Open Stack

On 10/07/14 15:05, Alexis Lee wrote:
> Tomas Sedovic said on Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 02:26:06PM +0200:
>> On 09/07/14 17:52, Clint Byrum wrote:
>> +1 for both. However, some of the reviews show what I think is a
>> worrying trend in TripleO core. Specifically, nitpicking and tendency to
>> bikeshed.
> 
> Hi Tomas, thanks for your +1 and thoughts.
> 
> FWIW, I'm a firm believer in progress over perfection and although I
> comment on the form, I try to score on the function. I'll get better at
> commenting to this effect, especially so if my nitpicking gains the
> weight of core.
> 
> I love English and believe careful use is a great benefit, particularly
> in dense technical documents. You're entirely correct that this
> shouldn't be allowed to noticeably impede progress though.

Thanks for the reply. Please don't get me wrong, I love English, too,
despite all its warts.

Looks like we're in agreement, I'm certainly for improving the wording
in cases where it helps understanding.

Nothing against "comment on the form, score on the function" either.

I've seen a lot of cases where there are legitimate problems with the
code or text that receive a deserved -1. And attached to the same
reviews are suggestions of much smaller significance the reviewer
wouldn't necessarily block on.

But Gerrit doesn't make it easy to tell the two apart.

So I just wanted to point out that these smaller suggestions, while
beneficial, are not without cost so we should use them with care, too.

> 
> 
> Alexis
>