[15:00] <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!
[15:01] <bigjools> me
[15:01] <salgado> me
[15:01] <flacoste> me
[15:01] <bac> me
[15:01] <barry> gmb sends his apologies
[15:02] <cprov> me
[15:02] <barry> BjornT, danilos ping
[15:02] <barry> EdwinGrubbs: ping
[15:02] <EdwinGrubbs> me
[15:02] <danilos> me
[15:03] <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
[15:04] <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
[15:05] <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. :)
[15:06]  * 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
[15:07] <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
[15:08] <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
[15:09] <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
[15:10] <flacoste> salgado: +1
[15:10] <barry> bac: why?
[15:10] <bac> it is simpler and looks better to me.
[15:11] <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
[15:12] <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
[15:13] <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
[15:14] <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.
[15:15] <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
[15:16] <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 :)
[15:17] <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
[15:19] <bac> that's all.  just raising awareness that the problem exists.
[15:19] <barry> bac: thanks
[15:20] <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
[15:21] <barry> do we have any volunteers?
[15:21] <barry> we currently have one mentat: abentley (who i'm mentoring)
[15:22] <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
[15:23] <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 :)
[15:24] <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
[15:25] <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?
[15:26] <barry> i notice lots of crossed off branches in pending-reviews.  let's try to clean those up (he says as an offender)
[15:27] <barry> anyway, that's all i have.  does anybody have anything not on the agenda?
[15:29] <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?
[15:30] <barry> bac: will do, thanks for the reminder
[15:30] <bigjools> thanks barry, and BCTL, wow!
[15:31] <barry> bigjools: yeah, wtf am i thinking?!