Open Stack

On 03/20/2013 04:25 PM, Chuck Short wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 13-03-20 11:06 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
>> On 03/20/2013 10:52 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>>> Sean Dague wrote:
>>>> I noticed yesterday with the cinder review that pep8 was listed as >=
>>>> 1.3, and not pinned. I think this is a really bad idea.
>>>>
>>>> After a large amount of pep8 churn at the end of Folsom, we agreed to
>>>> pin pep8 for Grizzly, and it was good. It prevented huge numbers of
>>>> churn patches because a new pep8 minor release came out and now we
>>>> needed an extra space somewhere to pass the scanner.
>>>
>>> I've been discussing this with someone recently (Jim, I think). PEP8 is
>>> a great set of rules to enforce common style and I'm very happy that we
>>> use it. However we don't really need that much pep8 *tool* to evolve
>>> over time. Adapting corner-case spacing over a 1MLOC codebase brings us
>>> no real value...
>>>
>>> The issue is that the pep8 tool liberally accepts bugfixes to existing
>>> tests, and new interpretations of the established rules, both in the
>>> same point releases. Ideally it would separate the set of rules being
>>> used from the version being used, something like
>>>
>>> pep8 --party-like-it-was=2013-01-01
>>>
>>> that would let you use latest pep8 version with the rules as they stood
>>> at the beginning of this year.
>>>
>>> Alternatively, we could freeze our pep8 version... but the distros tend
>>> to ship with a relatively-current version.
>>
>> Also, we monkey patch it in some "interesting" ways to get our own
>> hacking.py working (which is hugely helpful in saving human brain
>> cells on enforcing HACKING). So it's important that we don't let it
>> change out from under us in a way that breaks hacking.py.
>>
>> pep8 is in test-requires, so it doesn't really matter what the distros
>> ship. When you run our tests you'll get our version.
>
> Actually it does matter which version pep8 that the distros ship.  Ubuntu
> for example runs the full tests on each commit in our CI lab so if our
> versions of pep8 are not in sync then we will have to carry an out of
> tree patch or Openstack will get a wrong bug report.

Same on openSUSE where we run the tests against distribution packages 
(i.e. no virtualenvs). But we use either "./run_tests.sh -N -P" or 
"nosetests" directly and avoid the PEP-8 tests altogether.

>
>> Moving it forward to a new pinned version at the beginning of every
>> cycle seems a happy compromise between being current on pep8, and not
>> churning wildly. Right now lots of projects ignore huge swaths of pep8
>> rules to deal with the interpretation changes (this was a local fix to
>> dealing with pep8 changing too often before it was pinned in grizzly).
>>
>>     -Sean
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>


-- 
With kind regards,
Sascha Peilicke
SUSE Linux GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, D-90409 Nuernberg, Germany
GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg)