[02:58] <thumper> barry: were we going to have that meeting?
[02:58] <barry> thumper: i think we should
[02:58]  * thumper nods
[02:58] <barry> thumper: 2 minutes
[02:59] <thumper> ok
[02:59] <mwhudson> hello
[03:00] <barry> #startmeeting
[03:00] <MootBot> Meeting started at 21:03. The chair is barry.
[03:00] <MootBot> Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
[03:00] <barry> hello everybody and welcome to this week's asiapac reviewers meeting
[03:00] <jml> hello
[03:00] <barry> i see my clock is off by 3 minutes?
[03:00] <barry> who's here today
[03:00] <mwhudson> i am here
[03:01] <jml> I am
[03:01] <barry> thumper is too i know
[03:01] <thumper> me
[03:02] <barry> i can't update the meeting page because i guess the machine updates are still running
[03:02] <barry> apologies for last night btw
[03:02] <barry> == Agenda ==
[03:02] <barry>  * Roll call
[03:02] <barry>  * Next meeting
[03:02] <barry>  * Action items
[03:02] <barry>  * Queue status
[03:02] <barry>  * Mentoring update
[03:02] <barry>  * Review process
[03:02] <barry>   * Module alternatives - do we really want them?
[03:02] <barry> shall we go ahead and do our regular time next week?
[03:02] <thumper> yep
[03:03] <jamesh> okay
[03:03] <barry> cool
[03:03] <barry>  * Action items
[03:03] <mwhudson> yes please
[03:03] <barry> [TOPIC]  * Action items
[03:03] <MootBot> New Topic:   * Action items
[03:03] <barry> nothing outstanding
[03:03] <barry>  * Queue status
[03:03] <barry> [TOPIC]  * Queue status
[03:03] <MootBot> New Topic:   * Queue status
[03:04] <barry> does it seem like we have a bajillion branches that need reviewed this cycle?
[03:04] <jml> yes.
[03:04]  * jml hasn't checked his queue today.
[03:05] <thumper> gee, I wonder why?
[03:05] <mwhudson> i don't know that it's going to be any more intense than usual for week 3 though
[03:05] <spiv> It seems like the bzr team have a bajillion reviews to atm too :)
[03:05] <mwhudson> i thought that was just one humungous review :)
[03:06] <barry> i'm a little worried that ocrs are getting overloaded or burned out.  do any of y'all feel that way?
[03:07] <thumper> rocs?
[03:07] <thumper> orcs?
[03:07] <mwhudson> it's much easier for us 'round here
[03:07] <jml> barry: I don't.
[03:07] <barry> on call reviewers :)
[03:07] <thumper> ah
[03:07] <jml> barry: there's a minor problem where I get requests for reviews on Friday afternoons
[03:08] <jml> barry: that's resulted in a couple of Europeans having to wait 24hrs between review cycles.
[03:08] <barry> jml: you get them while on call or in your queue?
[03:08] <thumper> jml: is there someone to pass the reviews onto?
[03:08] <jml> barry: while on call.
[03:08] <jml> thumper: there wasn't this time.
[03:09] <thumper> who is the european on on Friday?
[03:09] <jml> at other times in the cycle I probably would have just said no :)
[03:09] <barry> david murphy
[03:09] <barry> then in the us it's superman, er, sinzui
[03:09] <jml> barry: where does the schedule live?
[03:09] <barry> https://launchpad.canonical.com/OnCallReviewers
[03:10] <barry> i still would love to fill wednesday more
[03:10] <barry> but we lost statik as a reviewer, which is too bad, because he was good
[03:10] <barry> otoh, bigjools is going to graduate
[03:10] <jml> cool.
[03:11] <mwhudson> how many non-reviewers do we have currently?
[03:11] <barry> mwhudson: i was just looking that up
[03:11] <thumper> I'd like to get abentley onto the team shortly
[03:11] <barry> except i can't get into the directory :(
[03:11] <barry> thumper: good idea
[03:11] <mwhudson> aaron, mars, leonard ?
[03:12] <thumper> I'll follow it up with him first
[03:12] <barry> thumper: sounds good
[03:12] <thumper> to make sure he is up for taking it on now
[03:12] <thumper> (or after 2.0)
[03:12]  * mars stirs
[03:12] <barry> mwhudson: those are the next logical choices i think
[03:13] <mwhudson> oh, al-maisan isn't a review either i guess
[03:13] <mwhudson> reviewer
[03:13] <thumper> and rockstar
[03:13] <thumper> rockstar is still very new though
[03:13] <barry> so is al-maisan?  i haven't seen many of either's branches.  have you guys seen any of them?
[03:14] <jml> al-maisan is still pretty new
[03:14] <jml> I just reviewed one of his branches.
[03:14] <mwhudson> i doubt al-maisan or rockstar are ready yet
[03:14]  * jml agrees.
[03:14] <rockstar> Yes, I am not ready...
[03:14] <mwhudson> but yeah, i guess we should bully the three i first mentioned i guess
[03:15] <barry> [TOPIC] mentoring update :)
[03:15] <MootBot> New Topic:  mentoring update :)
[03:15] <barry> mwhudson: all we need to do is find mentors for them
[03:15] <barry> with bigjools graduating, i can take someone else on
[03:16] <barry> al-maisan is euro?  rockstar, you're us right?
[03:16] <jml> barry: al-maisan is in .de
[03:16] <rockstar> Yup, US
[03:16] <barry> i know mars is ca, eastern
[03:16] <barry> jml: cool
[03:16] <barry> leonard is us eastern too
[03:17] <jml> barry: abentley is .ca -- my geography doesn't extend that far north though
[03:17] <barry> :)
[03:17] <mwhudson> i _guess_ one of us could do one of the new guys, but the difference is a bit much
[03:17] <jml> yeah.
[03:17] <mwhudson> (until the dst thing happens again)
[03:17] <jml> better to get someone from atlantis
[03:17] <barry> yeah it's tough when there's so little overlap
[03:17] <jml> I mean AMEU
[03:17] <barry> jml: unless you can convince someone to move!
[03:18] <jml> barry: I would like Australia to move :)
[03:18] <barry> :-D
[03:18] <spiv> I'm not sure what the real estate market in Atlantis is like...
[03:18] <barry> spiv: you can get great stuff cheap these days
[03:18]  * thumper seemed to miss 5 mintutes
[03:19] <mwhudson> jml: http://www.satirewire.com/news/jan02/australia.shtml
[03:19] <spiv> barry: I'd worry about home owners going under.
[03:19] <barry> spiv: you haven't heard about our real-estate crash?  it's only going to bring down the entire world economy
[03:19] <jml> mwhudson: seen it :)
[03:19] <mwhudson> jml: good :)
[03:19] <jamesh> maybe we need some reviewers in hawaii
[03:19] <barry> mwhudson: :)
[03:19] <barry> it's a great time to /buy/ a house, a horrible time to sell one
[03:20] <barry> anyway, all good suggestions, thanks
[03:20] <thumper> I checked out the cost of a house in hawaii
[03:20] <thumper> it isn't cheap
[03:20]  * spiv would want to bouy a house if he lived in Atlantis
[03:21] <thumper> we seem to be somewhat off topic
[03:21] <mwhudson> :)
[03:21] <jamesh> spiv: there are people who will sell one to you
[03:21] <barry> [TOPIC]  * Review process
[03:21] <MootBot> New Topic:   * Review process
[03:21] <barry>   * Module alternatives - do we really want them?
[03:21] <jml> barry: what's a module alternative?
[03:21] <barry> lets see if i can swap this one in
[03:22] <thumper> what is this exactly?
[03:22] <barry> intellectronica brought this up
[03:22] <barry> whether we want to wrap imports of say, from cFoo import Foo in try/excepts
[03:22] <barry> or just do the import
[03:22] <barry> and expect them to work
[03:22] <jamesh> just import
[03:23] <mwhudson> oh just import
[03:23]  * jml seconds jamesh
[03:23] <thumper> just import
[03:23] <jamesh> have you found a Python installation without cStringIO or cPickle?
[03:23] <mwhudson> we control our environment
[03:23] <spiv> We know what dependencies we have, don't we?  So just import.
[03:23] <jamesh> and what mwhudson said
[03:23] <spiv> s/have/have installed/
[03:23] <barry> that's basically what we decided.  i think there was some question about forward-proofing etree, elementree and the like
[03:24] <mwhudson> mmm
[03:24] <jamesh> the one place I think a try/except might be useful is for module name changes going 2.4 -> 2.5
[03:24] <thumper> mwhudson: wasn't there something that you wanted to bring up at the review meeting?
[03:24] <jamesh> e.g. ElementTree
[03:24] <mwhudson> thumper: it's on the agenda :)
[03:24]  * jamesh is too slow
[03:24] <barry> jamesh: some talk about having a canonical.alternatives package for hiding the 2.4/2.5 differences
[03:24] <thumper> mwhudson: I didn't see it on the agenda
[03:24] <mwhudson> well i added it
[03:25] <barry> anyway, we're all agreed, just import it
[03:25] <barry> and upgrade to 2.5 when we do :)
[03:25] <barry>  * (mwhudson) What are page tests for?
[03:25] <barry> mwhudson: the floor is yours
[03:25] <mwhudson> oh, it's just a proposed item
[03:26] <mwhudson> this came from some conversations i had with jml and thumper
[03:26] <mwhudson> basically, writing and maintaining pagetests is a pain
[03:26] <mwhudson> and i think we are a bit muddled as a team as to what the purpose of a page test is
[03:27] <mwhudson> some of them are 'customer stories'
[03:27] <mwhudson> and some of it is just testing that the templates work
[03:27] <mwhudson> (and most are some mixture of both)
[03:27] <mwhudson> so i'd like to encourage a wider conversation on the topic
[03:27] <spiv> My first reaction is that both are useful, but keeping them separate would be a good idea.
[03:27] <thumper> some try to do exhaustive testing of alternatives
[03:28] <mwhudson> i guess i should mail the list about this, but let's have a short argument here first :)
[03:28] <thumper> I'd prefer to see template testing move to unitests
[03:28] <barry> spiv: that's my first reaction too
[03:28] <thumper> customer stories are fine
[03:28] <jml> thumper: +1
[03:28] <jml> spiv: +1
[03:28] <mwhudson> if they are customer tests, we should consider not running them on every landing
[03:28] <barry> one question i've often had is how much should we be sneaking around the web u/i in a pagetest?
[03:28] <spiv> Basically: for tests the key question iswhat is the intent of the test, and for docs the key question is what is the audience of the document.
[03:28] <thumper> mwhudson: not sure about that
[03:29] <spiv> (And for doctests, there's also the question of "is this a doc or a test?")
[03:29] <barry> thumper: i agree, i'd hate to stop running some of our important tests
[03:29] <spiv> I think being clear about the answers to those will help us figure out how to organise our pagetests.
[03:29] <jamesh> mwhudson: for a while, it wasn't possible to do testbrowser stuff outside of the pagetests
[03:29] <barry> spiv: very good point.  i love doctests for everything, but some are documentation and some are not
[03:30] <mwhudson> thumper: this pre-supposes that all the important things are tested in non customer tests
[03:30] <thumper> I think that trying to do exhaustive tests of alternatives should never be in a doctest or pagetest
[03:30] <jamesh> due to some required setup/teardown being done in the FunctionalDocFileSUite
[03:30] <mwhudson> jamesh: oh, interesting
[03:30] <jamesh> that is fixed now though, so there isn't any technical reason not to do testbrowser in unittest code now
[03:30] <spiv> barry: I *will* persuade you that doctests for everything is bad at some point, I promise :)
[03:30] <mwhudson> jamesh: i have written unittests that use testbrowser :)
[03:30] <barry> spiv: :)
[03:30] <thumper> spiv: I'm sure doctests are good somewhere
[03:30] <jamesh> mwhudson: and that worked because I moved the test setup to the layers
[03:31] <mwhudson> (it's still a pain because you have to log in and out all over)
[03:31] <mwhudson> jamesh: i shall buy you a beer for that at some point
[03:31] <thumper> mwhudson: what about setting the unitest in the pagetestlayer?
[03:31] <barry> thumper: i have this theory that we can use the doctest format for everything (and that it's better than python tests)
[03:31] <thumper> barry: ew, NO!
[03:31] <mwhudson> this is a separate punch-up
[03:31] <mwhudson> :)
[03:32] <barry> yeah, let's not get distracted :)
[03:32] <jamesh> these days, there isn't any special setup done for doc tests, other than default globals, iirc
[03:32] <barry> jamesh: right, and we're trying to discourage magical globals in doctests anyway
[03:32] <mars> barry, +1 :)
[03:32] <jamesh> yep
[03:32] <thumper> are we?
[03:32] <thumper> I just added one
[03:32]  * mwhudson shall have to buy xUnit Test Patterns for everyone on the launchpad team, it seems
[03:33] <barry> i've had exactly one case where i think it's justified, but other than that, the imports are good to put in the doctest!
[03:33] <thumper> at least it makes it clear where things are coming from
[03:33] <mwhudson> so, should i mail the launchpad list about the page test thing?
[03:33] <spiv> mwhudson: ideally with a short proposal about what to do about it
[03:33] <jml> mwhudson: I think that's a good idea.
[03:34] <barry> thumper: yeah, i hate having to go hunting for the harness that sets up a doctest just to figure out what some global actually is
[03:34] <spiv> mwhudson: just to try to limit the inevitable bike-shedding a little
[03:34] <mwhudson> and say that launchpad/pagetests should be stories
[03:34] <barry> mwhudson: +1, spiv +1
[03:34] <mwhudson> and that doc/ should be documentation
[03:34] <spiv> mwhudson: +1
[03:34] <mwhudson> and tests (whether .py or .txt) should be in a tests directory?
[03:34] <barry> mwhudson: +1
[03:34] <spiv> mwhudson: +1 +1 +1
[03:34] <mwhudson> ok
[03:35] <barry> and can we for gawd's sake please do something about tests, testing, and ftests?
[03:35] <spiv> Rename ftests to f'ing tests?
[03:35] <mwhudson> well, testing is for scaffolding
[03:35] <jml> barry: tests & testing is a sensible split
[03:35] <jamesh> stuff in ftests can go to tests
[03:35] <mwhudson> ddaa tried to land a branch that moved everything in ftests into tests
[03:35] <barry> jml: yes, maybe just get rid of ftests.  i would be so much happier
[03:35] <thumper> testing is infrastructure
[03:35] <jamesh> the tests / testing split is good
[03:35] <jml> jamesh: sometimes it needs to go to testing :)
[03:35] <spiv> jamesh: +1
[03:36] <jamesh> jml: right
[03:36] <barry> jamesh: +1
[03:36] <mwhudson> but it's a conflict nightmare
[03:36] <mwhudson> ok, i can add this to my mail too :)
[03:36] <thumper> each team should move its own tests
[03:36] <thumper> from ftests to tests in the appropriate place
[03:36]  * barry has a secret plan for montreal :)
[03:36] <thumper> we file a bug
[03:36] <thumper> create tasks for each team
[03:36] <thumper> and JFDI!
[03:37] <barry> thumper: right!  i want a special pqm tag for that
[03:37] <thumper> :)
[03:37] <thumper> barry: why a pqm tag?
[03:37] <jml> thumper: I think you'll find that one team has already done it :P
[03:37] <thumper> jml: not quite
[03:37] <barry> thumper: well, when i want to jf land a branch :)
[03:37] <thumper> jml: there are some older tests still in c.l.ftests
[03:37] <spiv> Some people claim "Jedi" as their religion.  thumper's religion is "JFDI".
[03:38] <jml> thumper: let us continue this team-specific discussion outside of the meeting.
[03:38] <barry> 2007's motto was "canonical fuck yeah!".  2008's should be JFDI
[03:38] <thumper> barry: can you add a mootbot task for that?
[03:38] <barry> [ACTION] mwhudson to start discussion on page test purpose
[03:38] <MootBot> ACTION received:  mwhudson to start discussion on page test purpose
[03:38] <thumper> barry: I was meaning a bug for ftests -> tests
[03:39] <barry> [ACTION] thumper to submit a bug for moving ftests contents to tests
[03:39] <MootBot> ACTION received:  thumper to submit a bug for moving ftests contents to tests
[03:39] <barry> anything else on this topic mwhudson?
[03:39] <mwhudson> not for today i think
[03:40] <mwhudson> i can hear jml's stomach rumbling from here :)
[03:40] <barry> :)
[03:40] <jml> :D
[03:40] <barry> okay, one quick last one
[03:40] <jml> The "D" represents my gaping maw.
[03:40] <barry>  * (bigjools) On-call reviewers to remind devs to be available during the review.
[03:40] <jml> that's a good idea.
[03:40] <mwhudson> +1
[03:40] <jml> I'll do that in future.
[03:40] <barry> bigjools brought up to me that some people are using on-call requests to jump ahead of the review queue
[03:40] <jamesh> we've got way too much obsolete test infrastructure still in tree
[03:41] <barry> i.e. they request an on-call review then disappear
[03:41] <mwhudson> jamesh: yes
[03:41] <jml> barry: yeah, this has happened to me.
[03:41] <barry> i told bigjools that if that happens, you are allowed to reject the ocr request and move on to someone who is present
[03:41] <barry> the whole point of ocr is to have a dialog with the dev
[03:41] <mwhudson> i think i've done this
[03:42] <spiv> This makes good sense to me.
[03:42] <mwhudson> at least, if i have two reviews to do and the developer is there for one of them, he gets done first
[03:43] <barry> anybody disagree?
[03:43] <thumper> nope
[03:43] <mwhudson> nope
[03:43] <barry> great.  that's it for me.  shall we end 2 minutes early and let jml get some food?
[03:44] <jml> I think we should discuss it first :)
[03:44] <barry> jml: but only for 1 more minute :)
[03:44] <barry> #endmeeting
[03:44] <MootBot> Meeting finished at 21:47.
[03:44] <barry> thanks everyone!
[03:44] <jml> barry: thanks!
[03:44] <mwhudson> thanks barry
[03:44] <spiv> barry: thanks
[15:00] <barry> #startmeeting
[15:00] <MootBot> Meeting started at 09:03. The chair is barry.
[15:00] <MootBot> Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
[15:00] <barry> hi everybody.  welcome to this week's ameu reviewers meeting
[15:00] <barry> who's here today?
[15:00] <sinzui> me
[15:00] <EdwinGrubbs> me
[15:00] <gmb> me
[15:00] <bigjools> me
[15:01] <intellectronica> me
[15:01] <bac> me
[15:01] <barry> danilos, BjornT ping
[15:01] <barry> flacoste: ping
[15:01] <danilos> me
[15:01] <flacoste> me
[15:01] <BjornT> me
[15:01] <danilos> barry: thanks
[15:02] <allenap> me
[15:02] <barry> salgado: ping
[15:02] <barry> [TOPIC] agenda
[15:02] <MootBot> New Topic:  agenda
[15:02] <salgado> me
[15:02] <barry> == Agenda ==
[15:02] <barry>  * Roll call
[15:02] <barry>  * Next meeting
[15:02] <barry>  * Action items
[15:02] <barry>  * Queue status
[15:02] <barry>  * Mentoring update
[15:02] <barry>    * bye to statik
[15:02] <barry>    * bigjools graduates
[15:02] <barry>    * new recruits?  (leonardr, abentley, mars)
[15:02] <barry>  * Review process
[15:02] <barry>    * (bigjools) On-call reviewers to remind devs to be available during the review.
[15:02] <barry>    * (gmb) Wrapping long argument lists: What's the agreed style?
[15:02] <barry>    * (mwhudson) What are page tests for?
[15:02] <barry>    * thumper moving ftests contents to tests
[15:02] <barry> [TOPIC] next meeting
[15:02] <MootBot> New Topic:  next meeting
[15:02]  * barry kicks mootbot
[15:03] <jtv> me
[15:03] <statik> me
[15:03] <barry> jtv: hi!  statik hi!
[15:03] <jtv> barry, hi!
[15:03] <barry> next week, same time and place?  anybody know they will be sprinting or away?
[15:04] <barry> cool
[15:04] <barry> [TOPIC] action items
[15:04] <MootBot> New Topic:  action items
[15:04] <barry>  * intellectronica to file bug on lint issue regarding elementtree import
[15:04] <intellectronica> sorry, i didn't. let's carry this on
[15:04] <barry> intellectronica: np
[15:04] <barry>  * mwhudson to start discussion on page test purpose
[15:05] <barry> i will proxy mwhudson :)
[15:05] <barry> he's going to start a ml thread on the purpose of page tests.  more in a moment
[15:05] <barry>  * thumper to submit a bug for moving ftests contents to tests
[15:05] <barry> more on this in a bit
[15:05] <barry> [TOPIC] queue status
[15:05] <MootBot> New Topic:  queue status
[15:06] <barry> any comments?  i was freaking out on monday, but i've calmed down by now.  thanks everyone for cranking away on reviews!
[15:06] <sinzui> Stub has reviewed my two branches now; he has not updated the statuses
[15:07] <barry> sinzui: are they merge-approved?
[15:07] <sinzui> yes
[15:07] <barry> sinzui: cool. i'll ignore those and you can just remove them when they land
[15:07] <barry> my branch that kiko reviewed is still trying to land
[15:08]  * barry won't even mention testsuite2 :)
[15:08] <barry> anything else on the queue?
[15:08] <sinzui> We seem to have extra missing branches this week
[15:09] <barry> sinzui: missing where?
[15:09] <salgado> yeah, I'm nagging stub about my oauth-context branch, which has a DB patch
[15:09] <sinzui> barry: The red branches are missing. It implies they were removed from the repo, or renamed
[15:10] <barry> sinzui: yeah, people are not updating PR
[15:10] <sinzui> gmb and intellectronica have missing branches
[15:10] <sinzui> and schwuk
[15:10] <barry> everyone, remind your reviewees to clean up PR when their branch lands!
[15:10] <bigjools> amen to that
[15:10]  * bigjools cleaned 4 of other people's out this morning
[15:11] <intellectronica> sinzui: oh right, i cleaned my repo but not PR, i guess. i'll sort it out
[15:11] <barry> bigjools: yes, feel free to clean out any that you see
[15:11]  * barry is a culprit too
[15:11] <bigjools> I don't like doing it though, it makes devs lazy!
[15:11] <barry> bigjools: hmm, maybe refuse to review any new branches until they clean out their old ones :)
[15:11] <bigjools> lol
[15:12] <barry> anyway...
[15:12] <barry> [TOPIC]  * Mentoring update
[15:12] <MootBot> New Topic:   * Mentoring update
[15:12] <gmb> Or have PQM check for red branches and rejecting anything until they're gone...
[15:13] <barry> so first, we say goodbye to statik who is moving off the lp team and won't be accepting any more reviews.  i was tempted to go down to florida to camp on his doorstep until he changed his mind but it's a long train trip
[15:13] <barry> statik: thanks and good luck!  you're welcome to come do reviews any time you're bored :)
[15:13] <statik> thanks!
[15:14] <barry> next up: bigjools graduates.  congratulations bigjools!
[15:14] <jtv> congrats bigjools!
[15:14]  * flacoste cheers bigjools
[15:14] <intellectronica> congrats bigjools!
[15:14] <bac> hurrah
[15:14]  * bigjools takes a bow
[15:14] <gmb> Hurrah!
[15:14] <bigjools> thanks guys
[15:14] <barry> i will send an official email after this meeting
[15:14] <bigjools> Barry is a great mentor - thanks to him also
[15:14] <barry> remember, give all your hard branches to bigjools now :)
[15:14] <bigjools> oof
[15:15] <barry> :)
[15:15] <barry> bigjools: thanks
[15:15] <flacoste> but has it easy, being a soyuz developer
[15:15]  * bigjools considers retracting the last statement :)
[15:15] <jtv> too late
[15:15] <flacoste> the worst branch are his :-p
[15:15] <barry> flacoste: no kidding!
[15:15] <bigjools> flacoste: lol
[15:16] <barry> i think we can accept a few more recruits now.  i'm certainly happy to mentor again.  i think the next three potential candiates are leonardr, abentley, and mars
[15:16] <barry> i talked to thumper and i'm thinking about mentoring abentley
[15:16] <barry> we need mentors if we're going to accept anybody else, though i propose we do not accept until after 2.0
[15:17] <barry> so if you would like to volunteer to mentor leonardr or mars, please send me an email
[15:17] <intellectronica> i'm happy to mentor again, after 2.0
[15:17] <barry> intellectronica: awesome
[15:17] <gmb> I'll be happy to do the same
[15:17] <barry> gmb: great, thanks!
[15:17] <barry> btw, we mentioned rockstar and al-maisan but we want to give those guys a bit more time dev'ing for now
[15:18] <barry> [TOPIC]  * Review process
[15:18] <MootBot> New Topic:   * Review process
[15:18] <barry>    * (bigjools) On-call reviewers to remind devs to be available during the review.
[15:18] <barry> we talked about this last week...
[15:18] <bigjools> ok
[15:19] <bigjools> I've noticed a few instances where developers are not available during on call reviews
[15:19] <barry> but i just wanted to mention that asiapac was all for the idea that it's okay to reject an ocr if the dev disappears
[15:19] <bigjools> the primary reason for OCR is to speed up reviews
[15:19] <intellectronica> well, if they're not available then they're not available, what can you do? just postpone the review for later
[15:19] <bigjools> not as a means to jump the general queue
[15:19] <bigjools> intellectronica: put them in the GQ
[15:20] <barry> bigjools: exactly
[15:20] <intellectronica> bigjools: yeah, exactly
[15:20] <jtv> It's a bit annoying when you're in Asia though
[15:20] <bigjools> jtv: we could prioritse people who find it hard to be around at the same time as OCRs
[15:20] <barry> jtv: who is affected by that?
[15:21] <bigjools> anyway - we should remind devs, when they ask for a review, to be around, otherwise refuse the review
[15:21] <jtv> Agreed—if you ask for it, you ask for it.
[15:21] <barry> the one hitch is when someone asks for  review and you can't get to it for several hours because your dance card is full.  they might disappear by the time you're free
[15:22] <bac> this tends to happen to me when europeans ask for reviews in my early afternoon.  often by the time i get to the review it's pretty late where they are.  happened last night.
[15:22] <barry> this has happened to me when euros get bumped to the end of my list
[15:22] <barry> bac: yep
[15:22] <bigjools> if you're not sure you can get to it, I don't think it should be accepted
[15:22] <barry> i think it's okay to reshuffle your queue
[15:22] <bigjools> maybe we need to consider doubling up reviewers on some shifts?
[15:23] <barry> i.e. give some priority to those east of you if it helps speed the review
[15:23] <bigjools> like some already do
[15:23] <bac> and, if you're approaching the end of your work day, don't ask someone just b/c they have a few hours left
[15:23] <barry> bac: good pont
[15:23] <bac> 'you" being a dev, not a reviewer
[15:23] <barry> er, point
[15:23] <barry> bigjools: i'm not sure we have enough coverage as it is atm
[15:24] <bigjools> when I've been on call on Monday mornings it's quite thin most of the time, I could move to a different day
[15:24] <barry> i.e. wednesday we only have intellectronica and allenap in euro time
[15:24] <intellectronica> only?
[15:24] <sinzui> We need to send rockstar to NZ once he is a reviewer to take the Wednesday slot
[15:24] <barry> intellectronica: not to disparage you guys!  you all do great, but we have no america coverage on wednesdays
[15:25] <intellectronica> ah, of course. well, i think we'll have to relocate someone
[15:25] <barry> btw, the asiapacsters don't feel to bad about the current situation, i.e. they are neither overloaded nor seeing their branches languish
[15:25] <bigjools> does this mean we need more Americas reviewers?
[15:26] <barry> bigjools: leonardr, abentley and mars are all here so getting them on board will improve coverage eventually
[15:26] <intellectronica> if we get leonardr on board it will help, though, so let's try to convince him to start after 2.0
[15:26] <bigjools> rockin'
[15:26] <barry> intellectronica: +1
[15:27] <barry> bigjools: we have good euro coverage, so if you want to stay on monday that's cool.  it's nice to have a little overlap in our days.  otherwise, definitely feel free to pick a slot later in the week and double up with someone
[15:27] <salgado> we also have EdwinGrubbs, who's being mentored by myself
[15:28] <barry> bigjools: maybe friday so sinzui's load gets lightened.  i always feel bad that sinzui reviews into his weekend :)
[15:28] <bigjools> I don't mind either way.  I'll stay where I am for now and we can check which periods are most busy
[15:28] <salgado> once he graduates we'll have one more reviewer in america
[15:28] <barry> salgado: good point!
[15:28] <bigjools> barry: yeah, there's nobody on Friday mornings
[15:28] <barry> bigjools: sounds good
[15:28] <bigjools> Europe time that is
[15:28] <sinzui> barry: You do not. I'm taking the load off of you
[15:29] <flacoste> barry: well, if doesn't review into the week-end, he'll code, which increase the review load so...
[15:29] <barry> :)
[15:29]  * sinzui looks forward to this Friday with PQM in top form to screw developers whose nicks are not gmb
[15:29] <barry> anyway, moving on...
[15:29] <gmb> *mumblemumble*
[15:29] <barry>    * (gmb) Wrapping long argument lists: What's the agreed style?
[15:29] <gmb> Right.
[15:29] <gmb> So, my question is pretty simple.
[15:30] <gmb> When we come across a method definition with a really long list of arguments, how do we want it wrapped.
[15:30] <sinzui> We agree to wrap two ways as we see fit
[15:30] <gmb> I've seen three styles:
[15:30] <gmb> def spam(eggs, ham, jam, lamb, spam
[15:30] <gmb>     foo, bar):
[15:30] <gmb> def foo(
[15:31] <gmb>     here, is, a, nother, long, list):
[15:31] <gmb> or
[15:31] <gmb> def bar(
[15:31] <gmb>     this,
[15:31] <gmb>     looks,
[15:31] <gmb>     really,
[15:31] <gmb>     ugly):
[15:31] <salgado> I think the basic rule should be to have all the arguments aligned so that they stand out from the rest
[15:31] <sinzui> I choose neither
[15:31] <salgado> there's also
[15:31] <intellectronica> iiuc the first one is not kosher, but you can choose wither of the last two
[15:31] <bigjools> there's a 4th!
[15:31] <salgado> def bar(foo, bar, baz,
[15:31] <salgado>        nah):
[15:31] <sinzui> I choose salgado's
[15:32] <flacoste> i thought that was the agreed style actually
[15:32] <barry> salgado: with the 'nah' lined up under 'foo'?
[15:32] <salgado> barry, yep
[15:32] <flacoste> barry: yes
[15:32] <jtv> That's PEP-8
[15:32] <barry> salgado: +1
[15:32] <gmb> jtv: Good enough for me.
[15:32] <BjornT> i think the 4th one is the most common one in our code
[15:32]  * bigjools is using non-prop fonts here so it all looks ugly
[15:32] <jtv> Personally I like the double-indent for continued parameter lists.
[15:32] <bac> salgado: +1
[15:33] <salgado> I personally prefer the second example of gmb
[15:33] <salgado> but I'm strongly opposed to the first one
[15:33] <gmb> salgado: That's the one I usually use, but I'm happy to follow prevailling wisdom
[15:33] <gmb> s/usually/
[15:33] <salgado> hence my saying that the basic rule should be to have all the arguments aligned so that they stand out from the rest
[15:33] <jtv> Should we put this on a wiki page (where we know it's in nonproportional fonts) and vote?
[15:33] <salgado> if that was the rule all three options would be allowed, which I think is fine
[15:34] <salgado> maybe not the third one as it looks quite ugly
[15:34] <bac> i'm against any style that lines up the arguments with the body of the method
[15:34] <gmb> I think the third one takes up unnecessary space.
[15:34] <intellectronica> bac: i very much agree
[15:35] <barry> bac: i agree too
[15:35] <jtv> +1 for bac
[15:36] <danilos> I'd be for the current prevailing style "de salgado" (at least in this meeting)
[15:36] <barry> danilos: +1
[15:36] <jtv> But verily it sucketh with long method names.
[15:36] <barry> [VOTE] adopt salgado's suggestion for parameter indents: aye +1 or nay -1
[15:36] <MootBot> Please vote on:  adopt salgado's suggestion for parameter indents: aye +1 or nay -1.
[15:36] <MootBot> Public votes can be registered by saying +1/-1/+0 in the channel, private votes by messaging the channel followed by +1/-1/+0  to MootBot
[15:36] <MootBot> E.g. /msg MootBot +1 #launchpad-meeting
[15:37] <barry> +1
[15:37] <MootBot> +1 received from barry. 1 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 1
[15:37] <bigjools> +1
[15:37] <MootBot> +1 received from bigjools. 2 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 2
[15:37] <salgado> +1
[15:37] <gmb> +1
[15:37] <allenap> +1
[15:37] <MootBot> +1 received from salgado. 3 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 3
[15:37] <MootBot> +1 received from gmb. 4 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 4
[15:37] <MootBot> +1 received from allenap. 5 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 5
[15:37] <bac> +1
[15:37] <sinzui> +1
[15:37] <MootBot> +1 received from bac. 6 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 6
[15:37] <MootBot> +1 received from sinzui. 7 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 7
[15:37] <danilos> +1
[15:37] <MootBot> +1 received from danilos. 8 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 8
[15:37] <flacoste> +1
[15:37] <MootBot> +1 received from flacoste. 9 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 9
[15:37] <danilos> ho-hum, what was that discussion about in the first place? :)
[15:37] <statik> +1
[15:37] <MootBot> +1 received from statik. 10 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 10
[15:37] <jtv> danilos: car repairs.
[15:38] <barry> #endvote
[15:38] <flacoste> jtv: don't use long method names :-)
[15:38] <barry> er, whatever mootbot
[15:38] <barry> flacoste: right
[15:38]  * bigjools aims a kick to mootbot's nads
[15:38] <barry> gmb: can you update PythonStyleGuide and send a quick email to the ml?
[15:38] <gmb> barry: Will do.
[15:39] <flacoste> jtv: seriously, i think we should allow starting the argument lists on the next line with a double-indent for long method names
[15:39] <barry> [ACTION] gmb to update PSG for parameter indents and email launchpad@
[15:39] <MootBot> ACTION received:  gmb to update PSG for parameter indents and email launchpad@
[15:39] <bigjools> barry: I will do the same about the OCR topic
[15:39] <danilos> #startsomethingtoendvote
[15:39] <jtv> flacoste: +1 for that
[15:39] <barry> [ACTION] bigjools to email launchpad@ about devs sticking around for their ocr
[15:39] <MootBot> ACTION received:  bigjools to email launchpad@ about devs sticking around for their ocr
[15:40] <barry> flacoste, jtv yes, it's okay if there are exceptions for superCrazyMegaUltraLongMethodNamesThatTakeUpTonsOfSpace
[15:40] <barry>    * (mwhudson) What are page tests for?
[15:41] <sinzui> use cases
[15:41] <barry> mwhudson: brought up some questions about the purpose of page tests. are they customer stories or do they test our templates
[15:41] <sinzui> customer acceptance tests
[15:41] <barry> right now, the stuff in pagetests is some of both
[15:41]  * sinzui tests templates in doc/*-pages.txt
[15:42] <salgado> I test views in there
[15:42] <salgado> I mean doc/*-pages.txt
[15:42] <sinzui> salgado: So do it, but I recently added template tests since I did not think it was relevant to the use case
[15:42] <barry> sinzui: i think we mostly agree, so mwhudson is going to start a ml thread about it and begin to get people to separate these
[15:42] <bigjools> I think customer stories should involve all aspects of the template, otherwise what is that part the template doing there?
[15:43] <flacoste> sinzui: testing template in doc/*-pages is not our standard, although it might make a good idea
[15:43] <BjornT> sinzui: do you have an example?
[15:43]  * sinzui thinks
[15:43] <flacoste> bigjools, sinzui: sometimes you have to test all the possibilities in a template
[15:43] <flacoste> but that's not relevant to the user stories
[15:44] <flacoste> as a dev, you know that these three cases involved three different code paths
[15:44] <intellectronica> i think that it's ok to mix the two purposes, as long as you get sufficient coverage
[15:44] <flacoste> but from the point of view of the user, it's one sue-case
[15:44] <intellectronica> that's in line with our not doing unit tests for everything
[15:44] <flacoste> intellectronica: which i think is wrong
[15:44] <jtv> intellectronica: but is that a good thing?
[15:44] <flacoste> but that's just me
[15:44] <sinzui> BjornT: I checked the calls to the search form in launchpad-search-pages. the form is a technical matter, not a use case.
[15:45] <intellectronica> jtv, flacoste: i'm not sure myself, i just note that this is how we do it. mostly, it means that we have to pay attention closely to make sure that we get full coverage from the mix of tests we do have
[15:45] <sinzui> the pagetests need reorganisation, and normalisation
[15:46] <jtv> sinzui: +1
[15:46] <bigjools> if your template is *that* complicated it has multiple code paths, should it not be simplified and stuff put in the view?
[15:46] <danilos> as do all our other tests
[15:46] <bigjools> my eyes bleed over some templates
[15:46] <barry> sinzui: right.  thumper is going to start a thread about test reorg, and especially moving ftests stuff to tests
[15:47] <sinzui> bigjools: right. We don't have as many doc/*-pages.txt as we should have, I think a lot of pagetests are checking the view's behaviour
[15:47] <barry> bigjools: reviewing pts are incredibly painful
[15:47] <bigjools> exactly
[15:47] <danilos> if we are to reorganize tests, we should make as clear separation and categorization as possible, covering all testing
[15:47] <bigjools> and if more stuff is in the view, it can be tested separately
[15:47] <bigjools> and more efficiently
[15:47] <bigjools> thus speeding the test suite
[15:48] <flacoste> bigjools: different code paths simply means different conditions
[15:48] <flacoste> so the logic is in the view
[15:48] <BjornT> intellectronica: it's not really how we do it. basically, we treat our tests for DB classes as 'unit tests'. they should have have as much coverage as possible.
[15:48] <flacoste> but you still need coverage that the template is using the view correclty
[15:48] <bigjools> flacoste: agreed
[15:48] <flacoste> barry: ftests/tests is an historical separation
[15:49] <barry> flacoste: s/historical/hysterical/ :)
[15:49] <barry> but yeah
[15:49] <sinzui> barry: +1
[15:49] <barry> anyway, we've gone over.  my apologies for that.  we'll continue this discussion on the list when mwhudson starts it
[15:49] <barry> #endmeeting
[15:49] <MootBot> Vote is in progress. Finishing now.
[15:49] <MootBot> Final result is 10 for, 0 against. 0 abstained. Total: 10
[15:49] <MootBot> Meeting finished at 09:52.
[15:49] <barry> thanks everyone!
[15:50] <jtv> barry: thank you, nice seeing you again :)
[15:50] <intellectronica> thanks barry
[15:50] <bac> thanks barry & mootbot
[15:50] <barry> jtv: you too!  you're welcome to stop by any time :)