[openstack-dev] [hacking] rules for removal
ihrachys at redhat.com
Wed Jun 25 12:04:23 UTC 2014
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 25/06/14 12:59, Sean Dague wrote:
> On 06/25/2014 03:56 AM, Martin Geisler wrote:
>> 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?
> Anyone can actually upload a 2nd patch, which includes changing
> the commit message. We just mostly have a culture of not rewriting
> people's patches, for better or worse.
That can even be achieved thru Gerrit WebUI. There's a button for
this. But it's not about culture only. If you update commit message
for another guy, and then he needs to update the patch due to
comments, he will need to fetch your patch to his workspace and amend
it, instead of amending what he has in his local repo. This is
>> (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.)
> That's often the challenge, it works fine if the original author
> is actually paying attention, and does a git review -d instead of
> just using their local branch. But is many cases that's not
> happening. (Also it's completely off book for how we teach folks to
> use git --amend in the base case).
> I've had instances of working with someone where even though we
> were talking on IRC during the whole thing, they kept overwriting
> the fix I was sticking in for them to get the test fixed. So
> typically you only want to do this with really advanced developers,
> with heads up that you pushed over them.
> Maybe there are trickier things we could do in git-review for this.
> But it definitely gets goofy if you aren't paying attention.
> I do also think people often get grumpy about other people
> rewriting their code. Which I think is just human, so erring on the
> side of giving feedback instead of taking it over is I think the
> right thing to do.
> _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev
> mailing list OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the OpenStack-dev