►
From YouTube: 2023-09-06 Source Code Weekly Meeting [REC]
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
Didn't
want
to
put
you
on
the
spot,
but
since
you're
the
you're.
A
C
So
our
okrf
for
this
quarter
is
to
go,
go,
tackles
high
profile
pages
and
make
them
fit
our
guidelines
and
he's
working
on
the
branches
page
that
one
was
easier.
We
knew
the
code
owners
page
I,
make
the
sign
of
blessing
over
him
for
doing
that,
and
he
will
be
working
on
that
one
off
and
on
for
probably
eight
weeks.
I
I
did
warn
him
before
he
took
that
page.
C
So
probably.
B
Yeah
and
I
wrote
a
response
in
the
doc,
since
this
is
recorded
I'm
not
going
to
get
into
too
much
detail
there,
but
I
think
we're
getting
close.
I'm
yeah
we'll
we'll
keep
moving
forward,
but
I'm
fairly
optimistic.
At
this
point,.
F
F
Yeah,
so
it
says
that
was
this
drop
down
when
you
select
users
roles
for
protected
Branch,
who
can
like
allow
the
merch
who
is
allowed
to
merge
yeah?
It
says
like
for
this
scenario:
when
you
select
no
one
and
one
user,
it
says
one
role
and
one
user,
but
from
my
point
of
view
this
is
expected
Behavior,
so
I'm
a
bit
confused.
A
A
F
B
A
A
E
B
Seems
like
it's
mostly
about
you,
know
the
the
technical
side
of
things
yeah.
Technically,
a
role
is
selected,
no
one,
but
from
a
user
perspective
the
the
title
of
that
column
is
allowed
to
merge,
and
so,
if
you
in
the
drop
down,
if
you
it
shows
you
that
one
role
is
allowed
to
merge
and
that
role
is
no
one
logically
for
the
customer.
Looking
at
that,
I
think
that
that's
where
it
doesn't
really
make
sense
is
because
you're
looking
at
that
title
of
who's
allowed
to
merge
and
no
one's
allowed
to
merge.
B
So
there
should
be
no
roles
selected
there.
So
I
think
that
that's
that's
really
what
it
is,
and
it's
I
think
it's
a
semantics
discussion,
I'm,
not
sure
it's
a
huge
deal
but
I
can
see
where
they're
coming
from.
A
So
I
was
just
noticing
that
Michael
will
be
back
in
two
days,
Michael
a
so
Natalia.
What
I
would
suggest
is
proceeding
under
that
assumption
and
then
checking
getting
that
to
be
reviewed
by
Michael
when
he
gets
back
to
make
sure
that
we
are
on
the
same
page
with
the
ux.
A
Thanks
and
yes,
that's
me
now
so
yeah
I
wanted
to
announce
a
bit
of
a
team
that
team
update.
I've
already
dropped
the
message
on
slack
as
well
so
essentially
Dennis
had
that
was
on
loan
to
the
AI
framework
team
he's
becoming
permanent
there.
He
is
going
to
be
staying
there.
They
liked
him
so
much.
They
didn't.
A
Let
him
leave
I
guess,
but
I
want
to
take
the
opportunity
to
thank
him
for
the
for
the
contributions
and
and
and
help
that
he
did
while
he
was
here
and
then
also
to
fill
in
his
vacant
seat.
We
have
Paulina
joining
our
team
as
a
front-end
engineer
and
please
make
her
feel
welcome,
feel
free
to
reach
out
to
her
and
making
her
feel
welcome.
So
the
plan
to
onboard
her
will
be.
She
will
be
onboarding
during
15.
16-5
I
always
get
the
numbers
wrong.
A
15
was
a
while
ago,
16.5
he'll
be
on
boarding
with,
like
some
small
work,
to
get
acquainted
with
the
code
basis
with
the
apps.
We
have
the
architecture,
all
the
stuff
I
do
plan
to
have
her
fully
capable
of
handling
the
deliverables
in
16-6,
so
Derek
the
point
of
we'll
have
enlarged
capacity
for
front
and
in
16-6
for
planning
deliverables,
that's
kind
of
like
just
the
gist
of
it.
A
Maybe
we'll
have
a
PM
by
then
who
knows
I
hope
so
all
right
right.
So
that's
that's
the
update.
Any
questions
is
that
clear
for
the
party
hat:
oh
nice,
nice
reaction
shot
yeah.
A
E
Does
it's
good?
Can
we
just
if
we
just
go
back
I
noticed
Jerry,
put
a
comment
in
the
in
the
chat
about
the
previous
topic.
Jerry
do.
A
D
F
D
It's
just
about
the
the
roles
thing.
Maybe
it's
misleading
that
it's
called
rules
when
there's
a
not
quite
a
role
called
no
one.
It's
more
like
the
access
level
is
for
No
One,
rather
than
it
being
a
role.
I.
Think
it's
useful
that
it
actually
says
something
is
selected
like
one
right
now,
it's
roll,
but
it's
like
indicating
that
there
is
some
selected
option
so
that
that's
just
fine
thoughts
on
the
matter.
E
F
A
A
Which
we
can
still
bring
it
up
in
the
issue
Jerry
for
Michael
to
consider,
but
potentially
we
can
iterate
here
and
take
care
of
that
particular
like
weird
up
UI,
stuff
and
iterate
towards
something
a
bit
more
clear
which
we
all
agree
it
needs.
So
can
you
please
have
comment
in
the
issue.
Jerry.
E
E
A
On
to
my
my
next
announcement,
so
to
speak,
I've
talked
to
some
of
you
already
independently
about
this,
but
I
want
to
make
sure
that
we
cover
it
here
in
this
call.
A
So
we've
been
talking
a
lot
about
this
over
the
last
couple
of
years
and
we're
starting
a
collective
initiative
to
to
craft
an
architecture,
design
blueprint
around
the
topic
of
the
new
generation
of
diffs
at
gitlab,
and
this
is
it
diffs?
It's
not
commits
it's
not
merge
requests,
it's
diffs.
The
point
is
we
wait?
We
aim
to
have
the
back
end.
A
The
front
end
of
both
source
code
and
code
review
get
together
craft,
a
proposal
for
a
new
architecture
of
diffs
that
can
be
reused
over
on
the
merge
request
page
we
used
on
the
repository
commits
page
on
the
compare
page
in
our
part
of
the
source
code.
So
source
code
has
two
pages
two
types
of
pages
where
we
show
diffs
the
compare
and
the
repository
commit
the
code
review.
We
have
one,
but
these
three
scenarios
they
all
have
differences
amongst
them,
but
they
have
a
lot
of
overlap
right
now.
A
There's
a
separation
of
code
bases,
our
own
is
pretty
stale
and
Legacy
code
review.
Actually,
code
review
has
two
places
when
you're
creating
a
new
merger
Quest,
we
will
show
a
little
preview
at
the
bottom.
That
is
also
Legacy
code.
It's
not
using
the
same
front-end
flashy
version
that
we
have
on
the
mergercrest
page.
So
we
aim
to
like
unify
all
of
these
in
a
way
that
it's
both
performant
for
the
user.
So
there's
a
lot
of
focus
on
perceived
performance,
but
also
maintainable.
A
So
we
want
to
make
sure
that
everybody
can
work
with
this
in
the
future,
but
we
want
to
hear
proposals
and
want
to
consider
things
we
want
to
try.
We
might
have
to
build
a
couple
of
pocs
to
validate
and
this
is
going
to
be
a
goal
for
our
quarter,
so
we're
going
to
have
a
couple
of
months
to
take
care
of
this
proposal.
A
The
idea
is
that
by
the
end
of
this
quarter,
we'll
have
a
document
that
guides
the
development
in
the
future
quarter
or
quarters,
depending
on
how
long
we'll
get
to
to
be
there.
This
isn't
this
isn't
something
with
a
specific
deadline
or
somebody
breathing
on
our
neck.
It's
just
something
that
everyone
in
the
group
has
felt
as
a
necessity
over
the
last
years,
so
to
speak
in
the
merge
request
side
of
things.
For
example,
we
felt
like
we've
taken
the
current
implementation.
A
As
far
as
we
can
we're
kind
of
like
trimming
off
the
edges
on
performance,
making
some
improvements,
but
the
fundamental
problem
is
the
architecture
we
have.
We
have
too
many
view
components
on
the
front
end
a
very
complex
view
with
ux
application.
That
is
not
performing
very
well,
so
we
want
to
take.
Maybe
I
don't
want
to
say
trash
it.
We
definitely
want
to
still
be
able
to
reuse
a
lot
of
components
like
the
markdown.
All
that
stuff
needs
to
be
reused,
but
just
rethink
a
little
bit.
A
How
we're
generating
this
and
everybody's
ideas
are
welcome.
We
were
chatting
with
Sean
Sean,
suggested
us
getting
some
dris
in
place
for
each
one
of
the
disciplines
and
in
one
of
the
groups.
A
We're
definitely
going
to
have
that
so
essentially
right
now,
I
just
wanted
to
give
you
like
an
hint
that
this
is
starting
soon,
we'll
be
announcing
through
our
slack
Channel,
when
we
start
having
discussions
about
this
and
our
idea
to
start
having
sync
discussions
about
this,
but
also
driving
the
synchronous
discussions
on
an
issue
or
an
epic
or
something
like
that
to
generate
this
document.
The
document
is
the
thing
that
will
guide
us.
That
will
be
the
outcome
of
this
effort.
A
There's
an
issue
already
for
kicking
this
off
that
Phil
Hughes
from
code
review
is
taken
care
of
there's
some
detail
there,
what
we're
trying
to
accomplish,
but
we
definitely
will
flesh
this
out
even
further,
with
everyone's
help
and
that's
that's
kind
of
it
does
anybody.
Anybody
has
any
questions
on
that.
A
Not
not
yet
we
we
thought
about
that.
We
have
a
couple
of
pocs.
We
built
with
code
review
from
our
side.
The
idea
that
we
have
right
now
is
we
don't
want
to
mix
the
experiments
we
had
in
code
review
and
start
from
there.
We
want
to
hear
everyone's
thoughts
on
because,
for
example,
the
code
review
struggles.
They
aren't
the
same
that
the
source
code
ones
are
so
what
we're
going
to
start
discussing
is
exactly
like
the
principles
of
the
project.
What
are
the
goals?
A
We're
also
going
to
be
having
a
bit
of
a
discussion
about
the
priorities.
What
if
we
get
to
a
conflict
like
somebody
poses
a
proposal
up
that
is
opposed
to
another
one.
How
do
we
find
a
better
one,
and
the
idea
is
to
have
some
sort
of
like
priority
of
constituents
where
the
w3c
uses
something
similar
for
the
HTML
spec,
where
you
have
users
over
authors
over
implementers
over
browser
creators
over
theoretical
Purity,
so
users
come
first
after
all
these
right.
A
A
We
know
we're
going
to
have
discussions
about
proposals
and
approaches
and,
for
example,
we
need
to
understand
fully
how
the
diffs
come
to
the
front
end
from
the
back
end,
how
they
come
from
giddly
to
rails
and
how
we're
going
to
Cache
them.
We're
re-evaluating
everything
we're
not
just
taking
what
we
have
and
starting
just
nibbing
at
the
front
end.
We
want
to
make
sure
that
we
stop
and
think
about
the
whole
thing,
because
they're
probably
going
to
be
some
techno
technological
innovation
they're
going
to
have
to
do.
A
We
have
some
crazy
ideas
on
how
we
should
change
the
way
that
we
attach
things
comments
to
merge,
request
objects
which
now
can
be
also
employed
to
the
diffs
on
the
commits
and
we're
talking
about.
Why
can't
I
comment
on
a
file
name
right
right
now
we
comment
on
lines.
That's
what
we
have
today.
We've
also
entertained
the
idea
that-
and
this
is
for
you
direct
our
idea
of
doing
this
refactor-
is
that
we
might
be
able
to
pull
off
some
Nifty
features
out
of
this
not
just
get
to
the
same
place.
A
We're
in
one
of
the
ideas
we
have
is.
If
we
can
have
some
understanding
of
the
code,
we
could
potentially
leave
comments
on
code
objects,
regardless
of
which
line
they're
in.
If
you
have
additions
on
the
bottom
on
the
top
lines,
we
can
still
leave
the
comment
attached
to
the
object
if
the
object
is
unchanged.
A
So
I'm
excited
about
the
possibilities
that
this
brings.
We
definitely
feel,
like
we've,
been
talking
a
lot
about
this
over
the
past
years
and
Derek
you
weren't
here,
but
we
used
to
have
a
performance
roundtables
with
everybody
getting
together
and
discussing
things
every
week,
and
there
was
a
lot
of
talk
and
a
lot
of
experimentations.
Now
we're
wanting
to
get
to
the
bottom
of,
let's
write
a
draft
spec,
let's
draft
an
architecture
that
we
can
actually
then
follow
for
implementation,
rather
than
just
trying
ad
hoc
experimentations
on
the
site.
B
That
sounds
great
to
me.
I
think
that
that
I
can
I
can
already
think
of
some
things.
That
would
be
that
that
could
enable
so
absolutely
I'm
supportive.
A
Cool,
thank
you.
So
much
I
really
appreciate
that
Kai
from
good
reviews
already
been
briefed
so
he's
also
supportive,
so
I
appreciate
the
help
from
product
on
on
this
side.
We
I
I,
as
an
engineering
engineering
manager,
one
of
the
biggest
Pleasures
I,
have
is
working
from
product
working
with
product.
People
that
understand
performance
is
a
feature
so
100
so
thankful
for
that
support.
A
E
That's
so
awesome,
Andre
I'm
really
glad
we're
taking
this
step
whatever
we
can
do
in
back
end
to
support.
You
know,
let
us
know
and
as
you're
saying
it
goes
all
the
way
through
to
giddly
and
yeah.
Let's,
let's
make
it.
Let's
make.
E
A
Right,
I
think
that's!
That's
Perfection
thanks!
We'll
definitely
include
you
all,
because
it's
it's
it.
D
A
Village
cool
anything
else.