Excerpts from Slawomir Kaplonski's message of 2018-05-29 22:49:07 +0200: > Hi, > > > Wiadomość napisana przez Jay S Bryant <jungleb...@gmail.com> 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 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 > > > > 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 > > numbers. (I am a nit-picker though I do my best not to be. > > Exactly. I remember when I was doing my first patch (or one of first patches) > and someone pushed new PS with some very small nits fixed. I was a bit > confused because of that and I was thinking why he did it instead of me? > Now it’s of course much more clear for me but for someone who is new > contributor I think that this might be confusing. Maybe such person should at > least remember to explain in comment why he pushed new PS and that’s not > „stealing” work of original author :)
I guess it never occurred to me that someone would do that without also leaving a comment explaining the situation. Doug > > > > > I am happy if people understand I am just trying to keep the process moving > > and keep the read/flow of Cinder consistent. :-) > > > > Jay > > > >> __________________________________________________________________________ > >> 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 > > — > Slawek Kaplonski > Senior software engineer > Red Hat > __________________________________________________________________________ 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