The core team took care of renaming the files over the weekend, so that reviews going forward should behave as normal. (i.e. Adds are truly additions and modifications are mods). I looked at the review you referenced and that was file was a proposed addition before the name change. Git/Gerrit as behaving as expected for this change.
As for making staged changes, that will run into problems as module paths will be out-of-sync and the change could not pass the gate. Additionally, that would make it hard for changes to be applied or reverted atomically. mark On Jul 8, 2013, at 3:54 PM, Paul Michali <[email protected]> wrote: > Many people are converting their code, which is out for review, to neutron. > One thing I'm seeing is the files which have been moved and renamed, are > showing up as new files (not to pick on it, but as an example > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/33297/10/neutron/tests/unit/ml2/test_type_gre.py) > so it is hard to tell if there are other changes going on. > > Should submitters ensure that the change set only has renaming changes (and > maybe include a note in the patch set saying so), or is there a way that > multiple patch sets can be used to make that clear (like one to rename in the > text of the file, and a second one to move the file to a new location)? > > Just wondering if there is a way to make reviewing easier… > > > PCM (Paul Michali) > > MAIL [email protected] > IRC pcm_ (irc.freenode.net) > TW @pmichali > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
