Open Stack

For the guidance, I saw the judgement is a bit subjective. It could happen that a contributor think his/her patch is trivial (or it is not fixing a function defect), but a reviewer think the opposite. For example, I find it hard to judge when I reviewed the following patches:

https://review.openstack.org/#/c/224183/
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/224198/
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/224184/

It could be helpful if the guide can provide some examples of what is a trivial patch, and what is not. OpenStack uses this approach to define what is a good/bad commit message, which I find it quite helpful.

https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/GitCommitMessages#Examples_of_bad_practice
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/GitCommitMessages#Examples_of_good_practice

Best regards,
Hongbin

From: Adrian Otto [mailto:adrian.otto at rackspace.com]
Sent: September-17-15 5:09 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Associating patches with bugs/bps (Please don't hurt me)

For posterity, I have recorded this guidance in our Contributing Wiki:

See the NOTE section under:

https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Magnum/Contributing#Identify_bugs

Excerpt:

"NOTE: If you are fixing something trivial, that is not actually a functional defect in the software, you can do that without filing a bug ticket, if you don't want it to be tracked when we tally this work between releases. If you do this, just mention it in the commit message that it's a trivial change that does not require a bug ticket. You can reference this guideline if it comes up in discussion during the review process. Functional defects should be tracked in bug tickets. New features should be tracked in blueprints. Trivial features may be tracked using a bug ticket marked as 'Wishlist' importance."

I hope that helps.

Adrian

On Sep 17, 2015, at 2:01 PM, Adrian Otto <adrian.otto at rackspace.com<mailto:adrian.otto at rackspace.com>> wrote:

Let’s apply sensible reason. If it’s a new feature or a bug, it should be tracked against an artifact like a bug ticket or a blueprint. If it’s truly trivia, we don’t care. I can tell you that some of the worst bugs I have ever seen in my career had fixes that were about 4 bytes long. That did not make them any less serious.

If you are fixing an actual legitimate bug that has a three character fix, and you don’t want it to be tracked as the reviewer, then you can say so in the commit message. We can act accordingly going forward.

Adrian

On Sep 17, 2015, at 1:53 PM, Assaf Muller <amuller at redhat.com<mailto:amuller at redhat.com>> wrote:


On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 4:09 PM, Jeff Peeler <jpeeler at redhat.com<mailto:jpeeler at redhat.com>> wrote:

On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Fox, Kevin M <Kevin.Fox at pnnl.gov<mailto:Kevin.Fox at pnnl.gov>> wrote:
I agree. Lots of projects have this issue. I submitted a bug fix once that literally was 3 characters long, and it took:
A short commit message, a long commit message, and a full bug report being filed and cross linked. The amount of time writing it up was orders of magnitude longer then the actual fix.

Seems a bit much...

Looking at this review, I'd go a step farther and argue that code cleanups like this one should be really really easy to get through. No one likes to do them, so we should be encouraging folks that actually do it. Not pile up roadblocks.

It is indeed frustrating. I've had a few similar reviews (in other projects - hopefully it's okay I comment here) as well. Honestly, I think if a given team is willing to draw the line as for what is permissible to commit without bug creation, then they should be permitted that freedom.

However, that said, I'm sure somebody is going to point out that come release time having the list of bugs fixed in a given release is handy, spelling errors included.

We've had the same debate in Neutron and we relaxed the rules. We don't require bugs for trivial changes. In fact, my argument has always been: Come release
time, when we say that the Neutron community fixed so and so bugs, we would be lying if we were to include fixing spelling issues in comments. That's not a bug.


__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe<http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org/?subject:unsubscribe>
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org>?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org>?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20150918/021cf754/attachment.html>