On 05/30/2018 08:23 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
I think this is orthogonal to the thread. The idea is that we should avoid nettling contributors over minor imperfections in their submissions (grammatical, spelling or typographical errors in code comments and documentation, mild inefficiencies in implementations, et cetera). Clearly we shouldn't merge broken features, changes which fail tests/linters, and so on. For me the rule of thumb is, "will the software be better or worse if this is merged?" It's not about perfection or imperfection, it's about incremental improvement. If a proposed change is an improvement, that's enough. If it's not perfect... well, that's just opportunity for more improvement later.
I appreciate the sentiment concerning accepting any improvement yet on the other hand waiting for improvements to the patch to occur later is folly, it won't happen.
Those of us familiar with working with large bodies of code from multiple authors spanning an extended time period will tell you it's very confusing when it's obvious most of the code follows certain conventions but there are odd exceptions (often without comments). This inevitably leads to investing a lot of time trying to understand why the exception exists because "clearly it's there for a reason and I'm just missing the rationale" At that point the reason for the inconsistency is lost.
At the end of the day it is more important to keep the code base clean and consistent for those that follow than it is to coddle in the near term.
-- John Dennis __________________________________________________________________________ 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
