[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