extradoc / minute / pypy-sync-2006-02-02.txt

pypy-sync developer meeting 2nd February 2006

Time & location: 1pm (30 minutes), GMT+1 at #pypy-sync


         Adrien di Mascio
         Anders Chrigstrom
         Anders Lehmann
         Aurelien Campeas
	 Holger Krekel
         Jan Balster
         Eric van Riet Paap
         Carl Friedrich Bolz
	 Samuele Pedroni
         Michael Hudson
         Armin Rigo (moderation & minutes)

Regular Topics 

- activity reports (3 prepared lines of info).
  All Attendees submitted activity reports (see `IRC-Log`_
  and 'LAST/NEXT/BLOCKERS' entries in particular)

- resolve conflicts/blockers: No blockers

Topics of the week

PyCon sprint announcement

Discussed and finalized the topics (in no particular order):

* py lib subtrack, with a focus on issues relevant to PyPy
* write GCs (we might start translating our own GCs by then)
* rctypes (newcomer-friendly: writing 'socket' or some other module in ctypes)
* logic programming: constraints; adding dataflow variables to PyPy
* general JIT stuff (maybe)
* general experiments with app-level code using PyPy features (thunk, ...)


What could be better in py.test from the point of view of testing PyPy?

* produces far too much output in general
* improve the test selection mecanisms, e.g. -k should allow us to select
  based on class name, or select one test of a generative test, etc.
* test coverage
* doctests (important from a community point of view)

.. _`IRC-Log`:

Complete IRC log

complete log::

  <adim> Hi everyone
  <arigo> hi
  <aleale> Hi
  <hpk> hi
  <cfbolz> hi all!
  <arre> Hi!
  <ericvrp> hi!
  <auc> ih
  <pedronis> hi
  --> mwh ( has joined #pypy-sync
  <arigo> hi all
  <arigo> let's start, please post your three-liners...
  <ericvrp> LAST: raisingop2direct_call transformation, NEXT: finish transformation, BLOCKERS: -
  <hpk> LAST: codespeak migration, wp14, non-pypy  NEXT: Ireland workshops  BLOCKERS: no
  <hpk> ne
  <auc> last : almost "finished" our prototype oz-like computation space
  <auc> next : add merge op, implement basic search strategies with it
  <auc> block : nil
  <adim> LAST: helped Nicolas to prepare the "SolutionsLinux" exhibition / talked about PyPy to everyone passing around the Logilab's stand
  <adim> NEXT: restart aspect / WP10 stuff
  <adim> BLOCKERS: none
  <mwh> LAST: sprint, being ill,
  <aleale> PREV: Sprint on Logic, trying pyontology on an inhouse ontology
  <aleale> NEXT: Pyontology, documentation, a little logic
  <aleale> BLOCKERS : -
  <cfbolz> LAST: mallorca sprint, some small pickling experiments
  <cfbolz> NEXT: finish mailwitness sprint, relax a bit, continue gc work, py-lib release
  <cfbolz> BLOCKERS: too much to do, as usual
  <mwh> NEXT: finish genc refactoring
  <mwh> BLOCKERS: -
  <arre> PREV: Recuperating after Mallorca sprint.
  <arre> NEXT: Working on the JIT with Samuele.
  <arre> BLOCKERS: None
  <pedronis> LAST: sprint, hint annotation
  <pedronis> NEXT: more jit
  <pedronis> BLOCKERS: -
  <arigo> LAST: sprint, no much;  NEXT: some JIT work;  BLOCKERS: still recovering from sprint
  <arigo> thanks
  <arigo> PyCon sprint announcement
  <arigo> ==============================
  <arigo> during the Mallorca sprint, we wrote a file "what to do next"
  <arigo> this contains several topics that make sense to include in the PyCon sprint announcement
  <arigo> extradoc/sprintinfo/mallorca/post-mallorca-planning.txt
  <arigo> I think that these topics could all be mentioned in the announcement,
  <arigo> but it would be nice to have a few more
  <hpk> we should hint at the pypy talks during the pycon talks in the announcement
  <cfbolz> definitively
  <hpk> and also (i mentioned this to arigo already) i'd like to do a bit of py lib sprinting as a sub-track
  <hpk> related to improvements visible for pypy development
  <mwh> we should try hard to make the sprint announcements non-intimidating
  <arigo> mwh: yes
  * hpk thinks that the py lib topics can help there :) 
  <pedronis> :)
  <arigo> I expect the sprint to be pretty much a "what are you interested in?" kind of sprint, with not too many pypy corers there
  <cfbolz> how many days are there actually?
  <mwh> four
  <cfbolz> so it's not _that_ big anywya
  <mwh> but for one reason and another a lot of people will only be there for 3.5 or so days
  <hpk> the sprint directly starts after the conf, btw (no break day)
  <pedronis> which means tired people
  <hpk> a bit, yes
  <hpk> does it make sense to offer experimentation stuff?
  <hpk> like extending the thunk space, playing on top of it, refining it?
  * hpk thinks that we will need an internal core sprint between now and may because both japan and pycon are likely not allowing us to tackle the tough stuff
  <arigo> we could propose this kind of things
  <mwh> i think the gc stuff should be mentioned
  <arigo> also with other spaces, not just thunk
  <mwh> particularly if you can translate the gc framework by then...
  <hpk> mwh: definitely
  <cfbolz> mwh: which is unclear, but indeed the goal :-)
  <hpk> being able to write GCs would be cool - but i am a bit skeptical (without really being able to judge)
  <mwh> cfbolz: :)
  <arigo> hpk: I'm more optimistic
  <hpk> good :)
  <arigo> anyway, it's a good topic, yes
  <mwh> hpk: can an additional sprint be another topic ?
  <arigo> and definitely rctypes
  <hpk> are the rctypes people from mallorca going to be at pycon?
  <hpk> i mean gromit and stephan?
  <arigo> I guess not
  <mwh> no
  <arigo> that shouldn't stop us, though
  <cfbolz> mwh: indeed :-)
  <hpk> arigo: ok
  <arigo> writing an ext module in ctypes is a good way to contribute to PyPy
  <mwh> arigo: yes
  <arigo> because learning internals for 4 days isn't quite enough
  <aleale> I hope to come so we could add a topic about implementing logic
  <arigo> aleale: anything more precise in mind?
  <hpk> is socket still a topic or only after we know that we will build on the (r)ctypes approach?
  <arigo> I believe we can make socket-on-ctypes a topic, but it also seems to be a very demanded topic
  <aleale> well it is hard to say since I dontknow how far we will be when Pycon comes around
  * hpk wonders how many people in the US are into logic programming (that will come to pycon)
  <arigo> I know that both Holger and Christian are considering hiring people and giving socket as work :-)
  <aleale> but auc and I could try make it mmore concrete
  <hpk> arigo: well, that is quite vague still
  <hpk> arigo: shouldn't stop us from tackling it at the pycon sprint in any case :)
  <arigo> aleale: ok -- otherwise just mention logic and Oz in a short line
  <arigo> hpk: ok
  <auc> arigo: the answer depends on the state of integration of computation spaces into pypy
  <auc> we don't know that in advance
  * hpk could try to write a draft announcement until saturday morning, cannot promise to do it earlier
  <auc> and I have no clue, currently, abouut how to do it
  <arigo> ok, then to summarize the topics:
  <mwh> i think at this point we want to nominate one or two people to write the announcement, not try to write it now?
  <arigo> * py lib
  <arigo> * gc
  <arigo> * rctypes
  <arigo> * logic
  <arigo> * (probably a note about jit)
  <auc> arigo: can you say "constraints" instead of "logic" ?
  <arigo> sure
  <hpk> * experimenting with pypy possibilities
  <auc> 'cause constraints will be there before logic ...
  <arigo> hpk: ok
  <hpk> especially co-routines, thunk+X spaces etc.
  <mwh> "experimenting with pypy possibilities" seems almost limitlessly vague
  <hpk> mwh: we are on IRC here, aren'T we? :)
  <mwh> heh
  <arigo> hpk: I guess you mean in general playing with mostly app-level code that uses the new pypy features
  <hpk> yes
  <auc> a more focused idea could be : putting dataflow variables into pypy
  <hpk> but also refining/extending the thunk space
  <auc> making dataflow vars. work with microthreads
  <arigo> hpk: you can already do a lot with the thunk space, I'm not sure what non-app-level extensions you have in mind
  <auc> that's a building block for comp. spaces
  <arigo> auc: that's more a design topic so far, isn't it?
  <auc> arigo: uh ... what exactly ? (is more a design topic) ?
  <auc> df vars ?
  <arigo> yes, particularly how to fit them in the Python language, and how to hook them on microthreads
  <arigo> unless you have more precise ideas already, of course
  <cfbolz> (which we would then like to know :-)
  <hpk> arigo: am mostly thinking about distribution of objects including their functions (so that not only object state is transparently moving between servers but also the code ...)
  <auc> arigo: ok
  <hpk> arigo: maybe that's possible already - i am not sure
  <cfbolz> could we maybe try to also discuss the next topic a bit too? jan is mostly here for that
  <arigo> hpk: that's also a design topic :-)  I don't see clearly if and how to fit this in the thunk space in particular
  <arigo> cfbolz: sure
  <arigo> py.test
  <arigo> =======================
  <hpk> mwh: do we still assign to the task of finalizing the announcement?  Or do you do a draft with armin or Samuele or what?
  <mwh> hpk: dunno! :)
  <mwh> i should be around this afternoon to work on a draft
  <hpk> arigo: if you write a draft i am going to review/amend it
  <arigo> let's talk about it on #pypy
  <arigo> (hpk: I have some more to say to you)
  * hpk will be out after the sync meeting  but ok 
  <hpk> arigo: ok, then
  <arigo> anything you want to complain about py.test?
  <hpk> so any complaints about py.test?
  <hpk> none?  fine then we can close the meeting :)
  <cfbolz> I want some features :-)
  <aleale> I have had the need to be able to filter in generative test. I havent found a way to name the generative tests so that -k  works.
  <mwh> my pypy feature resuest: i'd like a --tb=foo thing that just listed the failing tests
  <aleale> s/test/tests
  <hpk> aleale: indeed, that's not possible currently i think
  <cfbolz> I think  -k needs to be refined in general
  <hpk> mwh: no tracebacks at all then?
  <mwh> in general, as arigo said we produce far too much output
  <mwh> hpk: yes
  <hpk> cfbolz: yes
  <cfbolz> because you also cannot match the class names
  <mwh> hpk: maybe the failing exception name or something
  <hpk> and the file/line number i guess
  <mwh> hpk: this is usually so i can work out what -k to pass :)
  <hpk> makes sense i think
  <mwh> yes, that might be good to work out if all the failures are like to be the same
  <cfbolz> I also really want some sort of test coverage
  <mwh> like -> likely
  <hpk> nobody wants doctests? :)
  <mwh> the "too much output" thing is partially our fault i guess
  <cfbolz> and some way to add (dynamic?) tags to tests
  <ericvrp> When I had some RPython code that would not annotate I would have liked a feature that simulates manual --pdb option and then looking for a translator object so t.view() can be done to see the offending block
  <cfbolz> and select tests in different ways
  <mwh> some kind of py.log magic might help
  * hpk sidenotes that py.log is going to be refined soon - but we will ensure that pypy's usage will be fixed accordingly 
  <arigo> so we have mostly
  <arigo> * too much output
  <arigo> * better test selection
  <cfbolz> * test coverage
  <hpk> * doctests (i really think it makes sense also for pypy)
  <mwh> hpk: i'm glad i never worked out how to use py.log then :)
  <arigo> I don't feel the need for the last two items at all but I'm not against them either :-)
  <cfbolz> arigo: thank you :-)
  <arigo> can we close this meeting for now?
  <hpk> ;)
  <arigo> time...
  <hpk> from my side: yes and thanks!
  <pedronis> I thin doctests are important form a community POV, lots of people seems into them
  <cfbolz> pedronis: indeed
  <mwh> yes, all from me
  * arigo closes the meeting -- thanks
  <hpk> * being able to run compliance/other tests with pypy-c and py.test :)
  <cfbolz> bye all!
  <aleale> bye
  <adim> see you
  <-- adim ( has left #pypy-sync
  <hpk> bye
  <arre> Bye!
  <pedronis> bye
  <janb> bye
  <ericvrp> bye
  <auc> bye