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. -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~yellow Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~yellow More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
