yellow team mailing list archive

[Nicola Larosa <nicola.larosa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

benji wrote:
> Perhaps I am missing something, but I don't see your comments
> in Reitveld.  Did you respond there or just reply to the email?

Weird. I replied (and am replying again) on Rietveld, and can see my
previous reply here.

> If we were using Buildout it would be easy.  Barring that, your
> approach sounds good to me.  We don't need any packages, we can
> just have the shim script in bin/ invoke the script in
> lib/scripts and have the test module live in lib/scripts too.

Do you mean calling it as an external command? I'd rather import code in
lib/scripts/ from the shim script in bin/.

> One downside of this approach is that the current working
> directory will have to be the root of the checkout for the shim
> script to be able to find the "real" script.  (Unless we do
> something fancy in the shim script, which does not seem to be
> worth the effort.)

Well, nothing *very* fancy, I guess, just the usual path building based
on os.path.dirname(__file__).

> I appreciate it, but I adhere to the "tie goes to the runner" rule.
> If you really like these names better, then that is fine.  If my
> comment had made you think "Oh, yeah, I don't like them either"
> then that would have been another story.

Ok, since Gary has also said he likes the "file_functions" name and the
"_functions" suffixes, I left them in. I did revert "in_undocumented" to
"is_documented", though.


https://codereview.appspot.com/6845085/

-- 
https://code.launchpad.net/~teknico/juju-gui/extract-doc-stats/+merge/135958
Your team Juju GUI Hackers is requested to review the proposed merge of lp:~teknico/juju-gui/extract-doc-stats into lp:juju-gui.