►
From YouTube: Quality Engineering Productivity Team Weekly: 2020-05-26
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).
A
A
A
A
Didn't
want
I
did
want
to
note
a
few
things
before
social
discussion.
The
first
was
I:
do
not
plan
to
make
this
public
on
YouTube,
don't
feel
like
you
have
to
share,
but
I'm
not
gonna
make
that
public,
just
because
I
can
like
in
the
u.s..
Sometimes
there's
security
questions
like
where
you
employ.
If
I
act
like
this
list
of
four
people,
so
I
did
just
want
to
get
that
out
there.
A
The
thing
that
made
me
think
of
this
question
is
my
second
job
that
I
had
actually
was
working
at
one
of
the
restaurants
down
where
I
grew
up
at
Lake
of
the
Ozarks,
which
was
kind
of
in
the
news
last
this
past
weekend
for
throwing
very
large
Memorial
Day
parties
in
the
US,
where
there
was
like
hundreds
of
people
all
together
in
pools
without
masks
and
I.
Just
got
me
thinking
like
I
wonder
what
everyone
else
kind
of
did
before
they
got
here.
A
A
At
Walmart,
in
the
electronics
section
like
selling
TVs
in
CDs,
we
had
a
huge
CD
collection
like
a
big
CD
collection,
so
it
was
kind
of
kind
of
fun
to
see
how
technology
has
changed,
but
that
was
my
first
job.
It
was:
was
nice,
gonna
being
somewhat
related
with
technology
I'm
getting
till
at
least
like
tell
people
about
computers
and
things
like
that?
What
about
you,
Remmy
and.
C
C
That
was
a
fun
first
job
I
I,
don't
have
only
good
memories
about
it,
because
I
was
young
and,
like
the
boss,
was
not
super
nice,
but
that
was
yeah,
I'm
glad
I
I
did
it
because
yeah
I
think
you
need
to
to
have
different
experiences
and
and
another
job
I
did
was
working
in
fuel
station
on
the
highway,
like
not
only
fuel,
but
you
know
the
rest
stations,
shell,
it
was,
and
I
was
like
in
the
in
the
small
cabin
to
make
the
people
pay
for
their
show
and
also
like
when
they
would
buy
stuff
in
the
station.
C
Yeah,
that
was
that
was
fun.
That
was
eight
hours
of
work,
with
only
like
45
minutes
wreck
in
the
middle
I
think
something
like
that
yeah
that
was
kind
of
tough,
but
people
were
really
nice
there
and
I'm
also
glad
I
did
it
because
there
were
some,
that's
the
only
time
I
I
had
to
do
like
night
shifts
and
and
we
wheeled
ships
like
starting
at
6:00,
6:00
a.m.
or
doing
the
10:00
p.m.
to
6:00
a.m.
shift
as
well.
So
that
was
really
interesting.
C
You
know
in
the
middle
of
the
night,
one
guy
would
come
with
like
in
his
Porsche,
and
it
was
that
was
not
super
good
memory
because
he
was
I
should
be
breathing.
You
know
how
cool
so
on
the
highway.
It's
not
super
nice,
but
yeah.
That's
still
a
memory
like
you
yeah,
you
tend
to
see
crazy
things
from
time
to
time,
yeah
that
was
fun
yeah,
that's
it
for
me.
That's
that
was
a
lot.
Sorry.
D
Yeah
my
first
job
was
when
I
was
still
at
school
cleaning
offices.
So
there
was
a
big
like
office
near
where
I
used
to
live
where
I
grew
up
and
they
also
had
a
factory
because
they
used
to
manufacture
on
the
back.
So
we
would
clean
the
offices
and
the
factories,
and
that
was
that
was
really
really
hard.
D
D
So
I
work
there,
but
I
can
share.
The
I
can
share
a
link
to
it's
called
owned.
Towers
I,
don't
know
whether
you've
heard
of
it,
but
it's
got
big
big
roller
coasters
and
rides,
and
it's
the
whole
family
but
I'm
not
sure
what
they're
doing
now,
because
as
Kyle
said,
you
know,
times
have
changed
and
people
are
really
really
close
together
there
and
it's
it's
full
of
maybe
10,000
people
each
day.
So
I
guess
they're.
Probably
closed
right
now.
B
For
me
aside,
my
back
solace,
University
I
was
also
good.
I
was
I,
worked
as
a
tooth
math
tutor
for
primary
school
students,
so
there
are
ten
eleven
years
old
and
then
what
I
remember
about
it
was
I.
Remember
like
I
think
I
had
to
teach
like
so
in
primary
schools.
Here
they
had
fun,
then
math
is
little
bit
weird
I,
think
like
like
in
later
or
in
our
school,
like
curriculum,
usually
learn
about
algebra
and
stuff
like
that.
So
that
is
something
like
when
we
had
teenagers.
B
So
that's
how
I
used
to
think
about
solving
problems
and
I
had
to
teach
something
similar
to
the
kids
and
the
schools
didn't
teach
algebra
and
their
level,
so
I
had
to
figure
out
how
to
teach
them,
and
then
there
was
a
very
technically
the
user.
I
couldn't
really
understand.
I
had
to
ask
my
father
experienced
tutor
for
help
like
how
to
solve
the
problems
that
they
are
doing.
Yeah
then
it
was.
B
E
Saw
my
experience
would
be
very
common,
but
it
seems
that
it's.
The
word
is
what
it's
actually
rails:
grills
1.06
I
think
when
I
was
sort
of
grading
University
and
is
building
a
few
events
website
like
it's
a
company
in
which
real
hostile,
Brenden
events
like
people's
sign
up
and
leave
message
and
get
some
reverse
things
like
that.
So
in
summer,
intern
thinks
I
mean
I've
met
a
few
events
website
with
rails
and
also
update
song.
There
was
a
social
network
website
or
not
it's
already.
E
A
That's
awesome.
Thanks
for
sharing
everyone
was
really
cool,
I
liked
all
the
stories
and
everything
moving
moving
on
into
announcements.
I
want
to
share
that
I
noticed
the
code
review
guidelines
were
updated
to
encourage
the
use
of
conventional
commits
when
reviewing
and
Mr
thought.
That
was
an
interesting
thing.
If
you
weren't
aware,
please
read
up
on
that.
A
A
So,
thank
you
very
much
for
everything
you've
shared
so
far
and
then
Remi
I
took
your
360
feedback
announcement
kind
of
expanded
it
a
little
bit.
Okay,
so
30,
360
feedback
started
this
yesterday,
it'll
run
through
the
8th
for
self
manager
and
peer
review.
More
details
can
be
found
at
the
end
book
page
that
I'll
link
to
the.
A
To
reiterate:
is
feedback
is
a
gift
of
time
and
energy,
so
please
give
it
that
time
and
energy
so
that
you
can
be
thoughtful
and
share
helpful
feedback
to
everyone
that
you're
able
to
review
this
opportunity
for
everyone
to
learn
and
grow
I'm,
really
looking
forward
to
see
what
what
feedback
I
get
I
hope
everyone
else's
as
well
into
the
agenda
Remy.
You
want
to
take
the
first
item
on
master
success
rate.
C
A
I
agree
that
it's
a
little
confusing
catching
it
and
master
and
communicating
it
just
like
a
normal,
broken
master.
So
I
was
wondering
if
we
should
have
like
a
different
classification
for
like
a
boss
rate
that
has
maybe
different
guidelines,
specifically
around,
like
guidance
to
merge
the
maintainer
I
like
catching
it
early
like
I,
do
I
do
like
that
part.
A
E
B
B
E
Once
merge
forcing
to
eg
you,
it
was
her
hot
perio,
blacks,
those
will
break
very
often
and
arrows
and
before
the
previous
arrow
can
be
fixed.
The
next
arrow
was
added
and
I
think
at
once.
It
probably
has
three
different
kind
of
three
different
arrow
at
the
same
time
at
max
and
it's
frustrating
while
we
are
facing
it
and
gentle
arrow
was
added,
but
maybe
it's
getting
better
now
I,
don't
know.
A
That
for
now,
that,
if
it's
a
broken
master
due
to
Boston
merging,
can
continue,
we
should
start
and
try
that
and
then
look
to
kind
of
dial
it
back
more
I
I,
don't
think,
there's
any
downside
to
waiting
until
that
scheduled
Foss
biplane,
but
we'd
still
have
to
create
the
issue
in
the
gitlab
repo.
Since
they're
moved
anyways
like
everything
would,
would
we
wouldn't
necessarily
be
able
to
track
it
any
differently.
We
just
be
catching
it
later
and
reacting
to
it
later.
We
do
have
the
way
to
run
it.
So
I'd
be
like.
B
C
So
if
I
can
add
something
I,
don't
like
the
fact
that
we
would
treat
broken
masters
do
as
if
first
jobs
differently
from
other
broken
masters,
and
the
first
thing
is
that
we
have
a
KPI
for
that.
So
and
it's
it
will
like
decrease
the
the
success
rates,
regardless
of
the
kind
of
failure.
So
that's
woods
actually
like
make
success
rate.
Go
like
decrease.
B
C
No
advantage
and
another
thing
about
gentleness
points
about
making.
First,
a
second
citizen
I
think
that's
I
think
we
know
that
we
have
the
the
notifications
in
the
master,
broken
channel.
I
think
we
have
the.
We
have
a
good
process
to
to
tackle
these
failures,
and
and
since
we
also
have
the
as
default
jobs
that
can
run
in
merge
requests.
C
That
means
that
we
can
have
an
odd
request
dedicated
to
fixing
force
and
without
the
pressure
to
fix,
broken
master
for
the
main
project
that
is
under
heavy
development,
that
wouldn't
that
wouldn't
avoid
like
new
for
specific
failures
being
introduced.
But
at
least
we
have
a
good
process
and
a
good
way
to
fix
bycatch.
B
Yeah
I
do
agree
with
that,
so
I
think
we
could
still
use
a
giblet
forced
project
as
a
source
for
broken
master
without
having
to
run
this.
Whatever
is
gonna
be
in
the
Gibbler
main
pipeline
is
going
to
be
in
Magilla
for
spy.
All
so
I
feel
like
running
as,
if
Austin
master,
that
doesn't
really
give
us
a
lot
of
additional
advantages
compared
to
running
the
itself
in
did
not
focus
new
project.
Yeah
yeah.
B
B
Is
the
source
of
information
is
different,
but
I
still
treat
me
the
same.
My
main
worry
is
that
is
there
different
between
running
the
job
s
in
the
master
pipeline,
resisting
first
project,
because
it
may
be
more
difficult
to
identify
what
the
problem
is
when
it
fails
in
first
versus
when
it
fills
in
model
in
the
main
pipeline?
If
it
is
equally,
if
the
effort
identify
the
problem
is
the
same,
then
I
think
there's
no
downside
running
in
force.
A
Well,
but
but
like
like
you're
saying
every
master
commit
which
I
see
how
often
that
happens,
every
three-hour
like
that
looks
like
it
runs
every
three
hours
I
support,
whatever
direction
the
team
should
go
so
I
was
very
prescriptive
at
the
start,
I'm
supportive,
wherever
you
guys
want
to
go.
I
I'd
see
your
point
where
it
kind
of
detracts
from
the
KPI
or
a
less
significant
reason
right.
We're
gonna
have
an
impact
to
our
master
stability
KPI
for
something
that
isn't
necessarily
as
much
of
a
master
broken
as
like.
B
A
So
how
about
we?
We
do
an
issue
for
the
end
of
the
next
iteration
of
boss
by
funds.
I,
don't
know
if
there
is
one-
and
we
can
kind
of
summarize
this
discussion
and
make
a
decision
acing
on
that
yeah
in
the
meantime,
like
I
think
we
can
make
it
clear
when
there
is
a
master
broken
for
foster
aces.
Just
in
our
like
slack
notifications
like
merging,
is
still
loud
or
like
maintain
continue
to
merge
unless
there's
a
reason
why
we
should
not.
C
D
Track
the
changes
that
the
the
service
suggests
against
what
the
actual
applications
have
been
as
part
of
the
unlabeled
triage.
So
we
can
test
to
see
how
accurate
this
classifier
is
and
then
whether
we
can
use
it
for
other
purposes
such
as
applying
type
labels
and
things
like
that,
because
we
are
missing
and
we
feel
like
those
two
phases
to
the
automatic
application
of
labels,
one
being
the
category
to
have
the
inference
and
then
the
other
being
the
type
label.
And
then
we'd
have
the
whole
of
the
triage
criteria
covered
so
yeah.
D
A
A
Not
add
like
not
not
adding
another
type
label
and
I'm
I'm
kind
of
confused
that
I
think
if
we
don't
have
that
type
taxonomy
or
something
at
the
top
that
what's
going
to
be
much
harder
to
enforce,
like
that,
you
two'll
exclusiveness,
we
just
have
like
tooling
and
bug
like
everything
is
at
that
that
first
key
level
is
there
something
I'm
missing
here
on
this
like
I,
don't
think,
there's
a
way
for
that
key
to
indicate
type
I.
Think
reporting,
specifically
in
size
sense,
is
gonna,
be
much
more
challenging
when
you
start
looking
at
yeah.
D
I
think
it
implies
the
context
when
you
look
at
it,
but
I
don't
think
it's
used
like
that
anywhere
in
the
app
right
now.
I,
don't
think
it
extracts
it
in
any
way.
We
can
do
that
in
size.
Sense,
so
I
think
it
would
be
easier
if
we're
going
to
put
everything
in
silence,
but
if
we're
still
using
insights
and
things
like
that,
it's
not
going
to
do
that.
D
My
fear
with
removing
the
top
level
labels
is
that
we
can't
iterate
so
much
like.
If
we
we
can
iterate
beneath
that
type
label
and
leave
it
there
and
we're
not
going
to
break
everything
around
it.
You
know
we're
not
going
to
break
insights
and
triage,
and
things
like
that
I
feel
like
it's
a
lot
bigger
of
a
change.
D
C
Yeah
and
yeah,
and
that's
that's
funny-
that
it's
actually
one
of
the
reason
why
Meg
wants
to
just
rename
the
label
is
to
have
worked.
One
big
change
for
people
to
like
easier
for
people
to
just
change
everything
at
once
like
in
their
mind,
rather
than
small
things
changing.
But
from
our
point
of
view,
it's
easier
if
we
iterate,
as
you
said
so
yeah.
That's
a
good.
A
Ok,
so
I
I
think
what
I'm
gonna
do
since
Mike
hasn't
done,
that
my
I
moved
my
one-on-one
with
them
to
tomorrow.
Since
I
was
out
yesterday,
I'm
just
gonna
bring
us
up
with
them
and
see
if
we
can
get
some
updates
here,
but
really
that
trade-off
is
what
you
said
like
we
can
optimize
for
our
iteration
or
like
complete
change,
manage
like
one
big
change.
If
we're
doing
one
big
change,
we
may
want
to
relook
at
the
current
proposal
a
little
bit
I
guess
I
should
say:
should
we
revisit
the
current
proposal?
D
A
What
I
was
thinking
like
we'd
want
to
look
at
the
full
kind
of
taxonomy
and
make
one
much
larger
change
and
what's
being
proposed,
yeah
and
make
may
have
it
I
guess
a
different
idea.
So
there
might
be
middle
ground,
but
that's
my
hope
is
to
kind
of
bring
it
up
in
our
one-on-one
and
then
discuss
it.
Like
we'll
add
it
in
the
issue.
Will
summarize
Indonesia
I
would.
D
Like
to
isolate
it
to
one
top
level
type
and
then
hopefully
this
there
will
be
similar
challenge
well,
similar
things
that
happen
when
we
converts
a
type
or
as
say
feature
or
bug
as
well.
Yeah
I
think
it
I
think
it's
better
to
isolate,
because
if
we
change
triage
and
everything
like
that,
we've
had
problems
in
the
past,
where
it's
been
quite
difficult
to
reverse
the
changes
that
triage
has
made.
C
C
And
yeah
basically
not
changed
the
current
future
label,
but
just
introduced
so
type
labels
at
first,
even
if
even
if
we
don't
cover
all
the
future
subtypes
at
least
we
cover
the
big
ones
like
future
edition
or
future
maintenance,
because
these
are
the
ones
that
should
replace
the
current
backstage
most
of
the
current
backstage
work
and
I
think
people
should
be
able
to
understand
that.
You
know
that.
Okay,
please
stop
using
backstage
of
the
catcher,
but
please
use
future
edition
of
little
maintenance
when
applicable,
and
we
should
probably
also
introduced
at
the
same
time
tooling.
C
A
Okay,
so
that's
good
that
that's
pretty
much
in
line
with
what
I
was
thinking
I
think
we
do
one
bigger
change.
It
carries
a
lot
more
risk
for
the
sake
of
announcing
one
big
change:
we're
not
going
to
be
able
to
learn
and
iterate
as
easily
if
we
try
and
change
a
lot
all
at
once.
So,
okay,
thanks
thanks
for
the
thoughts
and
feedback
on
that
I
appreciate
it
Remy
you
have
the
next
year.
If
you
want
to
just
yeah.
C
C
A
So
my
thoughts
are,
is
we
may,
depending
on
what
we
just
talked
about?
The
backstage
label
may
be
a
better
triage.
Serverless
starting
point
would
be
like
label
application
based
on
that
subtype
I
think
we
still
have
those
top-level
types,
but
that
would
be
a
good
place
to
start
based
on
the
known
issues.
A
C
Yeah,
the
next
one
is
also
created
to
triage
service.
Yeah
I
was
that's
something
that
that's
in
that
scene.
That's
on
my
mind
for
you
weeks
or
months
already
like.
We
could
really
use
three
assemblies
for
more
things
that
we
do
now
and
one
thing
that
I
find
that
with
fine
yeah
we
find
awesome
is
that
we
could
actually
have
danger
kind
of
yeah
have
done
Jo
implemented
with
it
so
that
it
could
run
for
Fox,
because.
E
Think
sure,
as
long
as
we
can't
buy
a
good
way
to
use
it,
yeah
I,
don't
think
I'm
not
sure
about
like,
for
example,
the
wrong
vent.
Your
job,
for
example,
I
I,
I'm
I,
see
something
I
want
I
might
want
to
rerun.
It
then
I
keep
telling
you
to
rerun
we're
always
wrong,
and
people
receive
notification.
From
my
comment,
talking
to
a
box.
E
A
Yeah
I
I
was
trying
to
find
the
issue.
I
like
this
idea
in
principle.
I
think
just
finding
the
right
use
case
to
start
would
be
would
be
a
really
good
thing
really
have
my
in
because
when
I
say
right
like
what's
something
simple,
that
we
can
use
to
prove
out
the
concept,
one
of
the
things
I've
seen
talked
about,
I
was
trying
to
find.
The
issue
was
allowing
for
like
labeling
or
assignment
actions
via
like
a
bang
commands
like
Bank.
A
Instead
of
like
a
quick
action
using
a
vein
commands
to
the
community
contributors
or
non
group,
members
can
actually
do
those
actions
as
well.
I
was
trying
to
you
know,
hunt
down
that
that
issue,
but
that
was
another
thing,
but
I
would
like
to
explore
the
use
cases
very
similar
like
this,
because
I
that's
one
of
the
things
I
like
about
all
of
the
apps
in
the
github
ecosystem,
is
that
they
have
those
commands
and
you
can
kind
of
it.
It's
an
easy
way
to
interact
with
with
those
apps
yeah.
D
This
is
there's
a
lot
we
could
use
this
for
for
getting
our
project
issues,
merge,
requests
so
much
stuff
just
to
increase,
it
would
increase
well,
it
should
decrease
the
time
that
we
get
new
issues
to
the
people
that
need
to
see
them
as
well.
Hopefully
we
could
do
we
could
check.
The
templates
have
been
used.
For
example,
you
know
we
always
respond
and
say
there's
not
enough
information
here
use
the
book
or
the
future
template.
We
could
detect
for
similarity
against
our
templates
and
new
issues,
and
things
like
that.
A
C
E
So
so
we
we
just
met
marine
just
math,
they
rose
to
be
private
and
we
can
reuse
them
with
security
QA.
So
we
don't
have
to
create
another
set
of
mirrors,
which
is
nice
so
far,
I'm
not
I'm,
not
sure
if
anything
breaks,
yet
I
I
need
to
check.
I
hope
is
all
fine
and
issue
should
make
it
much
easier
to
make
security
PA.
E
A
B
Over
dated
for
the
last
one
yeah,
so
trash
novelist,
I
added
a
century,
so
now
we
can
capture
errors
that
is
happening
in
three
Savalas,
then
I
also
I
did
I
started
off
with
the
error
tracking
feature
in
the
project,
to
hook
it
up
to
the
Sentry
for
a
particular
project.
So
there's
done
and
I'm
now
working
on
triage
hopes
for
this
one.
What
I'm
planning
to
do
is
to
breath
come
online
or
call
skillet
3h
and
captured
error
streams
from
there
and
then.
B
Send
that
error
message
to
sensory
in
a
different
project
so
where
I'm
trying
to
get
at
with
this
is
that,
hopefully
we
can
probably
reduce
this
wrapper
for
other
scripts
that
we
are
using,
because
we
do
a
lot
of.
We
do
use
a
lot
of
command
line
scripts
in
a
lot
of
our
tooling
and
it's
we
can
get
quite
difficult
to
keep
track
of
what
is
happening
in
those
and
ignis
any
error
is
we
always
have
to
go
back
to
a
lot
of
the
job
to
find
something.
D
Is
it
possible
to
add
more
information
to
the
payload
that
sense
sentry,
just
in
case
we
need
I
mean
not
straight
away,
but
in
case
when
we
start
investigating
these
areas
we
find
out.
We
need
a
little
bit
more
context
about
a
particular
job
or
the
pictures
particular
rule
that
was
running
when
it
failed.
Is
that
is
that
possible.
B
D
Yeah
that
would
be
really
really
good
to
be
able
to
to
find
the
errors
in
century
their
base
to
have
been
related
to
a
particular
policy,
and
you
know
see
whether
there's
a
trend
there
as
well.
Sometimes
they
just
have
like
a
500
error
or
some
other
error
which
will
which
will
work
again
on
a
retry,
but
hopefully
we
should
be
able
to
see
historically
how
many
of
those
there
have
been.