On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 6:05 AM, Ziad Sawalha <ziad.sawa...@rackspace.com> wrote: > > On Feb 26, 2014, at 11:47 AM, Joe Gordon <joe.gord...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 9:05 AM, David Ripton <drip...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> On 02/26/2014 11:40 AM, Joe Gordon wrote: >>> >>>> This is missing the point about manually enforcing style. If you pass >>>> the 'pep8' job there is no need to change any style. >>> >>> >>> In a perfect world, yes. >> >> While there are exceptions to this, this just sounds like being extra >> nit-picky. > > The current reality is that reviewers do vote and comment based on the rules > in > the hacking guide. In terms of style, whether my patch gets approved or not > depends > on who reviews it.
Style guide enforcement is a two part problem: * Train the reviewers to just rely on the automated enforcement (except for special cases) * Make sure the automatic style checks reflect the lazy consensus of what we want. If reviewers nit pick and read between the lines in style enforcement, we will spend all our time writing new rules. > > I think that clarifying this in the hacking guide and including it in our > test suites > would remove the personal bias from it. I don't see folks complaining that > Jenkins is > being nit-picky as a reviewer. I think as a first pass we can explicitly mention we don't care about the trailing empty line (which is the status quo). > >> The important aspect here is the mindset, if we don't gate >> on style rule x, then we shouldn't waste valuable human review time >> and patch revisions on trying to manually enforce it (And yes there >> are exceptions to this). >> >>> >>> In the real world, there are several things in PEP8 or our project >>> guidelines that the tools don't enforce perfectly. I think it's fine for >>> human reviewers to point such things out. (And then submit a patch to >>> hacking to avoid the need to do so in the future.) >> >> To clarify, we don't rely on long term human enforcement for something >> that a computer can do. >> > > Precisely. I'm offering to include this as a patch to hacking or even a > separate > test that we can add (without gating initially). > >>> >>> -- >>> David Ripton Red Hat drip...@redhat.com >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> OpenStack-dev mailing list >>> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OpenStack-dev mailing list >> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
