| === 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 | |