Not logged in - Log In / Register




Mar 11 10:00:03 <barry> #startmeeting
Mar 11 10:00:03 <MootBot>       Meeting started at 09:00. The chair is barry.
Mar 11 10:00:03 <MootBot>       Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
Mar 11 10:00:18 <barry> hello everyone and welcome to this week's ameu reviewer's meeting.  who's here today?
Mar 11 10:00:19 <gmb>   me
Mar 11 10:00:20 <gary_poster>   me
Mar 11 10:00:24 <sinzui>        ma
Mar 11 10:00:26 <sinzui>        ma
Mar 11 10:00:32 <mars>  me
Mar 11 10:00:32 <gary_poster>   :-)
Mar 11 10:00:33 <sinzui>        where is my e
Mar 11 10:00:36 <sinzui>        me
Mar 11 10:00:40 <noodles775>    moi
Mar 11 10:00:59 <allenap>       me
Mar 11 10:01:09 <mars>  noodles775, you need to step one country to the right
Mar 11 10:01:23 <noodles775>    mars: ah, wrong one... :/
Mar 11 10:01:33 <barry> bac: ping
Mar 11 10:01:43 <bac>   argh
Mar 11 10:01:44 <bac>   me
Mar 11 10:01:49 <barry> bigjools, cprov, danilo_ ping
Mar 11 10:02:01 <barry> intellectronica: ping
Mar 11 10:02:11 <intellectronica>       me
Mar 11 10:02:12 <barry> rockstar: ping
Mar 11 10:02:14 *       flacoste (n=francis@canonical/launchpad/flacoste) has joined #launchpad-meeting
Mar 11 10:02:19 <barry> salgado: ping
Mar 11 10:02:45 <barry> today's a light day, so let's start off with the fun stuff
Mar 11 10:02:45 <salgado>       me!
Mar 11 10:02:45 <cprov> me
Mar 11 10:02:56 <flacoste>      me
Mar 11 10:03:05 <barry> [TOPIC] agenda
Mar 11 10:03:06 <MootBot>       New Topic:  agenda
Mar 11 10:03:13 <barry>  * Roll call
Mar 11 10:03:13 <barry>  * Peanut gallery (anything not on the agenda)
Mar 11 10:03:13 <barry>  * Mentoring update
Mar 11 10:03:13 <barry>  * Action items
Mar 11 10:03:23 <barry> [TOPIC]  * Peanut gallery (anything not on the agenda)
Mar 11 10:03:24 <MootBot>       New Topic:   * Peanut gallery (anything not on the agenda)
Mar 11 10:03:39 <danilo_>       me
Mar 11 10:03:41 <barry> does anybody have any reviewy type stuff they want to bring up that's not on the agenda?
Mar 11 10:03:41 *       danilo_ is now known as danilos
Mar 11 10:03:48 <sinzui>        me
Mar 11 10:04:02 <barry> sinzui: the floor is yours
Mar 11 10:04:08 <sinzui>        bac discovered that there were a few places in our templates where we were making insane links.
Mar 11 10:04:08 <sinzui>        Bad
Mar 11 10:04:08 <sinzui>            <a tal:content="structure person/fmt:link" />
Mar 11 10:04:08 <sinzui>            becomes
Mar 11 10:04:08 <sinzui>            <a><a href="...">text</a></a>
Mar 11 10:04:09 <sinzui>        Good
Mar 11 10:04:11 <sinzui>            <a tal:replace="structure person/fmt:link" />
Mar 11 10:04:13 <sinzui>            becomes
Mar 11 10:04:15 <sinzui>            <a href="...">text</a>
Mar 11 10:04:39 <sinzui>        When reviewing tal, please verify anything that uses `structure` works in the containing elements.
Mar 11 10:05:20 <barry> that's wacky
Mar 11 10:05:45 <mars>  sinzui, would html-tidy catch that?
Mar 11 10:05:58 <sinzui>        mars yes
Mar 11 10:06:13 <gary_poster>   after rendering, yes, but not before rendering (in our templates)
Mar 11 10:06:25 <mars>  yep, of course
Mar 11 10:06:26 <sinzui>        mars: any HTML validator can see that is not permitted
Mar 11 10:06:48 <mars>  not that we have any good or automated way to run said validator...
Mar 11 10:06:50 <bac>   i have a branch that attempt to ferret them all out.  even our 'featured projects' listing on the front page had the problem.
Mar 11 10:07:47 <flacoste>      good catch sinzui and bac
Mar 11 10:08:11 <barry> bac: by visual inspection or through some tool?
Mar 11 10:08:24 <bac>   well, when sinzui says "bac discovered" he means "bac repeated the problem flagrantly" such that sinzui discovered it.
Mar 11 10:08:37 <mars>  what if we made the doctest runner do HTML validation on page open?
Mar 11 10:08:40 <gary_poster>   :-)
Mar 11 10:08:44 <bac>   barry: just grep and examing them all
Mar 11 10:09:17 <sinzui>        barry 'content="structure .*link' catches most of them
Mar 11 10:09:40 <barry> mars: interesting idea, but i'm affraid it would slow things down alot
Mar 11 10:09:43 <sinzui>        of course we can write tal on multiple lines
Mar 11 10:10:11 <gary_poster>   [blue sky] we could have a nightly buildbot for what mars suggests
Mar 11 10:10:20 <mars>  barry, we could bind it to 'make check'
Mar 11 10:10:28 <sinzui>        mars: too slow, as is updating find_main_content
Mar 11 10:10:35 <mars>  barry, since we'll have to do so for windmill tests anyway
Mar 11 10:10:48 <mars>  which are even slower
Mar 11 10:11:04 <sinzui>        Our link checker could take on the extra work. or...
Mar 11 10:11:20 <barry> mars: yeah
Mar 11 10:11:24 <mars>  sinzui, yes, that's another good hook point
Mar 11 10:11:25 <sinzui>            >>> view = create_initialized_view(person, '+index', principle=person)
Mar 11 10:11:25 <sinzui>            >>> is_valid_html(view.render())
Mar 11 10:11:25 <sinzui>            True
Mar 11 10:11:36 <mars>  sinzui, but the link-checker isn't under developer control
Mar 11 10:11:46 <mars>  is it?
Mar 11 10:12:01 <bac>   gary_poster: +1  -- a periodic scan should be enough to trap infrequent offenders
Mar 11 10:12:01 <mars>  at least I could do ./ --validate-markup or something
Mar 11 10:13:08 *       Ursinha has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
Mar 11 10:13:12 <barry> sinzui: i think i like that approach best.  cons: it's up to the dev to add the check, pros: you can decide to check only when you think it's necessary
Mar 11 10:14:06 <barry> does someone want to take this on as an action item?
Mar 11 10:14:30 <flacoste>      i think the buldbot story is better
Mar 11 10:14:31 <flacoste>      here
Mar 11 10:14:33 <bac>   cons: it slows down our tests
Mar 11 10:14:38 <flacoste>      doesn't slow down the test suite
Mar 11 10:14:46 <flacoste>      it's not a big problem
Mar 11 10:15:00 <flacoste>      i mean this has been broken for long and didn't cause any problems
Mar 11 10:15:10 <flacoste>      invalid markup is ugly, but not a show-stoppers
Mar 11 10:15:20 <flacoste>      thanks to the way browsers are implemented
Mar 11 10:15:27 <barry> we don't need to solve it here, but i'd like someone to own it and offer some options
Mar 11 10:15:47 <mars>  flacoste, does our build process have provisions or the concept of warnings?
Mar 11 10:15:47 <flacoste>      it sounds like a foundations issue
Mar 11 10:15:54 <flacoste>      but it would be a very low priority to me
Mar 11 10:16:01 <flacoste>      so no point putting it down as an actino
Mar 11 10:16:09 <barry> flacoste: okay
Mar 11 10:16:57 <barry> thanks.  any other topics not on the agenda?
Mar 11 10:18:02 <barry> [TOPIC] mentoring update
Mar 11 10:18:03 <MootBot>       New Topic:  mentoring update
Mar 11 10:18:11 <barry> any mentor or mentat updates today?
Mar 11 10:18:47 <rockstar>      me
Mar 11 10:18:53 *       ursula_ (n=ursula@canonical/launchpad/ursinha) has joined #launchpad-meeting
Mar 11 10:19:10 *       ursula_ is now known as ghost
Mar 11 10:19:18 *       ghost is now known as Ursinha
Mar 11 10:19:30 <barry> rockstar: you don't have a mentoring update, right?
Mar 11 10:19:45 <rockstar>      No, I'm just screwed by DST again.
Mar 11 10:19:56 <barry> [TOPIC] action items
Mar 11 10:19:57 <MootBot>       New Topic:  action items
Mar 11 10:20:05 <barry>  * gary to add `getStore()` as an alias for `_get_store()`
Mar 11 10:20:41 <barry> gary_poster: ^^
Mar 11 10:21:21 <flacoste>      barry: i still suck at mine, but do keep it open, i plan to suck less
Mar 11 10:21:31 <flacoste>      see, i'm pro-active :-)
Mar 11 10:21:38 <barry> flacoste: that's a start! :)
Mar 11 10:21:53 <barry>  * gary will check to see if there's a bug open for adding a hook to `bzr send`, and submit one if there isn't
Mar 11 10:21:57 <barry> gary_poster: ^^
Mar 11 10:22:23 <barry>  * bigjools to take crack at helper functions for backpatching schemas to avoid circular imports
Mar 11 10:22:36 <barry>  * barry to add `field_id` to coding guideline
Mar 11 10:22:36 <barry>  * barry to update guidelines to never call `_foo()` methods from outside a class
Mar 11 10:22:36 <barry>  * barry to add `pretty()` functions to reviewers docs
Mar 11 10:22:47 <barry> i actually do NOT suck today!  i did all three of these :)
Mar 11 10:23:01 <bigjools>      goddamn it and the time changes
Mar 11 10:23:34 *       bigjools sucks at helper functions AND timekeeping
Mar 11 10:24:10 <barry> no worries
Mar 11 10:24:23 <barry> anyway, that's all i have today.  anything else going on?
Mar 11 10:24:52 <barry> 5
Mar 11 10:25:05 <rockstar>      I have something
Mar 11 10:25:17 <barry> rockstar: go ahead
Mar 11 10:25:26 <rockstar>      It looks like sinzui already quoted to code above...
Mar 11 10:25:50 <rockstar>      I was reviewing a branch of sinzui's where he was using a doctest to test a view's API.
Mar 11 10:26:33 <rockstar>      Now, I understand that our team has an unusual fetish for doctests, but I think that if we're doing something where we can use unittests, we should use them.
Mar 11 10:27:30 <flacoste>      hmm
Mar 11 10:27:33 *       mars sees the testing debate from the ML creeping in...
Mar 11 10:27:36 <flacoste>      that's a controversial topic
Mar 11 10:27:43 <flacoste>      rockstar: what are the arguments?
Mar 11 10:27:53 <barry> i might make the counter argument :)
Mar 11 10:28:04 <flacoste>      yeah
Mar 11 10:28:05 <sinzui>        Shall we wall read the 2008 June, July debate.
Mar 11 10:28:14 <rockstar>      doctests are good for telling a user story, but if we're just testing the methods of a view, why not use what unittests for what they were made for?
Mar 11 10:28:19 <sinzui>        I believe thumper wanted a paintball battle to decide the matter
Mar 11 10:28:26 <flacoste>      lol
Mar 11 10:28:38 <barry> sinzui: M-x paintball
Mar 11 10:28:40 <flacoste>      rockstar: we have usually refrained from enforcing a policy there
Mar 11 10:28:51 <flacoste>      let developers choose which technology they prefer here
Mar 11 10:28:55 *       gary_poster_ ( has joined #launchpad-meeting
Mar 11 10:29:13 <barry> flacoste: right.  i think that still works as a policy
Mar 11 10:29:20 <rockstar>      flacoste, and I think that leads to a mess.
Mar 11 10:29:28 <intellectronica>       i think that unless we lose coverage because of that, we should allow teams to choose what format they prefer
Mar 11 10:29:40 <intellectronica>       for individuals to choose is already a bit extreme
Mar 11 10:29:45 <rockstar>      If I change a view, I can't easily discern where the hell the test is that I need to edit.
Mar 11 10:30:03 <rockstar>      Is it it doc?  Is it in browser/tests?
Mar 11 10:30:13 <sinzui>        I'm agnostic on the issue. Since all the registry view tests are in doctest, I wan to add to them instead of storing two kinds of tests in two areas
Mar 11 10:30:21 <barry> rockstar: conversely without a doctest if i'm trying to learn how a view works, it's much more difficult to discern that from its docstrings and unittest
Mar 11 10:30:43 <rockstar>      barry, why can't you look at the unittest?  You'll be doing essentially the same thing.
Mar 11 10:31:11 <sinzui>        rockstar: doctests do not normally explain WHY the view does soemthing
Mar 11 10:31:32 <barry> rockstar: unittests lack the narrative that sets the context of the api
Mar 11 10:31:38 <mars>  right
Mar 11 10:31:40 <flacoste>      rockstar finding the tests is different than the format
Mar 11 10:31:41 <bigjools>      unittests are superior ways of testing, I'm pretty tired of having a doctest halt when one of its tests fails
Mar 11 10:31:41 <barry> the "ties it all together" bits
Mar 11 10:31:53 <flacoste>      it should be browser/tests
Mar 11 10:31:57 <flacoste>      whatever the format
Mar 11 10:32:01 <flacoste>      unless it's an API description
Mar 11 10:32:04 <flacoste>      and even then
Mar 11 10:32:20 <flacoste>      i'm starting the Launchpad-tree-apocalypse today
Mar 11 10:32:29 <bigjools>       /o\
Mar 11 10:32:38 *       sinzui hand flacoste the fuel and a torch
Mar 11 10:32:40 <rockstar>      I think mixing and matching tests is going to bite us one of these days.
Mar 11 10:32:41 <flacoste>      that will makes things clearer for finding stuff and tests
Mar 11 10:32:43 <flacoste>      for answers
Mar 11 10:32:52 <flacoste>      and registry will they their apocalyspe next week
Mar 11 10:33:10 <flacoste>      gary_poster, zope has a lot of experience in that area
Mar 11 10:33:16 *       sinzui is bringing marshmallows.
Mar 11 10:33:17 <flacoste>      anything to share here?
Mar 11 10:33:45 <rockstar>      Anytime you say "In this folder, you might find unittests or doctests" it makes me think that one or the other is being misused.
Mar 11 10:34:07 <gary_poster_>  flacoste: sorry, having connectivity issues and buildbot issues simultaneously
Mar 11 10:34:07 <barry> rockstar: personally, i'd like to see doctests in a 'docs' directory
Mar 11 10:34:40 <barry> sanitizing our testing infrastructure is definitely on the list of monsters to pitchfork
Mar 11 10:35:15 <rockstar>      barry, personally, I'd like to see the doctests use testbrowser to tell a user story, or unittests to test a unit.
Mar 11 10:35:59 <flacoste>      barry: well, if it's docs, it belongs in a docs directory
Mar 11 10:36:09 <flacoste>      but many doctest are not docs
Mar 11 10:36:11 <barry> rockstar: what about documentation for internal components and subsystems?
Mar 11 10:36:19 <intellectronica>       rockstar: do you never use the doctests to learn about functionality? i often do, and i think that if we don't have doctests, we won't have documentation at all
Mar 11 10:36:20 <barry> flacoste: yes, that's a problem :)
Mar 11 10:36:21 <flacoste>      docs is about API description
Mar 11 10:36:24 <flacoste>      well, it's not
Mar 11 10:36:25 <rockstar>      flacoste, isn't that the benefit of doctests?  They are docs AND they are tests?
Mar 11 10:36:25 <sinzui>        rockstar: model/components need to be doctests because their are the develop documentation.
Mar 11 10:36:36 <flacoste>      well
Mar 11 10:36:43 <flacoste>      i don't think a view is an API
Mar 11 10:36:50 <flacoste>      interesting to document
Mar 11 10:36:53 <flacoste>      most of them aren't
Mar 11 10:36:55 <flacoste>      a few might be
Mar 11 10:36:59 <flacoste>      but they are the exception
Mar 11 10:37:14 <rockstar>      flacoste, a view has an API.
Mar 11 10:37:24 <flacoste>      well, not really
Mar 11 10:37:31 <flacoste>      the only API is __call__
Mar 11 10:37:35 <flacoste>      which renders the view
Mar 11 10:37:37 <flacoste>      that's it
Mar 11 10:37:38 <mars>  flacoste, and the properties
Mar 11 10:37:42 <flacoste>      no
Mar 11 10:37:48 <rockstar>      intellectronica, I look at unittests all the time to learn about functionality.
Mar 11 10:37:48 <flacoste>      well, maybe
Mar 11 10:37:56 <barry> rockstar: i'm thinking about the multistep view i just refactored.  i think documentation for it is essential so that others can understand how to reuse it.
Mar 11 10:38:00 <flacoste>      i would argue that the properties are internal implementation details
Mar 11 10:38:01 <gary_poster_>  My thoughts on this: (1) doctest for unittest purpose is emacs vs. vi IMO/IME.  I think that using doctest for unittest purposes works well.  Other people disagree.  I tend to find that people think about these things differently.  I can acknowledge the points people make (like bigjools, IRT doctests failing at the beginning) but I prefer doctests.
Mar 11 10:38:17 <gary_poster_>  (2) I would much prefer it if our tests were closer to the pertinent code
Mar 11 10:38:35 <flacoste>      i agree with both points
Mar 11 10:38:40 <gary_poster_>  that appears to be (part of) the topic I lost while I was dealing with various issues
Mar 11 10:38:41 <rockstar>      gary_poster, +1 on (2)
Mar 11 10:38:41 <flacoste>      and my apocalyspe branch will improve 2
Mar 11 10:39:03 <mars>  flacoste, rockstar, maybe reorganize the tree, and wait and see?
Mar 11 10:39:05 *       flacoste can't spell apocalypse
Mar 11 10:39:21 <mars>  you can run more experiments, say with the view tests, after
Mar 11 10:39:22 <barry> flacoste: maybe that should be apocalisp?
Mar 11 10:39:28 <flacoste>      lol
Mar 11 10:39:29 <gary_poster_>  :-)
Mar 11 10:39:40 <mars>  a smaller sandbox will make experimenting on a per-team basis easier
Mar 11 10:39:54 <rockstar>      mars, I don't think that's the answer.
Mar 11 10:39:57 <sinzui>        mars: I think teams have already made their decision
Mar 11 10:40:00 <bigjools>      I see doctests primarily as documentation that carry examples, it's easy to abuse them to be full-blown tests
Mar 11 10:40:05 <barry> mars: yes, and it will make things much more discoverable and comprehensible
Mar 11 10:40:28 <rockstar>      The per-team thing just makes things messier. That's why it's good to have cross-team-reviews
Mar 11 10:40:34 <sinzui>        I think that teams that will not release their code are using unittests.
Mar 11 10:40:50 <rockstar>      sinzui, :(
Mar 11 10:40:51 *       gary_poster has quit (Read error: 113 (No route to host))
Mar 11 10:41:15 *       gary_poster_ is now known as gary_poster
Mar 11 10:41:16 <intellectronica>       rockstar: well, not really per-team. what i meant, at least, is that the division should be thematic, not personal
Mar 11 10:41:20 <barry> i think it's just too controversial to mandate at this point.  i agree with gary that it feels like mandating vi or emacs
Mar 11 10:41:40 <rockstar>      intellectronica, depending on the "theme" I agree with you.
Mar 11 10:41:41 <bac>   perhaps emacs users could use doctests...
Mar 11 10:41:45 <gary_poster>   :-)
Mar 11 10:42:00 <barry> i personally think that both doctests and unittests have their place, both have positives... and negatives
Mar 11 10:42:07 <rockstar>      barry, I don't see why.  I think they serve two different purposes.  It's like mandating motor oil v. beer.
Mar 11 10:42:21 <mars>  rockstar, yuck
Mar 11 10:42:38 <gary_poster>   rockstar: right, but...other people disagree with you :-)
Mar 11 10:42:52 <gary_poster>   that's the point
Mar 11 10:42:53 <barry> rockstar: is that: unittests are greasy and icky but good for your motor, while doctests are fun, festive and easy to consume?
Mar 11 10:42:57 <sinzui>        I think the crucial point that rockstar is making is that to test a class of problems, we should use one kind of test so that we know where and how to test it.
Mar 11 10:43:14 <cprov> barry: lol
Mar 11 10:43:16 <rockstar>      sinzui, yes!  Thank you!
Mar 11 10:43:23 <sinzui>        My concern is that if I switch to unittest, I then have lots of tests in doctest
Mar 11 10:43:40 <sinzui>        insert old in the above sentece somewhere
Mar 11 10:43:57 <bigjools>      do we agree that doctests are not tests, they're documentation?
Mar 11 10:44:01 <gary_poster>   no
Mar 11 10:44:05 <rockstar>      bigjools, no
Mar 11 10:44:10 <gmb>   not as we use them atm.
Mar 11 10:44:12 <barry> no
Mar 11 10:44:15 <cprov> no
Mar 11 10:44:30 <flacoste>      doctests are tests
Mar 11 10:44:31 <bigjools>      because I remember a mail thread from 2 years ago
Mar 11 10:44:34 <barry> it's not either or. doctests are documentation /first/ but they are tests too
Mar 11 10:44:35 <rockstar>      I think doctests are great at telling a story about a user experience, and asserting that the story actually works with code.
Mar 11 10:44:40 <bigjools>      that said they are not tests
Mar 11 10:44:52 <flacoste>      barry: i would even argue that some doctests are not even doc first and that's fine too
Mar 11 10:44:58 <barry> s/user experience/developer experience/
Mar 11 10:44:58 <bigjools>      and that writing words like "should" are not acceptable
Mar 11 10:45:06 <intellectronica>       doctests CAN be tests. unit tests CAN'T be documentation
Mar 11 10:45:19 *       noodles775 suddenly realizes why the email discussion the other day stopped so quickly...
Mar 11 10:45:24 <bigjools>      barry: right, testable documentation
Mar 11 10:45:42 *       adeuring ( has joined #launchpad-meeting
Mar 11 10:45:43 <barry> intellectronica: i agree with that statement (flacoste's too)
Mar 11 10:45:47 <rockstar>      barry, why would there need to be a story about developer experience.  "The developer can instantiate this class, and then you have these functions..."
Mar 11 10:45:56 <gmb>   The problem comes with - to pick an example at random - things like doc/externalbugtracker-comment-pushing.txt
Mar 11 10:46:09 <gmb>   In which we create a load of mock objects in the doctest in order to be able to run the tests.
Mar 11 10:46:14 <gmb>   That seems unit-testy.
Mar 11 10:46:19 <sinzui>        bigjools: s/should/can|expected|required/
Mar 11 10:46:21 <barry> rockstar: ever tried to understand how a class is supposed to be used by pydoctor api reference?  it sucks.  unittests are the same
Mar 11 10:46:50 <bigjools>      sinzui: "will"
Mar 11 10:46:52 <intellectronica>       gmb: actually, i think that's a good example to the contrary. as someone who doesn't know that system as good as you, i really benefit from having documentation whenever i need to work on it
Mar 11 10:46:59 <barry> rockstar: otoh, once you understand how a class is to be used, api reference is great
Mar 11 10:47:01 <sinzui>        bigjools: +1
Mar 11 10:47:19 <bigjools>      doctests are statements of intent
Mar 11 10:47:23 <rockstar>      I would like to withdraw my request to use unittest to test units.  It seems that it's not getting anywhere.
Mar 11 10:47:28 <sinzui>        The meeting is getting close the the end. I just read unit-testies
Mar 11 10:47:29 <gmb>   intellectronica: Hmm, okay. Then I'd argue that the mock objects should at least be factored out into ftests/somethingorother for cleanliness.
Mar 11 10:47:38 <bigjools>      sinzui: lol
Mar 11 10:47:43 <barry> sinzui: on that note...
Mar 11 10:47:57 <gary_poster>   fwiw, footnotes can help with this
Mar 11 10:48:11 <intellectronica>       rockstar: gracious of you. as a reviewer, you still have the option of asking that something be unit tested if you think it makes more sense
Mar 11 10:48:12 <barry> i propose we close the meeting for today and schedule a mud wrasslin' contest to settle this once and for all
Mar 11 10:48:18 <barry> at all hands
Mar 11 10:48:30 <gary_poster>   and fwiw, this example has been pointed to in the past by others as a reasonable unit test/doc test combo:
Mar 11 10:48:48 <rockstar>      intellectronica, as a reviewer, I don't think that makes a lot of sense if there isn't really a standard.  :/
Mar 11 10:48:56 <gary_poster>   (I wrote it, so this the importance of "by others")
Mar 11 10:49:23 <gary_poster>   I will propose footnotes at another mtg :-)
Mar 11 10:49:48 <barry> okay, thanks everyone for a spirited debate!
Mar 11 10:50:01 <barry> apologies for going over.  i'm sure we'll continue this at another time
Mar 11 10:50:06 <barry> #endmeeting

ReviewerMeeting20090318 (last edited 2009-03-18 13:30:20 by barry)