This rule is not currently enabled in Cinder. This review fixes up all
cases and enables it, which is absolutely 100% the right thing to do if we
decide to implement this rule.

The purpose of this thread is to understand the value of the rule. We
should either enforce it, or else explicitly decide to ignore it, and
educate reviewers who manually comment on it.

I lean against the rule, but there are certainly enough comments coming in
that I'll look and think again, which is a good result for the thread.

On 25 February 2015 at 22:46, Clint Byrum <> wrote:

> 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:

Duncan Thomas
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)

Reply via email to