ReviewerMeeting2010mmdd

summary

• bac and henninge dropped the ball on their outstanding action items.
• jtv and henninge brought up a discussion of whether to have a policy on not using 'if not condition' if there is an else clause. We decided to not establish a policy but to always consider readability and leave it to the discretion of the developer and reviewer.

logs

ameu

[15:01] <bac> #startmeeting
[15:01] <MootBot> Meeting started at 09:01. The chair is bac.
[15:01] <MootBot> Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
[15:01] <bac> hi everyone and welcome to the reviewers meeting
[15:01] <bac> who is here today?
[15:01] <sinzui> me
[15:01] <gary_poster> me
[15:01] <mars> me
[15:01] <EdwinGrubbs> me
[15:01] <deryck> me
[15:02] <bac> yay, registry is all here
[15:02] <bac> foundations is a close second with bugs showing.
[15:02] <bac> danilos: ping
[15:02] <intellectronica> me
[15:02] <bac> bigjools: ping
[15:02] <danilos> me
[15:02] <adeuring> me
[15:03] <BjornT> me
[15:03] <bac> jelmer: ping
[15:03] <bac> hi BjornT!
[15:03] <henninge> me
[15:03] <salgado> me
[15:03] <allenap> me
[15:03] <gmb> me
[15:04] <deryck> bugs in da house
[15:05] <gary_poster> foundations is here too (leonardr didn't "me" but is around and is kinda busy right now anyway)
[15:05] <leonardr> me
[15:05] <bac> thanks gary_poster
[15:05] <bac> [topic] agenda
[15:05] <MootBot> New Topic:  agenda
[15:05] <bigjools> mr
[15:05] <bigjools> me even
[15:05] <bac> * Roll call
[15:05] <bac>  * Agenda
[15:05] <bac>  * Outstanding actions
[15:05] <bac>  * Mentoring update
[15:05] <bac>  * New topics
[15:05] <bac>    * Reduction of negation preferred over "common case first" in if statements? [henninge, jtv]
[15:05] <bac>  * Peanut gallery
[15:06] <jtv> me
[15:06] <bigjools> google calendar blows for timezone management
[15:06] <bac> bigjools and everyone else:  did you know you can have it show two time zones?  it makes things much easier
[15:06] <danilos> bigjools, timezone management? where's that in google calendar?
[15:06] <bac> i show my home zone and UTC and am sure to schedule everything using UTC
[15:06] <jtv> danilos: so that's how they enable and disable DST?
[15:06] <danilos> bac, that must be new
[15:07] <bac> danilos: within a month or so, i think
[15:07] <bac> deryck has tried it and found it to work too
[15:07] <bac> [topic] * Outstanding actions
[15:07] <MootBot> New Topic:  * Outstanding actions
[15:07] <bac> [topic] * Outstanding actions
[15:07] <MootBot> New Topic:  * Outstanding actions
[15:07] <bac> doh
[15:07] <deryck> yup, two tz with UTC default rocks in gcal.
[15:08] <bac> [topic] bac to define new doctest policy regarding what is "testable documentation".
[15:08] <MootBot> New Topic:  bac to define new doctest policy regarding what is "testable documentation".
[15:08] <bac> i made no progress on this.  sorry.  roll it to next week.
[15:08] <bac> [topic] bac to get input on proposed community reviewer and committer policy and announce it on the list.
[15:08] <MootBot> New Topic:  bac to get input on proposed community reviewer and committer policy and announce it on the list.
[15:08] <bigjools> it's DST that blows
[15:09] <bac> i *did* do this and got some good feedback.  i was waiting to see if more came in but since it didn't i'll formalize my proposal and send to the public list
[15:09] <bac> [topic] henninge to update the style guide regarding multi-line parameters in function defns and calls.
[15:09] <MootBot> New Topic:  henninge to update the style guide regarding multi-line parameters in function defns and calls.
[15:09] <henninge> bac: roll it, please
[15:09] <bac> henninge: okey doke
[15:10] <bac> 0.5 / 3.0...not so good
[15:10] <bac> a new topic today that was leftover from last week:
[15:10] <henninge> wiki was not working right after the last meeting
[15:10] <bac> [topic] Reduction of negation preferred over "common case first" in if statements? [henninge, jtv]
[15:10] <MootBot> New Topic:  Reduction of negation preferred over "common case first" in if statements? [henninge, jtv]
[15:10] <henninge> Yes, another little thing
[15:10] <bac> henninge, jtv: take it away
[15:10] <jtv> ok
[15:10] <henninge> I just come up with these because they come up in reviews
[15:11] <jtv> As long as I can remember, we've had a rule not to do "if not foo: ... else: ..."
[15:11] <henninge> and I just like to know we agree and then put it down in writing.
[15:11] <henninge> sorry, jtv
[15:11] <jtv> no worries, go ahead
[15:11] <henninge> http://paste.ubuntu.com/419873/
[15:11] <MootBot> LINK received:  http://paste.ubuntu.com/419873/
[15:11] <bigjools> jtv: I don't remember that
[15:11] <henninge> So, my question is: do we prefer a style? Should we enforce one?
[15:12] <intellectronica> henninge: no, we shouldn't have a policy on this
[15:12] <jtv> bigjools: afaik this is 2007 or older, and not currently documented
[15:12] <henninge> intellectronica: +1
[15:12]  * henninge thinks "not documented -> not reviewable" ....
[15:12] <henninge> That would be my suggestion.
[15:13] <bigjools> there's useful policies and then there's policies for the sake of policy
[15:13] <bigjools> guess where I think this one falls? :)
[15:13] <henninge> cool, if no-one objects, I am done.
[15:13] <jtv> I'm fine either way, as long as we know where we stand.
[15:13] <sinzui> jtv, barry would say style 1 can cause confusion and should be avoided
[15:13] <bac> i think if both cases can be considered equally likely then testing for the affirmative makes more sense
[15:14] <intellectronica> bigjools: +1, but you should have written it "there's policies for the sake of policy and then there's useful policies".
[15:14] <bigjools> lmao
[15:14] <bigjools> common case first?
[15:14]  * bigjools runs
[15:14] <gary_poster> :-)
[15:15] <henninge> jtv: my understanding is that we stand nowhere with this - and nobody cares.
[15:15] <henninge> ;-)
[15:15] <jtv> henninge: seems so.
[15:15] <mars> henninge, good synopsis :)
[15:15] <adeuring> I'd vote for "common case not last"...
[15:15] <bac> lacking a policy i'd suggest it is situational and up to the reviewer's discretion about readability
[15:16] <jtv> My personal rule for coding guidelines is "are we willing to make the cleanup effort?"  If not, it's probably not worth adding a rule for either.
[15:16] <jtv> But this one was there before I was a reviewer.  :)
[15:17] <henninge> bac: I'll put a note in the style guide to think about what you are doing and to have readability in mind.
[15:17] <henninge> although, that is a pretty general advice ...
[15:17] <henninge> ;)
[15:17] <bac> henninge: yes, very general
[15:18] <bac> so i think we agree this is really a non-issue and everyone will DTRT
[15:18] <henninge> cool
[15:18] <henninge> bac: move on! ;)
[15:18] <bac> shall we move on?
[15:18] <jtv> In fact we had a discussion about this once and the conclusion there was: review is not to find mistakes, it's to promote legibility and such.
[15:18] <bac> [topic] peanut gallery
[15:18] <MootBot> New Topic:  peanut gallery
[15:18] <bigjools> jtv!
[15:18] <bac> any other burning issues today?
[15:18] <jtv> bigjools?
[15:19] <bigjools> jtv: I would say the exact reverse
[15:19] <jtv> bigjools: where were you when I said the exact reverse and found everyone against me?  ;-)
[15:19] <bigjools> but anyway, don't wanna start an argument right no
[15:19] <bigjools> w
[15:19] <bac> nothing, then?
[15:19] <jtv> bac: guess not
[15:19] <bac> ok, let's end early and get to real work.
[15:19] <bac> thanks for coming guys
[15:20] <bac> #endmeeting
[15:20] <MootBot> Meeting finished at 09:20.

asiapac

No meeting was held due to Code Team sprint.