Hi, > Wiadomość napisana przez Jay S Bryant <jungleb...@gmail.com> w dniu > 29.05.2018, o godz. 22:25: > > > On 5/29/2018 3:19 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: >> Excerpts from Jonathan Proulx's message of 2018-05-29 16:05:06 -0400: >>> On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 03:53:41PM -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote: >>> :> >> maybe we're all saying the same thing here? >>> :> > Yeah, I feel like we're all essentially in agreement that nits (of the >>> :> > English mistake of typo type) do need to get fixed, but sometimes >>> :> > (often?) putting the burden of fixing them on the original patch >>> :> > contributor is neither fair nor constructive. >>> :> I am ok with this statement if we are all in agreement that doing >>> :> follow-up patches is an acceptable practice. >>> : >>> :Has it ever not been? >>> : >>> :It seems like it has always come down to a bit of negotiation with >>> :the original author, hasn't it? And that won't change, except that >>> :we will be emphasizing to reviewers that we encourage them to be >>> :more active in seeking out that negotiation and then proposing >>> :patches? >>> >>> Exactly, it's more codifying a default. >>> >>> It's not been unacceptable but I think there's some understandable >>> reluctance to make changes to someone else's work, you don't want to >>> seem like your taking over or getting in the way. At least that's >>> what's in my head when deciding should this be a comment or a patch. >>> >>> I think this discussion suggests for certain class of "nits" patch is >>> preferred to comment. If that is true making this explicit is a good >>> thing becuase let's face it my social skills are only marginally >>> better than my speeling :) >>> >>> -Jon >>> >> OK, that's all good. I'm just surprised to learn that throwing a >> follow-up patch on top of someone else's patch was ever seen as >> discouraged. >> >> The spice must flow, >> Doug > > Maybe it would be different now that I am a Core/PTL but in the past I had > been warned to be careful as it could be misinterpreted if I was changing > other people's patches or that it could look like I was trying to pad my > numbers. (I am a nit-picker though I do my best not to be.
Exactly. I remember when I was doing my first patch (or one of first patches) and someone pushed new PS with some very small nits fixed. I was a bit confused because of that and I was thinking why he did it instead of me? Now it’s of course much more clear for me but for someone who is new contributor I think that this might be confusing. Maybe such person should at least remember to explain in comment why he pushed new PS and that’s not „stealing” work of original author :) > > I am happy if people understand I am just trying to keep the process moving > and keep the read/flow of Cinder consistent. :-) > > Jay > >> __________________________________________________________________________ >> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) >> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev — Slawek Kaplonski Senior software engineer Red Hat __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev