Excerpts from Duncan Thomas's message of 2015-02-25 10:51:00 -0800:
> Hi
> So a review [1] was recently submitted to cinder to fix up all of the H302
> violations, and turn on the automated check for them. This is certainly a
> reasonable suggestion given the number of manual reviews that -1 for this
> issue, however I'm far from convinced it actually makes the code more
> readable,
> Is there anybody who'd like to step forward in defence of this rule and
> explain why it is an improvement? I don't discount for a moment the
> possibility I'm missing something, and welcome the education in that case

I think we've had this conclusion a few times before, but let me
resurrect it:

The reason we have hacking and flake8 and pep8 and etc. etc. is so that
code reviews don't descend into nit picking and style spraying.

I'd personally have a private conversation with anyone who mentioned
this, or any other rule that is in hacking/etc., in a review. I want to
know why people think it is a good idea to bombard users with rules that
are already called out explicitly in automation.

Let the robots do their job, and they will let you do yours (until the
singularity, at which point your job will be hiding from the robots).

OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe

Reply via email to