=== kiko is now known as kiko-zzz | ||
=== mwhudson is now known as mwh | ||
=== thumper_laptop is now known as thumper | ||
=== danilo_ is now known as danilos | ||
=== kiko-zzz is now known as kiko | ||
=== mrevell is now known as mrevell-lunch | ||
=== salgado-afk is now known as salgado | ||
=== mrevell-lunch is now known as mrevell | ||
barry | #startmeeting | 15:00 |
---|---|---|
barry | moooootbooootttttt | 15:00 |
sinzui | He's dead Jim | 15:00 |
barry | anyway. welcome to this week's ameu reviewers meeting. who's here today? | 15:00 |
sinzui | me | 15:00 |
abentley | you | 15:00 |
intellectronica | me | 15:00 |
barry | i'm a doctor not a software engineer! | 15:00 |
bigjools | me | 15:01 |
salgado | me | 15:01 |
flacoste | me | 15:01 |
bac | me | 15:01 |
barry | gmb sends his apologies | 15:01 |
cprov | me | 15:02 |
barry | BjornT, danilos ping | 15:02 |
barry | EdwinGrubbs: ping | 15:02 |
EdwinGrubbs | me | 15:02 |
danilos | me | 15:02 |
BjornT | me | 15:03 |
barry | i think that's everyone... | 15:03 |
barry | [TOPIC] agenda | 15:03 |
barry | * Roll call | 15:03 |
barry | * Naming conventions for unit test methods. `testFooBar`, `test_fooBar` and `test_foo_bar` all exist. Recommend settling on `testFooBar` and only changing existing ones as encountered in normal work. -- jml [<<Date(2008-09-10T13:48:09+1000)>>] | 15:03 |
barry | * Reviewers remove requests from Pending Reviews when you start a review. If you forget the next on-call reviewer may duplicate your work. -- bac [<<Date(2008-09-16T10:07:09-0500)>>] | 15:03 |
barry | * If there's time, the old boring script | 15:03 |
barry | * Next meeting | 15:03 |
barry | * Action items | 15:03 |
barry | * Queue status | 15:03 |
barry | * Mentoring update | 15:03 |
bac | jtv is having trouble getting into this channel | 15:03 |
barry | bac: dang | 15:03 |
barry | [TOPIC] naming conventions | 15:04 |
barry | i'm just going to paste this one since it was submitted by an asiapacker. i don't have any background on it since my intarwebs went out monday night | 15:04 |
barry | * Naming conventions for unit test methods. `testFooBar`, `test_fooBar` and `test_foo_bar` all exist. Recommend settling on `testFooBar` and only changing existing ones as encountered in normal work. -- jml [<<Date(2008-09-10T13:48:09+1000)>>] | 15:04 |
barry | i think it's fairly self evident | 15:04 |
barry | what do y'all think? | 15:05 |
* sinzui hugs PEP-8, then kicks it out the door. | 15:05 | |
kiko_ | I don't care myself as long as there's a single standard. :) | 15:05 |
* barry would like to see more pep-8 rather than less | 15:06 | |
* abentley is conflicted, because test_fooBar is irregular, but fooBar would match the method name. | 15:06 | |
flacoste | in all honestyu | 15:06 |
sinzui | testFooBar is consistent with our rules. So I think it is the right decision | 15:06 |
flacoste | i find test_ easier to read for tests | 15:06 |
intellectronica | i think test_methodName is better | 15:06 |
flacoste | especially when you can use test_nameOfMethodIMTesting_and_special_consideration | 15:07 |
flacoste | intellectronica: +1 | 15:07 |
barry | flacoste: very good point | 15:07 |
bac | intellectronica: +1 | 15:07 |
BjornT | +1 to test_fooBar | 15:07 |
bigjools | +1 | 15:07 |
salgado | +1 | 15:07 |
barry | +1 | 15:07 |
sinzui | +1 | 15:07 |
barry | any objections? | 15:08 |
flacoste | test_fooBar_plus_special_case | 15:08 |
flacoste | ? | 15:08 |
flacoste | or test_fooBarPlusSpecialCase | 15:08 |
flacoste | ? | 15:08 |
flacoste | we often have more than one tests for one method | 15:08 |
barry | flacoste: the former (IMO) | 15:09 |
intellectronica | test_fooBar_plus_special_case | 15:09 |
intellectronica | ! | 15:09 |
bac | +1 on test_fooBarPlusSpecialCase | 15:09 |
barry | intellectronica: +1 | 15:09 |
salgado | please! | 15:09 |
salgado | test_methodName_plus_special_case | 15:09 |
flacoste | salgado: +1 | 15:10 |
barry | bac: why? | 15:10 |
bac | it is simpler and looks better to me. | 15:10 |
barry | any other comments? | 15:11 |
salgado | I vote on the former because it makes the methodName stand out from the rest | 15:11 |
flacoste | same rationale over here | 15:11 |
salgado | and because we already use underscores for test_ | 15:11 |
flacoste | and it's more PEP-8 compliant | 15:11 |
barry | agreed | 15:12 |
bac | PEP-8 supports mixing camelCase and underscores? | 15:12 |
barry | bac: not really, but it's the price we pay for being zopey | 15:12 |
barry | okay, anyway, let's move on. i'll forward the results of this discussion to the ml and we can decide from there | 15:13 |
barry | [ACTION] barry to forward results of test naming discussion to ml | 15:13 |
barry | [TOPIC] reveiwers remove requests | 15:14 |
barry | * Reviewers remove requests from Pending Reviews when you start a review. If you forget the next on-call reviewer may duplicate your work. -- bac [<<Date(2008-09-16T10:07:09-0500)>>] | 15:14 |
barry | bac: the floor is yours | 15:14 |
bac | last week and this week i reviewed a branch from the general queue on PendingReviews only to discover later each had already been reviewed. yes, had i double-checked with the launchpad-reviews mailing list i could have avoided the duplicated work. but reviewers need to be diligent about removing branches from the General Queue when they take them. | 15:14 |
sinzui | Wow, I did that last week too | 15:15 |
barry | bac: yes, especially now that we're back to using PR exclusively for the time being | 15:15 |
barry | duplicate work REALLY sucks | 15:15 |
intellectronica | bac: my sympathies :( | 15:16 |
bac | indeed. of course, the duplicated review did raise some interesting issues, but it is still annoying. | 15:16 |
intellectronica | bac: reviewers should pay attention to this, but ideally i think reviewees should take care of that | 15:16 |
barry | bac: silver lining :) | 15:16 |
bac | intellectronica: if you're doing an on-call review off the GQ the reviwee may not be around. the reviewer should move it to his queue. | 15:17 |
intellectronica | bac: yes, if the reviewee is absent then definitely | 15:17 |
bac | that's all. just raising awareness that the problem exists. | 15:19 |
barry | bac: thanks | 15:19 |
barry | that's it for the new items. since we have time i'd like to go hit the old agenda items, but i'm going to skip ahead | 15:20 |
barry | [TOPIC] mentoring update | 15:20 |
barry | we need a few mentors, one for rockstar and possibly soon for mars and leonardr | 15:20 |
barry | do we have any volunteers? | 15:21 |
barry | we currently have one mentat: abentley (who i'm mentoring) | 15:21 |
bac | i recall promising to step up for the next round. | 15:22 |
bac | i'll volunteer to mentor rockstar | 15:22 |
barry | bac: awesome thanks | 15:22 |
sinzui | I'm very busy for the next month. after that, I'm happy to take a mentat | 15:22 |
barry | sinzui: great. leonardr and mars have not yet officially asked to be reviewers, so we have time to wait on that | 15:22 |
bac | is rockstar starting next cycle? | 15:23 |
barry | bac: i'd like him to | 15:23 |
bigjools | resistance is futile, they will be assimilated | 15:23 |
bac | ok. i'll contact him after the meeting. | 15:23 |
barry | lol | 15:23 |
* barry thinks bigjools should change his nick to borgjools | 15:23 | |
barry | bac: thanks | 15:23 |
bigjools | guffaw :) | 15:23 |
barry | [TOPIC] action items | 15:24 |
bac | after i mentor rockstar next cycle i'm going to request a one month sabbatical. | 15:24 |
barry | bac: from reviewing or mentoring? | 15:24 |
bac | both | 15:24 |
barry | bac: cool. everybody needs sabbaticals now and then | 15:24 |
barry | * barry will move the preimp discussion to the ml | 15:25 |
barry | i have a 1/2 composed email on this, so not done | 15:25 |
barry | [TOPIC] queue status | 15:25 |
barry | any comments? | 15:25 |
barry | i notice lots of crossed off branches in pending-reviews. let's try to clean those up (he says as an offender) | 15:26 |
barry | anyway, that's all i have. does anybody have anything not on the agenda? | 15:27 |
barry | well then, we can end early! thanks everyone and have a good day | 15:29 |
barry | #endmeeting | 15:29 |
bac | barry: do you want to edit PR to remove the reference to MergeProposals? | 15:29 |
barry | bac: will do, thanks for the reminder | 15:30 |
bigjools | thanks barry, and BCTL, wow! | 15:30 |
barry | bigjools: yeah, wtf am i thinking?! | 15:31 |
=== salgado is now known as salgado-brb | ||
=== salgado-brb is now known as salgado | ||
=== kiko_ is now known as kiko-fud | ||
=== salgado is now known as salgado-lunch | ||
=== bac is now known as bac-lunch | ||
=== bac-lunch is now known as bac | ||
=== salgado-lunch is now known as salgado | ||
=== kiko-fud is now known as kiko | ||
=== thumper_laptop is now known as thumper | ||
=== kiko is now known as kiko-phone | ||
=== kiko-phone is now known as kiko | ||
=== salgado is now known as salgado-afk | ||
=== kiko is now known as kiko-afk | ||
=== thumper_laptop is now known as thumper | ||
=== bac is now known as bac_afk | ||
=== thumper_laptop is now known as thumper |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!