|
=== salgado is now known as salgado-afk |
|
=== mwhudson_ is now known as mwhudson |
|
=== mwhudson_ is now known as mwhudson |
|
=== Seveaz is now known as Seveas |
|
=== Seveaz is now known as Seveas |
|
=== mrevell is now known as mrevell-lunch |
|
=== mrevell-lunch is now known as mrevell |
|
[15:00] <flacoste> #startmeeting |
|
[15:01] <flacoste> Welcome to this weeks' reviewers meeting |
|
[15:01] <flacoste> mootboot seems not to be available, so we'll do without |
|
[15:02] <flacoste> so who's here today? |
|
[15:02] <allenap> me |
|
[15:02] <sinzui> me |
|
[15:02] <intellectronica> me |
|
[15:02] <bac> me |
|
[15:02] <schwuk> me |
|
[15:02] <gmb> me |
|
[15:02] <flacoste> (btw, i'm chairing in lieu of barry) |
|
[15:02] <BjornT_> me |
|
[15:02] <flacoste> (who is out sick) |
|
[15:02] <schwuk> bigjools said he might not be around. |
|
[15:02] <flacoste> salgado: ping |
|
[15:02] <salgado> me |
|
[15:03] <flacoste> danilos: ping |
|
[15:03] <danilos> flacoste: sorry, on a sprint, will miss the meeting |
|
[15:03] <flacoste> danilos: ok |
|
[15:03] <flacoste> intellectronica: also sent his apologies |
|
[15:03] <flacoste> == Agenda == |
|
[15:03] <intellectronica> i'm here but will have to leave around 14:30 |
|
[15:03] <flacoste> * Roll call |
|
[15:03] <flacoste> * Next meeting |
|
[15:03] <flacoste> * Action items |
|
[15:03] <flacoste> * Queue status |
|
[15:03] <flacoste> * Mentoring update |
|
[15:03] <flacoste> * Review process |
|
[15:03] <flacoste> * '''Pre-imp calls are falling by the wayside''' (gmb) |
|
[15:04] <flacoste> '''pending-reviews is missing branches listed on PendingReviews''' |
|
[15:04] <flacoste> '''Is there a policy on private name mangling?''' |
|
[15:04] <flacoste> Topic: Next meeting |
|
[15:04] <flacoste> Same time, same place? |
|
[15:04] <flacoste> anybody knows they can't make it? |
|
[15:04] <flacoste> 5 |
|
[15:04] <flacoste> 4 |
|
[15:04] <flacoste> 3 |
|
[15:04] <flacoste> 2 |
|
[15:04] <flacoste> 1 |
|
[15:05] <flacoste> great, same time, same place, everybody should be there! |
|
[15:05] <flacoste> TOPIC: Action items |
|
[15:05] <flacoste> * gmb to hack review-submit to enforce 800 line limit. |
|
[15:05] <gmb> This is done |
|
[15:05] <gmb> Hurrah |
|
[15:05] <flacoste> awesome! |
|
[15:05] <gmb> I've sent the patch to mwh to look at. |
|
[15:05] <flacoste> i guess people have to upgrade their plugin to have it? |
|
[15:06] <flacoste> ah, it's not landed yet |
|
[15:06] <flacoste> anyway, that's still cool! |
|
[15:06] <flacoste> thanks gmb |
|
[15:06] <flacoste> * schwuk to work with mwhudson to get instructions for running loggerhead onto the wiki |
|
[15:06] <allenap> gmb: Is there an --override option, for when we're agreed in advance with a reviewer? |
|
[15:06] <sinzui> --isuk? |
|
[15:06] <schwuk> flacoste: that was finished a couple of weeks ago when gmb chaired |
|
[15:06] <gmb> allenap: Yes. |
|
[15:07] <allenap> gmb: Cool :) And thanks sinzui :) |
|
[15:07] <schwuk> flacoste: https://launchpad.canonical.com/RunningLoggerhead |
|
[15:07] * gmb forgot to update the agenda after that last minute chairing. |
|
[15:07] <flacoste> ok |
|
[15:07] <flacoste> any other actions i'm not aware of? |
|
[15:08] <flacoste> i guess not |
|
[15:08] <flacoste> Topic: Queue status |
|
[15:09] <flacoste> according to the QueueStatus, there are two stub's branch needing a review |
|
[15:09] <flacoste> one branch that has the wrong status (that's my fault) |
|
[15:10] <flacoste> and another branch which is 7 days old but not marked over SLA? |
|
[15:10] <flacoste> salgado, that's the abel's branch, what's the status there? |
|
[15:10] <salgado> it's merge-approved, IIRC |
|
[15:10] <salgado> let me check |
|
[15:10] <salgado> yeah, I approved it |
|
[15:11] <flacoste> ok |
|
[15:11] * salgado updates the status |
|
[15:11] <flacoste> i guess the two stub's branch are the ASIAPAC meeting responsibility |
|
[15:11] <flacoste> anything else to add on queue status? |
|
[15:12] <sinzui> It's not showing all branches |
|
[15:12] <flacoste> sinzui: i think we have another item to discuss that |
|
[15:12] <flacoste> or is this something eles? |
|
[15:12] <sinzui> flacoste: we do :) |
|
[15:12] <flacoste> ok, moving on then |
|
[15:12] <flacoste> Topic: Mentoring update |
|
[15:13] <flacoste> who's it going? schwuk, allenap? |
|
[15:13] <flacoste> bigjools and danilos are two other mentees being absent (or maybe their mentor have something to say) |
|
[15:13] <flacoste> hmm, bigjools mentor's is sick |
|
[15:13] <sinzui> schwuk: Are you going to take an on-call slot? |
|
[15:13] <schwuk> Last week fell apart for me with my father, so I got no reviews done. I'm on call this Friday so I can overlap with sinzui. |
|
[15:14] <bac> gavin and did our first on-call yesterday and it went really well |
|
[15:14] <allenap> Going well, did a couple of reviews on call yesterday, which bac mostly thought were good. |
|
[15:14] * schwuk remembers to update the schedule |
|
[15:14] * gmb cheers at the idea of having even more people to throw branches at on a Friday |
|
[15:14] <flacoste> who is mentoring danilos? |
|
[15:14] <bac> allenap: they were quite good! |
|
[15:14] <gmb> flacoste: danilos graduated last cycle. |
|
[15:14] <allenap> bac: Thanks :) |
|
[15:14] <sinzui> danilos: graduated |
|
[15:14] <flacoste> oops :-) |
|
[15:15] <flacoste> no offense meant |
|
[15:15] <flacoste> so we only have three mentees? |
|
[15:15] * flacoste will take that for a yes |
|
[15:16] <flacoste> anything else to add on the topic? |
|
[15:16] <flacoste> 5 |
|
[15:16] <flacoste> 4 |
|
[15:16] <flacoste> 3 |
|
[15:16] <flacoste> 2 |
|
[15:16] <flacoste> 1 |
|
[15:16] <flacoste> * Review process |
|
[15:16] <flacoste> we have 3 items for discussion on the process |
|
[15:16] <flacoste> first one: |
|
[15:16] <flacoste> * '''Pre-imp calls are falling by the wayside''' (gmb) |
|
[15:16] <gmb> flacoste: Was that not covered last week? |
|
[15:16] <flacoste> TOPIC: 'Pre-imp calls are falling by the wayside (gmb) |
|
[15:16] * gmb was on vacation |
|
[15:16] <flacoste> i guess |
|
[15:17] <sinzui> I was covered here and in asiapac |
|
[15:17] <flacoste> there was an action about "barry to remind lp devs to do pre-impl calls " |
|
[15:17] <flacoste> did that occured? |
|
[15:17] * flacoste can't remember |
|
[15:17] * gmb didn't see anything |
|
[15:17] <flacoste> i guess not then |
|
[15:17] <flacoste> ACTION: barry to remind lp devs to do pre-impl calls (repost) |
|
[15:17] <flacoste> so let's move on |
|
[15:18] <flacoste> TOPIC: pending-reviews is missing branches listed on PendingReviews (sinzui) |
|
[15:18] * flacoste hands the mic to sinzui |
|
[15:18] <sinzui> I noticed that the two of jtv's branches I reviewed are not on pending-reviews |
|
[15:19] <flacoste> sinzui: is it because they are not on PendingReviews, or because of a bug? |
|
[15:19] <sinzui> I also noticed that one of cprov's branches that was marked merge-approved several days ago still states it was need-reply |
|
[15:19] <sinzui> The branchs were/are on PendingReviews. All came from the general queue to my queue |
|
[15:20] <sinzui> I removed cprovs branch because I saw the commit message. |
|
[15:20] <flacoste> jtv's branch are still missing though |
|
[15:21] <sinzui> right |
|
[15:21] <flacoste> i guess there is a bug in the script |
|
[15:21] <flacoste> jamesh maintains that |
|
[15:21] <flacoste> sinzui: can you email jamesh about the problem? |
|
[15:21] <flacoste> cc list |
|
[15:21] <sinzui> I will |
|
[15:22] <flacoste> ACTION: sinzui to email jamesh about some branches not being picked up by pending-reviews |
|
[15:22] <flacoste> anything else to add here? |
|
[15:22] <flacoste> 5 |
|
[15:22] <flacoste> 4 |
|
[15:22] <flacoste> 3 |
|
[15:22] <flacoste> 2 |
|
[15:22] <flacoste> 1 |
|
[15:22] <flacoste> TOPIC: Is there a policy on private name mangling? (allenap) |
|
[15:22] <flacoste> allenap has the floor |
|
[15:23] * allenap starts copying and pasting frantically. |
|
[15:23] <allenap> A branch I reviewed yesterday had a _pseudo_private method on a mix-in class. Not that it's a big danger, but this seems like a sensible place to use __private_name_mangling. Or is mangling frowned upon, or deprecated? |
|
[15:24] <flacoste> allenap: what's your opinion |
|
[15:24] <allenap> I'm all for it, but I wanted other's opinions. |
|
[15:24] <intellectronica> i don't think we should do this unless it's really dangerous for a consumer to touch an attribute |
|
[15:24] <allenap> But, even in this case, it didn't matter too much. I wanted to see if there were good reasons for or against. |
|
[15:25] <intellectronica> you never know, for example, when you might need to monkeypatch |
|
[15:25] <gmb> I'm with intellectronica here. |
|
[15:25] <gmb> Not that I'm advocating monkeypatching ;) |
|
[15:25] <gmb> But I don't think we'd gain too much from using mangling. |
|
[15:25] <flacoste> the problem with mangling is that it makes it very hard to work with the attribute |
|
[15:25] <flacoste> in the debugger |
|
[15:25] <flacoste> or in subclass |
|
[15:26] <flacoste> so i usually prefer _pseudo_private to __mangling |
|
[15:26] <flacoste> but this all might be because I'm an ex-perl hacker and I live by the motto 'we rather you don't come in our living room because you weren't invited, not because I have a shotgun' |
|
[15:27] <gmb> flacoste: There's also the Python motto "We kind of expect you to know what you're doing; on your head be it if you don't." |
|
[15:27] <gmb> Which is less snappy but... |
|
[15:27] <BjornT_> +1 for _pseudo_private |
|
[15:27] <allenap> I don't really see name mangling as a way to prevent access, more as a way to avoid shooting self in foot. |
|
[15:28] <gmb> allenap: True, but the test suite *should* pick up on foot-shooting anyway. |
|
[15:28] <allenap> Okay, consensus seems to be for _singles, so I'll add that to the guidelines on the wiki. |
|
[15:28] <intellectronica> allenap: you see, if you didn't have a shotgun, you wouldn't have the problem of shooting yourself in the foot ;) |
|
[15:28] <allenap> Perl hackers and their shotguns, heh. |
|
[15:29] <allenap> flacoste: Back to you I think. |
|
[15:29] <intellectronica> anyway, gotta go now. my apologies again |
|
[15:29] <flacoste> ACTION: allenap to update Reviewers' guidelines with _pseudo_private policy |
|
[15:29] <flacoste> that's it for the items on the agenda |
|
[15:29] <flacoste> we have some time left |
|
[15:29] <flacoste> anybody has a topic to propose? |
|
[15:30] <flacoste> 5 |
|
[15:30] <flacoste> 4 |
|
[15:30] <flacoste> 3 |
|
[15:30] <flacoste> 2 |
|
[15:30] <flacoste> 1 |
|
[15:30] <flacoste> Then we are done |
|
[15:30] <flacoste> Meeting Ends |
|
[15:30] <flacoste> thanks a lot everyone |
|
[15:31] <gmb> Thanks flacoste |
|
=== vednis is now known as mars |
|
=== salgado is now known as salgado-lunch |
|
=== salgado-lunch is now known as salgado |
|
|