Excerpts from Zane Bitter's message of 2018-06-18 12:58:07 -0400:
> Replying to myself one more time...
>
> On 12/06/18 17:35, Zane Bitter wrote:
> > On 11/06/18 18:49, Zane Bitter wrote:
> >> It's had a week to percolate (and I've seen quite a few people viewing
> >> the etherpad), so here is
Replying to myself one more time...
On 12/06/18 17:35, Zane Bitter wrote:
On 11/06/18 18:49, Zane Bitter wrote:
It's had a week to percolate (and I've seen quite a few people viewing
the etherpad), so here is the review:
https://review.openstack.org/574479
In response to comments, I moved
On 11/06/18 18:49, Zane Bitter wrote:
It's had a week to percolate (and I've seen quite a few people viewing
the etherpad), so here is the review:
https://review.openstack.org/574479
In response to comments, I moved the change to the Project Team Guide
instead of the Contributor Guide (since
Thanks for the patch Zane :)
-Kendall (diablo_rojo)
On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 3:50 PM Zane Bitter wrote:
> On 04/06/18 10:13, Zane Bitter wrote:
> > On 31/05/18 14:35, Julia Kreger wrote:
> >> Back to the topic of nitpicking!
> >>
> >> I virtually sat down with Doug today and we hammered out the
On 04/06/18 10:13, Zane Bitter wrote:
On 31/05/18 14:35, Julia Kreger wrote:
Back to the topic of nitpicking!
I virtually sat down with Doug today and we hammered out the positive
aspects that we feel like are the things that we as a community want
to see as part of reviews coming out of this
On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 12:41 PM, Mathieu Gagné wrote:
> Hi Julia,
>
> Thanks for the follow up on this topic.
>
> On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 6:55 AM, Julia Kreger
> wrote:
>>
>> These things are not just frustrating, but also very inhibiting for
>> part time contributors such as students who may
Zane Bitter wrote:
> On 31/05/18 14:35, Julia Kreger wrote:
> > Back to the topic of nitpicking!
> >
> > I virtually sat down with Doug today and we hammered out the positive
> > aspects that we feel like are the things that we as a community want
> > to see as part of reviews coming out of this
On 2018-06-04 14:28:28 -0700 (-0700), Amy Marrich wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 7:29 AM, Zane Bitter wrote:
> > On 04/06/18 10:19, Amy Marrich wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > I'll read in more detail, but do we want to add rollcall-vote?
> >
> > Is it used anywhere other than in the governance repo?
Zane,
Not sure it is to be honest.:)
Amy (spotz)
On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 7:29 AM, Zane Bitter wrote:
> On 04/06/18 10:19, Amy Marrich wrote:
>
>> Zane,
>>
>> I'll read in more detail, but do we want to add rollcall-vote?
>>
>
> Is it used anywhere other than in the governance repo? We
On 04/06/18 10:19, Amy Marrich wrote:
Zane,
I'll read in more detail, but do we want to add rollcall-vote?
Is it used anywhere other than in the governance repo? We certainly
could add it, but it didn't seem like a top priority.
- ZB
Amy (spotz)
On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 7:13 AM, Zane
Zane,
I'll read in more detail, but do we want to add rollcall-vote?
Amy (spotz)
On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 7:13 AM, Zane Bitter wrote:
> On 31/05/18 14:35, Julia Kreger wrote:
>
>> Back to the topic of nitpicking!
>>
>> I virtually sat down with Doug today and we hammered out the positive
>>
On 31/05/18 14:35, Julia Kreger wrote:
Back to the topic of nitpicking!
I virtually sat down with Doug today and we hammered out the positive
aspects that we feel like are the things that we as a community want
to see as part of reviews coming out of this effort. The principles
change[1] in
For me nitpicking during review is really not a good experience, however i
do think we should tolerate at least one round of nitpicking.
On another aspect, the nitpicking review culture also in some way
encourage, and provide legitimacy in some way, to the padding activities.
People are feeling
On 2018-05-31 16:49:13 -0400 (-0400), John Dennis wrote:
> On 05/30/2018 08:23 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> > I think this is orthogonal to the thread. The idea is that we should
> > avoid nettling contributors over minor imperfections in their
> > submissions (grammatical, spelling or
On 05/30/2018 08:23 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
I think this is orthogonal to the thread. The idea is that we should
avoid nettling contributors over minor imperfections in their
submissions (grammatical, spelling or typographical errors in code
comments and documentation, mild inefficiencies in
Back to the topic of nitpicking!
I virtually sat down with Doug today and we hammered out the positive
aspects that we feel like are the things that we as a community want
to see as part of reviews coming out of this effort. The principles
change[1] in governance has been updated as a result.
I
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
"master should be always deployable and fully backward compatible and
so we cant let anything in anytime that could possibly regress anyone"
Should we change that attitude too? Anyone agree? disagree?
Thanks,
Dims
I'll definitely jump at this one.
I've always thought
On May 30, 2018, at 5:11 AM, Dmitry Tantsur wrote:
> Whatever decision the TC takes, I would like it to make sure that we don't
> paint putting -1 as a bad act. Nor do I want "if you care, just follow-up" to
> be an excuse for putting up bad contributions.
>
> Additionally, I would like to
>> much harder to deal with difficult issues like that if trunk frequently
>> breaks.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Kevin
>>
>> From: Sean McGinnis [sean.mcgin...@gmx.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2018 5:01 PM
>> To:
requently
> breaks.
>
> Thanks,
> Kevin
>
> From: Sean McGinnis [sean.mcgin...@gmx.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2018 5:01 PM
> To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][all] A culture change (nitpick
On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 5:23 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> On 2018-05-30 14:50:11 -0700 (-0700), Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> [...]
>> Let me poke at this a bit. Some of the projects do say (not in so
>> many words):
>>
>> "master should be always deployable and fully backward compatible and
>> so we
On 2018-05-31 00:21:35 + (+), Fox, Kevin M wrote:
> To play devils advocate and as someone that has had to git bisect
> an ugly regression once I still think its important not to break
> trunk. It can be much harder to deal with difficult issues like
> that if trunk frequently breaks.
On 2018-05-30 14:50:11 -0700 (-0700), Davanum Srinivas wrote:
[...]
> Let me poke at this a bit. Some of the projects do say (not in so
> many words):
>
> "master should be always deployable and fully backward compatible and
> so we cant let anything in anytime that could possibly regress anyone"
McGinnis [sean.mcgin...@gmx.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2018 5:01 PM
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][all] A culture change (nitpicking)
> "master should be always deployable and fully backward compatible and
> so we cant let anything in anytime
"master should be always deployable and fully backward compatible and
so we cant let anything in anytime that could possibly regress anyone"
Should we change that attitude too? Anyone agree? disagree?
Thanks,
Dims
I'll definitely jump at this one.
I've always thought (and shared on the ML
Coming from Ops, yes things should always be deployable, backward
compatible and shouldn't break, but at the same time we're talking about a
master branch which is always in flux and not an actual release. I think
that statement you provided Dims should apply to releases or tags and not
the master
Please see below:
On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 2:37 PM, Chris Dent wrote:
> On Wed, 30 May 2018, Julia Kreger wrote:
>
>> I don't feel like anyone is proposing to end the use of -1's, but that
>> we should generally be encouraging, accepting, and trusting.
>
>
> Being encouraging, accepting, and
On Wed, 30 May 2018, Julia Kreger wrote:
I don't feel like anyone is proposing to end the use of -1's, but that
we should generally be encouraging, accepting, and trusting.
Being encouraging, accepting, and trusting is the outcome I'd like
to see from this process. Being less nitpicking is a
On Wed, May 30, 2018, at 8:13 AM, Zane Bitter wrote:
> On 30/05/18 00:52, Cédric Jeanneret wrote:
> >> Another issue is that if the original author needs to rev the patch
> >> again for any reason, they then need to figure out how to check out the
> >> modified patch. This requires a fairly
On Wednesday, 30 May 2018 17:13:41 CEST Zane Bitter wrote:
> On 30/05/18 00:52, Cédric Jeanneret wrote:
> >> Another issue is that if the original author needs to rev the patch
> >> again for any reason, they then need to figure out how to check out the
> >> modified patch. This requires a fairly
On 30/05/18 00:52, Cédric Jeanneret wrote:
Another issue is that if the original author needs to rev the patch
again for any reason, they then need to figure out how to check out the
modified patch. This requires a fairly sophisticated knowledge of both
git and gerrit, which isn't a problem for
I see another problem working on patchsets with lots of revisions and
long-lived history, such as specs or a complex change. The opinions of
several reviewers may be different. So first reviewer lefts a comment, the
owner of the change amends the patch according to it. But after time and
I don't feel like anyone is proposing to end the use of -1's, but that
we should generally be encouraging, accepting, and trusting. That
means if there are major gaps or issues, then the use of a -1 is
perfectly valid because it needs more work. We also need to be mindful
of context as well, and
On 05/30/2018 03:54 PM, Julia Kreger wrote:
On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 7:42 PM, Zane Bitter wrote:
[trim]
Since I am replying to this thread, Julia also mentioned the situation where
two core reviewers are asking for opposite changes to a patch. It is never
ever ever the contributor's
On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 7:42 PM, Zane Bitter wrote:
[trim]
> Since I am replying to this thread, Julia also mentioned the situation where
> two core reviewers are asking for opposite changes to a patch. It is never
> ever ever the contributor's responsibility to resolve a dispute between two
>
Jay S Bryant wrote:
On 5/29/2018 3:19 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
Excerpts from Jonathan Proulx's message of 2018-05-29 16:05:06 -0400:
On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 03:53:41PM -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote:
:> >> maybe we're all saying the same thing here?
:> > Yeah, I feel like we're all essentially in
Hi,
This is a great discussion and a great suggestion overall, but I'd like to add a
grain of salt here, especially after reading some comments.
Nitpicking is bad, no disagreement. However, I don't like this whole discussion
to end up marking -1's as offense or aggression. Just as often as I
On 05/29/2018 09:43 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> Agree with Ian here.
>
> Also another problem that comes up is: "Why are you touching *MY*
> review?" (probably coming from the view where stats - and stackalytics
> leaderboard position is important). So i guess we ask permission
> before
On 05/30/2018 01:42 AM, Zane Bitter wrote:
> On 29/05/18 16:49, Slawomir Kaplonski wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>> Wiadomość napisana przez Jay S Bryant w dniu
>>> 29.05.2018, o godz. 22:25:
>>> Maybe it would be different now that I am a Core/PTL but in the past
>>> I had been warned to be careful as it
I think this is not only for code but also for doc and reno. We should
fix it basically, especially about doc/reno. But I don't think it
should be in the same patch if the mistake isn't critical which means
*nitpicks*. I think we can fix them with following patches if we need
to fix it.
Thanks for making it formal process which really helps. I think most
of the people usually does that but yes it is always helpful to be
added as principles.
I have gotten mix feedback on fixing other patches in past and when i
got anger by author i try to leave comment for a day or two then fix
On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 4:26 PM, Ian Wells wrote:
> On 29 May 2018 at 14:53, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
>
>> On 2018-05-29 15:25:01 -0500 (-0500), Jay S Bryant wrote:
>> [...]
>> > Maybe it would be different now that I am a Core/PTL but in the past I
>> had
>> > been warned to be careful as it
On 05/29/2018 03:43 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Agree with Ian here.
Also another problem that comes up is: "Why are you touching *MY*
review?" (probably coming from the view where stats - and stackalytics
leaderboard position is important). So i guess we ask permission
before editing (or) file
On 29/05/18 16:49, Slawomir Kaplonski wrote:
Hi,
Wiadomość napisana przez Jay S Bryant w dniu 29.05.2018,
o godz. 22:25:
Maybe it would be different now that I am a Core/PTL but in the past I had been
warned to be careful as it could be misinterpreted if I was changing other
people's
On 29 May 2018 at 14:53, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> On 2018-05-29 15:25:01 -0500 (-0500), Jay S Bryant wrote:
> [...]
> > Maybe it would be different now that I am a Core/PTL but in the past I
> had
> > been warned to be careful as it could be misinterpreted if I was changing
> > other people's
On 2018-05-29 15:25:01 -0500 (-0500), Jay S Bryant wrote:
[...]
> Maybe it would be different now that I am a Core/PTL but in the past I had
> been warned to be careful as it could be misinterpreted if I was changing
> other people's patches or that it could look like I was trying to pad my
>
Excerpts from Slawomir Kaplonski's message of 2018-05-29 22:49:07 +0200:
> Hi,
>
> > Wiadomość napisana przez Jay S Bryant w dniu
> > 29.05.2018, o godz. 22:25:
> >
> >
> > On 5/29/2018 3:19 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> >> Excerpts from Jonathan Proulx's message of 2018-05-29 16:05:06 -0400:
>
Hi,
> Wiadomość napisana przez Jay S Bryant w dniu
> 29.05.2018, o godz. 22:25:
>
>
> On 5/29/2018 3:19 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>> Excerpts from Jonathan Proulx's message of 2018-05-29 16:05:06 -0400:
>>> On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 03:53:41PM -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>>> :> >> maybe we're
On 5/29/2018 3:19 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
Excerpts from Jonathan Proulx's message of 2018-05-29 16:05:06 -0400:
On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 03:53:41PM -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote:
:> >> maybe we're all saying the same thing here?
:> > Yeah, I feel like we're all essentially in agreement that nits
Excerpts from Jonathan Proulx's message of 2018-05-29 16:05:06 -0400:
> On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 03:53:41PM -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> :> >> maybe we're all saying the same thing here?
> :> > Yeah, I feel like we're all essentially in agreement that nits (of the
> :> > English mistake of typo
On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 03:53:41PM -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote:
:> >> maybe we're all saying the same thing here?
:> > Yeah, I feel like we're all essentially in agreement that nits (of the
:> > English mistake of typo type) do need to get fixed, but sometimes
:> > (often?) putting the burden of
Excerpts from Julia Kreger's message of 2018-05-29 15:41:55 -0400:
> On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 3:16 PM, Jay S Bryant wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 5/29/2018 2:06 PM, Artom Lifshitz wrote:
> >> Yeah, I feel like we're all essentially in agreement that nits (of the
> >> English mistake of typo type) do need
Excerpts from Jay S Bryant's message of 2018-05-29 14:16:33 -0500:
>
> On 5/29/2018 2:06 PM, Artom Lifshitz wrote:
> >> On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 10:52:04AM -0400, Mohammed Naser wrote:
> >>
> >> :On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 10:43 AM, Artom Lifshitz
> >> wrote:
> >> :> One idea would be that, once
Agree with Ian here.
Also another problem that comes up is: "Why are you touching *MY*
review?" (probably coming from the view where stats - and stackalytics
leaderboard position is important). So i guess we ask permission
before editing (or) file a follow up later (or) just tell folks that
this
On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 3:16 PM, Jay S Bryant wrote:
>
>
> On 5/29/2018 2:06 PM, Artom Lifshitz wrote:
>> Yeah, I feel like we're all essentially in agreement that nits (of the
>> English mistake of typo type) do need to get fixed, but sometimes
>> (often?) putting the burden of fixing them on
If your nitpick is a spelling mistake or the need for a comment where
you've pretty much typed the text of the comment in the review comment
itself, then I have personally found it easiest to use the Gerrit online
editor to actually update the patch yourself. There's nothing magical
about the
On 5/29/2018 2:06 PM, Artom Lifshitz wrote:
On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 10:52:04AM -0400, Mohammed Naser wrote:
:On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 10:43 AM, Artom Lifshitz wrote:
:> One idea would be that, once the meat of the patch
:> has passed multiple rounds of reviews and looks good, and what
> On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 10:52:04AM -0400, Mohammed Naser wrote:
>
> :On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 10:43 AM, Artom Lifshitz wrote:
> :> One idea would be that, once the meat of the patch
> :> has passed multiple rounds of reviews and looks good, and what remains
> :> is only nits, the reviewer
Julia,
Thank you for starting this discussion.
On 5/29/2018 9:43 AM, Artom Lifshitz wrote:
I dunno, there's a fine line to be drawn between getting a finished
product that looks unprofessional (because of typos, English mistakes,
etc), and nitpicking to the point of smothering and being
Thanks for driving this Julia. +1. It's time to do this.
-- Dims
On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 6:55 AM, Julia Kreger
wrote:
> During the Forum, the topic of review culture came up in session after
> session. During these discussions, the subject of our use of nitpicks
> were often raised as a point
Jonathan D. Proulx wrote:
On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 10:52:04AM -0400, Mohammed Naser wrote:
:On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 10:43 AM, Artom Lifshitz wrote:
:> One idea would be that, once the meat of the patch
:> has passed multiple rounds of reviews and looks good, and what remains
:> is only
Hi Julia,
Thanks for the follow up on this topic.
On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 6:55 AM, Julia Kreger
wrote:
>
> These things are not just frustrating, but also very inhibiting for
> part time contributors such as students who may also be time limited.
> Or an operator who noticed something that was
On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 10:52:04AM -0400, Mohammed Naser wrote:
:On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 10:43 AM, Artom Lifshitz wrote:
:> One idea would be that, once the meat of the patch
:> has passed multiple rounds of reviews and looks good, and what remains
:> is only nits, the reviewer themselves take
>From my point of view as someone who is still just an occasional
contributor (in all OpenStack projects other than my own team's networking
driver), and so I think still sensitive to the concerns being raised here:
- Nits are not actually a problem, at all, if they are uncontroversial and
quick
If I have a nit that doesn't affect things, I'll make a note of it and say
if you do another patch I'd really like it fixed but also give the patch a
vote. What I'll also do sometimes if I know the user or they are online
I'll offer to fix things for them, that way they can see what I've done,
On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 10:43 AM, Artom Lifshitz wrote:
> I dunno, there's a fine line to be drawn between getting a finished
> product that looks unprofessional (because of typos, English mistakes,
> etc), and nitpicking to the point of smothering and being
> counter-productive. One idea would
I dunno, there's a fine line to be drawn between getting a finished
product that looks unprofessional (because of typos, English mistakes,
etc), and nitpicking to the point of smothering and being
counter-productive. One idea would be that, once the meat of the patch
has passed multiple rounds of
67 matches
Mail list logo
