Weekly retrospective notes

Francesco: juju-test our charm, current status, future plans

juju-test had a preferred solution a few months ago, but that might no longer be the case, possibly in favor of some upcoming internal juju feature. What should we do?  We could build the functionality ourselves or contribute to juju-test.

Rick: Let’s coordinate with the community and try to contribute to juju-test.

Gary: +1 with Rick, but let’s stick with what we have until we have to build the next big charm feature.  Then we can look at the landscape and decide how we want to refactor.

Gary: how do we kill pyJuju support?

After discussing options we agree on the following.

  • We will announce that the last release of the GUI was the last one to support pyJuju.
  • If someone begs us to fix a pyJuju bug, and we’re willing to prioritize it, we will branch from that release.
  • The next GUI release will be 1.0.  This will signify breaking compatibility with pyJuju, and also align with our move to Git.  Per Jeff’s warning, we will want to do extra QA for this release, but it already aligns with the kind of work that we are doing this month.
  • This will also mean that new versions of the charm will no longer support pyJuju.

Gary: stub function approach in test/utils.js

Look at makeStubMethod and makeStubFunction in test/utils.js. They seem like a worthwhile experiment.  Please keep them in mind when coding and reviewing.  Improvements welcome!

Gary: formalization of story lead role

XXX Expand

Rick: opportunity to shorten daily calls

Jeff: YUI Theater hangout about the GUI

Promote it!  Share it! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJPdH8xmOWg

Rick: switch to git today

Read the HACKING doc!  Also see the lander’s README.