Open Stack

On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Brian Waldon <bcwaldon at gmail.com> wrote:

> So is it fair to say at this point that we're standardizing on 1.3.3 for
> Grizzly?
>
> Waldon
>
>
>
> On Nov 20, 2012, at 4:48 PM, Joe Gordon wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 10:57 PM, Monty Taylor <mordred at inaugust.com>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 11/19/2012 09:15 PM, Brian Waldon wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Nov 19, 2012, at 4:28 PM, Brian Waldon wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Nov 19, 2012, at 4:16 PM, Chuck Short wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  On 12-11-19 06:40 PM, Joe Gordon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Monty Taylor
>>>>>> <mordred at inaugust.com <mailto:mordred at inaugust.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think these are orthogonal. In general I believe we're in
>>>>>> agreement that we should be targetting the same version of
>>>>>> pep8, and that we should pin that version early in the cycle.
>>>>>> However we install that version of pep8 is a different
>>>>>> argument.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Targeting the same version of pep8 is only part of the problem,
>>>>>> we would also need to agree on what rules to ignore. For
>>>>>> example:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> glance (pep8 1.3.3) ignores: E125,E126,E711,E712 nova (pep8
>>>>>> 1.2) ignores: E12,E711,E721 keystone (pep8 1.3.3) ignores: ---
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there a reason why these were ignored?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I just ran glance's pep8 check without ignoring any errors, and it
>>>> appears most of them are just arbitrary spacing. I'll attempt to
>>>> minimize the number of pep8 violations we ignore.
>>>>
>>>
>>> After walking through the type of errors we're ignoring, I'm not
>>> actually comfortable removing any of the PEP8 violations (E125, E126,
>>> E711, E712) from Glance's ignore list. The first two are quite
>>> fragile and enforce a somewhat awkward coding style, while the second
>>> two are asking us to write code that is incompatible with sqlalchemy.
>>> Hopefully the maintainers will help improve this situation.
>>>
>>
>> What about downgrading our pep8 level to 1.2? It doesn't sound like
>> people are really thrilled in general with 1.3...
>>
>>
>>
> Nova just bumped to 1.3.3, also there are rules that nova ignores even in
> 1.2.    So going to 1.2 doesn't solve that issue., for example E125, E126
> are in 1.2
>
>
>> ______________________________**_________________
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.**org <OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
>> http://lists.openstack.org/**cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/**openstack-dev<http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
> Hope so... Cinder moved to 1.3.3 and I'm working on following your lead on
the excludes list.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20121121/b90b16ea/attachment.html>