
like
clean
up
to
like
get
them
together
versus
sequential
work.
Where
we're
like.
A
Right,
correct,
okay,
I,
agree,
yeah
I!
Think
that's
that's
how
I
am
seeing
as
well
from
from
this
point
of
view
at
the
moment
in
time,
maybe
in
a
couple
of
months
when
I'm
watching
this
recording
I'm
beating
myself
up
you,
you
never
know.
But
yes,
there
was
another
thing:
I
wanted
to
tell
you
another
regard.
A
This
is
yeah.
The
167
comment
is
because
I'm
already
counting
for
a
follow-up
issue
for
backend,
add
some
checks
to
that
mergable
check.
We
do
because
I
think
that's
how
they're
going
to
wire
it
into
the
front
end
like
the
mergeable
goes
through.
The
checks
gets.
The
results
feeds
that
over
to
the
front
end
and
if
they're
not
there,
including
that
merge
mergeable
thing,
we
won't
have
it
as
a
list
of
results.
A
That's
how
I'm
seeing
everything
so
far,
and
it
makes
sense
to
move
that
at
a
certain
point,
but
I
think
at
the
end
of
this
Milestone
we'll
be
able
to
enable
a
feature
flag
and
see
the
list
of
checks,
some
list
of
checks
that
are
being
failed
right
away
on
the
emergency,
but
yeah,
that's
my
hope.
A
A
Me
that's
a
part
of
this
is
a
part
of
like
experimentation
there,
because
we're
seeing
right
now
so
far
the
mock-ups
in
isolation.
But,
for
example,
one
of
the
mockups
has
a
level
three
of
approval
rules.
Information,
but,
like
the
approvals
section,
is
really
close
by
right.
So
it
feels
like
we
don't
have
to
give
all
the
information
on
that
little
summarized
list
because
then
it'll
be
too
much
information.
B
Okay,
yeah
I
think
just
then
keep
me
updated
on
it.
I
think
Auto,
merge
work
is
interested
external
or
interested
other
groups,
and
so
we
just
need
to
be
able
to
communicate
sort
of
where
we're
at
so
okay
yeah
like
yeah.
If
you
want
to
use
the
Epic
and
sort
of
like
we
did
for
extensions
and
just
do
like
a
here's
where
we're
at
and
here's
what's
going
versus
like
have
to
chat
about
it
every
week,
but
like
something
like
that
sure
yeah,
we
could
do
that.
Yeah.
B
A
You
already
know
that
the
change
default,
Target
branch-
it's
getting
close
and
the
custom
emoji-
is
also
getting
close.
So
you
should
get
ready
for
some
release
posts.
C
A
A
A
Is
a
bit
six
to
six
today,
so
hopefully
it's
nothing
serious,
but
yeah
we
were
recording
for
that
to
be
enabled
in
16-5.
C
B
B
A
Okay
cool,
so
it
should
be
posted
on
that
as
well.
I
mean
once
we
roll
it
out.
Phil
will
announce
it
on
slack
and
stuff.
Keep
you
all
updated
to
give
it
a
try,
but
yeah
excited
for
that.
I,
don't
know
if
you
saw,
but
that
request
was
rejected
to
keep
it
in
the
navigation,
the
sorry
the
custom,
emoji
and
the
way
I
see
it.
It
is
potentially
relevant
to
Ben
the
way
I
see
it.
A
They
they
rejected
it,
because
there
was
an
assist,
a
sustained
validation
from
the
perspective
of
users
and
everything
that
that
feature
is
worthy
to
have
that
that
highlight
on
the
navigation-
and
we
know
this
because
we
we
accept
this,
because
this
was
a
feature
that
we
that
Phil
picked
up
from.
You
know
the
dust
I
guess.
A
So
what
what
we
accept
is
that
right
now,
that's
how
it
is,
but
over
time
is
it
if
it
gets
mature
enough
to
to
do
some
validation
and
get
some
user
user
user
feedback
on
it.
We
might
have
some
more
arguments
to
go
back
and
re-request
to
be
added
to
the
navigation,
because
we
feel
like
that's
where
it
makes
sense,
together
with
the
labels,
if
you're
managing
something
at
the
group
level.
Labels
are
created
and
managed.
Also
at
the
group
level,
so
emojis
make
sense.
A
Mlg
makes
sense
to
be
there,
but
we're
okay
for
now
to
just
add
it
to
the
pop-up.
So
at
the
bottom
of
the
pop-up,
you
have
a
little
thing
to
manage
the
customer
module
that
context
so
yeah,
it's
clunky,
but
you'll
get
us
off
the
ground.
C
A
So
I
want
to
be
honest,
like
this
is
not
a
direct
code
review
feature.
It
just
happens
that
it's
a
code
review
engineer,
that's
working
on
it
right.
It
is
related
to
code
review
because
we
use
it,
but
it's
definitely
used
in
many
other
contexts.
I
think
I,
don't
know.
Kai
I
wouldn't
want
to
distract
Ben
from
other
priorities,
but
it
would
be
nice
to
have
that
looked
at
over
time.
A
No
in
terms
of
like
validation,
validating
the
feature,
acceptance
from
the
perspective
of
users,
I'll
link
to
the
here's.
What
I'll
do
I'll
link
to
the
epic
and
I'll
link
to
the
request
that
was
rejected?
And
then
you
can?
You
can
get
to
see
Kristen's
response,
which
was
exactly
about
the
solution:
validation
that
I'm,
probably
not
being
good
at
representing.
C
We've
had
discussions
about
tightening
up
on
what's
allowed
in
the
navigation,
basically
and.
B
A
Okay,
I
get
to
the
agenda
and
the
RS
slack
you
will
both
on
slack,
so
you
can
take
a
look
at
it
once
I
find
it.