On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 02:46:40PM +0100, Yolanda Robla Mota wrote: > I did an effort to review that, and some of the patches are merged. Although > it's low priority, in general these patches have improved readability, and > in some of the cases, have grouped the parameters in a more logical way. I > always tend to space the parameters myself, and keep them ordered in a > logical way because they are easier to maintain later, so I agreed with that > patch, even if that was not reflecting style guides. And I also appreciate > the high effort that Andrey has put on it. > > However, I can see there is a cost to maintain the modules that way. I will > not -1 for that, I found one case and i just suggested to keep the order, > but I think it's not a reason for people to refactor a patch. > > That's my two cents. > > Best > Yolanda > > El 24/03/16 a las 14:38, Jeremy Stanley escribió: > >On 2016-03-24 13:42:58 +0300 (+0300), Andrey Nikitin wrote: > >>By this message I want to start a discussion about using of the > >>Puppet style guide [0] in the 'openstack-infra/puppet-*' projects. > >>As you can see, I've created a lot of change-requests to the > >>repositories some days ago. I started this work, because I saw, > >>that those manifests have different styles of the code, therefore > >>I wanted to refactor and make much better them. For example, some > >>of them have unsorted and unstructured lists of variables, some of > >>them have no docstrings in the body with description of used > >>variables and so on. I suppose, that we can unify those manifests > >>by following the puppet style guide, but opinions are divided. > >I don't think opinions are especially divided about rules mandated > >by the style guide, so much as other changes you were introducing > >not mandated by the style guide (alphabetizing class parameters, > >aligning = assignment operators, et cetera). > > > >>My point of view is following: if we implement the style guide on > >>puppet manifests, we will have unified and structured manifests > >>with documentation for all classes. We can use it without > >>alphabetically sorting of variables, of course. > >> > >>So, my questions to you are: > >>1. Should we follow the style guide or not? > >>2. What the recommendation we could implement on Openstack Infra manifests? > >We've already stated in the past that for any modules besides > >openstack_project (system-config), i.e. those we're publishing to > >Puppetforge, we would follow rules mandated by the Puppet Style > >Guide. I think things like making sure we declare required > >parameters before optional ones, use docstrings for clarity, and so > >on are fine. Just be aware that changes which refactor otherwise > >syntactically and logically correct code will be low priority for > >most of our reviewers and will likely have to be rebased many times > >if they touch a lot of lines in a given file. > I know we are bikeshedding over style guides again, but maybe we should look at in another way. We have a new contributor sending patches to openstack-infra, which is an awesome thing for me. Personally, lint changes usually are a simple things to submit patches for and an easy way to learn more about a project.
So, for that, I am happy to help with the patches. However, if people feel we are doing needless churn, I can understand that too. I would must rather see the conversation then move towards what can new contributors do in openstack-infra to get better involved. I cannot thing of something, besides linting, to better understand our modules and sub projects. And interested to here what others think. --- Paul _______________________________________________ OpenStack-Infra mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-infra
