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 type) do need to get fixed, but sometimes > :> > (often?) putting the burden of fixing them on the original patch > :> > contributor is neither fair nor constructive. > :> I am ok with this statement if we are all in agreement that doing > :> follow-up patches is an acceptable practice. > : > :Has it ever not been? > : > :It seems like it has always come down to a bit of negotiation with > :the original author, hasn't it? And that won't change, except that > :we will be emphasizing to reviewers that we encourage them to be > :more active in seeking out that negotiation and then proposing > :patches? > > Exactly, it's more codifying a default. > > It's not been unacceptable but I think there's some understandable > reluctance to make changes to someone else's work, you don't want to > seem like your taking over or getting in the way. At least that's > what's in my head when deciding should this be a comment or a patch. > > I think this discussion suggests for certain class of "nits" patch is > preferred to comment. If that is true making this explicit is a good > thing becuase let's face it my social skills are only marginally > better than my speeling :) > > -Jon >
OK, that's all good. I'm just surprised to learn that throwing a follow-up patch on top of someone else's patch was ever seen as discouraged. The spice must flow, 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