Open Stack

I see that https://review.openstack.org/264253 merged in Trove. Do you feel that the exposure is sufficient that we should go and revert these kind(s) of changes wholesale across the projects?

-amrith

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Harney [mailto:eharney at redhat.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 9:55 AM
> To: Amrith Kumar <amrith at tesora.com>; OpenStack Development Mailing
> List (not for usage questions) <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] Spam of patches
> 
> On 01/12/2016 09:32 AM, Julien Danjou wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 12 2016, Amrith Kumar wrote:
> >
> >> My question to the ML is this, should stylistic changes of this kind
> >> be handled in a consistent way across all projects, maybe with a
> >> hacking rule and some discussion on the ML first? After all, if this
> >> change is worthwhile, it is worth ensuring that this construct that
> >> we are seeking to eliminate, does not reenter the code base.
> >
> > This is not stylistic, these are actual changes that can break the
> > code for no good reason. I've already -2'ed the Ceilometer one.
> >
> > Honestly, this kind of change are getting more and more a problem to us.
> > People invent a false bug, maybe report it to LP and mass-assign
> > projects, and then spam all the projects without any discussion before.
> > The worse thing is that most of these patches are wrong or incorrect,
> > add code-churn that just pollutes project history for no benefit.
> >
> 
> For anyone interested here, this is the most recent example of this that I've
> seen (and not the first time this same faulty change has been discussed in
> Cinder):
> 
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/cinder/+bug/1512207
> 
> The change suggested here makes unit tests weaker, but many projects
> have already landed this change.
> 
> I'd just like to be another voice to say: these changes are often not as simple
> as they look, and really need careful review.