This sounds totally reasonable. +1 to keeping style-specific changes consistent across a release. — Morgan Fainberg
From: Clint Byrum [email protected] Reply: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) [email protected] Date: June 16, 2014 at 10:51:31 To: openstack-dev [email protected] Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] revert hacking to 0.8 series Excerpts from Sean Dague's message of 2014-06-16 05:15:54 -0700: > Hacking 0.9 series was released pretty late for Juno. The entire check > queue was flooded this morning with requirements proposals failing pep8 > because of it (so at 6am EST we were waiting 1.5 hrs for a check node). > > The previous soft policy with pep8 updates was that we set a pep8 > version basically release week, and changes stopped being done for style > after first milestone. > > I think in the spirit of that we should revert the hacking requirements > update back to the 0.8 series for Juno. We're past milestone 1, so > shouldn't be working on style only fixes at this point. > > Proposed review here - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/100231/ > > I also think in future hacking major releases need to happen within one > week of release, or not at all for that series. > +1. Hacking is supposed to help us avoid redundant nit-picking in reviews. If it places any large burden on developers, whether by merge conflicting or backing up CI, it is a failure IMO. _______________________________________________ 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
