[openstack-dev] [tc][all] A culture change (nitpicking)

Thierry Carrez thierry at openstack.org
Wed May 30 10:31:23 UTC 2018

Jay S Bryant wrote:
> 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.

There still seems to be some confusion between "new patchset over 
existing change" and "follow-up separate change" as to what is the 
recommended way to fix nits.

To clarify, the proposal here is to encourage the posting of a follow-up 

Thierry Carrez (ttx)

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list