Open Stack

On 30/04/13 13:08 +1200, Robert Collins wrote:
>On 30 April 2013 09:50, Russell Bryant <rbryant at redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 04/29/2013 05:04 PM, Robert Collins wrote:
>
>  * No more big landings [except the purely mechanical]. Set a hard
>>> limit - maybe 500 lines of diff. Big landings are more risky per line
>>> of diff than small ones due to reviewer cognitive overhead - reviewers
>>> get non-linearly less effective the larger the review.
>>>
>>
>> I don't think we can set a # of lines that always makes sense.  However,
>> I feel like in Nova we already do a nice job of pushing back hard on
>> large patches in favor of breaking them up into a reasonable patch series.
>>
>> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/GitCommitMessages
>>
>> So, at least for Nova, this is business as usual.
>
>In principle yes. However I think we need to give more specific
>guidance to contributors... This is about setting expectations for
>submitters as much as it is about reviewers: the documentation link
>you gave already permits reviewers to say 'this patch does more than
>one conceptual thing, please split it'; but when was the last time you
>saw a non-mechanical 500 line patch that did *one thing* ?
>


I think it depends on the case, for example:

https://github.com/openstack/glance/commit/351c49509939fbc64babed80dfd5e1122a1215b5

That commit added 290 lines of code all related to the same feature.
It didn't required more lines because the back-end store made it
easier but, it could required more lines for different stores.

IMHO, it's hard to set a maximum number of lines that could be merged
per commit. Perhaps we should increase it or at least calc the avg in
the last release.

Cheers,
FF

-- 
{ name: "Flavio Percoco",
   gpg: "87112EC1", 
   internal: "8261386",
   phone: "+390687502386",
   irc: ["fpercoco", "flaper87"]}