Open Stack

On 3/12/15, 09:26, "Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange at redhat.com> wrote:

>On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 09:07:30AM -0500, Flavio Percoco wrote:
>> On 11/03/15 15:06 -1000, John Bresnahan wrote:
>> >FWIW I agree with #3 and #4 but not #1 and #2.  Spelling is an easy
>>enough
>> >thing to get right and speaks to the quality standard to which the
>>product
>> >is held even in commit messages and comments (consider the 'broken
>>window
>> >theory').  Of course everyone makes mistakes (I am a terrible speller)
>>but
>> >correcting a spelling error should be a trivial matter.  If a reviewer
>> >notices a spelling error I would expect them to point it.
>> 
>> I'd agree depending on the status of the patch. If the patch has
>> already 2 +2s and someone blocks it because of a spelling error, then
>> the cost of fixing it, running the CI jobs and getting the reviews
>> again is higher than living with a simple typo.
>
>Also remember that submitting patches which fix typos is a great way
>for new contributors to gain a ATC and thus qualify for free design
>summit pass, so it is good to leave plenty of typos around :-P

So we should file more bugs with low-hanging fruit for these? I kind of
like that idea. Those bugs can be immediately triaged unlike some of
Glance’s other bugs.

Cheers,

Ian