►
From YouTube: 2022-02-02 Code Review Weekly Sync
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
All
right,
so
I
had
the
first
thing,
so
I
want
to
give
an
update
on
the
security
allocation
in
the
issue.
It's
kind
of
the
I
put
a
link
here
to
what's
kind
of
the
latest
status,
so
there's
something
like
70,
officially
77
issues
that
are
still
open,
that
number
kind
of
hard
to
judge.
If
that's.
B
Because
a
lot
of
those
are
already
assigned
and
being
worked
on,
currently,
our
team
specifically
is
working
on
nine
of
those
one
code
review
and
then
eight
other
ones.
B
I
think
there's
about
19
that
are
not
assigned
yet
for
the
back
end
team,
so
that
number
is
dwindling
down
and
then
the
kind
of
the
latest
is
that
kind
of
the
tim
and
others
executives
have
been
kind
of
looking
at
what
what's
the
exit
criteria
and
what's
the
next
steps,
so
they
asked
all
the
all
the
teams
that
are
involved
to
provide.
B
What
are
what
are
our
priorities
or
what
would
we
be
doing
kind
of
if
we
weren't
doing
the
security
allocation
kind
of
what's
on
the
backlog
or,
what's
being
held
up
by
by
the
security
allocation
they're
going
to
use
that
information
to
help
decide
how
to
kind
of
exit
the
security
allocation
yeah?
I
think
those
are
the
big
things.
B
You
know
kerry,
went
through
and
triaged
a
number
of
the
issues
and
put
the
right
labels
on
him.
There
are
some
front-end
issues
that
were
in
there
that
hadn't
been
being
looked
at
because
it
was
all
back
in
so
far,
but
so
they're
going
to
start
talking
to
to
seeing
what
to
do
about
front
end
issues
as
well.
B
I
don't
know
if
there's
any
for
our
team
or
not,
I
haven't
looked
oh
yeah,
we're
we're
slowly
getting
through
these
issues
and
burning
them
down.
So
that's
the
good
news
and
we're
talking
now
about
kind
of
what
are
the
next
steps
and
how
we
get
out
of
the
security
allocation.
B
A
B
Yeah
carrie
looked
through
all
the
ones
that
didn't
have
labels,
I
think
didn't,
have
front
end
or
back
end,
and
then
she
was
kind
enough
to
add
the
right
labels
for
us,
but
I'll
yeah
I'll
as
we're
talking
here,
I
can
or
I'll
put
it
put
the
link
to
the
front
end
labels
oops
in
the
agenda
here
when
I
build
it
up,
the
the
queries
are:
there's
a
lot
of
labels
and
filters,
and
it's
like
it's
not.
It
is
dev,
it
is
or
it's
not.
It
is
security.
It's
not
a
feature.
B
A
A
Cool,
I
appreciate
the
update.
I
know
it
is
not
fun
to
report
on
or
fun
to
work
on
or
easy.
C
Right
so
I
just
wanted
to
maybe
walk
through
a
little
bit
about
what
I've
been
working
on
for
the
selectively
loading.
Mr
diff,
when,
following
a
comment
like,
I
think
we
need
a
better
title
for
that,
because
I
always
forget
it,
I'm
going
to
share
my
screen
and
kind
of
go
through
what
we
were
starting
with
and
then
what
I
posted
yesterday
in
this
potentially
needlessly
complicated
flow.
I
think
it
might
be
really
simple
and
I
just
want
to
get
a
gut
check
on
this.
C
Okay,
so
the
the
original
design
that
we
had
for
this
was
wait.
Is
this
big
enough?
Does
that
work?
We
would
show
the
file
that
that
comment
came
from.
We
would
sort
of
block
the
rest
of
the
files
in
the
tree
and
then,
if
you
try
to
navigate
to
another
file
via
shortcut
via
keyboard
shortcut
or
from
clicking
next
unresolved
thread,
you'd
get
a
toast
that
says
you
can't
right
now,
you're
viewing
a
single
file,
because
that's
kind
of
we're
just
kind
of
blocking
everything
except
for
that
file.
C
And
then,
if
you
want
to
go
to
a
different
file,
then
you
click
the
all
files
and
you
go
back
to
that
original
mode,
where
you
can
see
everything
as
usual,
and
this
is
very
similar
to
the
way
that,
like
imager
and
reddit,
work,
which
I
think
was
kind
of
the
basis
for
this
issue
anyway,
and
then
there
were
some
comments
about
how
it's
a
lot
like
single
file
mode,
because
it
is
we're
showing
one
file.
C
C
We,
instead
of
blocking
everything
like
I
had
originally,
if
you
follow
that
comment
link
you
end
up
getting
to
here,
which
is
the
file
everything
is
still
available
in
the
file
tree
and
you
can
still
navigate
between
files.
But
you're
going
to
have
this
persistent
alert,
that's
fixed
to
the
top
of
the
screen
at
all
times.
C
C
Go
to
all
these
different
files,
but
you're
still
going
to
be
in
the
single
file
mode.
That
might
be
confusing
and
I
might
not
be
explaining
it
right.
So
I
have
this
little
chart.
So
you
click
on
the
link.
We
check
the
file
preference
if
it's
single
file
mode,
nothing
changes!
You
see
that
file
if
it's
multi-file
mode,
which
is
the
default,
we're
kind
of
going
to
force
that
single
file
mode
with
the
fixed
banner
and
then
you
can
exit
at
any
time
by
clicking
view
all
files.
D
I
I
yeah.
I
love
this
there's
a
couple
of
details
of
implementation
that
we
might
want
to
split
this
into
two
steps
because,
for
example,
the
single
file
mode,
not
changing
anything.
It
would
mean
that
currently,
when
you
go
into
a
single
file
mode,
we're
still
requesting
all
the
patch
diffs
we're
still
going
through
all
the
batch
tips
until
you
get.
The
actual
file
then
display
that
until
then
you're
waiting
so
there's
no
benefit
there.
D
Looking
at
this
chart,
what
this
does,
it
would
be
like
the
multifile
mode
would
be
much
faster
than
the
single
file
mode,
so
I
think
at
least
we
should
have
two
issues
for
implementing
one,
the
multifile
mode.
First
then,
going
back
to
the
single
file
and
building
that
improvement
as
well
only
requesting
that
one
file,
two
separate
things,
doesn't
block
one
that
doesn't
block
the
other,
but
but
yeah.
I
like
this.
As
long
as
the
the
fixed
warning
stays
there,
it
cannot
be
dismissed,
so
it's
always
there.
D
C
C
D
Can
you
show
me
the
screenshot
for
the
the
the
final
result
with
the
file
tree
open
again,
the
list
of
files
comes
in
the
metadata
request,
so
that's
good.
We
still
have
all
the
information
we
need
to
build
that
the
batch
divs
are
just
like
the
the
def
defines
right,
yeah
question:
should
we
style
differently
the
files
that
are
not
being
loaded,
just
the
tweak
opacity
or
whatever?
No.
C
Well,
in
this
version,
they're
all
available
they're
all
loaded
this.
This
merge
request
only
had
two
change
files.
D
D
Thanks
for
saying
inger,
instead
of
saying,
as
some
people
call
it.
A
I
was
like
a
resting
face,
I
don't
know
I
was
actually
I
like
this
sorry
sorry
for
looking
upset
about
it.
A
No,
I
like
it,
I
was.
I
was
pon.
I
was
thinking
through
a
few
things.
While
andre
was
talking
one.
I
was
thinking
about
the
the
diff
loading
because
it
you
know
one
of
the
reasons
we
talked
about.
This
was
performance
and
if
we
still
have
to
go
request
all
the
diffs
like
that
feels
like
a
thing
we
need
to
solve
sort
of
upfront.
A
The
other
thing
I
was
thinking
about
is
one
of
the
things
we
know
from
people.
Is
that
often
they
leave
a
comment
after
they
create
their
merge
request,
which
is
hey
blah,
blah
blah
blah
blah
blah.
Would
you
please
review
this
merge
request
the
to-do,
for
that
is
a
link
to
a
specific
comment,
but
it's
not
on
the
changes
tab,
it's
on
the
overview
tab
and
so
like
I'm
sort
of
curious
like
what
that
behavior.
A
C
E
It
always
links
to
at
least
in
email
notifications.
It's
always
to
me
the
examples
I'm
seeing
always
link
to
a
note
in
the
overview
tab.
A
D
D
Kind
of
because
then
I
think,
there's
a
bigger
question
because
after
you
get
a
comment
on
the
overview
tab
for
a
diff,
so
the
diff
comments
on
the
changes.
Tab
shown
on
the
overview.
Tab
still
have
a
link
for
the
changes
tab
and
you
follow
that
link.
D
D
Now
you
still
get
a
link
to
the
diff
tab.
Correct
question
is:
will
we
still
want
to
load
the
only
file
or
if
you
come
from
the
overview
tab,
you
will
want
to
load
the
entire
thing
or
force
the
user
to
go
click
again
to
see
it.
Let
me
share
the
screen,
so
I
can
talk
about.
This
is
the
last
point
of
the
agenda,
so
I
think
we
have
some
time
to.
G
A
F
C
C
I
was
thinking
those
comments
directed
you
right
to
the
diff
and
that's
what
I
I
would
find
ideal
and
then,
if
you're,
looking
at
the
overview
tab,
you
see
that
comment
pointing
you
to
the
diff
again.
That
would
just
render
the
whole
all
your
files.
It
wouldn't
be
a
single
file.
F
I
would
I
would
have
sworn
that
I'd
gotten
to
do's
that
linked
right
to
dips,
but
I
guess
I
I
can't
find
any
in
my
to-do
list,
so
I
guess
they
all
go
straight
to
the
overview
tab.
I
I
don't
know.
E
Yeah
so
where,
where
do
the?
Where
does
the
20
comes
from?
Is
it
people
jumping
from
either
giving
you
know
the
link
directly
and
visiting
its
or
from
the
overview
tab
going
to
changes,
tab.
E
Because
when,
when
phil
demoed
this
the
proof
of
concept,
he
was
experimenting
with
the
links
that
go
from
the
overview
tab
to
the
changes
tab
when
you're
looking
at
a
thread,
that's
what
he
was
using
for
his
proof
of
concept,
and
I
didn't
even
check
the
emails
or
to
do's,
because
I
thought
well,
I
mean
20
yeah,
I
think
as
everyone
I
was
assuming
that
it
was
also
the
case
recently.
E
D
Heard
glimpses
of
that
somebody
mentioned
the
obs
obs
was
doing
fine,
it
was
just
firefox
was
eating
all
the
ram
for
some
reason
crazy
anyway.
So
what
I
was
going
at
is
like
there's,
you
link
the
today's
link
to
the
overview
tab
and
then,
if
it's
a
diff
comment,
you
have
a
link
to
the
changes.
Tab
we're
on
board
right
now.
I
don't
know
I'm
not
entirely
sure
if
we'll
be
able
to
distinguish
that
link
from
the
overview
tab.
Well,
we
are.
D
C
C
E
Is
that,
with
with
this
new
information
that
has
come
to
light,
the
20
may
not
take
into
account
the
feature
that
we
released
to
view
changes
inline
in
an
outdated
thread,
so
it
may
users
may
actually
be
using
that
now
and
not
having
to
go
to
the
changes
tab
at
all
and
clicking
on
that
started
a
thread
on
the
diff.
You
know
that
link
that
goes
so
they
they
may
not
be
using
that
that
much.
E
E
D
A
Linked
it
in
the
the
meeting
agenda,
but
it's
showing.
A
D
Okay:
let's
do
that,
let's
revise
the
numbers
to
to
make
sure
that
that
so,
but
I
think
it's
important
to
capture
that
comment
from
annabelle
to
if
you're
in
the
mr
and
you
follow
a
link
from
the
overview
to
the
changes
tab,
we
should
load
the
entire.
Mr
later
on,
we
can
see
how
that
experience
is
and
if
you
still
want
to
load
it
or
not,
but
yeah
that
makes
sense
to
me.
D
D
I
still
use
that
a
lot
personally,
so
I
still
see
the
value
of
developing
this
and
I
don't
think
it's
in
terms
of
implementation.
We
do
have
everything
from
the
back
end
that
we
need.
We
have
the
batch
shifts
that
can
take
a
file
as
a
parameter.
E
Yeah,
I
yeah,
I
also
see
the
use
case
for
it,
even
if
it's
it
could
be
smaller
than
what
we
were
expecting.
I
just
think
that
it
may
change
the
priority
of
addressing
this,
not
that
it
would
would
not
be
useful,
but
when
we
would
work
yeah,
that's
right.
Let's.
E
A
Yeah,
I
don't.
I
don't
know
why
these
queries
aren't
working.
I
I'll
have
to
go
back
and
look
at
him.
We,
I
think
we
looked
at
referrers,
we
looked
at
like
and
that's
how
well
we
looked
at
referrers
to
know
that
it
was
direct
navigation.
If
there's
no
referrer,
that's
how
we
know
it's
a
direct
navigation
to
the
changes,
tab,
and
so
anything
that
is
not
anything
that
is
has
a
referrer
is
therefore
sort
of
like
the
opposite
percentage.
A
So,
like
the
referrer
traffic
referred,
traffic
to
changes
was
80
and
non-referred
traffic
was
whatever,
and
so
you
get
a
referrer
out
of
any
other
gitlab
place.
If
that
makes
sense,.
A
E
Yeah,
but
I
think
that
context
is
important
to
know
where
does
the
traffic
come
from,
even
if
it's
within
gitlab.
C
A
Unless
we
really
think
we
want
to
change
the
comment
to
do
and
email
notification,
navigation
path
to
go
directly
to
the
changes,
tab
and
that's
probably
a
much
larger
conversation
and
discussion
and
gets
back
into
the
whole
like.
Why
do
we
have
an
overview
and
a
changes?
Tab
like
why
are
there
two
different
tabs
to
begin
with
that
show
the
same
information
and
maybe
opens
up
a
different
can
of
worms
yeah.
D
E
G
D
Yeah
yeah,
just
this
is
reiterating
what
we
discussed
two
weeks
ago.
I
believe
here
in
this
call,
I
brought
it
up
here
after
he
brought
it
up
with
me
on
the
one-on-one.
He
still
feels
strongly
about.
He
still
feels
iffy
to
put
it
in
a
colloquial
english
about
doing
this.
It
feels
really
contrary
to
what
we've
been
doing,
and
he
just
wanted
to
raise
this
again
to
the
crowd
to
the
crowd
so
yeah.
D
E
Originally
so
the
tracking-
and
it
would
be
opt
in
so
meaning
that
we
would
only.
E
D
E
D
I
mean
well,
we
won't,
but
we
technically
could
right
we'll
collect
here's.
The
thing
we're
collecting
the
data,
and
this
is
a
detail,
we're
collecting
the
detail,
collecting
the
data
per
device,
but
we're
dismissing
the
warning
of
the
survey
by
user.
That
was
was
discussed
on
the
issue,
if
I
remember
correctly,
but
I
wasn't
aware
that
we
wouldn't
be
tracking
per
user.
I
think
the
idea
was
to
get
the
number
of
days
that
that
user
had
visited
an
mr
page
in
the
past
30
days.
I
thought
that
was
the
metric,
so
it's
not
per
user.
D
D
A
D
Tie
that
no
user,
no
nothing
when
they
open
the
page.
Okay.
Now
one
of
the
things
that
we
discussed
was
this
like.
Is
it
worth
causing
that
iffy
feeling
of?
Why
is
this
number
here
in
the
like?
I
don't
know
if
it's
in
the
form,
if
it's
visible
on
the
form,
is
that
important
of
a
metric
to
risk
having
such
a
negative,
because
we've
had
negative
impact,
negative
reactions
to
telemetry
cases
in
the
past
and
we're
collecting
this
sort
of
like
very
highly
customized
metric
on
something
that
it's
not
again.
D
I
understand
once
we
go
into
the
form
it's
not
tied
to
them,
but
now
they
know
that
we
know
they
know
that
we're
tracking
that
they
might
not
even
be
able
to
tell
what
that
number
is,
and
the
question
then
came
is
it?
Is
it
that
big
of
a
metric
to
justify
risking
that
or
are
we
just
overthinking
this
whole
thing,
because
we
brought
this
up
twice
already.
D
D
F
Just
quickly
when
we
have
tracking
things,
usually
it's
like.
We
have
gotten
most
of
the
way
through
implementation,
it
becomes
public,
it
hits
hacker
news
or
something,
and
then
that's
when
we
get
the
all
the
negative
feedback.
So
it
might
be
good
if
we
can
to
figure
out
some
sort
of
user
research
on
this
like
hey.
What
do
you
think
if
you
saw
this
in
the
url
kind,.
D
Goes
back
to
our
point:
is
this
that
meaningful,
like
knowing
that
number?
Is
it
that
meaningful
anyway,
let's
go
to
the
issue?