Open Stack

On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 9:29 AM, Ben Nemec <openstack at nemebean.com> wrote:
> On 2014-02-27 08:05, Ziad Sawalha wrote:
>>
>> On Feb 26, 2014, at 11:47 AM, Joe Gordon <joe.gordon0 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 9:05 AM, David Ripton <dripton at 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>> 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).
>
>
> I'm fine with this personally, although it should probably be noted that we
> have some PEP 257-type style checks in hacking that get almost universally
> ignored because no project has been following those style guidelines up to
> this point and it's a significant amount of effort to fix that.  That said,
> a check for the trailing blank line would be easier to fix so it might get
> more traction.

If we do want to add this to hacking, and I am not convinced either
way yet, we should pick the option that requires the least change to
gate on.

>
> -Ben
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev