Re: [openstack-dev] Garbage patches for simple typo fixes

[Jay S Bryant]

On 9/23/2017 10:11 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote:

Excerpts from Huang Zhiteng's message of 2017-09-23 10:00:00 +0800:

On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 8:34 AM, Zhipeng Huang  wrote:

Hi Paul,

Unfortunately I know better on this matter and it is not the matter of topic
dispute as many people on this thread who has been disturbed and annoyed by
the padding/trolling.

So yes I'm sticking with stupid because it hurts the OpenStack community as
a whole and hurts the reputation of the dev community from my country which
in large are great people with good hearts and skills.

I'm not giving even an inch of the benefit of doubt to these padding
activities and people behind it.

Hi Zhipeng,

Not sure how much you have been involved in the dev community in
China, but it's now a good time to talk to those companies (in public
or private) and ask them to stop encourage their developers to submit
such changes.

I would prefer to set up a system where we can have those sorts of
conversations in private, to encourage people to contribute
constructively instead of shaming them.

Doug

+2

This, in some cases, may be due to people trying to pad their numbers.  
Perhaps it is just people who do not yet know the best way to help out 
and want to do something.


I agree with Doug's comments about this needing to be done in private 
and with Ildiko's comments on providing mentoring.  This is something I 
will consider as I put together the on-boarding education for the Sydney 
Summit.


From a Cinder standpoint I have been trying to be inclusive and not 
block things unless it just appears to be blatantly pointless. Trying to 
keep on the side of community inclusion.


Jay




On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 8:16 AM, Paul Belanger 
wrote:

On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 10:26:09AM +0800, Zhipeng Huang wrote:

Let's not forget the epic fail earlier on the "contribution.rst fix"
that
almost melt down the community CI system.

For any companies that are doing what Matt mentioned, please be aware
that
the dev community of the country you belong to is getting hurt by your
stupid activity.

Stop patch trolling and doing something meaningful.


Sorry, but I found this comment over the line. Just because you disagree
with
the $topic at hand, doesn't mean you should default to calling it
'stupid'. Give
somebody the benefit of not knowing any better.

This is not a good example of encouraging anybody to contribute to the
project.

-Paul


On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Matt Riedemann 
wrote:


I just wanted to highlight to people that there seems to be a series
of
garbage patches in various projects [1] which are basically doing
things
like fixing a single typo in a code comment, or very narrowly changing
http
to https in links within docs.

Also +1ing ones own changes.

I've been trying to snuff these out in nova, but I see it's basically
a
pattern widespread across several projects.

This is the boilerplate comment I give with my -1, feel free to employ
it
yourself.

"Sorry but this isn't really a useful change. Fixing typos in code
comments when the context is still clear doesn't really help us, and
mostly
seems like looking for padding stats on stackalytics. It's also a
drain on
our CI environment.

If you fixed all of the typos in a single module, or in user-facing
documentation, or error messages, or something in the logs, or
something
that actually doesn't make sense in code comments, then maybe, but
this
isn't one of those things."

I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but this is annoying to the point I
felt
the need to say something publicly.

[1] https://review.openstack.org/#/q/author:%255E.*inspur.*

--

Thanks,

Matt


__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe:
openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev




--
Zhipeng (Howard) Huang

Standard Engineer
IT Standard & Patent/IT Product Line
Huawei Technologies Co,. Ltd
Email: huangzhip...@huawei.com
Office: Huawei Industrial Base, Longgang, Shenzhen

(Previous)
Research Assistant
Mobile Ad-Hoc Network Lab, Calit2
University of California, Irvine
Email: zhipe...@uci.edu
Office: Calit2 Building Room 2402

OpenStack, OPNFV, OpenDaylight, OpenCompute Aficionado
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe:
openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev




--
Zhipeng (Howard) Huang

Standard 

Re: [openstack-dev] Garbage patches for simple typo fixes

[Jeremy Stanley]

On 2017-09-25 12:12:23 -0400 (-0400), Anita Kuno wrote:
> When I click this link I see two items. Perhaps the list can be
> named 'help wanted list' and the point about it being the top 5 or
> having a maximum of 5 items can be made in the text. Having a top
> 5 list with 2 items may confuse the audience folks are trying to
> redirect here.

The original intent was not to publicize it until we had approved
three more items, but five seems like a somewhat arbitrary number to
me and baking it into the idea has resulted in us postponing
advertisement of good existing content.
-- 
Jeremy Stanley

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] Garbage patches for simple typo fixes

[Anita Kuno]

On 2017-09-22 06:11 PM, Mike Perez wrote:

On 21:21 Sep 21, Matt Riedemann wrote:

I just wanted to highlight to people that there seems to be a series of
garbage patches in various projects [1] which are basically doing things
like fixing a single typo in a code comment, or very narrowly changing http
to https in links within docs.

Also +1ing ones own changes.

I've been trying to snuff these out in nova, but I see it's basically a
pattern widespread across several projects.

This is the boilerplate comment I give with my -1, feel free to employ it
yourself.

"Sorry but this isn't really a useful change. Fixing typos in code comments
when the context is still clear doesn't really help us, and mostly seems
like looking for padding stats on stackalytics. It's also a drain on our CI
environment.

If you fixed all of the typos in a single module, or in user-facing
documentation, or error messages, or something in the logs, or something
that actually doesn't make sense in code comments, then maybe, but this
isn't one of those things."

I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but this is annoying to the point I felt
the need to say something publicly.

[1] https://review.openstack.org/#/q/author:%255E.*inspur.*

I agree with the frustration here. It was mentioned earlier in the thread the
top 5 wanted [1] is a good step in the right direction. I think also the
efforts on the contributor portal [2] are going to be a helpful link to send
people when they make mistakes.

I'm sure some of the people who haven't had this communicated to them yet
aren't aware, so we should all be aware as demonstrated in Matt's boilerplate
comment to be nice when communicating.

[1] - http://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/top-5-help-wanted.html


When I click this link I see two items. Perhaps the list can be named 
'help wanted list' and the point about it being the top 5 or having a 
maximum of 5 items can be made in the text. Having a top 5 list with 2 
items may confuse the audience folks are trying to redirect here.


Thanks,
Anita.


[2] - 
http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2017-September/122534.html



__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] Garbage patches for simple typo fixes

[Flavio Percoco]

On 22/09/17 14:47 -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote:

Excerpts from Davanum Srinivas (dims)'s message of 2017-09-22 13:47:06 -0400:

Doug,
Howard (cc'ed) already did a bunch of reaching out especially on
wechat. We should request his help.

Howard,
Can you please help with communications and follow up?

Thanks,
Dims


Thanks, Dims and Howard,

I think the problem has reached a point where it would be a good
idea to formalize our approach to outreach. We should track the
patches or patch series identified as problematic, so reviewers
know not to bother with them. We can also track who is contacting
whom (and how) so we don't have a bunch of people replicating work
or causing confusion for people who are trying to contribute. Having
that information will also help us figure out when we need to
escalate by finding the right managers to be talking to.

Let's put together a small team to manage this instead of letting
it continue to cause frustration for everyone.


Count me in! I'm interested in helping with this effort.

Flavio

--
@flaper87
Flavio Percoco


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] Garbage patches for simple typo fixes

[Flavio Percoco]

On 22/09/17 14:20 +, Jeremy Stanley wrote:

On 2017-09-22 08:30:21 -0400 (-0400), Amrith Kumar wrote:
[...]

When can we take some concrete action to stop these same kinds of
things from coming up again and again?


Technical solutions to social problems rarely do more than increase
complexity for everyone involved.


Just wanted to +1 this as I just mentioned a technical solution in one of my
replies to this thread on which I also said I doubt it would ever work/help.

Flavio

--
@flaper87
Flavio Percoco


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] Garbage patches for simple typo fixes

[Flavio Percoco]

On 23/09/17 12:25 -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote:

Excerpts from Qiming Teng's message of 2017-09-23 23:55:34 +0800:

To some extent, I think Zhipeng is right. There are times we as a
community have to do something beyond mentoring new developers. One of
the reasons behind these patches are from the management chain of those
companies. They need numbers, and they don't care what kind of
contributions were made. They don't bother read these emails.

Another fact is that some companies are doing such things not just in the
OpenStack community. Their developers are producing tons of low-quality
"patches" to play this as a game in other communities as well. If we
don't place a STOP sign, things will never get improved. By not doing
something, we are hurting everyone, including those developers who could
have done more meaningful contributions, though their number of patches
may decrease.

Just my 2 cents.

- Qiming


This may be true. Before we create harsh processes, however, we
need to collect the data to show that other attempts to provide
guidance have not worked.  We have a lot of anecdotal information
right now. We need to collect that and summarize it. If the results
show that there are clear abuses, rather than misunderstandings,
then we can use the data to design effective blocks without hurting
other contributors or creating a reputation that our community is
not welcoming.


I would also like to take this opportunity to encourage everyone to assume good
faith. There are ways to evaluate if there are reasons to believe there are
abusive behaviors from some companies and/or contributors.

It is neither encouraged nor right to publicly shame anyone. This is not the way
we operate and I would like to keep it that way. Let's build a process and/or
tool that can be used to analyze this behaviors so that we can communicate them
through the right channels.

Flavio

--
@flaper87
Flavio Percoco


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] Garbage patches for simple typo fixes

[Chris Dent]

On Fri, 22 Sep 2017, Paul Belanger wrote:


This is not a good example of encouraging anybody to contribute to the project.


Yes. This entire thread was a bit disturbing to read. Yes, I totally
agree that mass patches that do very little are a big cost to
reviewer and CI time but a lot of the responses sound like: "go away
you people who don't understand our special culture and our
important work".

That's not a good look.

Matt's original comment is good in and of itself: I saw a thing,
let's remember to curtail this stuff and do it in a nice way.

But then we generate a long thread about it. It's odd to me that
these threads sometimes draw more people out then discussions about
actually improving the projects.

It's also odd that if OpenStack were small and differently
structured, any self-respecting maintainer would be happy to see
a few typo fixes and generic cleanups. Anything to push the quality
forward is nice. But because of the way we do review and because of
the way we do CI these things are seen as expensive distractions[1].
We're old and entrenched enough now that our tooling enforces our
culture and our culture enforces our tooling.

[1] Note that I'm not denying they are expensive distractions nor
that they need to be managed as such. They are, but a lot of that
is on us.

--
Chris Dent  (⊙＿⊙') https://anticdent.org/
freenode: cdent tw: @anticdent__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] Garbage patches for simple typo fixes

[Jon Schlueter]

On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 1:25 AM, Chris Smart  wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Sep 2017, at 12:21, Matt Riedemann wrote:
>> I just wanted to highlight to people that there seems to be a series of
>> garbage patches in various projects [1] which are basically doing things
>> like fixing a single typo in a code comment, or very narrowly changing
>> http to https in links within docs.
>>
>> Also +1ing ones own changes.
>>
>> I've been trying to snuff these out in nova, but I see it's basically a
>> pattern widespread across several projects.
>>
>
> For what it's worth, I agree. A few days ago I gave a -1 and commented
> on around 50 patches which were adding --- to the top of generally two
> yaml files: one was a template the other was a test.
>
> Another patchset removed a single space from the end of a line of a
> comment.
>
> After my comments they ware all abandoned.
>
> Given the waste of resources, I can't help but wonder if we should be
> re-visiting the way initial check gate is kicked off?

Yes!!! if the cleanup patches that address comment typos, whitespace
linting and other small changes like this are considered contribution padding
then can we filter for them and reduce load and contribution padding that
everyone is so concerned about but still allow some of these general entry
level commits to get through and into the code bases?  If it's detectable to be
comment/whitespace only change CI job for that review can be a much
reduced as it does not impact CI.  If it is documentation only changes,
it could be limited to linting and docs building/verification jobs but
not run the
heavier Functional/integration CI jobs that may waste resources.

> Should someone else have to do an initial +1? (Acknowledging that this
> could be a colleague and other offender.)
>
> Or could the gate be smarter about the types of changes (like checking
> for one liners or changes to comments, etc)?
>
> Or at least there should be a way for anyone to kill a review if it is
> clearly a waste of resources?

This should be taken into consideration with how to accept contributions from
new developers or people interested in the code base.  I will acknowledge that
there may be some incentives to getting patch landed.  If it's easy enough to
negate the Load on CI system of these patches, and reduced incentive for this
type of patch then the number of these types of patches that are submitted just
for contribution padding will decrease and it will make the projects a bit more
open to new interested contributors.  If you make the hurdle to get a small
change that makes the code harder to read/understand a possible new contributor
may just decide to abandon the change and walk away from the project.

> Or detect patch bombing across projects.


-- 
Jon Schlueter
jschl...@redhat.com
IRC: jschlueter/yazug

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] Garbage patches for simple typo fixes

[Gary Kotton]

One thing that we could consider is adding ‘topy’ [i] to our gating. 

[i] https://pypi.python.org/pypi/topy

On 9/23/17, 2:47 AM, "Michael Johnson"  wrote:

A recent extreme example:

https://review.openstack.org/#/c/494981/1/specs/version0.8/active_passive_loadbalancer.rst

I would love to have a boilerplate statement I can use as a template
for things like this.  I feel bad -1/-2 these as I want to encourage
involvement, but they are a drain on the system.

Michael


On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 4:18 PM, Zhipeng Huang  
wrote:
> Hi Doug,
>
> Absolutely glad to help on this matter. We could take this offline first 
via
> email or irc chat and then comes up with a solution for the broader
> community to review
>
> On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 2:47 AM, Doug Hellmann 
> wrote:
>>
>> Excerpts from Davanum Srinivas (dims)'s message of 2017-09-22 13:47:06
>> -0400:
>> > Doug,
>> > Howard (cc'ed) already did a bunch of reaching out especially on
>> > wechat. We should request his help.
>> >
>> > Howard,
>> > Can you please help with communications and follow up?
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Dims
>>
>> Thanks, Dims and Howard,
>>
>> I think the problem has reached a point where it would be a good
>> idea to formalize our approach to outreach. We should track the
>> patches or patch series identified as problematic, so reviewers
>> know not to bother with them. We can also track who is contacting
>> whom (and how) so we don't have a bunch of people replicating work
>> or causing confusion for people who are trying to contribute. Having
>> that information will also help us figure out when we need to
>> escalate by finding the right managers to be talking to.
>>
>> Let's put together a small team to manage this instead of letting
>> it continue to cause frustration for everyone.
>>
>> Doug
>>
>> >
>> > On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 1:43 PM, Doug Hellmann 
>> > wrote:
>> > > Excerpts from Matt Riedemann's message of 2017-09-22 08:26:31 -0500:
>> > >> On 9/22/2017 7:10 AM, Tom Barron wrote:
>> > >> > FWIW I think it is better not to attribute motivation in these
>> > >> > cases.
>> > >> > Perhaps the code submitter is trying to pad stats, but perhaps 
they
>> > >> > are
>> > >> > just a new contributor trying to learn the process with a
>> > >> > "harmless"
>> > >> > patch, or just a compulsive clean-upper who hasn't thought through
>> > >> > the
>> > >> > costs in reviewer time and CI resources.
>> > >>
>> > >> I agree. However, the one that set me off last night was a person
>> > >> from
>> > >> one company who I've repeatedly -1ed the same types of patches in
>> > >> nova
>> > >> for weeks, including on stable branches, and within 10 minutes of
>> > >> each
>> > >> other across several repos, so it's clearly part of some daily
>> > >> routine.
>> > >> That's what prompted me to send something to the mailing list.
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > > As fungi points out, education and communication are likely to be
>> > > our best solution. Maybe one approach is to identify the companies
>> > > and individuals involved and find one of our community members to
>> > > contact them directly via email.  We would want the person doing
>> > > that to be willing to explain all of the reasons the community does
>> > > not want the sort of activity we are rejecting and to provide
>> > > guidance about more useful contributions (Matt's comment is a great
>> > > start on both). I imagine that conversation would take a good deal
>> > > of patience, especially after the second or third time, but a 
personal
>> > > touch frequently makes all the difference in these sorts of cases.
>> > >
>> > > If we have someone willing to step into that sort of role, I would
>> > > be happy to help craft the initial contact messages and advise as
>> > > needed.
>> > >
>> > > Does anyone want to volunteer to work with me and actually send the
>> > > emails?
>> > >
>> > > Doug
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > 
__
>> > > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> > > Unsubscribe:
>> > > openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>> > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>> >
>
>
>
>
> --
> Zhipeng (Howard) Huang
>
> Standard Engineer
> IT Standard & Patent/IT Product Line
> Huawei Technologies Co,. Ltd
> Email: huangzhip...@huawei.com
> Office: Huawei Industrial Base, Longgang, Shenzhen
>
> (Previous)
> 

Re: [openstack-dev] Garbage patches for simple typo fixes

[Doug Hellmann]

Excerpts from Qiming Teng's message of 2017-09-23 23:55:34 +0800:
> To some extent, I think Zhipeng is right. There are times we as a
> community have to do something beyond mentoring new developers. One of
> the reasons behind these patches are from the management chain of those
> companies. They need numbers, and they don't care what kind of
> contributions were made. They don't bother read these emails.
> 
> Another fact is that some companies are doing such things not just in the
> OpenStack community. Their developers are producing tons of low-quality
> "patches" to play this as a game in other communities as well. If we
> don't place a STOP sign, things will never get improved. By not doing
> something, we are hurting everyone, including those developers who could
> have done more meaningful contributions, though their number of patches
> may decrease.
> 
> Just my 2 cents.
> 
> - Qiming 

This may be true. Before we create harsh processes, however, we
need to collect the data to show that other attempts to provide
guidance have not worked.  We have a lot of anecdotal information
right now. We need to collect that and summarize it. If the results
show that there are clear abuses, rather than misunderstandings,
then we can use the data to design effective blocks without hurting
other contributors or creating a reputation that our community is
not welcoming.

Doug

> 
> On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 08:34:18AM +0800, Zhipeng Huang wrote:
> > Hi Paul,
> > 
> > Unfortunately I know better on this matter and it is not the matter of
> > topic dispute as many people on this thread who has been disturbed and
> > annoyed by the padding/trolling.
> > 
> > So yes I'm sticking with stupid because it hurts the OpenStack community as
> > a whole and hurts the reputation of the dev community from my country which
> > in large are great people with good hearts and skills.
> > 
> > I'm not giving even an inch of the benefit of doubt to these padding
> > activities and people behind it.
> > 
> > 
> > On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 8:16 AM, Paul Belanger 
> > wrote:
> > 
> 

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] Garbage patches for simple typo fixes

[Qiming Teng]

On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 04:47:27PM -0700, Michael Johnson wrote:
> A recent extreme example:
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/494981/1/specs/version0.8/active_passive_loadbalancer.rst

Haha, buddy, let me fix your name! ;)

> I would love to have a boilerplate statement I can use as a template
> for things like this.  I feel bad -1/-2 these as I want to encourage
> involvement, but they are a drain on the system.
> 
> Michael
> 
> 
> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 4:18 PM, Zhipeng Huang  wrote:
> > Hi Doug,
> >
> > Absolutely glad to help on this matter. We could take this offline first via
> > email or irc chat and then comes up with a solution for the broader
> > community to review
> >


__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] Garbage patches for simple typo fixes

[Qiming Teng]

To some extent, I think Zhipeng is right. There are times we as a
community have to do something beyond mentoring new developers. One of
the reasons behind these patches are from the management chain of those
companies. They need numbers, and they don't care what kind of
contributions were made. They don't bother read these emails.

Another fact is that some companies are doing such things not just in the
OpenStack community. Their developers are producing tons of low-quality
"patches" to play this as a game in other communities as well. If we
don't place a STOP sign, things will never get improved. By not doing
something, we are hurting everyone, including those developers who could
have done more meaningful contributions, though their number of patches
may decrease.

Just my 2 cents.

- Qiming 

On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 08:34:18AM +0800, Zhipeng Huang wrote:
> Hi Paul,
> 
> Unfortunately I know better on this matter and it is not the matter of
> topic dispute as many people on this thread who has been disturbed and
> annoyed by the padding/trolling.
> 
> So yes I'm sticking with stupid because it hurts the OpenStack community as
> a whole and hurts the reputation of the dev community from my country which
> in large are great people with good hearts and skills.
> 
> I'm not giving even an inch of the benefit of doubt to these padding
> activities and people behind it.
> 
> 
> On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 8:16 AM, Paul Belanger 
> wrote:
> 


__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] Garbage patches for simple typo fixes

[Ildiko Vancsa]

> On 2017. Sep 23., at 9:11, Doug Hellmann  wrote:
> 
> Excerpts from Huang Zhiteng's message of 2017-09-23 10:00:00 +0800:
>> On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 8:34 AM, Zhipeng Huang  wrote:
>>> Hi Paul,
>>> 
>>> Unfortunately I know better on this matter and it is not the matter of topic
>>> dispute as many people on this thread who has been disturbed and annoyed by
>>> the padding/trolling.
>>> 
>>> So yes I'm sticking with stupid because it hurts the OpenStack community as
>>> a whole and hurts the reputation of the dev community from my country which
>>> in large are great people with good hearts and skills.
>>> 
>>> I'm not giving even an inch of the benefit of doubt to these padding
>>> activities and people behind it.
>> Hi Zhipeng,
>> 
>> Not sure how much you have been involved in the dev community in
>> China, but it's now a good time to talk to those companies (in public
>> or private) and ask them to stop encourage their developers to submit
>> such changes.
> 
> I would prefer to set up a system where we can have those sorts of
> conversations in private, to encourage people to contribute
> constructively instead of shaming them.
> 
> Doug

+1, I completely agree.

In my earlier experience with this the main reason for this behavior to happen 
is the lack of experience with the tools and the open source environment and 
ways of working. As we are working with people all around the globe we also 
need to take into consideration the different cultures and how they communicate 
and handle situations like this.

We should put emphasis on remaining an open, friendly and diverse community by 
providing education and help to those people who need it the best way we can. 
And this should include not assuming the worse before we actually know why 
things happened and not publicly shaming people, but to provide mentorship.

I think this is extremely important, and I’m happy to be a ‘go to person’ and 
help people understand how these systems work and what is the best way to join 
an open source community like OpenStack in case you need more people to get 
involved in communicating our principles.

Thanks,
Ildikó
IRC: ildikov


> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 8:16 AM, Paul Belanger 
>>> wrote:
 
 On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 10:26:09AM +0800, Zhipeng Huang wrote:
> Let's not forget the epic fail earlier on the "contribution.rst fix"
> that
> almost melt down the community CI system.
> 
> For any companies that are doing what Matt mentioned, please be aware
> that
> the dev community of the country you belong to is getting hurt by your
> stupid activity.
> 
> Stop patch trolling and doing something meaningful.
> 
 Sorry, but I found this comment over the line. Just because you disagree
 with
 the $topic at hand, doesn't mean you should default to calling it
 'stupid'. Give
 somebody the benefit of not knowing any better.
 
 This is not a good example of encouraging anybody to contribute to the
 project.
 
 -Paul
 
> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Matt Riedemann 
> wrote:
> 
>> I just wanted to highlight to people that there seems to be a series
>> of
>> garbage patches in various projects [1] which are basically doing
>> things
>> like fixing a single typo in a code comment, or very narrowly changing
>> http
>> to https in links within docs.
>> 
>> Also +1ing ones own changes.
>> 
>> I've been trying to snuff these out in nova, but I see it's basically
>> a
>> pattern widespread across several projects.
>> 
>> This is the boilerplate comment I give with my -1, feel free to employ
>> it
>> yourself.
>> 
>> "Sorry but this isn't really a useful change. Fixing typos in code
>> comments when the context is still clear doesn't really help us, and
>> mostly
>> seems like looking for padding stats on stackalytics. It's also a
>> drain on
>> our CI environment.
>> 
>> If you fixed all of the typos in a single module, or in user-facing
>> documentation, or error messages, or something in the logs, or
>> something
>> that actually doesn't make sense in code comments, then maybe, but
>> this
>> isn't one of those things."
>> 
>> I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but this is annoying to the point I
>> felt
>> the need to say something publicly.
>> 
>> [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/q/author:%255E.*inspur.*
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Matt
>> 
>> 
>> __
>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Unsubscribe:
>> openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>> 

Re: [openstack-dev] Garbage patches for simple typo fixes

[Doug Hellmann]

Excerpts from Huang Zhiteng's message of 2017-09-23 10:00:00 +0800:
> On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 8:34 AM, Zhipeng Huang  wrote:
> > Hi Paul,
> >
> > Unfortunately I know better on this matter and it is not the matter of topic
> > dispute as many people on this thread who has been disturbed and annoyed by
> > the padding/trolling.
> >
> > So yes I'm sticking with stupid because it hurts the OpenStack community as
> > a whole and hurts the reputation of the dev community from my country which
> > in large are great people with good hearts and skills.
> >
> > I'm not giving even an inch of the benefit of doubt to these padding
> > activities and people behind it.
> Hi Zhipeng,
> 
> Not sure how much you have been involved in the dev community in
> China, but it's now a good time to talk to those companies (in public
> or private) and ask them to stop encourage their developers to submit
> such changes.

I would prefer to set up a system where we can have those sorts of
conversations in private, to encourage people to contribute
constructively instead of shaming them.

Doug

> 
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 8:16 AM, Paul Belanger 
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 10:26:09AM +0800, Zhipeng Huang wrote:
> >> > Let's not forget the epic fail earlier on the "contribution.rst fix"
> >> > that
> >> > almost melt down the community CI system.
> >> >
> >> > For any companies that are doing what Matt mentioned, please be aware
> >> > that
> >> > the dev community of the country you belong to is getting hurt by your
> >> > stupid activity.
> >> >
> >> > Stop patch trolling and doing something meaningful.
> >> >
> >> Sorry, but I found this comment over the line. Just because you disagree
> >> with
> >> the $topic at hand, doesn't mean you should default to calling it
> >> 'stupid'. Give
> >> somebody the benefit of not knowing any better.
> >>
> >> This is not a good example of encouraging anybody to contribute to the
> >> project.
> >>
> >> -Paul
> >>
> >> > On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Matt Riedemann 
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > I just wanted to highlight to people that there seems to be a series
> >> > > of
> >> > > garbage patches in various projects [1] which are basically doing
> >> > > things
> >> > > like fixing a single typo in a code comment, or very narrowly changing
> >> > > http
> >> > > to https in links within docs.
> >> > >
> >> > > Also +1ing ones own changes.
> >> > >
> >> > > I've been trying to snuff these out in nova, but I see it's basically
> >> > > a
> >> > > pattern widespread across several projects.
> >> > >
> >> > > This is the boilerplate comment I give with my -1, feel free to employ
> >> > > it
> >> > > yourself.
> >> > >
> >> > > "Sorry but this isn't really a useful change. Fixing typos in code
> >> > > comments when the context is still clear doesn't really help us, and
> >> > > mostly
> >> > > seems like looking for padding stats on stackalytics. It's also a
> >> > > drain on
> >> > > our CI environment.
> >> > >
> >> > > If you fixed all of the typos in a single module, or in user-facing
> >> > > documentation, or error messages, or something in the logs, or
> >> > > something
> >> > > that actually doesn't make sense in code comments, then maybe, but
> >> > > this
> >> > > isn't one of those things."
> >> > >
> >> > > I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but this is annoying to the point I
> >> > > felt
> >> > > the need to say something publicly.
> >> > >
> >> > > [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/q/author:%255E.*inspur.*
> >> > >
> >> > > --
> >> > >
> >> > > Thanks,
> >> > >
> >> > > Matt
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > __
> >> > > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> >> > > Unsubscribe:
> >> > > openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> >> > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Zhipeng (Howard) Huang
> >> >
> >> > Standard Engineer
> >> > IT Standard & Patent/IT Product Line
> >> > Huawei Technologies Co,. Ltd
> >> > Email: huangzhip...@huawei.com
> >> > Office: Huawei Industrial Base, Longgang, Shenzhen
> >> >
> >> > (Previous)
> >> > Research Assistant
> >> > Mobile Ad-Hoc Network Lab, Calit2
> >> > University of California, Irvine
> >> > Email: zhipe...@uci.edu
> >> > Office: Calit2 Building Room 2402
> >> >
> >> > OpenStack, OPNFV, OpenDaylight, OpenCompute Aficionado
> >>
> >> >
> >> > __
> >> > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> >> > Unsubscribe:
> >> > openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> >> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> >>
> >>
> >> __
> >> OpenStack Development 

Re: [openstack-dev] Garbage patches for simple typo fixes

[Tom Barron]

On 09/22/2017 08:34 PM, Zhipeng Huang wrote:
> Hi Paul,
> 
> Unfortunately I know better on this matter and it is not the matter of
> topic dispute as many people on this thread who has been disturbed and
> annoyed by the padding/trolling.
> 
> So yes I'm sticking with stupid because it hurts the OpenStack community
> as a whole and hurts the reputation of the dev community from my country
> which in large are great people with good hearts and skills.
> 
> I'm not giving even an inch of the benefit of doubt to these padding
> activities and people behind it.
> 

I don't want to be naive here: humans tend to stereotype and generalize
in just the way you are talking about.  Some say it's the inherited
"fight or flight" part of our brains that uses heuristics based on
survival from when we lived in packs and tribes that causes us to
over-ride the systematic, analytic reasoning parts which when we use
them shows the statistical invalidity of "reasoning" from a few bad
actors to larger populations.

But I do hope that we in the OpenStack community are building not just
software but a way of doing things so that generalizations about nations
and peoples do not get made because of unhelpful behavior on the part of
a few, however active or prominent they may be.  A big part of why I
like working in this community is that we are learning together not just
how to build better software but also how to work in common purpose
across timezones and cultures based on a willingness to assume good will
as a starting point, to share information, and treat one another fairly.

So I'm still for (1) some published boilerplate that reviewers can point
to without blaming anyone or speculatively attributing motive, and (2)
outreach of the sort that Doug Hellman advocated in cases where #1
doesn't seem sufficient.  Part of that outreach might involve getting an
understanding of what the parties involved *think* is being gained by
unhelpful patches, making sure that OpenStack does not reward or
re-enforce this behavior (like blindly looking at Stackalytics, if that
does indeed happen), and effectively communicating how the unhelpful
behavior does not pay off in our community.

> 
> On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 8:16 AM, Paul Belanger  > wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 10:26:09AM +0800, Zhipeng Huang wrote:
> > Let's not forget the epic fail earlier on the "contribution.rst fix" 
> that
> > almost melt down the community CI system.
> >
> > For any companies that are doing what Matt mentioned, please be aware 
> that
> > the dev community of the country you belong to is getting hurt by your
> > stupid activity.
> >
> > Stop patch trolling and doing something meaningful.
> >
> Sorry, but I found this comment over the line. Just because you
> disagree with
> the $topic at hand, doesn't mean you should default to calling it
> 'stupid'. Give
> somebody the benefit of not knowing any better.
> 
> This is not a good example of encouraging anybody to contribute to
> the project.
> 
> -Paul
> 
> > On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Matt Riedemann
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I just wanted to highlight to people that there seems to be a
> series of
> > > garbage patches in various projects [1] which are basically
> doing things
> > > like fixing a single typo in a code comment, or very narrowly
> changing http
> > > to https in links within docs.
> > >
> > > Also +1ing ones own changes.
> > >
> > > I've been trying to snuff these out in nova, but I see it's
> basically a
> > > pattern widespread across several projects.
> > >
> > > This is the boilerplate comment I give with my -1, feel free to
> employ it
> > > yourself.
> > >
> > > "Sorry but this isn't really a useful change. Fixing typos in code
> > > comments when the context is still clear doesn't really help us,
> and mostly
> > > seems like looking for padding stats on stackalytics. It's also
> a drain on
> > > our CI environment.
> > >
> > > If you fixed all of the typos in a single module, or in user-facing
> > > documentation, or error messages, or something in the logs, or
> something
> > > that actually doesn't make sense in code comments, then maybe,
> but this
> > > isn't one of those things."
> > >
> > > I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but this is annoying to the
> point I felt
> > > the need to say something publicly.
> > >
> > > [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/q/author:%255E.*inspur.*
> 
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Matt
> > >
> > >
> __
> > > OpenStack 

Re: [openstack-dev] Garbage patches for simple typo fixes

[Huang Zhiteng]

On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 8:34 AM, Zhipeng Huang  wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> Unfortunately I know better on this matter and it is not the matter of topic
> dispute as many people on this thread who has been disturbed and annoyed by
> the padding/trolling.
>
> So yes I'm sticking with stupid because it hurts the OpenStack community as
> a whole and hurts the reputation of the dev community from my country which
> in large are great people with good hearts and skills.
>
> I'm not giving even an inch of the benefit of doubt to these padding
> activities and people behind it.
Hi Zhipeng,

Not sure how much you have been involved in the dev community in
China, but it's now a good time to talk to those companies (in public
or private) and ask them to stop encourage their developers to submit
such changes.

>
>
> On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 8:16 AM, Paul Belanger 
> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 10:26:09AM +0800, Zhipeng Huang wrote:
>> > Let's not forget the epic fail earlier on the "contribution.rst fix"
>> > that
>> > almost melt down the community CI system.
>> >
>> > For any companies that are doing what Matt mentioned, please be aware
>> > that
>> > the dev community of the country you belong to is getting hurt by your
>> > stupid activity.
>> >
>> > Stop patch trolling and doing something meaningful.
>> >
>> Sorry, but I found this comment over the line. Just because you disagree
>> with
>> the $topic at hand, doesn't mean you should default to calling it
>> 'stupid'. Give
>> somebody the benefit of not knowing any better.
>>
>> This is not a good example of encouraging anybody to contribute to the
>> project.
>>
>> -Paul
>>
>> > On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Matt Riedemann 
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > I just wanted to highlight to people that there seems to be a series
>> > > of
>> > > garbage patches in various projects [1] which are basically doing
>> > > things
>> > > like fixing a single typo in a code comment, or very narrowly changing
>> > > http
>> > > to https in links within docs.
>> > >
>> > > Also +1ing ones own changes.
>> > >
>> > > I've been trying to snuff these out in nova, but I see it's basically
>> > > a
>> > > pattern widespread across several projects.
>> > >
>> > > This is the boilerplate comment I give with my -1, feel free to employ
>> > > it
>> > > yourself.
>> > >
>> > > "Sorry but this isn't really a useful change. Fixing typos in code
>> > > comments when the context is still clear doesn't really help us, and
>> > > mostly
>> > > seems like looking for padding stats on stackalytics. It's also a
>> > > drain on
>> > > our CI environment.
>> > >
>> > > If you fixed all of the typos in a single module, or in user-facing
>> > > documentation, or error messages, or something in the logs, or
>> > > something
>> > > that actually doesn't make sense in code comments, then maybe, but
>> > > this
>> > > isn't one of those things."
>> > >
>> > > I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but this is annoying to the point I
>> > > felt
>> > > the need to say something publicly.
>> > >
>> > > [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/q/author:%255E.*inspur.*
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > >
>> > > Thanks,
>> > >
>> > > Matt
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > __
>> > > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> > > Unsubscribe:
>> > > openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>> > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Zhipeng (Howard) Huang
>> >
>> > Standard Engineer
>> > IT Standard & Patent/IT Product Line
>> > Huawei Technologies Co,. Ltd
>> > Email: huangzhip...@huawei.com
>> > Office: Huawei Industrial Base, Longgang, Shenzhen
>> >
>> > (Previous)
>> > Research Assistant
>> > Mobile Ad-Hoc Network Lab, Calit2
>> > University of California, Irvine
>> > Email: zhipe...@uci.edu
>> > Office: Calit2 Building Room 2402
>> >
>> > OpenStack, OPNFV, OpenDaylight, OpenCompute Aficionado
>>
>> >
>> > __
>> > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> > Unsubscribe:
>> > openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>>
>> __
>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
>
>
> --
> Zhipeng (Howard) Huang
>
> Standard Engineer
> IT Standard & Patent/IT Product Line
> Huawei Technologies Co,. Ltd
> Email: huangzhip...@huawei.com
> Office: Huawei Industrial Base, Longgang, Shenzhen
>
> (Previous)
> Research Assistant
> Mobile Ad-Hoc Network Lab, Calit2
> University of California, Irvine

Re: [openstack-dev] Garbage patches for simple typo fixes

[Zhipeng Huang]

Hi Paul,

Unfortunately I know better on this matter and it is not the matter of
topic dispute as many people on this thread who has been disturbed and
annoyed by the padding/trolling.

So yes I'm sticking with stupid because it hurts the OpenStack community as
a whole and hurts the reputation of the dev community from my country which
in large are great people with good hearts and skills.

I'm not giving even an inch of the benefit of doubt to these padding
activities and people behind it.


On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 8:16 AM, Paul Belanger 
wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 10:26:09AM +0800, Zhipeng Huang wrote:
> > Let's not forget the epic fail earlier on the "contribution.rst fix" that
> > almost melt down the community CI system.
> >
> > For any companies that are doing what Matt mentioned, please be aware
> that
> > the dev community of the country you belong to is getting hurt by your
> > stupid activity.
> >
> > Stop patch trolling and doing something meaningful.
> >
> Sorry, but I found this comment over the line. Just because you disagree
> with
> the $topic at hand, doesn't mean you should default to calling it
> 'stupid'. Give
> somebody the benefit of not knowing any better.
>
> This is not a good example of encouraging anybody to contribute to the
> project.
>
> -Paul
>
> > On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Matt Riedemann 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I just wanted to highlight to people that there seems to be a series of
> > > garbage patches in various projects [1] which are basically doing
> things
> > > like fixing a single typo in a code comment, or very narrowly changing
> http
> > > to https in links within docs.
> > >
> > > Also +1ing ones own changes.
> > >
> > > I've been trying to snuff these out in nova, but I see it's basically a
> > > pattern widespread across several projects.
> > >
> > > This is the boilerplate comment I give with my -1, feel free to employ
> it
> > > yourself.
> > >
> > > "Sorry but this isn't really a useful change. Fixing typos in code
> > > comments when the context is still clear doesn't really help us, and
> mostly
> > > seems like looking for padding stats on stackalytics. It's also a
> drain on
> > > our CI environment.
> > >
> > > If you fixed all of the typos in a single module, or in user-facing
> > > documentation, or error messages, or something in the logs, or
> something
> > > that actually doesn't make sense in code comments, then maybe, but this
> > > isn't one of those things."
> > >
> > > I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but this is annoying to the point I
> felt
> > > the need to say something publicly.
> > >
> > > [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/q/author:%255E.*inspur.*
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Matt
> > >
> > > 
> __
> > > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> > > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:
> unsubscribe
> > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Zhipeng (Howard) Huang
> >
> > Standard Engineer
> > IT Standard & Patent/IT Product Line
> > Huawei Technologies Co,. Ltd
> > Email: huangzhip...@huawei.com
> > Office: Huawei Industrial Base, Longgang, Shenzhen
> >
> > (Previous)
> > Research Assistant
> > Mobile Ad-Hoc Network Lab, Calit2
> > University of California, Irvine
> > Email: zhipe...@uci.edu
> > Office: Calit2 Building Room 2402
> >
> > OpenStack, OPNFV, OpenDaylight, OpenCompute Aficionado
>
> > 
> __
> > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:
> unsubscribe
> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
> __
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>



-- 
Zhipeng (Howard) Huang

Standard Engineer
IT Standard & Patent/IT Product Line
Huawei Technologies Co,. Ltd
Email: huangzhip...@huawei.com
Office: Huawei Industrial Base, Longgang, Shenzhen

(Previous)
Research Assistant
Mobile Ad-Hoc Network Lab, Calit2
University of California, Irvine
Email: zhipe...@uci.edu
Office: Calit2 Building Room 2402

OpenStack, OPNFV, OpenDaylight, OpenCompute Aficionado
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] Garbage patches for simple typo fixes

[Paul Belanger]

On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 10:26:09AM +0800, Zhipeng Huang wrote:
> Let's not forget the epic fail earlier on the "contribution.rst fix" that
> almost melt down the community CI system.
> 
> For any companies that are doing what Matt mentioned, please be aware that
> the dev community of the country you belong to is getting hurt by your
> stupid activity.
> 
> Stop patch trolling and doing something meaningful.
> 
Sorry, but I found this comment over the line. Just because you disagree with
the $topic at hand, doesn't mean you should default to calling it 'stupid'. Give
somebody the benefit of not knowing any better.

This is not a good example of encouraging anybody to contribute to the project.

-Paul

> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Matt Riedemann 
> wrote:
> 
> > I just wanted to highlight to people that there seems to be a series of
> > garbage patches in various projects [1] which are basically doing things
> > like fixing a single typo in a code comment, or very narrowly changing http
> > to https in links within docs.
> >
> > Also +1ing ones own changes.
> >
> > I've been trying to snuff these out in nova, but I see it's basically a
> > pattern widespread across several projects.
> >
> > This is the boilerplate comment I give with my -1, feel free to employ it
> > yourself.
> >
> > "Sorry but this isn't really a useful change. Fixing typos in code
> > comments when the context is still clear doesn't really help us, and mostly
> > seems like looking for padding stats on stackalytics. It's also a drain on
> > our CI environment.
> >
> > If you fixed all of the typos in a single module, or in user-facing
> > documentation, or error messages, or something in the logs, or something
> > that actually doesn't make sense in code comments, then maybe, but this
> > isn't one of those things."
> >
> > I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but this is annoying to the point I felt
> > the need to say something publicly.
> >
> > [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/q/author:%255E.*inspur.*
> >
> > --
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Matt
> >
> > __
> > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Zhipeng (Howard) Huang
> 
> Standard Engineer
> IT Standard & Patent/IT Product Line
> Huawei Technologies Co,. Ltd
> Email: huangzhip...@huawei.com
> Office: Huawei Industrial Base, Longgang, Shenzhen
> 
> (Previous)
> Research Assistant
> Mobile Ad-Hoc Network Lab, Calit2
> University of California, Irvine
> Email: zhipe...@uci.edu
> Office: Calit2 Building Room 2402
> 
> OpenStack, OPNFV, OpenDaylight, OpenCompute Aficionado

> __
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] Garbage patches for simple typo fixes

[Michael Johnson]

A recent extreme example:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/494981/1/specs/version0.8/active_passive_loadbalancer.rst

I would love to have a boilerplate statement I can use as a template
for things like this.  I feel bad -1/-2 these as I want to encourage
involvement, but they are a drain on the system.

Michael


On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 4:18 PM, Zhipeng Huang  wrote:
> Hi Doug,
>
> Absolutely glad to help on this matter. We could take this offline first via
> email or irc chat and then comes up with a solution for the broader
> community to review
>
> On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 2:47 AM, Doug Hellmann 
> wrote:
>>
>> Excerpts from Davanum Srinivas (dims)'s message of 2017-09-22 13:47:06
>> -0400:
>> > Doug,
>> > Howard (cc'ed) already did a bunch of reaching out especially on
>> > wechat. We should request his help.
>> >
>> > Howard,
>> > Can you please help with communications and follow up?
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Dims
>>
>> Thanks, Dims and Howard,
>>
>> I think the problem has reached a point where it would be a good
>> idea to formalize our approach to outreach. We should track the
>> patches or patch series identified as problematic, so reviewers
>> know not to bother with them. We can also track who is contacting
>> whom (and how) so we don't have a bunch of people replicating work
>> or causing confusion for people who are trying to contribute. Having
>> that information will also help us figure out when we need to
>> escalate by finding the right managers to be talking to.
>>
>> Let's put together a small team to manage this instead of letting
>> it continue to cause frustration for everyone.
>>
>> Doug
>>
>> >
>> > On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 1:43 PM, Doug Hellmann 
>> > wrote:
>> > > Excerpts from Matt Riedemann's message of 2017-09-22 08:26:31 -0500:
>> > >> On 9/22/2017 7:10 AM, Tom Barron wrote:
>> > >> > FWIW I think it is better not to attribute motivation in these
>> > >> > cases.
>> > >> > Perhaps the code submitter is trying to pad stats, but perhaps they
>> > >> > are
>> > >> > just a new contributor trying to learn the process with a
>> > >> > "harmless"
>> > >> > patch, or just a compulsive clean-upper who hasn't thought through
>> > >> > the
>> > >> > costs in reviewer time and CI resources.
>> > >>
>> > >> I agree. However, the one that set me off last night was a person
>> > >> from
>> > >> one company who I've repeatedly -1ed the same types of patches in
>> > >> nova
>> > >> for weeks, including on stable branches, and within 10 minutes of
>> > >> each
>> > >> other across several repos, so it's clearly part of some daily
>> > >> routine.
>> > >> That's what prompted me to send something to the mailing list.
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > > As fungi points out, education and communication are likely to be
>> > > our best solution. Maybe one approach is to identify the companies
>> > > and individuals involved and find one of our community members to
>> > > contact them directly via email.  We would want the person doing
>> > > that to be willing to explain all of the reasons the community does
>> > > not want the sort of activity we are rejecting and to provide
>> > > guidance about more useful contributions (Matt's comment is a great
>> > > start on both). I imagine that conversation would take a good deal
>> > > of patience, especially after the second or third time, but a personal
>> > > touch frequently makes all the difference in these sorts of cases.
>> > >
>> > > If we have someone willing to step into that sort of role, I would
>> > > be happy to help craft the initial contact messages and advise as
>> > > needed.
>> > >
>> > > Does anyone want to volunteer to work with me and actually send the
>> > > emails?
>> > >
>> > > Doug
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > __
>> > > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> > > Unsubscribe:
>> > > openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>> > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>> >
>
>
>
>
> --
> Zhipeng (Howard) Huang
>
> Standard Engineer
> IT Standard & Patent/IT Product Line
> Huawei Technologies Co,. Ltd
> Email: huangzhip...@huawei.com
> Office: Huawei Industrial Base, Longgang, Shenzhen
>
> (Previous)
> Research Assistant
> Mobile Ad-Hoc Network Lab, Calit2
> University of California, Irvine
> Email: zhipe...@uci.edu
> Office: Calit2 Building Room 2402
>
> OpenStack, OPNFV, OpenDaylight, OpenCompute Aficionado
>
> __
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: 

Re: [openstack-dev] Garbage patches for simple typo fixes

[Zhipeng Huang]

Hi Doug,

Absolutely glad to help on this matter. We could take this offline first
via email or irc chat and then comes up with a solution for the broader
community to review

On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 2:47 AM, Doug Hellmann 
wrote:

> Excerpts from Davanum Srinivas (dims)'s message of 2017-09-22 13:47:06
> -0400:
> > Doug,
> > Howard (cc'ed) already did a bunch of reaching out especially on
> > wechat. We should request his help.
> >
> > Howard,
> > Can you please help with communications and follow up?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Dims
>
> Thanks, Dims and Howard,
>
> I think the problem has reached a point where it would be a good
> idea to formalize our approach to outreach. We should track the
> patches or patch series identified as problematic, so reviewers
> know not to bother with them. We can also track who is contacting
> whom (and how) so we don't have a bunch of people replicating work
> or causing confusion for people who are trying to contribute. Having
> that information will also help us figure out when we need to
> escalate by finding the right managers to be talking to.
>
> Let's put together a small team to manage this instead of letting
> it continue to cause frustration for everyone.
>
> Doug
>
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 1:43 PM, Doug Hellmann 
> wrote:
> > > Excerpts from Matt Riedemann's message of 2017-09-22 08:26:31 -0500:
> > >> On 9/22/2017 7:10 AM, Tom Barron wrote:
> > >> > FWIW I think it is better not to attribute motivation in these
> cases.
> > >> > Perhaps the code submitter is trying to pad stats, but perhaps they
> are
> > >> > just a new contributor trying to learn the process with a "harmless"
> > >> > patch, or just a compulsive clean-upper who hasn't thought through
> the
> > >> > costs in reviewer time and CI resources.
> > >>
> > >> I agree. However, the one that set me off last night was a person from
> > >> one company who I've repeatedly -1ed the same types of patches in nova
> > >> for weeks, including on stable branches, and within 10 minutes of each
> > >> other across several repos, so it's clearly part of some daily
> routine.
> > >> That's what prompted me to send something to the mailing list.
> > >>
> > >
> > > As fungi points out, education and communication are likely to be
> > > our best solution. Maybe one approach is to identify the companies
> > > and individuals involved and find one of our community members to
> > > contact them directly via email.  We would want the person doing
> > > that to be willing to explain all of the reasons the community does
> > > not want the sort of activity we are rejecting and to provide
> > > guidance about more useful contributions (Matt's comment is a great
> > > start on both). I imagine that conversation would take a good deal
> > > of patience, especially after the second or third time, but a personal
> > > touch frequently makes all the difference in these sorts of cases.
> > >
> > > If we have someone willing to step into that sort of role, I would
> > > be happy to help craft the initial contact messages and advise as
> > > needed.
> > >
> > > Does anyone want to volunteer to work with me and actually send the
> > > emails?
> > >
> > > Doug
> > >
> > > 
> __
> > > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> > > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:
> unsubscribe
> > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> >
>



-- 
Zhipeng (Howard) Huang

Standard Engineer
IT Standard & Patent/IT Product Line
Huawei Technologies Co,. Ltd
Email: huangzhip...@huawei.com
Office: Huawei Industrial Base, Longgang, Shenzhen

(Previous)
Research Assistant
Mobile Ad-Hoc Network Lab, Calit2
University of California, Irvine
Email: zhipe...@uci.edu
Office: Calit2 Building Room 2402

OpenStack, OPNFV, OpenDaylight, OpenCompute Aficionado
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] Garbage patches for simple typo fixes

[Mike Perez]

On 08:50 Sep 22, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> Excerpts from Tom Barron's message of 2017-09-22 08:10:35 -0400:
> > 
> > On 09/21/2017 10:21 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
> > > I just wanted to highlight to people that there seems to be a series of
> > > garbage patches in various projects [1] which are basically doing things
> > > like fixing a single typo in a code comment, or very narrowly changing
> > > http to https in links within docs.
> > > 
> > > Also +1ing ones own changes.
> > > 
> > > I've been trying to snuff these out in nova, but I see it's basically a
> > > pattern widespread across several projects.
> > > 
> > > This is the boilerplate comment I give with my -1, feel free to employ
> > > it yourself.
> > > 
> > > "Sorry but this isn't really a useful change. Fixing typos in code
> > > comments when the context is still clear doesn't really help us, and
> > > mostly seems like looking for padding stats on stackalytics. It's also a
> > > drain on our CI environment.
> > > 
> > > If you fixed all of the typos in a single module, or in user-facing
> > > documentation, or error messages, or something in the logs, or something
> > > that actually doesn't make sense in code comments, then maybe, but this
> > > isn't one of those things."
> > > 
> > > I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but this is annoying to the point I
> > > felt the need to say something publicly.
> > > 
> > > [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/q/author:%255E.*inspur.*
> > > 
> > 
> > The boilerplate is helpful but have we considered putting something
> > along these lines in official documentation so that reviewers can just
> > point to it? It should then be clear to all that negative reviews on
> > these grounds are not simply a function of the individual reviewer's
> > judgment or personality.
> 
> That's a good idea. How about adding a "Contribution Guidelines" section
> to https://docs.openstack.org/project-team-guide/open-development.html
> with this and other tips?

We can make sure this is linked somehow with the contributor portal when
applicable.

http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2017-September/122534.html

-- 
Mike Perez


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] Garbage patches for simple typo fixes

[Mike Perez]

On 15:04 Sep 22, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> On 2017-09-22 14:50:55 + (+), Rajath Agasthya (rajagast) wrote:
> > On 9/21/17, 10:19 PM, "Jeremy Freudberg"  wrote:
> > > 3) Delay spin-up of resource-intensive/long-running CI jobs
> > > until after some initial review has been added or time has
> > > passed. Authorized contributors, not necessarily synonymous with
> > > cores, can override the delay if there's a critical patch which
> > > needs to get through the queue quickly.
> >
> > +1. This is done in Go code review process, where CI is run by an
> > explicit Run-TryBot+1 review only after a core developer
> > ascertains that the patch looks okay and most code review comments
> > are addressed. This means no CI resource usage for every change
> > and every single patchset. We could adopt a similar approach so
> > that CI resources aren’t wasted for useless patches. This doesn’t
> > take a whole lot of work for the reviewers than the current review
> > process.
> > 
> > https://github.com/golang/go/wiki/GerritAccess#trybot-access-may-start-trybots
> 
> I'm wary of potential overengineering like this, particularly
> without at least some analysis showing the percentage of CI
> resources we'll save by asking our already overworked (on most teams
> anyway) core reviewers to also take on the task of authorizing basic
> CI jobs. The more likely outcome I foresee is that, much like
> contributions going unreviewed sometimes for weeks or months, the
> change authors won't even know whether their changes are suitable
> for review for some similar period of delay.
> 
> The CI system is there to serve reviewers and contributors, not the
> other way around. The CI resource shortages we see from time to time
> should not be used as an excuse to go on witch hunts so we can find
> ways to save what probably accounts for <1% of our overall
> utilization. That's classic premature optimization. What's important
> in this situation is the time wasted by reviewers having to respond
> to or find ways to ignore these patches, so let's focus on that
> rather than getting bogged down with attractive non-problems for
> which we can more easily engineer technical solutions.

+1

Can you imagine the number of jobs that would be delayed. At least today with
things not be delayed we can see if a patch ever worked when it was rebased in
the CI comments.

-- 
Mike Perez


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] Garbage patches for simple typo fixes

[Mike Perez]

On 21:21 Sep 21, Matt Riedemann wrote:
> I just wanted to highlight to people that there seems to be a series of
> garbage patches in various projects [1] which are basically doing things
> like fixing a single typo in a code comment, or very narrowly changing http
> to https in links within docs.
> 
> Also +1ing ones own changes.
> 
> I've been trying to snuff these out in nova, but I see it's basically a
> pattern widespread across several projects.
> 
> This is the boilerplate comment I give with my -1, feel free to employ it
> yourself.
> 
> "Sorry but this isn't really a useful change. Fixing typos in code comments
> when the context is still clear doesn't really help us, and mostly seems
> like looking for padding stats on stackalytics. It's also a drain on our CI
> environment.
> 
> If you fixed all of the typos in a single module, or in user-facing
> documentation, or error messages, or something in the logs, or something
> that actually doesn't make sense in code comments, then maybe, but this
> isn't one of those things."
> 
> I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but this is annoying to the point I felt
> the need to say something publicly.
> 
> [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/q/author:%255E.*inspur.*

I agree with the frustration here. It was mentioned earlier in the thread the
top 5 wanted [1] is a good step in the right direction. I think also the
efforts on the contributor portal [2] are going to be a helpful link to send
people when they make mistakes.

I'm sure some of the people who haven't had this communicated to them yet
aren't aware, so we should all be aware as demonstrated in Matt's boilerplate
comment to be nice when communicating.

[1] - http://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/top-5-help-wanted.html 
[2] - 
http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2017-September/122534.html

-- 
Mike Perez


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] Garbage patches for simple typo fixes

[Doug Hellmann]

Excerpts from Ildiko Vancsa's message of 2017-09-22 13:20:31 -0600:
> Hi All,
> 
> Another forum we try to put emphasis on this is the Upstream Institute 
> trainings we have before the Summits and on some smaller events as well.
> 
> We usually try to spend some quality time on review best practices and on 
> metrics as well. The aim is to make people realize that if they need practice 
> with the process the project repositories are not the place for that and also 
> to let them know that we see the patterns and they get negative recognition 
> for it.
> 
> The only issue with that is I’m not sure we always have the right audience, 
> like people might not contribute after all neither they give the knowledge 
> and heads up to their colleagues in the company who do. :( Regardless of this 
> we will continue to highlight these and if you have suggestion on what else 
> we should mention or how to better articulate it we are open to ideas.
> 
> We were also thinking about collecting ideas and suggestions for people who 
> would take on mentoring in projects, like what and how to do. Do you see this 
> activity being part of that too? Could we say something like if we have a few 
> people per project who are willing to coach and mentor people we can have a 
> small set of guidelines for them on how to start the communication for these 
> cases? Or would this rather be handled centrally?
> 
> As for those who are practicing we have sandbox repositories/projects in all 
> the tools which might worth highlighting.
> 
> The new Contributor Portal can also be a good place to highlight 
> corresponding best practices and point out behaviors we disagree with.

It makes sense to repeat this information in a few places, with
references to an extensive explanation in the project team guide.
I don't think that would have helped in the current cases, but it
won't hurt in the future.

Doug

> 
> Thanks,
> Ildikó
> IRC: ildikov
> 
> > On 2017. Sep 22., at 12:47, Doug Hellmann  wrote:
> > 
> > Excerpts from Davanum Srinivas (dims)'s message of 2017-09-22 13:47:06 
> > -0400:
> >> Doug,
> >> Howard (cc'ed) already did a bunch of reaching out especially on
> >> wechat. We should request his help.
> >> 
> >> Howard,
> >> Can you please help with communications and follow up?
> >> 
> >> Thanks,
> >> Dims
> > 
> > Thanks, Dims and Howard,
> > 
> > I think the problem has reached a point where it would be a good
> > idea to formalize our approach to outreach. We should track the
> > patches or patch series identified as problematic, so reviewers
> > know not to bother with them. We can also track who is contacting
> > whom (and how) so we don't have a bunch of people replicating work
> > or causing confusion for people who are trying to contribute. Having
> > that information will also help us figure out when we need to
> > escalate by finding the right managers to be talking to.
> > 
> > Let's put together a small team to manage this instead of letting
> > it continue to cause frustration for everyone.
> > 
> > Doug
> > 
> >> 
> >> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 1:43 PM, Doug Hellmann  
> >> wrote:
> >>> Excerpts from Matt Riedemann's message of 2017-09-22 08:26:31 -0500:
>  On 9/22/2017 7:10 AM, Tom Barron wrote:
> > FWIW I think it is better not to attribute motivation in these cases.
> > Perhaps the code submitter is trying to pad stats, but perhaps they are
> > just a new contributor trying to learn the process with a "harmless"
> > patch, or just a compulsive clean-upper who hasn't thought through the
> > costs in reviewer time and CI resources.
>  
>  I agree. However, the one that set me off last night was a person from
>  one company who I've repeatedly -1ed the same types of patches in nova
>  for weeks, including on stable branches, and within 10 minutes of each
>  other across several repos, so it's clearly part of some daily routine.
>  That's what prompted me to send something to the mailing list.
>  
> >>> 
> >>> As fungi points out, education and communication are likely to be
> >>> our best solution. Maybe one approach is to identify the companies
> >>> and individuals involved and find one of our community members to
> >>> contact them directly via email.  We would want the person doing
> >>> that to be willing to explain all of the reasons the community does
> >>> not want the sort of activity we are rejecting and to provide
> >>> guidance about more useful contributions (Matt's comment is a great
> >>> start on both). I imagine that conversation would take a good deal
> >>> of patience, especially after the second or third time, but a personal
> >>> touch frequently makes all the difference in these sorts of cases.
> >>> 
> >>> If we have someone willing to step into that sort of role, I would
> >>> be happy to help craft the initial contact messages and advise as
> >>> needed.
> >>> 
> >>> Does anyone want to 

Re: [openstack-dev] Garbage patches for simple typo fixes

[Ildiko Vancsa]

Hi All,

Another forum we try to put emphasis on this is the Upstream Institute 
trainings we have before the Summits and on some smaller events as well.

We usually try to spend some quality time on review best practices and on 
metrics as well. The aim is to make people realize that if they need practice 
with the process the project repositories are not the place for that and also 
to let them know that we see the patterns and they get negative recognition for 
it.

The only issue with that is I’m not sure we always have the right audience, 
like people might not contribute after all neither they give the knowledge and 
heads up to their colleagues in the company who do. :( Regardless of this we 
will continue to highlight these and if you have suggestion on what else we 
should mention or how to better articulate it we are open to ideas.

We were also thinking about collecting ideas and suggestions for people who 
would take on mentoring in projects, like what and how to do. Do you see this 
activity being part of that too? Could we say something like if we have a few 
people per project who are willing to coach and mentor people we can have a 
small set of guidelines for them on how to start the communication for these 
cases? Or would this rather be handled centrally?

As for those who are practicing we have sandbox repositories/projects in all 
the tools which might worth highlighting.

The new Contributor Portal can also be a good place to highlight corresponding 
best practices and point out behaviors we disagree with.

Thanks,
Ildikó
IRC: ildikov


> On 2017. Sep 22., at 12:47, Doug Hellmann  wrote:
> 
> Excerpts from Davanum Srinivas (dims)'s message of 2017-09-22 13:47:06 -0400:
>> Doug,
>> Howard (cc'ed) already did a bunch of reaching out especially on
>> wechat. We should request his help.
>> 
>> Howard,
>> Can you please help with communications and follow up?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Dims
> 
> Thanks, Dims and Howard,
> 
> I think the problem has reached a point where it would be a good
> idea to formalize our approach to outreach. We should track the
> patches or patch series identified as problematic, so reviewers
> know not to bother with them. We can also track who is contacting
> whom (and how) so we don't have a bunch of people replicating work
> or causing confusion for people who are trying to contribute. Having
> that information will also help us figure out when we need to
> escalate by finding the right managers to be talking to.
> 
> Let's put together a small team to manage this instead of letting
> it continue to cause frustration for everyone.
> 
> Doug
> 
>> 
>> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 1:43 PM, Doug Hellmann  wrote:
>>> Excerpts from Matt Riedemann's message of 2017-09-22 08:26:31 -0500:
 On 9/22/2017 7:10 AM, Tom Barron wrote:
> FWIW I think it is better not to attribute motivation in these cases.
> Perhaps the code submitter is trying to pad stats, but perhaps they are
> just a new contributor trying to learn the process with a "harmless"
> patch, or just a compulsive clean-upper who hasn't thought through the
> costs in reviewer time and CI resources.
 
 I agree. However, the one that set me off last night was a person from
 one company who I've repeatedly -1ed the same types of patches in nova
 for weeks, including on stable branches, and within 10 minutes of each
 other across several repos, so it's clearly part of some daily routine.
 That's what prompted me to send something to the mailing list.
 
>>> 
>>> As fungi points out, education and communication are likely to be
>>> our best solution. Maybe one approach is to identify the companies
>>> and individuals involved and find one of our community members to
>>> contact them directly via email.  We would want the person doing
>>> that to be willing to explain all of the reasons the community does
>>> not want the sort of activity we are rejecting and to provide
>>> guidance about more useful contributions (Matt's comment is a great
>>> start on both). I imagine that conversation would take a good deal
>>> of patience, especially after the second or third time, but a personal
>>> touch frequently makes all the difference in these sorts of cases.
>>> 
>>> If we have someone willing to step into that sort of role, I would
>>> be happy to help craft the initial contact messages and advise as
>>> needed.
>>> 
>>> Does anyone want to volunteer to work with me and actually send the
>>> emails?
>>> 
>>> Doug
>>> 
>>> __
>>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>>> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>> 
> 
> __
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage 

Re: [openstack-dev] Garbage patches for simple typo fixes

[Doug Hellmann]

Excerpts from Davanum Srinivas (dims)'s message of 2017-09-22 13:47:06 -0400:
> Doug,
> Howard (cc'ed) already did a bunch of reaching out especially on
> wechat. We should request his help.
> 
> Howard,
> Can you please help with communications and follow up?
> 
> Thanks,
> Dims

Thanks, Dims and Howard,

I think the problem has reached a point where it would be a good
idea to formalize our approach to outreach. We should track the
patches or patch series identified as problematic, so reviewers
know not to bother with them. We can also track who is contacting
whom (and how) so we don't have a bunch of people replicating work
or causing confusion for people who are trying to contribute. Having
that information will also help us figure out when we need to
escalate by finding the right managers to be talking to.

Let's put together a small team to manage this instead of letting
it continue to cause frustration for everyone.

Doug

> 
> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 1:43 PM, Doug Hellmann  wrote:
> > Excerpts from Matt Riedemann's message of 2017-09-22 08:26:31 -0500:
> >> On 9/22/2017 7:10 AM, Tom Barron wrote:
> >> > FWIW I think it is better not to attribute motivation in these cases.
> >> > Perhaps the code submitter is trying to pad stats, but perhaps they are
> >> > just a new contributor trying to learn the process with a "harmless"
> >> > patch, or just a compulsive clean-upper who hasn't thought through the
> >> > costs in reviewer time and CI resources.
> >>
> >> I agree. However, the one that set me off last night was a person from
> >> one company who I've repeatedly -1ed the same types of patches in nova
> >> for weeks, including on stable branches, and within 10 minutes of each
> >> other across several repos, so it's clearly part of some daily routine.
> >> That's what prompted me to send something to the mailing list.
> >>
> >
> > As fungi points out, education and communication are likely to be
> > our best solution. Maybe one approach is to identify the companies
> > and individuals involved and find one of our community members to
> > contact them directly via email.  We would want the person doing
> > that to be willing to explain all of the reasons the community does
> > not want the sort of activity we are rejecting and to provide
> > guidance about more useful contributions (Matt's comment is a great
> > start on both). I imagine that conversation would take a good deal
> > of patience, especially after the second or third time, but a personal
> > touch frequently makes all the difference in these sorts of cases.
> >
> > If we have someone willing to step into that sort of role, I would
> > be happy to help craft the initial contact messages and advise as
> > needed.
> >
> > Does anyone want to volunteer to work with me and actually send the
> > emails?
> >
> > Doug
> >
> > __
> > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> 

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] Garbage patches for simple typo fixes

[Tom Barron]

On 09/22/2017 09:26 AM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
> On 9/22/2017 7:10 AM, Tom Barron wrote:
>> FWIW I think it is better not to attribute motivation in these cases.
>> Perhaps the code submitter is trying to pad stats, but perhaps they are
>> just a new contributor trying to learn the process with a "harmless"
>> patch, or just a compulsive clean-upper who hasn't thought through the
>> costs in reviewer time and CI resources.
> 
> I agree. However, the one that set me off last night was a person from
> one company who I've repeatedly -1ed the same types of patches in nova
> for weeks, including on stable branches, and within 10 minutes of each
> other across several repos, so it's clearly part of some daily routine.
> That's what prompted me to send something to the mailing list.
> 

Yup :)

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] Garbage patches for simple typo fixes

[Davanum Srinivas]

Doug,
Howard (cc'ed) already did a bunch of reaching out especially on
wechat. We should request his help.

Howard,
Can you please help with communications and follow up?

Thanks,
Dims

On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 1:43 PM, Doug Hellmann  wrote:
> Excerpts from Matt Riedemann's message of 2017-09-22 08:26:31 -0500:
>> On 9/22/2017 7:10 AM, Tom Barron wrote:
>> > FWIW I think it is better not to attribute motivation in these cases.
>> > Perhaps the code submitter is trying to pad stats, but perhaps they are
>> > just a new contributor trying to learn the process with a "harmless"
>> > patch, or just a compulsive clean-upper who hasn't thought through the
>> > costs in reviewer time and CI resources.
>>
>> I agree. However, the one that set me off last night was a person from
>> one company who I've repeatedly -1ed the same types of patches in nova
>> for weeks, including on stable branches, and within 10 minutes of each
>> other across several repos, so it's clearly part of some daily routine.
>> That's what prompted me to send something to the mailing list.
>>
>
> As fungi points out, education and communication are likely to be
> our best solution. Maybe one approach is to identify the companies
> and individuals involved and find one of our community members to
> contact them directly via email.  We would want the person doing
> that to be willing to explain all of the reasons the community does
> not want the sort of activity we are rejecting and to provide
> guidance about more useful contributions (Matt's comment is a great
> start on both). I imagine that conversation would take a good deal
> of patience, especially after the second or third time, but a personal
> touch frequently makes all the difference in these sorts of cases.
>
> If we have someone willing to step into that sort of role, I would
> be happy to help craft the initial contact messages and advise as
> needed.
>
> Does anyone want to volunteer to work with me and actually send the
> emails?
>
> Doug
>
> __
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev



-- 
Davanum Srinivas :: https://twitter.com/dims

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] Garbage patches for simple typo fixes

[Doug Hellmann]

Excerpts from Matt Riedemann's message of 2017-09-22 08:26:31 -0500:
> On 9/22/2017 7:10 AM, Tom Barron wrote:
> > FWIW I think it is better not to attribute motivation in these cases.
> > Perhaps the code submitter is trying to pad stats, but perhaps they are
> > just a new contributor trying to learn the process with a "harmless"
> > patch, or just a compulsive clean-upper who hasn't thought through the
> > costs in reviewer time and CI resources.
> 
> I agree. However, the one that set me off last night was a person from 
> one company who I've repeatedly -1ed the same types of patches in nova 
> for weeks, including on stable branches, and within 10 minutes of each 
> other across several repos, so it's clearly part of some daily routine. 
> That's what prompted me to send something to the mailing list.
> 

As fungi points out, education and communication are likely to be
our best solution. Maybe one approach is to identify the companies
and individuals involved and find one of our community members to
contact them directly via email.  We would want the person doing
that to be willing to explain all of the reasons the community does
not want the sort of activity we are rejecting and to provide
guidance about more useful contributions (Matt's comment is a great
start on both). I imagine that conversation would take a good deal
of patience, especially after the second or third time, but a personal
touch frequently makes all the difference in these sorts of cases.

If we have someone willing to step into that sort of role, I would
be happy to help craft the initial contact messages and advise as
needed.

Does anyone want to volunteer to work with me and actually send the
emails?

Doug

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] Garbage patches for simple typo fixes

[Jeremy Freudberg]

Oops hit send to early.

1) git-review shows some community guidelines
2) auto-review of known lower-quality patches

And those do relieve some reviewer burden.

On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 12:43 PM, Jeremy Freudberg
 wrote:
> You're right. The amount of wasted reviewer time is far more
> drastic+problematic then the amount of "wasted" CI resources.
>
> My prior email did contain these suggestions:
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Jeremy Stanley  wrote:
>> On 2017-09-22 14:50:55 + (+), Rajath Agasthya (rajagast) wrote:
>>> On 9/21/17, 10:19 PM, "Jeremy Freudberg"  wrote:
>>> > 3) Delay spin-up of resource-intensive/long-running CI jobs
>>> > until after some initial review has been added or time has
>>> > passed. Authorized contributors, not necessarily synonymous with
>>> > cores, can override the delay if there's a critical patch which
>>> > needs to get through the queue quickly.
>>>
>>> +1. This is done in Go code review process, where CI is run by an
>>> explicit Run-TryBot+1 review only after a core developer
>>> ascertains that the patch looks okay and most code review comments
>>> are addressed. This means no CI resource usage for every change
>>> and every single patchset. We could adopt a similar approach so
>>> that CI resources aren’t wasted for useless patches. This doesn’t
>>> take a whole lot of work for the reviewers than the current review
>>> process.
>>>
>>> https://github.com/golang/go/wiki/GerritAccess#trybot-access-may-start-trybots
>>
>> I'm wary of potential overengineering like this, particularly
>> without at least some analysis showing the percentage of CI
>> resources we'll save by asking our already overworked (on most teams
>> anyway) core reviewers to also take on the task of authorizing basic
>> CI jobs. The more likely outcome I foresee is that, much like
>> contributions going unreviewed sometimes for weeks or months, the
>> change authors won't even know whether their changes are suitable
>> for review for some similar period of delay.
>>
>> The CI system is there to serve reviewers and contributors, not the
>> other way around. The CI resource shortages we see from time to time
>> should not be used as an excuse to go on witch hunts so we can find
>> ways to save what probably accounts for <1% of our overall
>> utilization. That's classic premature optimization. What's important
>> in this situation is the time wasted by reviewers having to respond
>> to or find ways to ignore these patches, so let's focus on that
>> rather than getting bogged down with attractive non-problems for
>> which we can more easily engineer technical solutions.
>> --
>> Jeremy Stanley
>>
>> __
>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] Garbage patches for simple typo fixes

[Jeremy Freudberg]

You're right. The amount of wasted reviewer time is far more
drastic+problematic then the amount of "wasted" CI resources.

My prior email did contain these suggestions:


On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Jeremy Stanley  wrote:
> On 2017-09-22 14:50:55 + (+), Rajath Agasthya (rajagast) wrote:
>> On 9/21/17, 10:19 PM, "Jeremy Freudberg"  wrote:
>> > 3) Delay spin-up of resource-intensive/long-running CI jobs
>> > until after some initial review has been added or time has
>> > passed. Authorized contributors, not necessarily synonymous with
>> > cores, can override the delay if there's a critical patch which
>> > needs to get through the queue quickly.
>>
>> +1. This is done in Go code review process, where CI is run by an
>> explicit Run-TryBot+1 review only after a core developer
>> ascertains that the patch looks okay and most code review comments
>> are addressed. This means no CI resource usage for every change
>> and every single patchset. We could adopt a similar approach so
>> that CI resources aren’t wasted for useless patches. This doesn’t
>> take a whole lot of work for the reviewers than the current review
>> process.
>>
>> https://github.com/golang/go/wiki/GerritAccess#trybot-access-may-start-trybots
>
> I'm wary of potential overengineering like this, particularly
> without at least some analysis showing the percentage of CI
> resources we'll save by asking our already overworked (on most teams
> anyway) core reviewers to also take on the task of authorizing basic
> CI jobs. The more likely outcome I foresee is that, much like
> contributions going unreviewed sometimes for weeks or months, the
> change authors won't even know whether their changes are suitable
> for review for some similar period of delay.
>
> The CI system is there to serve reviewers and contributors, not the
> other way around. The CI resource shortages we see from time to time
> should not be used as an excuse to go on witch hunts so we can find
> ways to save what probably accounts for <1% of our overall
> utilization. That's classic premature optimization. What's important
> in this situation is the time wasted by reviewers having to respond
> to or find ways to ignore these patches, so let's focus on that
> rather than getting bogged down with attractive non-problems for
> which we can more easily engineer technical solutions.
> --
> Jeremy Stanley
>
> __
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] Garbage patches for simple typo fixes

[Lance Bragstad]

On Sep 22, 2017 07:59, "Matt Riedemann"  wrote:

On 9/22/2017 9:50 AM, Rajath Agasthya (rajagast) wrote:

> On 9/21/17, 10:19 PM, "Jeremy Freudberg" 
> wrote:
>
> 3) Delay spin-up of resource-intensive/long-running CI jobs until after
> some
>  initial review has been added or time has passed. Authorized
>  contributors, not necessarily synonymous with cores, can override the
>  delay if there's a critical patch which needs to get through the queue
>  quickly.
>  +1. This is done in Go code review process, where CI is run by an
> explicit Run-TryBot+1
> review only after a core developer ascertains that the patch looks okay
> and most code
> review comments are addressed. This means no CI resource usage for every
> change and
> every single patchset. We could adopt a similar approach so that CI
> resources aren’t wasted
> for useless patches. This doesn’t take a whole lot of work for the
> reviewers than the current
> review process.
>
> https://github.com/golang/go/wiki/GerritAccess#trybot-access
> -may-start-trybots
>
> Thanks,
> Rajath
>
> __
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
Figuring out what is useless or not is probably not worth the effort here.
We already skip long running tempest dsvm jobs in certain patches, like
with docs or unit test only changes. Updating a code comment in code isn't
going to catch that.

And it's perfectly valid to have useful single-line code changes (although
if it's a bug there should be a test too). Or multi-line changes that are
just adding comments to code.

Plus most people are probably not going to review something until CI has
voted on it anyway, at least when you have the number of open reviews that
some projects, like nova, has.


I agree. Reviewers already have a bunch of responsibilities on their plate
and this would be another one. I also imagine it would be tough to get used
to the absence of automatic testing after the default behavior for so long.

I'd personally opt to look for these types of patches instead of losing
automatic testing when patches are pushed.


So I think this is a non-starter.

-- 

Thanks,

Matt


__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] Garbage patches for simple typo fixes

[Jeremy Stanley]

On 2017-09-22 14:50:55 + (+), Rajath Agasthya (rajagast) wrote:
> On 9/21/17, 10:19 PM, "Jeremy Freudberg"  wrote:
> > 3) Delay spin-up of resource-intensive/long-running CI jobs
> > until after some initial review has been added or time has
> > passed. Authorized contributors, not necessarily synonymous with
> > cores, can override the delay if there's a critical patch which
> > needs to get through the queue quickly.
>
> +1. This is done in Go code review process, where CI is run by an
> explicit Run-TryBot+1 review only after a core developer
> ascertains that the patch looks okay and most code review comments
> are addressed. This means no CI resource usage for every change
> and every single patchset. We could adopt a similar approach so
> that CI resources aren’t wasted for useless patches. This doesn’t
> take a whole lot of work for the reviewers than the current review
> process.
> 
> https://github.com/golang/go/wiki/GerritAccess#trybot-access-may-start-trybots

I'm wary of potential overengineering like this, particularly
without at least some analysis showing the percentage of CI
resources we'll save by asking our already overworked (on most teams
anyway) core reviewers to also take on the task of authorizing basic
CI jobs. The more likely outcome I foresee is that, much like
contributions going unreviewed sometimes for weeks or months, the
change authors won't even know whether their changes are suitable
for review for some similar period of delay.

The CI system is there to serve reviewers and contributors, not the
other way around. The CI resource shortages we see from time to time
should not be used as an excuse to go on witch hunts so we can find
ways to save what probably accounts for <1% of our overall
utilization. That's classic premature optimization. What's important
in this situation is the time wasted by reviewers having to respond
to or find ways to ignore these patches, so let's focus on that
rather than getting bogged down with attractive non-problems for
which we can more easily engineer technical solutions.
-- 
Jeremy Stanley


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] Garbage patches for simple typo fixes

[Matt Riedemann]

On 9/22/2017 9:24 AM, Csatari, Gergely (Nokia - HU/Budapest) wrote:

Isn't it possible to ignore these patches in stackalytics? If the motivation is 
to look better there, this would solve the problem.


That's a technical solution to a social problem. See my reply elsewhere 
in this thread. How you classify what is useful or not is extremely hard.


--

Thanks,

Matt

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] Garbage patches for simple typo fixes

[Matt Riedemann]

On 9/22/2017 9:59 AM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
Figuring out what is useless or not is probably not worth the effort 
here. We already skip long running tempest dsvm jobs in certain patches, 
like with docs or unit test only changes. Updating a code comment in 
code isn't going to catch that.


And it's perfectly valid to have useful single-line code changes 
(although if it's a bug there should be a test too). Or multi-line 
changes that are just adding comments to code.


Plus most people are probably not going to review something until CI has 
voted on it anyway, at least when you have the number of open reviews 
that some projects, like nova, has.


So I think this is a non-starter.


To summarize, this is a social issue, not a technical issue.

--

Thanks,

Matt

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] Garbage patches for simple typo fixes

[Matt Riedemann]

On 9/22/2017 9:50 AM, Rajath Agasthya (rajagast) wrote:

On 9/21/17, 10:19 PM, "Jeremy Freudberg"  wrote:

3) Delay spin-up of resource-intensive/long-running CI jobs until after some
 initial review has been added or time has passed. Authorized
 contributors, not necessarily synonymous with cores, can override the
 delay if there's a critical patch which needs to get through the queue
 quickly.
 
+1. This is done in Go code review process, where CI is run by an explicit Run-TryBot+1

review only after a core developer ascertains that the patch looks okay and 
most code
review comments are addressed. This means no CI resource usage for every change 
and
every single patchset. We could adopt a similar approach so that CI resources 
aren’t wasted
for useless patches. This doesn’t take a whole lot of work for the reviewers 
than the current
review process.

https://github.com/golang/go/wiki/GerritAccess#trybot-access-may-start-trybots

Thanks,
Rajath
 
   


__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev



Figuring out what is useless or not is probably not worth the effort 
here. We already skip long running tempest dsvm jobs in certain patches, 
like with docs or unit test only changes. Updating a code comment in 
code isn't going to catch that.


And it's perfectly valid to have useful single-line code changes 
(although if it's a bug there should be a test too). Or multi-line 
changes that are just adding comments to code.


Plus most people are probably not going to review something until CI has 
voted on it anyway, at least when you have the number of open reviews 
that some projects, like nova, has.


So I think this is a non-starter.

--

Thanks,

Matt

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] Garbage patches for simple typo fixes

[Rajath Agasthya (rajagast)]

On 9/21/17, 10:19 PM, "Jeremy Freudberg"  wrote:

3) Delay spin-up of resource-intensive/long-running CI jobs until after some
initial review has been added or time has passed. Authorized
contributors, not necessarily synonymous with cores, can override the
delay if there's a critical patch which needs to get through the queue
quickly.

+1. This is done in Go code review process, where CI is run by an explicit 
Run-TryBot+1 
review only after a core developer ascertains that the patch looks okay and 
most code 
review comments are addressed. This means no CI resource usage for every change 
and
every single patchset. We could adopt a similar approach so that CI resources 
aren’t wasted
for useless patches. This doesn’t take a whole lot of work for the reviewers 
than the current
review process. 

https://github.com/golang/go/wiki/GerritAccess#trybot-access-may-start-trybots 

Thanks,
Rajath

  

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] Garbage patches for simple typo fixes

[Csatari, Gergely (Nokia - HU/Budapest)]

Hi, 

Isn't it possible to ignore these patches in stackalytics? If the motivation is 
to look better there, this would solve the problem. 

Br, 
Gerg0

-Original Message-
From: Jeremy Stanley [mailto:fu...@yuggoth.org] 
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2017 4:20 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) 
<openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] Garbage patches for simple typo fixes

On 2017-09-22 08:30:21 -0400 (-0400), Amrith Kumar wrote:
[...]
> When can we take some concrete action to stop these same kinds of 
> things from coming up again and again?

Technical solutions to social problems rarely do more than increase complexity 
for everyone involved. Communication, documentation and education are likely 
our best options here, but I still question the degree to which the people 
pushing these sorts of contributions will actually get the message since it's 
obvious they aren't engaging meaningfully with the community before attempting 
to contribute.

Could demographic profiling help us figure out the primary motivation (whether 
it's testing the waters, stats padding or employers pushing their staff to 
contribute patches before they've had time to actually assimilate our community 
norms and expectations)?
--
Jeremy Stanley

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] Garbage patches for simple typo fixes

[Jeremy Stanley]

On 2017-09-22 08:30:21 -0400 (-0400), Amrith Kumar wrote:
[...]
> When can we take some concrete action to stop these same kinds of
> things from coming up again and again?

Technical solutions to social problems rarely do more than increase
complexity for everyone involved. Communication, documentation and
education are likely our best options here, but I still question the
degree to which the people pushing these sorts of contributions will
actually get the message since it's obvious they aren't engaging
meaningfully with the community before attempting to contribute.

Could demographic profiling help us figure out the primary
motivation (whether it's testing the waters, stats padding or
employers pushing their staff to contribute patches before they've
had time to actually assimilate our community norms and
expectations)?
-- 
Jeremy Stanley


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] Garbage patches for simple typo fixes

[Matt Riedemann]

On 9/22/2017 7:10 AM, Tom Barron wrote:

FWIW I think it is better not to attribute motivation in these cases.
Perhaps the code submitter is trying to pad stats, but perhaps they are
just a new contributor trying to learn the process with a "harmless"
patch, or just a compulsive clean-upper who hasn't thought through the
costs in reviewer time and CI resources.


I agree. However, the one that set me off last night was a person from 
one company who I've repeatedly -1ed the same types of patches in nova 
for weeks, including on stable branches, and within 10 minutes of each 
other across several repos, so it's clearly part of some daily routine. 
That's what prompted me to send something to the mailing list.


--

Thanks,

Matt

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] Garbage patches for simple typo fixes

[Doug Hellmann]

Excerpts from Tom Barron's message of 2017-09-22 08:10:35 -0400:
> 
> On 09/21/2017 10:21 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
> > I just wanted to highlight to people that there seems to be a series of
> > garbage patches in various projects [1] which are basically doing things
> > like fixing a single typo in a code comment, or very narrowly changing
> > http to https in links within docs.
> > 
> > Also +1ing ones own changes.
> > 
> > I've been trying to snuff these out in nova, but I see it's basically a
> > pattern widespread across several projects.
> > 
> > This is the boilerplate comment I give with my -1, feel free to employ
> > it yourself.
> > 
> > "Sorry but this isn't really a useful change. Fixing typos in code
> > comments when the context is still clear doesn't really help us, and
> > mostly seems like looking for padding stats on stackalytics. It's also a
> > drain on our CI environment.
> > 
> > If you fixed all of the typos in a single module, or in user-facing
> > documentation, or error messages, or something in the logs, or something
> > that actually doesn't make sense in code comments, then maybe, but this
> > isn't one of those things."
> > 
> > I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but this is annoying to the point I
> > felt the need to say something publicly.
> > 
> > [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/q/author:%255E.*inspur.*
> > 
> 
> The boilerplate is helpful but have we considered putting something
> along these lines in official documentation so that reviewers can just
> point to it? It should then be clear to all that negative reviews on
> these grounds are not simply a function of the individual reviewer's
> judgment or personality.

That's a good idea. How about adding a "Contribution Guidelines" section
to https://docs.openstack.org/project-team-guide/open-development.html
with this and other tips?

> FWIW I think it is better not to attribute motivation in these cases.
> Perhaps the code submitter is trying to pad stats, but perhaps they are
> just a new contributor trying to learn the process with a "harmless"
> patch, or just a compulsive clean-upper who hasn't thought through the
> costs in reviewer time and CI resources.

Good points.

Doug

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] Garbage patches for simple typo fixes

[Amrith Kumar]

Thanks Matt for highlighting this (again). Please also see

http://openstack.markmail.org/thread/iaqsha7hbiitwqe2
http://markmail.org/thread/k62gcehxg6gv5ep4
http://markmail.org/thread/n753w3wljii67yug

When can we take some concrete action to stop these same kinds of things
from coming up again and again?



-amrith


On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 8:10 AM, Tom Barron  wrote:

>
>
> On 09/21/2017 10:21 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
> > I just wanted to highlight to people that there seems to be a series of
> > garbage patches in various projects [1] which are basically doing things
> > like fixing a single typo in a code comment, or very narrowly changing
> > http to https in links within docs.
> >
> > Also +1ing ones own changes.
> >
> > I've been trying to snuff these out in nova, but I see it's basically a
> > pattern widespread across several projects.
> >
> > This is the boilerplate comment I give with my -1, feel free to employ
> > it yourself.
> >
> > "Sorry but this isn't really a useful change. Fixing typos in code
> > comments when the context is still clear doesn't really help us, and
> > mostly seems like looking for padding stats on stackalytics. It's also a
> > drain on our CI environment.
> >
> > If you fixed all of the typos in a single module, or in user-facing
> > documentation, or error messages, or something in the logs, or something
> > that actually doesn't make sense in code comments, then maybe, but this
> > isn't one of those things."
> >
> > I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but this is annoying to the point I
> > felt the need to say something publicly.
> >
> > [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/q/author:%255E.*inspur.*
> >
>
> The boilerplate is helpful but have we considered putting something
> along these lines in official documentation so that reviewers can just
> point to it? It should then be clear to all that negative reviews on
> these grounds are not simply a function of the individual reviewer's
> judgment or personality.
>
> FWIW I think it is better not to attribute motivation in these cases.
> Perhaps the code submitter is trying to pad stats, but perhaps they are
> just a new contributor trying to learn the process with a "harmless"
> patch, or just a compulsive clean-upper who hasn't thought through the
> costs in reviewer time and CI resources.
>
>
>
>
> __
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] Garbage patches for simple typo fixes

[Tom Barron]

On 09/21/2017 10:21 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
> I just wanted to highlight to people that there seems to be a series of
> garbage patches in various projects [1] which are basically doing things
> like fixing a single typo in a code comment, or very narrowly changing
> http to https in links within docs.
> 
> Also +1ing ones own changes.
> 
> I've been trying to snuff these out in nova, but I see it's basically a
> pattern widespread across several projects.
> 
> This is the boilerplate comment I give with my -1, feel free to employ
> it yourself.
> 
> "Sorry but this isn't really a useful change. Fixing typos in code
> comments when the context is still clear doesn't really help us, and
> mostly seems like looking for padding stats on stackalytics. It's also a
> drain on our CI environment.
> 
> If you fixed all of the typos in a single module, or in user-facing
> documentation, or error messages, or something in the logs, or something
> that actually doesn't make sense in code comments, then maybe, but this
> isn't one of those things."
> 
> I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but this is annoying to the point I
> felt the need to say something publicly.
> 
> [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/q/author:%255E.*inspur.*
> 

The boilerplate is helpful but have we considered putting something
along these lines in official documentation so that reviewers can just
point to it? It should then be clear to all that negative reviews on
these grounds are not simply a function of the individual reviewer's
judgment or personality.

FWIW I think it is better not to attribute motivation in these cases.
Perhaps the code submitter is trying to pad stats, but perhaps they are
just a new contributor trying to learn the process with a "harmless"
patch, or just a compulsive clean-upper who hasn't thought through the
costs in reviewer time and CI resources.




__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] Garbage patches for simple typo fixes

[Chris Smart]

On Fri, 22 Sep 2017, at 12:21, Matt Riedemann wrote:
> I just wanted to highlight to people that there seems to be a series of 
> garbage patches in various projects [1] which are basically doing things 
> like fixing a single typo in a code comment, or very narrowly changing 
> http to https in links within docs.
> 
> Also +1ing ones own changes.
> 
> I've been trying to snuff these out in nova, but I see it's basically a 
> pattern widespread across several projects.
> 

For what it's worth, I agree. A few days ago I gave a -1 and commented
on around 50 patches which were adding --- to the top of generally two
yaml files: one was a template the other was a test.

Another patchset removed a single space from the end of a line of a
comment.

After my comments they ware all abandoned.

Given the waste of resources, I can't help but wonder if we should be
re-visiting the way initial check gate is kicked off?

Should someone else have to do an initial +1? (Acknowledging that this
could be a colleague and other offender.)

Or could the gate be smarter about the types of changes (like checking
for one liners or changes to comments, etc)?

Or at least there should be a way for anyone to kill a review if it is
clearly a waste of resources?

Or detect patch bombing across projects.

Sadly people are going to abuse this, although probably generally out of
ignorance. However, how can we be a) smarter about the gate, and b) have
a big stick handy.

Perhaps when developers sign up to the CLA, this issue should be in big
bold writing and we can use that as a stick to disable people's access
to Gerrit? That should be a pretty big incentive to behave, it's hard to
do your job when your access has been removed (and only reinstated after
a specified process).

Anyway just some thoughts.

Cheers,
-c

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] Garbage patches for simple typo fixes

[Jeremy Freudberg]

Thanks for being brave enough to say it publicly. Not sure how many
more times I can stomach reading such classic patches as "Optimize the
link address" or "Replace six.iteritems() with .items()".

Yes, it is still possible for us to be an open community while also
minimizing the amount of useless patches.

Messages like the sample Matt provided are part of the solution.
Resisting the urge to -2/force-abandon without explanation is part of
the solution, too. But they aren't the whole solution.

The TC's emerging Top 5 help-wanted list is a step in the right
direction towards solving this problem. Let's publicize the crap out
of that. And we can go further, with project-specific help wanted
lists. And how about a better way to identify and promote issues which
are both low-hanging fruit AND important (they aren't actually that
rare!).

Turning towards more radical solutions: 1) Bake something into
git-review which will print out some agreed-up community guidelines
for what constitutes a useful patch, as well as any
repository-specific guidelines. To keep it reasonable, only show the
message the first time a contributor submits to that repository. 2)
Register fingerprints of common unhelpful patches and have a bot
similar to Elastic Recheck automatically review and comment. 3) Delay
spin-up of resource-intensive/long-running CI jobs until after some
initial review has been added or time has passed. Authorized
contributors, not necessarily synonymous with cores, can override the
delay if there's a critical patch which needs to get through the queue
quickly.

Those are just some ideas off the top of my head, so feel free to tear me apart.

Looking forward to seeing where this conversation goes this time around.



On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 10:21 PM, Matt Riedemann  wrote:
> I just wanted to highlight to people that there seems to be a series of
> garbage patches in various projects [1] which are basically doing things
> like fixing a single typo in a code comment, or very narrowly changing http
> to https in links within docs.
>
> Also +1ing ones own changes.
>
> I've been trying to snuff these out in nova, but I see it's basically a
> pattern widespread across several projects.
>
> This is the boilerplate comment I give with my -1, feel free to employ it
> yourself.
>
> "Sorry but this isn't really a useful change. Fixing typos in code comments
> when the context is still clear doesn't really help us, and mostly seems
> like looking for padding stats on stackalytics. It's also a drain on our CI
> environment.
>
> If you fixed all of the typos in a single module, or in user-facing
> documentation, or error messages, or something in the logs, or something
> that actually doesn't make sense in code comments, then maybe, but this
> isn't one of those things."
>
> I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but this is annoying to the point I felt
> the need to say something publicly.
>
> [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/q/author:%255E.*inspur.*
>
> --
>
> Thanks,
>
> Matt
>
> __
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] Garbage patches for simple typo fixes

[David Moreau Simard]

Wow, Matt, that's excellent timing.
Day for day, an exact year after the last thread of this kind [1].

Thanks for speaking up, I didn't want to it'd seem like encouraging a
stereotype or prejudice towards certain kind of contributions (or
contributors) but I've also been rolling my eyes a lot recently.
It does look like those users are just seeking to pad statistics, but
this isn't the first time this kind of topic comes up.

Some other contributors with similar patterns:

- https://review.openstack.org/#/q/author:%255E.*unionpay.*
- https://review.openstack.org/#/q/author:%255E.*fiberhome.*
- https://review.openstack.org/#/q/author:%255E.*sina.*

There are some thoughts in the thread from last year but I don't think
any concrete measures were put in place to encourage better and more
meaningful contributions.

[1]: 
http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-September/104173.html


David Moreau Simard
Senior Software Engineer | OpenStack RDO

dmsimard = [irc, github, twitter]


On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 10:21 PM, Matt Riedemann  wrote:
> I just wanted to highlight to people that there seems to be a series of
> garbage patches in various projects [1] which are basically doing things
> like fixing a single typo in a code comment, or very narrowly changing http
> to https in links within docs.
>
> Also +1ing ones own changes.
>
> I've been trying to snuff these out in nova, but I see it's basically a
> pattern widespread across several projects.
>
> This is the boilerplate comment I give with my -1, feel free to employ it
> yourself.
>
> "Sorry but this isn't really a useful change. Fixing typos in code comments
> when the context is still clear doesn't really help us, and mostly seems
> like looking for padding stats on stackalytics. It's also a drain on our CI
> environment.
>
> If you fixed all of the typos in a single module, or in user-facing
> documentation, or error messages, or something in the logs, or something
> that actually doesn't make sense in code comments, then maybe, but this
> isn't one of those things."
>
> I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but this is annoying to the point I felt
> the need to say something publicly.
>
> [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/q/author:%255E.*inspur.*
>
> --
>
> Thanks,
>
> Matt
>
> __
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] Garbage patches for simple typo fixes

[Renat Akhmerov]

+1000

Thanks for bringing this up, I fully agree that we need to do something about 
it.

Some time ago I even had an idea of creating a case when we intentionally 
exclude a person from a team for constantly doing things like this and ignoring 
our comments. Although I understand it slightly conflicts with our openness 
principle.. It’s just really tempting quite often.

Renat Akhmerov
@Nokia

On 22 Sep 2017, 09:26 +0700, Zhipeng Huang , wrote:
> Let's not forget the epic fail earlier on the "contribution.rst fix" that 
> almost melt down the community CI system.
>
> For any companies that are doing what Matt mentioned, please be aware that 
> the dev community of the country you belong to is getting hurt by your stupid 
> activity.
>
> Stop patch trolling and doing something meaningful.
>
> > On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Matt Riedemann  
> > wrote:
> > > I just wanted to highlight to people that there seems to be a series of 
> > > garbage patches in various projects [1] which are basically doing things 
> > > like fixing a single typo in a code comment, or very narrowly changing 
> > > http to https in links within docs.
> > >
> > > Also +1ing ones own changes.
> > >
> > > I've been trying to snuff these out in nova, but I see it's basically a 
> > > pattern widespread across several projects.
> > >
> > > This is the boilerplate comment I give with my -1, feel free to employ it 
> > > yourself.
> > >
> > > "Sorry but this isn't really a useful change. Fixing typos in code 
> > > comments when the context is still clear doesn't really help us, and 
> > > mostly seems like looking for padding stats on stackalytics. It's also a 
> > > drain on our CI environment.
> > >
> > > If you fixed all of the typos in a single module, or in user-facing 
> > > documentation, or error messages, or something in the logs, or something 
> > > that actually doesn't make sense in code comments, then maybe, but this 
> > > isn't one of those things."
> > >
> > > I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but this is annoying to the point I 
> > > felt the need to say something publicly.
> > >
> > > [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/q/author:%255E.*inspur.*
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Matt
> > >
> > > __
> > > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> > > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
>
> --
> Zhipeng (Howard) Huang
>
> Standard Engineer
> IT Standard & Patent/IT Product Line
> Huawei Technologies Co,. Ltd
> Email: huangzhip...@huawei.com
> Office: Huawei Industrial Base, Longgang, Shenzhen
>
> (Previous)
> Research Assistant
> Mobile Ad-Hoc Network Lab, Calit2
> University of California, Irvine
> Email: zhipe...@uci.edu
> Office: Calit2 Building Room 2402
>
> OpenStack, OPNFV, OpenDaylight, OpenCompute Aficionado
> __
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Re: [openstack-dev] Garbage patches for simple typo fixes

[Zhipeng Huang]

Let's not forget the epic fail earlier on the "contribution.rst fix" that
almost melt down the community CI system.

For any companies that are doing what Matt mentioned, please be aware that
the dev community of the country you belong to is getting hurt by your
stupid activity.

Stop patch trolling and doing something meaningful.

On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Matt Riedemann 
wrote:

> I just wanted to highlight to people that there seems to be a series of
> garbage patches in various projects [1] which are basically doing things
> like fixing a single typo in a code comment, or very narrowly changing http
> to https in links within docs.
>
> Also +1ing ones own changes.
>
> I've been trying to snuff these out in nova, but I see it's basically a
> pattern widespread across several projects.
>
> This is the boilerplate comment I give with my -1, feel free to employ it
> yourself.
>
> "Sorry but this isn't really a useful change. Fixing typos in code
> comments when the context is still clear doesn't really help us, and mostly
> seems like looking for padding stats on stackalytics. It's also a drain on
> our CI environment.
>
> If you fixed all of the typos in a single module, or in user-facing
> documentation, or error messages, or something in the logs, or something
> that actually doesn't make sense in code comments, then maybe, but this
> isn't one of those things."
>
> I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but this is annoying to the point I felt
> the need to say something publicly.
>
> [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/q/author:%255E.*inspur.*
>
> --
>
> Thanks,
>
> Matt
>
> __
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>



-- 
Zhipeng (Howard) Huang

Standard Engineer
IT Standard & Patent/IT Product Line
Huawei Technologies Co,. Ltd
Email: huangzhip...@huawei.com
Office: Huawei Industrial Base, Longgang, Shenzhen

(Previous)
Research Assistant
Mobile Ad-Hoc Network Lab, Calit2
University of California, Irvine
Email: zhipe...@uci.edu
Office: Calit2 Building Room 2402

OpenStack, OPNFV, OpenDaylight, OpenCompute Aficionado
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev