Open Stack

On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 10:30:59AM -0800, Joe Gordon wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 8:57 AM, Sahid Orentino Ferdjaoui <
> sahid.ferdjaoui at redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 02:00:11PM -0800, Joe Gordon wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 9:49 AM, Sahid Orentino Ferdjaoui <
> > > sahid.ferdjaoui at redhat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > This is something we can call nitpiking or low priority.
> > > >
> > >
> > > This all seems like nitpicking for very little value. I think there are
> > > better things we can be focusing on instead of thinking of new ways to
> > nit
> > > pick. So I am -1 on all of these.
> >
> > Yes as written this is low priority but something necessary for a
> > project like Nova it is.
> >
> >
> Why do you think this is necessary?

Your asking make sense; You/Nova is looking for engineering time to
focus on other development more importants. I would to help with my
humble experience.

 * Let developer a chance to know about what values was expected when
   he broke a test.

 * Let developer to know what to use between warn or warning instead
   of loosing time by looking in the module what was used or doing a
   coin flip.

Contributors are expected to read HACKING.rst and some of these rules
can be tested by gate.

> > Considered that I feel sad to take your time. Can I suggest you to
> > take no notice of this and let's others developers working on Nova too
> > do this job ?
> >
> >
> As the maintainer of openstack-dev/hacking and as a nova core, I don't
> think this is worth doing at all. Nova already has enough on its plate and
> doesn't need extra code to review.

My point was not to discredit your opinion (My phrasing can be
wrong I'm non-native english) I believe that you and contributors in
general like me are working to make Nova better. Usually in
opensource software contributors are welcome to help even if it is to
fix a typo and I was hoped to help.