Notes from #MetaBrainz Meeting 2017-12-04

metabrainz-meeting-notes
google-code-in
brainzbot
Tags: #<Tag:0x00007fe3d19b9f58> #<Tag:0x00007fe3d19b9cd8> #<Tag:0x00007fe3d19b9a80>

#1

#MetaBrainz Meeting 2017-12-04

Meeting start: https://chatlogs.metabrainz.org/brainzbot/metabrainz/msg/4056800/

Agenda

Reviews

@Freso

https://chatlogs.metabrainz.org/brainzbot/metabrainz/msg/4056807/

@samj1912

https://chatlogs.metabrainz.org/brainzbot/metabrainz/msg/4056819/

@reosarevok

https://chatlogs.metabrainz.org/brainzbot/metabrainz/msg/4056832/

@bitmap

https://chatlogs.metabrainz.org/brainzbot/metabrainz/msg/4056838/

@yvanzo

https://chatlogs.metabrainz.org/brainzbot/metabrainz/msg/4056849/

@zas

https://chatlogs.metabrainz.org/brainzbot/metabrainz/msg/4056857/

@iliekcomputers

https://chatlogs.metabrainz.org/brainzbot/metabrainz/msg/4056872/

@Rob

https://chatlogs.metabrainz.org/brainzbot/metabrainz/msg/4056894/

@Leo_Verto

https://chatlogs.metabrainz.org/brainzbot/metabrainz/msg/4056902/

@naiveaiguy

https://chatlogs.metabrainz.org/brainzbot/metabrainz/msg/4056915/

@ferbncode

https://chatlogs.metabrainz.org/brainzbot/metabrainz/msg/4056949/

@CatQuest

https://chatlogs.metabrainz.org/brainzbot/metabrainz/msg/4056953/

@Leftmost_Cat

https://chatlogs.metabrainz.org/brainzbot/metabrainz/msg/4056968/

@drsaunde

https://chatlogs.metabrainz.org/brainzbot/metabrainz/msg/4056973/

@anshuman73

https://chatlogs.metabrainz.org/brainzbot/metabrainz/msg/4056989/

Google Code‐in

https://chatlogs.metabrainz.org/brainzbot/metabrainz/msg/4057001/

OTHER-77: Unify all markup syntax to simple markdown syntax

https://chatlogs.metabrainz.org/brainzbot/metabrainz/msg/4057024/

@CatQuest and @anshuman73 confirmed and @naiveaiguy was satisfied with their answers.

BrainzBot functions

https://chatlogs.metabrainz.org/brainzbot/metabrainz/msg/4057038/

For 1., it was pointed out that there has been some work/thoughts made on this, which should be gathered in OTHER-123.

For 2., @Freso mentioned that MemoServ essentially already covers this.

For 3., it was pointed out that this would be harder than just checking for whether a given username wasn’t seen before.

For 4., it was pointed out that we already have this, but some people find the current syntax complicated/non-intuitive.

In the end, @Freso said they were all reasonable ideas and encouraged @naiveaiguy (or others) to make tickets for the ones that did not already have them.