One additional it - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/8023/ - for stable
essex addresses the pep8. Please note that this change was done prior to
this thread.
Thanks
Gary
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Netstack] change to pep8 version 1.1?
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2012 06:45:48 +0300
From: Gary Kotton <gkotton@redhat.com>
Reply-To: gkotton@redhat.com
Organization: Red Hat
To: netstack@lists.launchpad.net
On 06/03/2012 02:03 AM, Monty Taylor wrote:
> On 06/02/2012 02:25 PM, Dan Wendlandt wrote:
>> Hi Monty,
>>
>> So moving forward it seems that we have two options here:
>>
>> 1) add hardcoded pep8 version in tox.ini to match the hardcoded version
>> in tools/tests-requires. Benefit: avoid randomly having all reviews get
>> rejected by CI infrastructure whenever the CI infrastructure happens to
>> pick up a new version of pep8.
>>
>> 2) remove hardcoded pep8 version in tools/test-requires to match
>> tox.ini. Benefit: we're always using the latest pep8 version (and
>> therefore closer to the goal of more readable code) and people have a
>> strong incentive to clean up the code (since its blocking their commits)..
>>
>> While my preference was originally #1, as it gives more predictability.
>> However, if people do not monitor for new versions of pep8, we get
>> stuck on an old version (currently 0.6.1). Jason has persuaded me that
>> given that pep8 clean-ups tend to be quite quick to code and review,
>> that #2 may well be a better option.
> My preference was for #1 as well, but the more I think about it, the
> more I think that we should be pretty aggressive with tracking pep8
> stuff anyway.
I am in favour of #1 at the moment. In Folsom there was considerable
effort to deal with pep8. Essex stable is a side branch and will at some
time or another be replaced by Folsom. Adding all of the pep8 changes
into a stable branch could lead to some problems (it is very low risk).
Nonetheless, if the stricter pep8 is chosen, then why not just use
Folsom-1 as the stable essex (there were 2 activities on this - bug
fixes and pep8 support)
>> I'll plan on doing that unless
>> anyone from the quantum or CI teams has a major concern. The
>> side-effect is that developers may submit patches that get rejected
>> because pep8 on their system is out of date, at which time they will
>> need to update their version (or recreate their tox env. from scratch).
>> Seems fine with me.
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 2:38 PM, Monty Taylor<mordred@inaugust.com
>> <mailto:mordred@inaugust.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Well - there are two choices... you can upgrade to 1.1, or you can put
>> in an entry into tox.ini, changing:
>>
>> deps=pep8
>>
>> to
>>
>> deps = pep8==0.6.1
>>
>> We're working on getting this to the point where the pep8 version in
>> test-requires is honored.
>>
>> On 05/25/2012 04:46 PM, Dan Wendlandt wrote:
>> > Hi Monty,
>> >
>> > A recent commit to Quantum failed due to pep8 errors that were not
>> > related to the
>> > patch: https://jenkins.openstack.org/job/check-quantum-pep8/1/console
>> >
>> > After some digging, I noticed that these errors were due to the fact
>> > that Jenkins is using pep8 version 1.1, rather than the pep8 0.6.1
>> that
>> > is specified in quantum's tools/test-requires
>> >
>> > [TOX] ***installing dependencies: pep8
>> > [TOX] /home/jenkins/workspace/check-quantum-pep8/.tox/pep8/log$
>> ../bin/pip install
>> --download-cache=/home/jenkins/workspace/check-quantum-pep8/..tox/_download
>> pep8
>> > Downloading/unpacking pep8
>> > Downloading pep8-1.1.tar.gz
>> > Storing download in cache at
>> /home/jenkins/workspace/check-quantum-pep8/.tox/_download/http%3A%2F%2Fpypi.openstack.org
>> <http://2Fpypi.openstack.org>
>> <http://2Fpypi.openstack.org>%2Fpep8%2Fpep8-1.1.tar.gz
>> > Running setup.py egg_info for package pep8
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > We can pretty easily clean up the pep8 errors and change
>> test-requires,
>> > but I wanted to check with you first to see if the change to 1.1 is
>> > intentional and permanent. Thanks,
>> >
>> > Dan
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> > Dan Wendlandt
>> > Nicira, Inc: www.nicira.com<http://www.nicira.com>
>> <http://www.nicira.com>
>> > twitter: danwendlandt
>> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> Dan Wendlandt
>> Nicira, Inc: www.nicira.com<http://www.nicira.com>
>> twitter: danwendlandt
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
essex addresses the pep8. Please note that this change was done prior to
this thread.
Thanks
Gary
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Netstack] change to pep8 version 1.1?
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2012 06:45:48 +0300
From: Gary Kotton <gkotton@redhat.com>
Reply-To: gkotton@redhat.com
Organization: Red Hat
To: netstack@lists.launchpad.net
On 06/03/2012 02:03 AM, Monty Taylor wrote:
> On 06/02/2012 02:25 PM, Dan Wendlandt wrote:
>> Hi Monty,
>>
>> So moving forward it seems that we have two options here:
>>
>> 1) add hardcoded pep8 version in tox.ini to match the hardcoded version
>> in tools/tests-requires. Benefit: avoid randomly having all reviews get
>> rejected by CI infrastructure whenever the CI infrastructure happens to
>> pick up a new version of pep8.
>>
>> 2) remove hardcoded pep8 version in tools/test-requires to match
>> tox.ini. Benefit: we're always using the latest pep8 version (and
>> therefore closer to the goal of more readable code) and people have a
>> strong incentive to clean up the code (since its blocking their commits)..
>>
>> While my preference was originally #1, as it gives more predictability.
>> However, if people do not monitor for new versions of pep8, we get
>> stuck on an old version (currently 0.6.1). Jason has persuaded me that
>> given that pep8 clean-ups tend to be quite quick to code and review,
>> that #2 may well be a better option.
> My preference was for #1 as well, but the more I think about it, the
> more I think that we should be pretty aggressive with tracking pep8
> stuff anyway.
I am in favour of #1 at the moment. In Folsom there was considerable
effort to deal with pep8. Essex stable is a side branch and will at some
time or another be replaced by Folsom. Adding all of the pep8 changes
into a stable branch could lead to some problems (it is very low risk).
Nonetheless, if the stricter pep8 is chosen, then why not just use
Folsom-1 as the stable essex (there were 2 activities on this - bug
fixes and pep8 support)
>> I'll plan on doing that unless
>> anyone from the quantum or CI teams has a major concern. The
>> side-effect is that developers may submit patches that get rejected
>> because pep8 on their system is out of date, at which time they will
>> need to update their version (or recreate their tox env. from scratch).
>> Seems fine with me.
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 2:38 PM, Monty Taylor<mordred@inaugust.com
>> <mailto:mordred@inaugust.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Well - there are two choices... you can upgrade to 1.1, or you can put
>> in an entry into tox.ini, changing:
>>
>> deps=pep8
>>
>> to
>>
>> deps = pep8==0.6.1
>>
>> We're working on getting this to the point where the pep8 version in
>> test-requires is honored.
>>
>> On 05/25/2012 04:46 PM, Dan Wendlandt wrote:
>> > Hi Monty,
>> >
>> > A recent commit to Quantum failed due to pep8 errors that were not
>> > related to the
>> > patch: https://jenkins.openstack.org/job/check-quantum-pep8/1/console
>> >
>> > After some digging, I noticed that these errors were due to the fact
>> > that Jenkins is using pep8 version 1.1, rather than the pep8 0.6.1
>> that
>> > is specified in quantum's tools/test-requires
>> >
>> > [TOX] ***installing dependencies: pep8
>> > [TOX] /home/jenkins/workspace/check-quantum-pep8/.tox/pep8/log$
>> ../bin/pip install
>> --download-cache=/home/jenkins/workspace/check-quantum-pep8/..tox/_download
>> pep8
>> > Downloading/unpacking pep8
>> > Downloading pep8-1.1.tar.gz
>> > Storing download in cache at
>> /home/jenkins/workspace/check-quantum-pep8/.tox/_download/http%3A%2F%2Fpypi.openstack.org
>> <http://2Fpypi.openstack.org>
>> <http://2Fpypi.openstack.org>%2Fpep8%2Fpep8-1.1.tar.gz
>> > Running setup.py egg_info for package pep8
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > We can pretty easily clean up the pep8 errors and change
>> test-requires,
>> > but I wanted to check with you first to see if the change to 1.1 is
>> > intentional and permanent. Thanks,
>> >
>> > Dan
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> > Dan Wendlandt
>> > Nicira, Inc: www.nicira.com<http://www.nicira.com>
>> <http://www.nicira.com>
>> > twitter: danwendlandt
>> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> Dan Wendlandt
>> Nicira, Inc: www.nicira.com<http://www.nicira.com>
>> twitter: danwendlandt
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>