►
From YouTube: 2021-02-02 Code Review Weekly UX 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
I
put
the
first
two
in,
I
guess
I
was
curious
on
the
survey.
I
know
you
said
we
sent
it
to
or
internally
like
internally
code
review
group
got
it
and
we
didn't
get
any
feedback
in
the
thread,
but
people
filled
it
out.
C
Yeah,
I
I
don't
know
we,
it
seems
like
we
didn't,
get
any
feedback
on
the
thread.
As
you
said,
and.
C
C
So
I
think
if
we
do
that,
we
should
get
a
good
number
of
responses
yeah
by
I
think
in
the
beginning
of
next
week
we
should
already
have
a
lot
of
responses
so
yeah
one
week
from
now.
I
think
we
can
do
another
status,
update
and
then
see
if
we
need
to
wait
more
or
if
we
can
close
it
up.
C
B
I
mean,
I
guess
we
don't
really
want
to
talk
about
it.
I
was
curious
how
it's
been
doing.
I
I
have
the
equal
tricks
account
and
maybe
I'll
find
time
with
you,
catherine,
to
like
figure
out
how
to
actually
get
access
to
the
project
because,
like
adam
gave
me
an
account,
but
I
can't
accept
pedro's
invite.
C
C
A
Interesting
yeah,
I
I
guess
you
can
create
it's.
I
was
going
to
say:
oh
I'll,
share
it
one
with
you,
but
then
it
would
be
the
same
thing
so
yeah,
I
think,
just
create
a
project.
That's
weird.
B
A
C
A
B
A
That's
the
why
yeah,
hopefully,
that
will
work
if
not
we'll
see
we'll
see
if
we
can
follow
up
with
them
on
support
or
something.
If
there's
something
wrong.
B
B
Okay,
where's
new
dinner:
now
I'm
gonna
find
that
dog,
oh
1310.
What
do
you
think
that'll
look
like
for
you
pedro,
I
know
like
mr
mapping
is
still
on
going.
I
expect
like
uni
like,
even
if
that
were
wrapped
up.
I
guess
by
the
end
of
thirteen
nine
it's
not
like.
We
would
have
new
net
new
feature
work
because
you
wouldn't
have
worked
on
anything
to
like.
Have
it
ready
for
1310.
B
C
C
I
not
only
found
a
couple
of
bugs
here
and
there,
but
there
are
even
at
the
surface
some
things
that
can
be
changed,
but
they're
just
minor
improvements,
nothing
major
and
then
of
course
the
big
thing
is
coming
up
with
a
design
that
is
much
more
intuitive
and
fits
well
with
all
of
the
different
states
and
conditions
and
things
that
we
show
there.
C
But
that
bigger
aspect,
I
don't
think
we
will
be
able
to
start
implementing
it
in
1310.
We
will.
We
could
probably
take
1310
to
share
it
with
engineering
and
see
how
we
can
break
it
down,
because
there
are
certainly
things
there
that
have
technical
constraints,
and
I
also
know
that
we
have
well.
I
don't
know
if
you
saw
it
in
the
mapping
issue,
but
I
think
fabio.
C
I
think
it
was
his
name,
a
staff,
a
senior
engineer
from
continuous
integration,
they're
starting
a
working
group
with
front
end
and
back
ends
to
from
what
I
understand
do
more
or
less
the
same
thing
that
I'm
doing
but
from
the
code
based
perspective
and
basically,
you
know
build
it
out.
So
it's
much
easier
to
work
with
all
of
the
different
states.
A
C
The
work
that
also
phil
did
with
creating
a
graphql
framework
for
the
merge
request
widgets,
but
it's
yeah.
It's
just
related.
It's
not
the
same
thing,
so
I
think
for
1310
related
to
the
merge
widgets.
There
will
certainly
be
a
lot
of
small
things
to
improve
and
issues
that
we
would
need
to
address.
But
I
don't
know
if
you
want
to
prioritize
them
for
13
10
compared
to
everything
else
that
we
have.
B
B
We
now
understand
like
how
the
merge
button
works
and,
like
here's,
the
the
way
we
want
it
to
work
and
sort
of
like
all
of
these
cases
and
the
error
messages
we
want
to
show,
but
not
necessarily
like
redesign
where
it's
located
or
how
it
exists
on
the
page
but
like
let's
just
sort
of
functionally
fix
it
first
and
then
we
can
talk
about
like.
Is
that
the
right
spot
for
it.
C
I
don't
think
that's
that's
feasible,
so
we
will
be
building
on
what
we
have
today,
but
just
making
more
sense
out
of
it
and
like
being
much
easier
to
use
and
understand
and
yeah
like,
for
example,
one
of
the
things
that
kind
of
boggles
me
a
little
bit
is
we
don't
have
a
huge
difference
between
like
the
messages
and
the
actions
that
we
show
to
to
people
who
can
merge
and
people
who
can't
merge
and,
and
sometimes
we
show
things
that
people
just
can't
do
and
we're
like
saying
to
them.
C
Hey.
You
should
approve
this
merge
request
or
you
should
fix
this
pipeline,
and
maybe
I
can't
do
it.
I
don't
have
any
permissions
to
do
it
or
it's
not
nothing
to
do
with
me.
So
there
are
many
things
that
we
can
do
to
improve,
that
in
texts
ui
placements
many
other
things,
but
it's
not
going
to
be
a
big
redesign.
B
Okay,
that
makes
more
sense,
I
think,
and
yeah
I've
seen
the
the
continuous
integration
working
group.
I
think
andre
and
I
talked
about
it
and
one
of
the
things
I
want
to
be
clear
of
about
that
is
that,
like
I
want
us
to
come
back
and
sort
of
like
have
the
guiding
like
this
is
what
it
needs
to
be
and
then
engineering
to
sort
of
align
on
how
they
like
want
to
implement
that.
But,
like
not,
and
I
think,
code,
review
sort
of
needs
to
own
the
like.
B
Okay,
so
let
me
just
I
just
want
to
so
for
1310.
You
think
there
will
be
potentially
like
a
couple
things
that
maybe
we
can
go
and
do
but
more
stuff
will
need,
like
investigation
time
by
engineering,
to
figure
out
like
the
longer
term
things
to
go
and
do
there
and
then
d.
Does
that
mean
in
1310
that
you
will
have
sort
of
like
returned
capacity
to
like
go
back
to
looking
at
reviewers
or
are
you
thinking?
1310
will
still
be
like
in
the
merge
button
area.
C
No,
no,
no,
I
think,
I
think,
in
by
13
10
I'll
be
back
and
be
able
to
to
work
on
reviewers
again.
C
C
Yeah,
I
I
I'm
thinking
that
the
next
priority
would
be
the
handoff.
I
believe
correct.
B
Yeah,
I
think
it's
handoff
is
what
we're
still
like.
We've
got
the
first
iteration
of
like
the
reviewer
change.
If
bill's
stuff
gets
merged
like
being
able
to
request
a
re-review
and
like,
I
think,
we'll
just
need
to
continue
working
out
sort
of
what
are
the
gaps
in
that
flow
that
we
want
to
address,
and
then
what
are
the?
B
C
Yeah,
no,
I
think
I
think
the
handoff
is
what
we.
C
Yeah
and
and
then
to
be
honest,
I'm
I'm
kind
of
looking
forward
to
what
what
we
will
get
out
of
the
survey
as
well.
But
I
my
assumption
right
now
is
that
we
won't
need
to
work
on
reviewers
that
much
after
that,
and
we
will
have
more
important
things
to
work
on.
I
mean
there
are
things
to
do
with
reviewers,
of
course,
and
we
can
we.
A
C
C
It
would
then
just
be
a
couple
of
a
couple
or
more
milestones
that
engineering
would
have
to
implement
it.
So
we
can
then
dedicate
more
of
my
time
to
start
looking
into
the
other
problems
that
we
can
prioritize
like.
I
don't
know
if,
if
the
top
problem
is
catching
up,
we
could
dedicate
time
to
that
or
something
else
I
don't
know
if,
if
it
makes
sense
what
I
said,
I
was
talking
many.
B
B
Yeah,
I
think
that's
right.
I
think
I
think
handoff
is
the
big
one.
I
don't
know
that
it's
like
a
simple,
quick
problem
to
solve,
because
I
think
there's
like
a
bunch
of
things
we
want
to
potentially
want
to
do
right,
like
we
want
to
sort
of
get
to
that
final
comment
piece.
We
want
to
sort
of
build
in
more,
like
I
think
you
know.
If
I
were
thinking
about
this
handoff
piece
like
we
need,
I
think
the
signaling
piece
we've
got
to
figure
out
like
where
we
get
comfortable
and
like.
B
Where
do
we
draw
the
line
on
like
signaling
being
done
in
terms
of
like
I
go
through
and
I
review
it
and
then
I
submit
my
review
and
are
my
options
like
I
review
and
approve
it
or
I
have
more
changes
or
whatever,
and
then
that
comes
back
to
me
and
sort
of
like
those
back
and
forth
interactions
that
ultimately
like
we
can
have
a
signal
or
get
to
a
place
where
we're
able
to
track
better
to
like
do.
B
B
Yeah,
I
agree,
and
then
I
also
like,
I
think,
that's
like
the
handoff
piece.
I
also
think
we
should
be
trying
to
get
rid
of
danger
at
the
same
time.
That's
the
other
one.
That's
like
on.
B
On
my
mind
is
I
want
to
get
rid
of
danger
and
the
fact
that
it
suggests
reviewers
like
obviously
it
should.
We
have
enough
of
this.
B
We
should
figure
out
how
much
of
this
data
we
have
in
product,
but
we
have
a
lot
of
data
in
the
product
now
and
like
we
should
start
leveraging
that
to
make
the
reviewers,
which
we
already
do
right,
like
reviewers,
already
suggest,
who
should
review
based
on
approval
rules
but
like
we
also
know
how
many
mrs,
like
we
would
also
in
theory,
if
we
saw
this
other
thing
about
handoff,
know
how
many,
mrs
you
still
need
to
action.
B
We
in
theory
know
your
time
zone
like
we
in
theory,
know
what
you
specialize
in
based
on
like
based
on
the
way
code
owners
is
defined
and
like
we
should
be
able
to
provide
a
like
a
recommendation
for
the
reviewer
and
and
really
like
to
me
the
ideal
workflow,
and
this
is
like
crazy
but
like
when
you
create
your
mr.
It
defaults
and
creates
as
a
draft
as
soon
as
you
removed
like
the
draft
status,
which
would
basically
signal
that
you're
ready
for
it
to
be
reviewed.
B
We
should
we
as
gitlab,
should
assign
the
reviewer
right
like
that's
it.
We
should
pick
the
right
one
and,
like
you,
might
not
disagree
and
have
to
go
change
it,
but
like
we
should
have
like
a
fairly
high
confidence
that
we've
selected
the
right,
the
right
reviewer
for
you,
assuming
we
have
enough
data
sources,
and
so
I
think
that's
the
other
piece
that,
like
I
want
to
also
start
working
on
with
reviewers.
Is
that
because
it's
sort
of
frustrating
that
there's
all
these
other
things
that
people
use
to
like?
Do
that.
C
Yeah
yeah,
I
yeah,
I
never
dedicated
myself
a
lot
to
danger
bot
but
you're
right,
and
we
should
aim
to
replace
it
as
soon
as
possible
because
we're
adding
a
lot
of
very
useful
functionality
to
it,
and
it
could
be
even
more
useful
if
it
was
if
those
efforts
were
channeled
to
the
right
places
of
the
product
and
the
right
moments
and
right
now
it's
just
a
comment
that
I
just
realized.
I
think
last
month
that
it
it
updates.
So
it's
it's
being
edited
because
it
was
really
weird.
C
I
I
saw
someone's
name
like
one
day
and
then
the
next
day
I
went
there
and
was
a
different
name
and
a
different
person,
and
I
that
was
crazy
and
it
wasn't.
I
didn't
realize
it
was
being
edited
and
it's
incredible
at
the
same
time,
the
effort
that
was
put
into
that.
So
it
was
updated
every
once
in
a
while,
but
but
yeah.
I
think
I
think
it
would
be
interesting
to
look
into
that.
I'm
not
sure
how
that's
where
that
is
in
the
list
of
priorities,
because
I
mean
yeah.
B
If
we
think
that
the
reviewer
feature
helps
you
find
the
right
reviewer
like
to
me,
that's
our
prime
function
of
danger
is
that
it
it
finds
the
right
reviewer
for
someone
right
and
so
like
reviewers
in
and
get
in,
gitlab
is
designed
to
minimize
the
amount
of
processing
you
have
to
do
to
find
the
person
who
can
merge
your
code,
the
fastest
right,
and
that
we
should.
Therefore
we
should
we
should
do
that.
B
It's
about
reviewers,
like
it's
going
to
be
related
to
the
reviewer's
feature,
because
I
think
that's
where
a
lot
of
stuff
will
like
come
together,
but
the
handoff
feature
is
almost
more
in
line
with
what
we've
talked
about
about
like
tracking.
What
do
I
need
to
action
on
a
merge
request
right,
like
we've
talked
about
like
how
do
I
understand
status
and
do
all
of
that?
B
That
is
much
more
in
line
with,
like
tracking
the
status
of
a
merge
request,
whereas
finding
the
right
reviewer
is
sort
of
like
was
the
original
reviewer's
intent.
I
think,
and
what
I
think
is
we
don't
as
a
company,
don't
feel
this
as
a
pain,
because
we
use
danger,
and
so,
like
we've
circumvented,
that
problem
there
are
lots
of
organizations
that
I've
seen
that,
like
don't
can't
write
ruby,
so
they
don't
have
danger
or
they.
B
Like
their
answer,
like
I've
been
talking
with
another
company
whose
answer
is
their
default?
Merge
request
template
in
order
to
just
like
tell
everyone
that
a
merge
request
exists
and
someone
needs
to
review
it.
B
C
Yeah,
I'm
not
gonna
disagree
with.
I
think
it's
it's
a
great
problem
too.
After
I,
I
just
don't
know
how
it
compares
to
the
other
things,
but.
C
I
mean
in
a
way
you're
right
that
we
have
built
danger
and
if
another
company
is
using
another
tool
that
already
does
this
for
them,
they
will
have
a
really
hard
time
of
migrating
to
gitlab
and
will,
even
if,
when
they
do,
they
will
have
a
fresh
training
experience,
because,
if
they're
a
really
large
team,
they
don't
know
how
to
yeah
who
they
should
assign
much
requests
to.
C
C
That
idea,
I
think
you
that
you
suggested
about
perhaps
having
a
filter
that
you
can
filter
down
like
merge,
requests
that
need
your
attention
like
I'm,
a
reviewer
of
like
reviewer
equals
kai,
and
then
I
don't
know
review
needed
or
review
done
or
whatever
it
is.
I
I
think
it
would
be,
because
we've
had
so
many
recent
problems
with
the
filters.
C
I
would
probably
like
for
an
engineer
to
look
into
that
possibility
before
we
do
it,
so,
even
if
it
needs
a
spike
in
1310
just
like
know,
if
it's
something
that
we
can
do
or
not,.
B
B
I
gotta
drop.
I
will
look
at
the
last
one.
Oh
okay,
I've
got
david's
last
meeting's
running
over,
so
we've
got
five
minutes.
Hey.
C
Yeah,
it's
a
really
small
thing:
yeah
we
I
just
shared
the
the
minimum
priority
for
ux
bugs
in
merge
requests
in
the
ux
weekly,
and
I
also
added
that
as
a
note
to
the
engineering,
willy
clean
review
yeah,
and
I
think
I
mean
the
people
that
will
feel
this.
The
most
are
probably
going
to
be
pms,
but
I
don't
know
what
is
the
best
avenue
to
share
this?
Also
because
they're
probably
going
to
be
questions
about
how
are
we
going
to
prioritize?
C
B
C
B
So,
like
I
don't
know
if
people
like
the
ci
folks
had
like
a
ton
of
open
issues,
I
think
product
like
we
had
open
issues
like
open
comments
on
that,
and
then
they
all
just
sort
of
got
resolved
and
was
like
this.
Is
it
but
like?
I
don't
know
that,
like
anyone
really
understood
like
how
do
we
deal
with
this
in
practice,
yeah
and
so
yeah,
I
I
don't
know
I
will
follow
up
with
a
new
and
find
out
like
if
he's
planning
on
addressing
the
other
things
as
well.
B
C
A
C
C
B
B
Cool
well
good
to
see
everyone
thanks,
yeah,
we'll
chat
again
either
tomorrow
or
next
week.