| --- |
| title: "Gerrit ESC Meeting Minutes" |
| tags: esc |
| keywords: esc minutes |
| permalink: 2020-04-07-esc-minutes.html |
| summary: "Minutes from the ESC meeting held on April 7th" |
| hide_sidebar: true |
| hide_navtoggle: true |
| toc: true |
| --- |
| |
| ## Engineering Steering Committee Meeting, April 7, 2020 |
| |
| ### Attendees |
| |
| David Pursehouse, Ben Rohlfs, Alice Kober-Sotzek, Patrick Hiesel, Luca Milanesio |
| |
| ### Place/Date/Duration |
| |
| Online, April 7, 12:30 - 13:30 CEST |
| |
| ### Next meeting |
| |
| The next meeting will be held on April 21, 12:30 CEST. |
| |
| ## Minutes |
| |
| ### Gerrit News Page |
| |
| The news for February and March was published on 31st March. David will create a |
| draft post for the next issue which will be published at the end of May. |
| |
| We did not come up with any specific items to go into the next issue, but Ben |
| mentioned that internally at Google they have been working on writing notes for |
| new features and some of that could be added. Luca also mentioned that his report |
| of the last user summit and hackathon is almost ready to be published. |
| |
| As usual, we invite the community to propose any items that they think would |
| be interesting. |
| |
| ### Plans for Remote Hackathon |
| |
| We discussed whether it makes sense to hold a hackathon remotely, and concluded |
| that it probably does not. One of the main advantages of attending a hackathon is |
| to be colocated while working on new features; a remote hackathon would not give |
| that, and we'd be working in the same way that we do anyway outside of a hackathon. |
| |
| Another point discussed is that we often use the hackathons to work together to |
| finalize new releases, and we had intended to do this again for 3.2. So rather than |
| having a remote hackathon for new features, we will instead define a week where |
| core contributors and maintainers can focus on finalising work that needs to be |
| included, and stabilizing the branch before making the release. We will announce |
| a week or so in advance of the intended date to cut the stable branch. |
| |
| The rough schedule is to release 3.2 at the end of April or early May, taking into |
| account public holidays around that time. Luca and David will coordinate this. |
| |
| ### Renewal of ESC for 2020/2021 |
| |
| It's almost one year since the ESC was founded and we held the first meeting |
| of the 2019/2020 term, so now it's time to call for nominations for the next |
| year's term. |
| |
| Matthias Sohn has posted [a call for nominations](https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/repo-discuss/zHCT2IowQng) |
| to the project mailing list. |
| |
| ### Additional lint checks in CI |
| |
| Patrick asked if it's possible to add extra checks in CI to detect common |
| issues like unused exceptions and unused variables. |
| |
| David mentioned that recent versions of ErrorProne include checks for some of |
| these issues, but the version embedded in Bazel is an older version therefore |
| we can't take advantage of them. It would be good if we can ask the Bazel team |
| to upgrade the embedded ErrorProne version. |
| |
| We recently upgraded to Bazel 3.0.0; David will check if that included a newer |
| version of ErrorProne and whether we can enable any of the new checks. |
| |
| ### Review of open design documents |
| |
| * [Instance ID / name propagation in events](https://gerrit-review.googlesource.com/c/homepage/+/257972) |
| |
| We discussed the scope of the issue and the proposed solution but did not |
| reach any conclusion. Patrick will spend more time reading the proposal to |
| better understand it, and we will come back to it in the next meeting. |
| |
| ### Review of the Roadmap |
| |
| Luca pointed out that the roadmap does not mention anything about Elasticsearch, |
| and in fact the support for Elasticsearch has been defined as "experimental" for |
| a long time. The latter has already been |
| [raised as an issue](https://issues.gerritcodereview.com/issues/40011610) |
| by David last year. |
| |
| We have recently started looking into reducing the number of Elasticsearch |
| versions that are supported in Gerrit, particularly to remove support for those |
| versions that have reached EOL. See [issue 40010718](https://issues.gerritcodereview.com/issues/40010718) |
| and [issue 40010717](https://issues.gerritcodereview.com/issues/40010717). |
| |
| David mentioned that one of the reasons that Elasticsearch was defined as |
| experimental is because nobody (of the core maintainers and developers) was |
| actually using it in production. Recently, however, Luca has heard that there |
| are some users using it. |
| |
| We concluded that we should find out how many users are using it, and which |
| versions. David will ask the community managers to help with this. |
| |
| ### Review of issues on the ESC component |
| |
| ESC was asked to review [issue 40010542](https://issues.gerritcodereview.com/issues/40010542) |
| which is a request to make the reviewers plugin a core plugin. David Ostrovsky |
| has recently updated that issue to add the information required by the new |
| [process for adding a core plugin](https://gerrit-review.googlesource.com/c/gerrit/+/243027). |
| |
| David asked why add this plugin rather than, for example, 'find-owners' |
| or 'owners'. The 'find-owners' plugin is developed by Google and is deployed |
| on the chromium-review site. Luca pointed out that their functionality is |
| different; 'reviewers' just adds reviewers to a change based on simple queries, |
| while the other two are more complex. 'reviewers' is deployed on 'gerrit-review'. |
| |
| Patrick said we should decide based on whether it's useful for general users, |
| and asked Luca to check the download stats to see if it's popular. Patrick |
| will also have a look at the code to see if its quality meets the same standards |
| as core Gerrit. |
| |
| Alice noted that the request mentions some known issues with the UI styling, |
| but does not elaborate. We should ask for clarification. |
| |
| We did not reach a conclusion in this meeting, but will follow up in the |
| next meeting after the previously mentioned points have been resolved. |
| |
| There were no other issues that require attention. |