12:59:36 #startmeeting 12:59:36 Meeting started Thu Jul 9 12:59:36 2015 UTC. The chair is zack. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 12:59:36 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. 12:59:43 hi 12:59:47 clemux: orestis: jpleau: matthieucan: ping 12:59:48 hi 12:59:49 #topic roll call 12:59:59 who (else) is here? :) 13:00:21 matthieucan: jpleau: around? 13:00:49 not yet, it seems, they'll catch up I guess 13:00:56 #topic orestis - weekly review 13:00:59 no, sorry 13:01:03 #topic next meeting 13:01:15 next friday, usual time <- good for everyone? 13:01:16 heya, sorry 13:01:21 friday is fine for me 13:01:25 yes 13:01:51 (i mean friday is ok) 13:01:52 I'm leaving on holiday on friday, won't be available much for 2 weeks 13:01:57 wednesday* 13:02:02 oh, ok 13:02:07 so no need to change the meeting date 13:02:08 #agreed next meeting next Friday, usual time (back to usual schedule) 13:02:31 so it looks like there might be a week with neither me nor matthieucan 13:02:36 (but it's not next week) 13:02:43 matthieucan: when will you be back,exactly? 13:03:02 exactly, at debconf, but I'll have a good internet in august 13:03:12 I'll be on vac July 27 -> debconf 13:03:13 so let's say 1st of august, from abroad 13:03:34 matthieucan: if you can help with the first, say, ~10 days of august, it will helkp 13:03:35 ok, could be worse! 13:03:39 sure 13:03:44 cool 13:03:53 so, next topic 13:03:58 #topic orestis - weekly review 13:04:13 so i worked on some templates and the online doc 13:04:20 PR#25 13:04:35 and you got feedback from matthieucan, right? 13:04:38 yeap 13:04:45 yes, reviewed and I saw you fixd studd, well done 13:04:49 stuff* 13:05:00 is that merge ready then? 13:05:05 I'll check that, should be good to merge 13:05:08 zack: almost 13:05:14 i have to squash commits and rebase i guess 13:05:35 yeah 13:05:45 and i finished license statistics, but i can't PR atm 13:05:54 because it depends on PR#22? 13:05:57 yeap 13:06:03 yeah, sorry about that, I suck :) 13:06:08 whose blocker is the data in testsuite 13:06:20 fwiw, I'll be taking the week-end off, extended on monday 13:06:27 I'll _try_ to update the test suite before leaving 13:06:31 but I'm not sure I can manage 13:06:37 if someone thinks he can pick it up 13:06:40 it'd be great 13:06:45 otherwise it risks slipping into next week 13:07:07 (it would also be useful *in general* to have someone else that is able to update the db part of the test suite, in fact) 13:07:08 not sure about my week end yet 13:07:11 well i could PR just so you can review the code, but tests will fail and it will contain commits from PR#22 13:07:25 orestis: sounds like a good idea, yes 13:07:52 orestis: or, you can send the code via email, whatever you prefer 13:08:08 there are a lot of commits there so i prefer PR.. 13:08:09 well, not a big deal if travis fails 13:08:24 orestis: I'm fine with the PR then; just mention in the comment what is already part of the other PR 13:08:29 so that we know which commits to look at 13:08:37 ok sure 13:08:42 cool 13:08:49 anything else, or can we move to planning? 13:09:05 oh, there was SPDX 13:09:13 how did your research go? 13:09:18 i am working on the spdx now.. i am reading their doc to understand which field are mandatory and i should have an export in the weekend 13:09:49 awesome 13:10:06 #topic orestis - next week 13:10:16 orestis: so, next week ? 13:10:21 hehhe! 13:10:25 :) 13:10:34 well one thing is the synopsis for the fancy rendering.. 13:10:51 javascript? 13:10:58 and the s.d.n -> copyright link 13:11:03 or am I lost? 13:11:14 orestis: I'm not sure what you mean either 13:11:24 (about the synopsis) 13:11:59 we talked about it some weeks ago.. 13:12:13 for the moment i create a link to the whole synopsis 13:12:44 i don't split by or.. and i just point ot opensource.org where i could create links to the license text within the page 13:12:57 oh, the full text of the license you mean 13:13:04 not the synopsis (which is a short version of it) 13:13:05 yes.. 13:13:09 ok 13:13:25 so, you already have the "parsing" code to split, that you used for the statistics, right? 13:13:42 you should use the same to add fine-grained links 13:13:47 yes exactly... its not much work 13:14:00 ok, sounds like a good task then 13:14:19 so then there's the link form s.d.n to copyright 13:14:22 please put it in a well-defined, separate function 13:14:33 as one day it will probably be replaced by a proper license field parser 13:14:44 ok i ll do that.. 13:14:54 orestis: the link sounds like a good task too 13:15:13 although I can't think of any good name for the link right now 13:15:17 maybe something like "analyze" 13:15:26 besides those two i don't know what to do.. i am not sure what is suggested in the license scanner 13:15:30 associate to all files whose relative path is "debian/rules" 13:15:46 orestis: I think on the copyright.d.n front we are good now 13:15:46 ok ll think of something 13:15:49 modulo bugs that we will find 13:15:57 (I have one in mind, which I'll point you to after the meeting) 13:16:06 I think you can start exploring patches.d.n 13:16:29 a good start would be: 1) reviewing the functionalities of the old patch tracker 13:16:36 and 2) review all existing source package formats 13:16:44 (well, kudos for c.d.n!) 13:16:55 (we will probably support only dpkg (3.0) for now, but it would be nice for you to know that other exists) 13:17:02 matthieucan: orestis: yeah, absolutely, great work :) 13:17:12 ok that sounds good! 13:17:17 zack: matthieucan :) 13:17:23 we're good then 13:17:24 next topic 13:17:27 #topic clemux - weekly review 13:17:36 clemux: how are we doing in async-land? 13:17:53 my first task was to update the testsuite for testing the async updater 13:18:02 however those tests are not *unit* tests at all 13:18:27 and quite useless to me as long as I haven't finished implementing all stages 13:18:34 (or maybe I missed something) 13:18:39 so what do they test? 13:18:44 oh, you mean the existing ones 13:18:48 yup 13:18:48 yes, most of them are not unit 13:18:57 but rather end-to-end feature tests, for the most part 13:19:02 yup 13:19:11 but it is indeed what we want to preserve, no matter the updater policy 13:19:23 yes, of course :) 13:19:27 if you need more, and specifically unit tests, you can certainly add them :) 13:20:15 what else? 13:20:16 anyway, I managed to run one of those tests without a worker (with CELERY_ALWAYS_EAGER, for running synchronously) 13:20:23 but I have up for now and moved on to 13:20:31 2. pass configuration to celery tasks 13:20:53 that is done, there is no hard-coded configuration anywhere in the async updater 13:20:54 (back to the tests just for a sec: what didn't work? anything blocking or just code still in flux?) 13:21:01 good about the configuration, that's great 13:21:09 it means it now possibly better than the sync one... 13:21:47 zack: well, there was no way to test only the extract new stage 13:21:57 right, good point 13:22:04 so I had a huge number of errors that were not really readable 13:22:14 I now understand better what you meant with "useless" 13:22:23 I need to write unit tests, but that's for next week topic :) 13:22:38 ok 13:22:41 what else for this week? 13:23:20 one more thing about the removal of hard coded configuration: I'll submit a PR soon with changes to the documentation (celery.txt) about that 13:23:27 ok, so next 13:24:13 3. I found out why the file_table was always empty, fs_storage.walk_pkg_files was failing silently because I put a relative path in etc/config.local.ini 13:24:25 ah, gotcha 13:24:30 because it calls os.walk(), which returns an empty list when the directory does not exist 13:24:47 ok, so the fix is interpolating root_dir then, I guess 13:24:52 s/then/there/ 13:24:57 good 13:25:12 I'd put "root_dir: testdata" or something 13:25:25 so after a chdir it wouldn't work 13:25:28 I see 13:25:46 anyway, I think we could add a check for the directory existence, and print an error when that happens 13:25:51 yeah 13:25:55 (maybe I should submit a bug on the BTS?) 13:25:58 or ensure that root_dir is expanded to abspath 13:26:03 clemux: please do, yes 13:26:09 ack 13:26:12 making the code more robust is a useful thing to do in general 13:26:57 what else? 13:27:23 so, next task(s), I converted former plugins' add_package and rm_package functions to celery tasks 13:27:56 nice 13:28:16 everything works fine, I have the ctags, checksums, sloccount and metrics DB tables filled by the celery workers 13:28:23 awesome! 13:28:46 there's another PR coming for celery.txt about that 13:28:51 np 13:28:58 which stages are missing then? 13:30:05 all other stages 13:30:19 (other than extract_new) 13:30:48 (let's see the list later when we pick tasks for next week) 13:30:52 anything else to report about for this week? 13:31:01 that's it, we can move on to next week 13:31:10 #topic clemux - next week 13:31:23 ok, what's the next victim^W stage then? :) 13:32:11 update_suites and garbage_collector should be the next tasks 13:32:30 ok, do you think they can both go in next week? 13:32:34 yes 13:32:45 sounds good to me 13:32:48 however: 13:33:01 I think the priority is to write tests for what I've done 13:33:16 and preparing the testing of the gc and update_suites stage 13:33:21 no objection 13:33:33 you think at actual unit tests for each stage, is that it? 13:33:37 yes 13:33:48 that would be nice 13:34:01 if they work well, we can probably also get rid of the huge db test we have right now, which is hard to maintain 13:34:22 in fact, if you've a stable interface, we can even thing at merging them into the _current_ master 13:34:25 but that's up to you 13:34:33 if it gets too much in your way, never mind 13:34:48 mhh 13:34:58 I don't think unit tests for the async updater could be used by the sync updater 13:35:17 depdens on which interface you target 13:35:28 but sure, if you want to target the async interface never mind 13:35:41 we will just consider the current tests "legacy code", until we switch to async 13:35:48 (for the updated part, of course) 13:35:51 ok 13:35:58 I'll look into that and will let you know 13:36:03 ok, cool 13:36:12 anything else or can we move to misc? (I have 1 misc topic) 13:36:25 so that makes 3 "big" (I'll probably have to split them up): 1. tests 2. update suites 3. garbage collector 13:36:32 "big" tasks* 13:36:35 *nod* 13:36:42 that's it for this topic :) 13:36:45 and, as usual, feel free to split as you see fit 13:36:55 #topic misc 13:37:00 my misc topic: 13:37:12 the "done" list was starting to get crowded, for various reasons 13:37:23 so I've added a "need review" list in between "done" and "merged" 13:37:29 ACKs/NACKs ? 13:37:38 ack, seems like a good idea 13:37:49 so in done we add things we did not PR yet? 13:37:57 for instance, yes 13:38:02 looks good yes 13:38:12 ok works! 13:38:21 and stuff under "need review" should have a pointer to where the stuff to be reviewed is ("PR#" in the title is enough) 13:38:26 cool 13:38:34 does anyone else have a misc topic? 13:38:41 nop 13:38:52 zack: not sure how I should handle my "need review" tasks 13:39:05 right 13:39:08 just a random question: did any of you blog about GSoC? 13:39:25 clemux: (I'll get back to that in a minute) 13:39:34 matthieucan: not me, ENOWRITINGTIME :/ 13:39:46 it is not "mandatory" for students this year, is it? 13:39:55 it isn't 13:39:56 matthieucan: kind of... http://oioannou.com/2015/blog/gsoc-updates/ 13:40:00 matthieucan: of course, if you'd like to, please go ahead :) 13:40:05 zack: nope, I don't think so, was just curious 13:40:15 zack: yep I will probably 13:40:18 planned to, did not find the energy; I probably blog about the async updater once it's finished 13:40:26 clemux: great! 13:40:35 orestis: is your blog on planet.debian.org? 13:40:39 orestis: thanks, I'll chek that 13:40:46 i don't think so 13:40:49 using my weekly reports and celery.txt as a starting point 13:40:51 it should! :) 13:41:14 how should i do that? 13:41:15 I think olasd might've called for students to request planet.d.o addition for their blogs 13:41:25 orestis: check if olasd did, and if so follow the instructions 13:41:30 if he didn't, let me know and I can do that 13:41:41 zack: yes i answered on that email.. don't know if i have to do something else 13:41:46 i ll check again 13:41:59 then we will just blame all together olasd *g* 13:42:05 !! 13:42:25 just kidding, we all love olasd 13:42:32 just nag him gently, otherwise I can do that 13:42:41 clemux: regarding review of async 13:42:41 (another notification for olasd) 13:42:54 (lotsa notifications for olasd !!!) 13:43:01 :D 13:43:06 clemux: we do _not_ want a huge code drop in the end 13:43:17 but up to now it seems to me that the code was still in flux 13:43:26 so my hope is that, when the code is realtively stable, 13:43:31 you can go back and prepare separate commits 13:43:37 with git add -p or equivalent 13:43:46 and I'll review individual commits 13:43:49 feasible? 13:44:08 yup, I had already planned on rewriting the history of my branch 13:44:16 cool, we're on the same line then 13:44:26 it's then up to you to judge when you feel like it's the right moment to do that 13:44:41 I guess it will be as soon as you feel the design decisions are now ok 13:44:41 having unit tests seems like a good milestone 13:44:46 and you won't need to throw away everything later on 13:44:57 (then, of course, sh*t happens, so if you we'll have to, we will) 13:45:13 got it! 13:45:17 ok 13:45:20 anything else to discuss? 13:45:32 nope 13:45:38 fine with me 13:45:39 nop 13:45:42 ah, yes, LET'S ALL HUG olasd 13:45:52 * orestis hugs olasd 13:45:53 olasd: hug ;) 13:46:10 #agreed let's all hug olasd 13:46:15 #endmeeting