On 08/14/2014 11:37 AM, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
On 14/08/14 02:43, Angus Lees wrote:
On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 11:11:51 AM Kevin Benton wrote:
Is the pylint static analysis that caught that error prone to
false positives? If not, I agree that it would be really nice if
that were made part of the tox
On Aug 13, 2014, at 11:11 AM, Kevin Benton blak...@gmail.com wrote:
Is the pylint static analysis that caught that error prone to false
positives? If not, I agree that it would be really nice if that were made
part of the tox check so these don't have to be fixed after the fact.
To me that
I'm doing various small cleanup changes as I explore the neutron codebase.
Some of these cleanups are to fix actual bugs discovered in the code. Almost
all of them are tiny and obviously correct.
A recurring reviewer comment is that the change should have had an
accompanying bug report and
I'm not sure what the guideline is, but I would like to point out a good
reason to have the bug report even for obvious fixes.
When users encounters bugs, they go to launchpad to report them. They don't
first scan the commits of the master branch to see what was fixed. Having
the bug in launchpad
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 13/08/14 09:28, Angus Lees wrote:
I'm doing various small cleanup changes as I explore the neutron
codebase. Some of these cleanups are to fix actual bugs discovered
in the code. Almost all of them are tiny and obviously correct.
A
I am gonna add more color to this story by posting my replies on review [1]:
Hi Angus,
You touched on a number of points. Let me try to give you an answer to all
of them.
(I'll create a bug report too. I still haven't worked out which class of
changes need an accompanying bug report and which
Is the pylint static analysis that caught that error prone to false
positives? If not, I agree that it would be really nice if that were made
part of the tox check so these don't have to be fixed after the fact.
To me that particular patch seems like one that should be accompanied with
a unit
On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 11:11:51 AM Kevin Benton wrote:
Is the pylint static analysis that caught that error prone to false
positives? If not, I agree that it would be really nice if that were made
part of the tox check so these don't have to be fixed after the fact.
At the moment pylint on
On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 12:46:03 AM Kevin Benton wrote:
I'm not sure what the guideline is, but I would like to point out a good
reason to have the bug report even for obvious fixes.
When users encounters bugs, they go to launchpad to report them. They don't
first scan the commits of the master
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 5:43 PM, Angus Lees g...@inodes.org wrote:
On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 11:11:51 AM Kevin Benton wrote:
Is the pylint static analysis that caught that error prone to false
positives? If not, I agree that it would be really nice if that were made
part of the tox check so these
At the moment pylint on neutron is *very* noisy, and I've been looking
through
the reported issues by hand to get a feel for what's involved. Enabling
pylint is a separate discussion that I'd like to have - in some other
thread.
I think enabling pylint check was discussed at the
11 matches
Mail list logo
