Adding siyingchun (author of the commits) to the thread. siyingchun: thank you for your commits to the quantum project. We are at a tricky time in the release cycle, very close to our release candidate (RC) release for Folsom, so at this point we limit what types of commits we accept. You should be able to make these changes once our RC is finalized in a few days.
In more detail, I think there are two key points here: 1) timing of the commits, given our RC1 target date is on monday and we should be focusing all energy on 'high' or 'critica' bugs. 2) structure of the commits (1 per file, vs. one large commit or one per "functional area"). My suggestion would be that siyingchun abandons the existing commits on gerrit, reworks the patches to be one per "functional area" (e.g., per top level directory, with the exception of plugins, which should be per plugin), and waits until master is open for grizzly to push them again (will happen once we pull our RC1 release early this week). Cleaning up imports is good practice, so we definitely want these changes, its just probably better to wait until Grizzly opens up. If there are any changes in these patches that we believe actually changes the behavior of quantum and fixes a 'high' or 'critical' bug, we can separate those changes out and keep them for Folsom. Sound reasonable? Dan On Sat, Sep 8, 2012 at 9:55 AM, Gary Kotton <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks, I agree with you about the way that it is done. > Thanks > Gary > > > On 09/08/2012 07:53 PM, Mark McClain wrote: >> >> It's probably good to clean these things up. In reality the unused >> imports don't really impact much because nearly all of the modules are >> already loaded in sys.modules. >> >> My biggest issue is the way he's gone about it. There's no corresponding >> bug, all the changes are interdependent and I'd rather the flakes cleanup be >> grouped by functional area of the code (i.e. cisco, db dhcp agent, nec, ovs >> etc) vs 1 per file. >> >> mark >> >> >> On Sep 8, 2012, at 10:39 AM, Gary Kotton<[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> Over the last few days a number of these fixes were proposed. I have >>> checked and give my +2. In retrospect I am not really sure what our current >>> mode should be regarding changes to the code. Should we add things like this >>> or only make changes that are really necessary? >>> Thanks >>> Gary >>> >>> -- >>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~quantum-core >>> Post to : [email protected] >>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~quantum-core >>> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > > > > -- > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~quantum-core > Post to : [email protected] > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~quantum-core > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dan Wendlandt Nicira, Inc: www.nicira.com twitter: danwendlandt ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~quantum-core Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~quantum-core More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
