Open Stack

Mark McLoughlin <markmc at redhat.com> writes:

> On Tue, 2014-06-24 at 13:56 -0700, Clint Byrum wrote:
>> Excerpts from Mark McLoughlin's message of 2014-06-24 12:49:52 -0700:
>>
>> However, there is a debate, and thus I would _never_ block a patch
>> based on this rule. It was feedback.. just as sometimes there is
>> feedback in commit messages that isn't taken and doesn't lead to a
>> -1.
>
> Absolutely, and I try and be clear about that with e.g. "not a -1" or
> "if you're rebasing anyway, perhaps fix this".

Perhaps the problem is the round-trips such corrections imply?

In the Mercurial project we accept contributions sent as patches only.
There it's common for the core developers to fix the commit message
locally before importing a patch. That makes it quick to fix these
problems and I think that this workflow puts less work on the core
maintainers.

With Gerrit, it seems that simply fixing the commit message in the web
interface could work. I know that a patch submitter can update it
online, but I don't know if (core) reviewers can also just update it?

(Updating the patch in Gerrit would "go behind the back" of the
submitter who would then have to rebase any additional work he has done
on the branch. So this is not 100% pain free.)

-- 
Martin Geisler

http://google.com/+MartinGeisler
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 818 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20140625/181dce0c/attachment.pgp>