On 4 January 2014 08:31, Jeremy Stanley <fu...@yuggoth.org> wrote: > I really don't understand the aversion to allowing contributors to > police on their own what files they do and don't commit in a review > to an OpenStack project. It all boils down to the following > balancing act:
I have *no* aversion to allowing contributors to police things on their own. I have an aversion to forcing them to do so. > * Reviewing changes to each project's .gitignore for the trashfile > patterns of every editor and IDE known to man is a waste of > reviewers' collective time. This is a strawman. If we have to review for a trashfile pattern then we have contributors using that. There are more editors than contributors :). > * Having to point out to contributors that they've accidentally > added trashfiles created by their arbitrary choice of tools to a > change in review is also a waste of reviewers' collective time. > > Since there are ways for a contributor to configure their > development environment in a manner which prevents them from > inadvertently putting these files into a change for review, I feel > like it's perfectly reasonable to suggest that as an alternative. It > is just one of the many ways a contributor avoids wasting reviewer > time by neither polluting their changes nor every project's > .gitignore with details potentially relevant only to their own > personal development system and nowhere else. I don't understand why you call it polluting. Pollution is toxic. What is toxic about the few rules needed to handle common editors? -Rob -- Robert Collins <rbtcoll...@hp.com> Distinguished Technologist HP Converged Cloud _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev