For the guidance, I saw the judgement is a bit subjective. It could happen that 
a contributor think his/her patch is trivial (or it is not fixing a function 
defect), but a reviewer think the opposite. For example, I find it hard to 
judge when I reviewed the following patches:

It could be helpful if the guide can provide some examples of what is a trivial 
patch, and what is not. OpenStack uses this approach to define what is a 
good/bad commit message, which I find it quite helpful.

Best regards,

From: Adrian Otto []
Sent: September-17-15 5:09 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Associating patches with bugs/bps (Please 
don't hurt me)

For posterity, I have recorded this guidance in our Contributing Wiki:

See the NOTE section under:


"NOTE: If you are fixing something trivial, that is not actually a functional 
defect in the software, you can do that without filing a bug ticket, if you 
don't want it to be tracked when we tally this work between releases. If you do 
this, just mention it in the commit message that it's a trivial change that 
does not require a bug ticket. You can reference this guideline if it comes up 
in discussion during the review process. Functional defects should be tracked 
in bug tickets. New features should be tracked in blueprints. Trivial features 
may be tracked using a bug ticket marked as 'Wishlist' importance."

I hope that helps.


On Sep 17, 2015, at 2:01 PM, Adrian Otto 
<<>> wrote:

Let’s apply sensible reason. If it’s a new feature or a bug, it should be 
tracked against an artifact like a bug ticket or a blueprint. If it’s truly 
trivia, we don’t care. I can tell you that some of the worst bugs I have ever 
seen in my career had fixes that were about 4 bytes long. That did not make 
them any less serious.

If you are fixing an actual legitimate bug that has a three character fix, and 
you don’t want it to be tracked as the reviewer, then you can say so in the 
commit message. We can act accordingly going forward.


On Sep 17, 2015, at 1:53 PM, Assaf Muller 
<<>> wrote:

On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 4:09 PM, Jeff Peeler 
<<>> wrote:

On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Fox, Kevin M 
<<>> wrote:
I agree. Lots of projects have this issue. I submitted a bug fix once that 
literally was 3 characters long, and it took:
A short commit message, a long commit message, and a full bug report being 
filed and cross linked. The amount of time writing it up was orders of 
magnitude longer then the actual fix.

Seems a bit much...

Looking at this review, I'd go a step farther and argue that code cleanups like 
this one should be really really easy to get through. No one likes to do them, 
so we should be encouraging folks that actually do it. Not pile up roadblocks.

It is indeed frustrating. I've had a few similar reviews (in other projects - 
hopefully it's okay I comment here) as well. Honestly, I think if a given team 
is willing to draw the line as for what is permissible to commit without bug 
creation, then they should be permitted that freedom.

However, that said, I'm sure somebody is going to point out that come release 
time having the list of bugs fixed in a given release is handy, spelling errors 

We've had the same debate in Neutron and we relaxed the rules. We don't require 
bugs for trivial changes. In fact, my argument has always been: Come release
time, when we say that the Neutron community fixed so and so bugs, we would be 
lying if we were to include fixing spelling issues in comments. That's not a 

OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)

OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)

OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)

OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)

Reply via email to