[openstack-dev] [Ironic] patches that only address grammatical/typos

Ruby Loo rlooyahoo at gmail.com
Wed Feb 25 16:26:56 UTC 2015


I was wondering what people thought about patches that only fix grammatical
issues or misspellings in comments in our code.

I can't believe I'm sending out this email, but as a group, I'd like it if
we had  a similar understanding so that we treat all patches in a similar
(dare I say it, consistent) manner. I've seen negative votes and positive
(approved) votes for similar patches. Right now, I look at such submitted
patches and ignore them, because I don't know what the fairest thing is. I
don't feel right that a patch that was previously submitted gets a -2,
whereas another patch gets a +A.

To be clear, I think that anything that is user-facing like (log,
exception) messages or our documentation should be cleaned up. (And yes, I
am fine using British or American English or a mix here.)

What I'm wondering about are the fixes to docstrings and inline comments
that aren't externally visible.

On one hand, It is great that someone submits a patch so maybe we should
approve it, so as not to discourage the submitter. On the other hand, how
useful are such submissions. It has already been suggested (and maybe
discussed to death) that we should approve patches if there are only nits.
These grammatical and misspellings fall under nits. If we are explicitly
saying that it is OK to merge these nits, then why fix them later, unless
they are part of a patch that does more than only address those nits?

I realize that it would take me less time to approve the patches than to
write this email, but I wanted to know what the community thought. Some
rule-of-thumb would be helpful to me.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20150225/d78b0c8c/attachment.html>

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list