[Pulp-dev] black

Mon Jun 24 21:54:38 UTC 2019

Per our PUP voting guidelines, PUP-8 has passed and been merged. I filed
the required issues in an epic[0].

Thank you to everyone that voted and participated in the discussion.

[0] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/5019

David

On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 11:28 AM Ina Panova <ipanova at redhat.com> wrote:

> -0. Fully agree with Tanya's 3rd point of observation.
>
> --------
> Regards,
>
> Ina Panova
> Senior Software Engineer| Pulp| Red Hat Inc.
>
> "Do not go where the path may lead,
>  go instead where there is no path and leave a trail."
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 5:22 PM Austin Macdonald <amacdona at redhat.com>
> wrote:
>
>> +1. I like the consistency but it's easy to overwhelm new contributors
>> with minor style comments, even if they are "standard".
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 5:55 PM David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Agreed. You don't have to use black to autoformat your code if you don't
>>> want to. You could run black to check your code locally (with --check) or
>>> wait to have travis do it for you like we do now with flake8. It's up to
>>> you whether to autoformat your code or not.
>>>
>>> Also, just FYI: I updated PUP-8 to add some of the concerns that were
>>> raised in this thread and in the PR.
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 9:50 AM Matt Pusateri <mpusater at redhat.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I would argue that nothing stops you having pep8 down to muscle memory,
>>>> it just means the autoformatter has less output :)
>>>>
>>>> Matt P.
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 9:32 AM Dana Walker <dawalker at redhat.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> -0
>>>>>
>>>>> If we want devs free "from having to worry about formatting their code
>>>>> while developing", I think that's doing both them and the community a
>>>>> disservice in the long run.  I at least learn through doing, repetitively,
>>>>> and think it would be more beneficial to have pep8 down to muscle memory in
>>>>> time than to have an autoformatter doing it for me on this project and me
>>>>> becoming more of a burden on a project that doesn't have one.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dana Walker
>>>>>
>>>>> She / Her / Hers
>>>>>
>>>>> Software Engineer, Pulp Project
>>>>>
>>>>> Red Hat <https://www.redhat.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> dawalker at redhat.com
>>>>> <https://www.redhat.com>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 8:55 AM Kersom <kersom at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> +1 to adopt black code style.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Reasons already listed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 4:34 AM Tatiana Tereshchenko <
>>>>>> ttereshc at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -0
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm usually all for consistency, and having standard style sounds
>>>>>>> good in theory.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. What worries me is that there is basically no way back, we can't
>>>>>>> just try it out.
>>>>>>> Maybe waiting a bit to see if black has more adoption in the Python
>>>>>>> community and goes GA is not a bad idea.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2. Is now the point when we desperately need autoformatter?
>>>>>>> I don't work with many plugins but I read/review code a lot,
>>>>>>> including pulpcore, pulpcore-plugin, pulp_file, pulp_rpm, pulp_maven,
>>>>>>> pulp_ansible and a bit of pulp_docker.
>>>>>>> I didn't encounter a noticeable difference in style which will make
>>>>>>> me feel that I need to adopt to it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3. If one of the goals is to make the code more readable, in my
>>>>>>> subjective opinion, after black changes, it's 50/50.
>>>>>>> Some parts are more readable, some parts are less. (just to be
>>>>>>> clear, I'm NOT talking here about single or double quotes.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tanya
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 4:43 AM Daniel Alley <dalley at redhat.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> +0
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 1:15 PM Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> +1 to adopting this. Thank you @daviddavis for writing
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 1:58 PM David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I opened PUP-8 that proposes adopting black and pydocstyle[0]
>>>>>>>>>> along with a PR against pulpcore to demonstrate how it would change
>>>>>>>>>> pulpcore's code. Please review and respond with votes[2]. The deadline will
>>>>>>>>>> be June 22, 2019.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> [0] https://github.com/pulp/pups/pull/17
>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/pulp/pulpcore/pull/170
>>>>>>>>>> [2] https://github.com/pulp/pups/blob/master/pup-0001.md#voting
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> David
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 2:53 PM Simon Baatz <gmbnomis at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 08:25:47AM -0400, David Davis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> >    I wanted to get feedback from the Pulp community on using
>>>>>>>>>>> black[0] to
>>>>>>>>>>> >    auto-format our Pulp 3 code. I have some mixed feelings
>>>>>>>>>>> about it as I
>>>>>>>>>>> >    see some potential benefits of using it but also some
>>>>>>>>>>> downsides as
>>>>>>>>>>> >    well.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> +1 for black (pulp_cookbook uses black for a couple of months
>>>>>>>>>>> now).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>>>>>>>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>>>>>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>>>>>>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>>>>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>>>>>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>>>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>>>>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>>>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20190624/5d15a95e/attachment.htm>