Not logged in - Log In / Register





10:00:09 > barry: #startmeeting
10:00:11 < MootBot: Meeting started at 09:00. The chair is barry.
10:00:11 < MootBot: Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
10:00:24 > barry: hello everyone and welcome to this week's ameu reviewers meeting.  who's here today?
10:00:33 < allenap: me
10:00:34 < noodles775: me
10:01:22 < EdwinGrubbs: me
10:01:22 < gmb: me
10:01:40 < intellectronica: me
10:01:55 < bac: me
10:02:04 > barry: gary_poster leonardr bigjools salgado sinzui BjornT  ping
10:02:12 < sinzui: me
10:02:14 < salgado: me
10:02:17 < gary_poster: me and hiya
10:02:26 < * sinzui! is still having problems with that cat
10:02:35 < leonardr: me
10:02:41 > barry: [TOPIC] agenda
10:02:43 < MootBot: New Topic:  agenda
10:02:45 > barry:  * Roll call
10:02:45 > barry:  * Action items
10:02:45 > barry:  * UI review call update
10:02:45 > barry:  * ''Adding a check for pop-up help to reviews [mrevell]''
10:02:48 > barry:  * Test dependencies in [gary]
10:02:51 > barry:  * "Have you added pop-up help? If not, why not?" [mrevell, barry]
10:02:54 > barry:  * Peanut gallery (anything not on the agenda)
10:02:58 > barry:  
10:03:02 > barry: [TOPIC] * Action items
10:03:03 < MootBot: New Topic:  * Action items
10:03:06 > barry:  * barry to get with mrevell on guidelines migration from old wiki to new
10:03:10 < adeuring: me
10:03:29 > barry: i have not done that, but i've pinged mrevell-lunch about it so maybe we'll actually chat about it today ;)
10:03:37 > barry:  * intellectronica and barry to draft guidelines for drive-by cleanups
10:03:47 > barry: also not done, but i have a little more information
10:04:42 > barry: so i've been trying to use bzr-pipelines, which seem pretty cool (in a similar way as looms, but better).  i do think they can help with drive-bys
10:05:06 -!- andrea-bs!n=andrea@ubuntu/member/beeseek.developer.andrea-bs has quit [Remote closed the connection]
10:05:09 > barry: but they aren't a perfect solution, mostly because diff'ing sometimes gets things wrong-ish
10:05:19 > barry: or at least not quite what you want
10:05:38 > barry: i was working on a branch, then realized i had some drive byes i should get independently reviewed
10:06:02 > barry: i created a lower pipe and merge -i 'd the changes into that branch
10:06:24 > barry: then i got the main branch reviewed and ask for a look at the drive byes in the same mp
10:06:32 > barry: this seemed to work well, except...
10:06:57 > barry: sometimes chunks produced by merge -i contained both drive by and substantive differences
10:07:06 > barry: in that case i just left them in the main branch
10:07:12 > barry: EOT.  any thoughts, comments?
10:08:08 < gary_poster: +1 on pipeline
10:08:17 -!- abentley! has joined #launchpad-meeting
10:08:19 > barry: gary_poster: have you used them?
10:08:20 < gary_poster: +1 on getting the pipeline tweaked for what we need
10:08:41 < abentley: Oh, that was an unfortunate time to walk in.  Guess I'll read the notes.
10:08:53 > barry: abentley: hi.  i was just relating my experience with pipelines wrt drive-byes
10:08:54 < gary_poster: I've read about them.  I've used looms.  pipelines look good.  I like abentley. ;-)
10:09:01 > barry: :-D
10:09:18 > barry: abentley: out of context, but... <barry> sometimes chunks produced by merge -i contained both drive by and
10:09:18 > barry:         substantive differences
10:09:41 > barry: abentley: i don't know what if anything can be done about that
10:10:23 < abentley: merge -i into something already containing the drive-bys?
10:10:46 > barry: abentley: no, sorry.  merging into a new pipe
10:11:08 > barry: abentley: i'll try to post this to the mailing list, it's fine to respond there instead
10:11:25 < abentley: barry: So this is just wanting better than per-hunk granularity.  I have a branch for that.
10:11:40 > barry: abentley: oh!  yes, and once again, you rock
10:11:48 < gary_poster: see? :-)
10:11:55 > barry: :-D
10:12:03 > barry: abentley: thanks.  let's move on then...
10:12:09 > barry:  * ''Adding a check for pop-up help to reviews [mrevell]''
10:12:14 > barry: mrevell-lunch: are you around?
10:12:54 > barry: i guess not
10:13:23 > barry: anyway, my understanding of this is that mrevell-lunch wants us to ask about adding pop-up help when reviewing a branch
10:13:30 > barry: he says it's easy to add
10:14:21 > barry: i'll leave this on the agenda for now though in case he wants to say more
10:14:29 > barry:  * Test dependencies in [gary]
10:14:34 > barry: gary_poster: you're up
10:14:35 < gary_poster: I sent an email Oct 8 about "test what you fly, fly what you test".  The subject was "Including test dependencies in our package releases," sent to the launchpad-dev list.  It only started getting replies yesterday (thanks barry!).
10:14:36 < gary_poster: I won't repeat it here unless someone requests it.  It would be nice to have a consensus that what I proposed is our expected/desired approach for our standalone libraries.
10:14:36 < gary_poster: I'm hopeful it is not contentious, since the only concrete reply was Barry's, which seemed to agree with me.  Maybe we can agree now, or maybe we can give the email another week for replies, and then declare it policy.
10:14:36 < gary_poster: Thoughts?
10:15:18 > * barry only thought is that gary_poster types fast
10:15:23 < gary_poster: :-)
10:15:32 < abentley: gary_poster: In the absence of a recognized test-dependencies concept, I'm all for it.
10:16:13 > barry: me too
10:16:20 < gary_poster: abentley, we can do that.  setuptools and/or distutils has that support.  So perhaps there's room for contention afterall.
10:16:21 < gary_poster: after all
10:16:25 < sinzui: In my latest release for another project, is did this because the user are willing to provide good debugging information if you remove the barriers
10:16:32 < jml: +1 to more contention.
10:16:36 < gary_poster: heh
10:16:36 < * jml!n=jml@canonical/launchpad/jml relurks
10:16:40 < sinzui: s/is/I/
10:16:49 < abentley: gary_poster: So, it worries me that we might depend on something without having deliberately chosen to.
10:17:10 < abentley: gary_poster: But it's more of a theoretical thing.
10:17:17 -!- mrevell-lunch is now known as mrevell
10:17:56 < gary_poster: abentley: "we" the user of the library, or "we" the creator of the library?  Not quite sure I understand
10:18:12 < abentley: gary_poster: We the user of the library.
10:18:41 < sinzui: gary_poster: I think the problem here is the dependency can be large, or complex. In my case, I  had to use fakes to make the test deps portable. I do not think we want to do this. (but man, is the test fast!)
10:18:50 < abentley: gary_poster: For example, I'd be scared if Mocker was a real dependency of Launchpad.
10:19:08 < abentley: gary_poster: But if it was a test dependency, that would be fine.
10:19:43 > barry: abentley: how would that work in practical terms?  when would the dependencies get pulled in?
10:20:11 < gary_poster: abentley: I can understand that from a theoretical perspective.  From a practical perspective, if we regard automated tests as our primary tool for quality (as opposed to, say, manual QA) then I don't see a way around it
10:20:15 < gary_poster: that is
10:20:43 < gary_poster: I don't see a reasonable way to guarantee that Mocker is a test dependency and not a "real" dependency
10:21:41 < abentley: barry: Sorry, I didn't even know setuptools supported test dependecies.  I certainly don't know how they work.
10:21:45 < gary_poster: You said "But it's more of a theoretical thing," so does that mean we are on at least similar pages?
10:22:08 < abentley: gary_poster: Yes, it's more of a niggle than a real concern.
10:22:12 < gary_poster: cool
10:22:16 < gary_poster: and understood
10:23:01 > barry: gary_poster, abentley thanks.  for now, i think we're agreed including the test dependency (in the usual case) is about the best we can do
10:23:12 < gary_poster: cool
10:23:31 > barry: mrevell: is !away.  mrevell do you want to have a word about pop-up help?
10:24:09 < mrevell: Hi barry, sorry I had to run out. Yes, I'd love to please if that's okay.
10:24:13 < mrevell: My apologies.
10:24:20 > barry: mrevell: no worries, and the floor is yours
10:24:52 < mrevell: I'd like to propose that a check for in-line help be added to code reviews. Maybe it should be ui reviews.
10:25:09 < mrevell: I think that when we add a new
10:25:33 < mrevell: feature/page we should consider whether everything on that page is self-evident to our less-experienced users.
10:25:51 < mrevell: If not, we should consider adding in-line help using the pop-up system. I'd be more than happy to write that help or review any help.
10:25:54 < mrevell: Any thoughts?
10:26:24 > barry: mrevell: +1
10:26:50 < mrevell: Great :) Heh.
10:26:52 > barry: mrevell: i had a review last week (maybe bac's branch?) where i asked for a popup help.  mrevell tell them how easy it is to add such help <wink>
10:27:06 < mrevell: barry: Ah yes, it is very easy indeed.
10:27:24 < mrevell: All you have to do is add an HTML file in the right place (there's a template and there are instructions at
10:27:34 < mrevell:
10:27:49 < mrevell: and then place a link in your page with a target of "help"
10:28:10 < mrevell: that automatically brings in the JS to create the pop-up and call in your help page in that pop-up.
10:28:37 < mrevell: So, I'd like to say that I see this as a real priority for my time so if you need my help or review or whatever when producing pop-up help, please do ask me.
10:28:39 < sinzui: I have used this. It is very easy to create help
10:28:47 < mrevell: Or suggest that the person whose branch you're reviewing contact me.
10:29:36 > barry: mrevell: how would you like to flesh out which is linked off of but empty?
10:29:53 < mrevell: barry: I'll do that! Thanks very much everyone.
10:30:02 > barry: mrevell: thanks!
10:30:12 > barry: [ACTION] mrevell to flesh out UserInterfaceChecklist
10:30:13 < MootBot: ACTION received:  mrevell to flesh out UserInterfaceChecklist
10:30:26 > barry: [TOPIC] peanut gallery
10:30:27 < MootBot: New Topic:  peanut gallery
10:30:36 > barry: that's all i have for today.  do you have anything on your mind?
10:31:11 < abentley: Does anyone else find they're creating a lot of HTML fragment URLs?
10:31:36 < intellectronica: yeah
10:31:48 < intellectronica: well, i did in the past, but there's plans for more of them
10:32:07 < abentley: I think it would be nice if we could retrieve particular IDs as HTML, or maybe address views directly.
10:32:28 < abentley: By particular ids, I mean HTML IDs.
10:32:30 < intellectronica: abentley: what do you mean by 'retrieve particular IDs'?
10:32:43 < noodles775: mrevell: there might be some overlap between that UI checklist page above and
10:32:54 < intellectronica: ah, you mean addressing an element within a page on the server?
10:32:58 < abentley: So where you have <body><p id='lobster>I am a lobster</p></body>, you could retrieve just the lobster.
10:33:18 < intellectronica: abentley: how will you use that?
10:33:25 > barry: noodles775, abentley maybe that link should just be updated?
10:33:50 < intellectronica: in all the cases i've used fragments it was to load separately complex pages. rendering the entire page for each fragment would not work for me
10:33:58 < noodles775: barry, mrevell - yep.
10:34:11 < abentley: intellectronica: There's a page that displays a comment, but I need the comment's HTML fragment, so I'd retrieve just that.
10:34:39 < intellectronica: abentley: surely, rendering all the comments just to get one of them doesn't make much sense
10:34:56 < intellectronica: or are you suggesting somehow only rendering the requested fragment?
10:35:04 < abentley: intellectronica: Right, but as I said, there's a page that displays a comment, not all of them.
10:35:19 < intellectronica: abentley: also, for this particular use case, you should use the api
10:35:29 < intellectronica: ah right, missed that
10:35:44 < intellectronica: abentley: have you seen how it's done for bug comments?
10:36:10 < intellectronica: b.t.w this isn't really a reviews-related topic, is it?
10:36:12 < abentley: intellectronica: Yes, and that approach was the first thing I tried.
10:36:56 < intellectronica: abentley: i remember from the list thread that you didn't like having to have a retrieve operation subsequent to posting, but assuming that's fixed, why not continue with this approach?
10:37:49 < abentley: intellectronica: The approach I'm continuing with is retrieving an HTML fragment.
10:38:03 < abentley: intellectronica: So I have to create a URL for the fragment to live at.
10:38:39 < intellectronica: abentley: but why are you using that approach? ideally we should do things the same way across LP
10:38:50 < abentley: intellectronica: I'
10:39:05 < abentley: intellectronica: I'm using that approach because it works, and the bugs approach did not.
10:39:31 > barry: abentley, intellectronica i do think we're leaving the realm of reviewer topics, so let's continue this on-list
10:39:37 < abentley: barry: Okay.
10:39:37 < mrevell: noodles775: Did you just kill the UIChecklist page?
10:39:38 < intellectronica: abentley: what didn't work about it? maybe we should aim at fixing whatever that was rather than create another way of doing things?
10:39:45 < intellectronica: barry: yeah, sorry
10:39:50 < abentley: intellectronica: This is hardly another way of doing things.
10:39:54 > barry: no worries
10:40:04 > barry: do we have any other topics for today?
10:40:26 < noodles775: mrevell: nope? didn't touch it... just pointed out that has lots of this info. barry said earlier that the other page was empty?
10:40:41 < mrevell: noodles775: Ah, yeah, it seems to be.
10:40:45 < mrevell: I'll pop in a redirect
10:40:48 > barry: okay, i think we're done
10:40:52 > barry: #endmeeting


17:01:08 > barry: #startmeeting
17:01:08 < MootBot: Meeting started at 16:01. The chair is barry.
17:01:08 < MootBot: Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
17:01:08 < rockstar: ni!
17:01:14 > barry: hi!
17:01:22 > barry: how are things going today?
17:01:35 < rockstar: Good.
17:01:44 < mwhudson: yes, not bad so far
17:01:57 > barry: i've been playing with pipelines a lot lately
17:02:23 > barry: they seem very cool, once i sorta wrapped my head around lightweight checkouts
17:02:39 < rockstar: barry, awesome.  abentley and I have talked a few times about how to make them better with launchpad.  Ideas are welcome.
17:03:06 > barry: rockstar: very cool.  i'm working on some notes and i've filed one bug so far
17:03:37 > barry: the python2.5/2.6 sprint is going well.  we're making lots of progress.  i think we might actually finish 2.5 migration this week
17:03:51 > barry: which would give us all next week to do 2.6
17:04:07 < mwhudson: barry: _awesome_
17:04:22 > barry: mwhudson: yeah.  i am /highly/ motivated to get this done :)
17:04:49 > barry: and we're getting excellent community participation from maxb and simon-o
17:05:02 -!- leonardr!n=leonardr@canonical/launchpad/leonardr has quit ["Leaving"]
17:05:41 > barry: so let's see. at ameu we talked about including test dependencies (gary's test what you fly, fly what you test)
17:05:50 > barry: we talked about popup help
17:06:25 > barry: and we talked about html fragments (which i think abentley emailed the list about)
17:06:38 > barry: any of that interesting?  do you have anything else you want to talk about?
17:07:56 < mwhudson: the problem with test dependencies kinda boils down to "zope'
17:08:04 > barry: yeah ;)
17:08:15 > barry: mwhudson: did you know lazr.restful pulls in zodb3?!
17:08:38 < mwhudson: s packaging is ridiculous" doesn't it?
17:08:38 < mwhudson: barry: only because you've mentioned it a few tiems
17:08:58 > barry: :)  it just amazes me
17:09:25 < rockstar: I think abentley's discussion, since it's on the list, should continue on the list, but I have things to say about it.
17:09:36 -!- gary_poster! has quit []
17:09:48 < mwhudson: yeah, i don't have any thing to bring up i think
17:10:05 > barry: rockstar: +1
17:10:27 > barry: cool.  if there's nothing else, shall we call it?
17:10:33 < rockstar: barry, sure.
17:10:39 -!- salgado is now known as salgado-afk
17:11:01 > barry: cool.  thanks guys
17:11:04 > barry: #endmeeting

ReviewerMeeting20091014 (last edited 2009-10-14 21:15:25 by barry)