Open Stack

Ruby Loo said on Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 11:26:56AM -0500:
> I was wondering what people thought about patches that only fix grammatical
> issues or misspellings in comments in our code.

For my money, a patch fixing nits has value but only if it fixes a few.
If it's a follow-up patch it should fix all the nits; otherwise it
should be of a significant chunk, EG a file, class or large method.

> 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?

We'd rather they were fixed though, right? Letting patches with nits
land is a pragmatic response to long response times or social friction.
Likewise a follow-up patch to fix nits can be a very pragmatic way to
allow the original patch to land quickly without sacrificing code
readability.


Alexis
-- 
Nova Engineer, HP Cloud.  AKA lealexis, lxsli.