Open Stack

On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Joshua Harlow <harlowja at yahoo-inc.com>wrote:

>  Agreed. I'd at least like to have the bug referenced have at least more
> context.
>
>  The commit message links to the bug, so that’s a plus (but not ideal).
>


   - *Do not assume the reviewer has access to external web services/site.*

In 6 months time when someone is on a train/plane/coach/beach/pub
troubleshooting a problem & browsing GIT history, there is no guarantee
they will have access to the online bug tracker, or online blueprint
documents. The great step forward with distributed SCM is that you no
longer need to be "online" to have access to all information about the code
repository. The commit message should be totally self-contained, to
maintain that benefit.


https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/GitCommitMessages#Information_in_commit_messages


>
>   From: Joe Gordon <joe.gordon0 at gmail.com>
> Reply-To: OpenStack Development Mailing List <
> openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
> Date: Thursday, August 8, 2013 12:14 PM
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] Oslo.exception being dropped??
>
>   This touches on one of my big pet peeves, in the commit message one
> should:
>
>  "*Describe why a change is being made.*
>
> A common mistake is to just document how the code has been written,
> without describing /why/ the developer chose to do it that way. By all
> means describe the overall code structure, particularly for large changes,
> but more importantly describe the intent/motivation behind the changes."
>
> Actually,
> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/GitCommitMessages#Information_in_commit_messages has
> a really great description of what a commit message should include and why,
> but rarely due.
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Mac Innes, Kiall <kiall at hp.com> wrote:
>
>> Taking a total guess here... But, I reckon that it's usefulness now that
>> oslo.* are being spun off into "real projects" means that the shared
>> dependency is becoming a problem.
>>
>> e.g. oslo.config and oslo.messaging shouldn't both include it, so should
>> a whole oslo.exception library be created for what is essentially 1
>> shared base exception class? I personally don't think so.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Kiall
>>
>> On 08/08/13 19:12, Joshua Harlow wrote:
>> > Hi recently I was working with some cinder code and noticed that
>> > oslo.exception is being dropped from it (and other projects).
>> >
>> > It seems connected back to this bug:
>> > https://bugs.launchpad.net/oslo/+bug/1208734
>> >
>> >
>> https://github.com/openstack/oslo-incubator/blob/master/MAINTAINERS#L118
>> >
>> > I'm just wondering if there is any more reason for why it is obsoleted,
>> > is it being replaced? Was there just no one supporting it? Was it
>> > decided that its not useful?
>> >
>> > Thanks much,
>> >
>> > Josh
>>
>>  _______________________________________________
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20130808/0bf0d121/attachment.html>