Open Stack

On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 3:16 PM, Jay S Bryant <jungleboyj at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 5/29/2018 2:06 PM, Artom Lifshitz wrote:
>> Yeah, I feel like we're all essentially in agreement that nits (of the
>> English mistake of typo type) do need to get fixed, but sometimes
>> (often?) putting the burden of fixing them on the original patch
>> contributor is neither fair nor constructive.
>
> I am ok with this statement if we are all in agreement that doing follow-up
> patches is an acceptable practice.
>
It does feel like there is some general agreement. \o/

Putting my Ironic hat on, we've been trying to stress that follow-up
patches are totally acceptable and encouraged. Follow-up patches seem
to land faster in the grand scheme of things and allow series of
patches to move forward in the mean time which is important when a
feature may be spread across 10+ patches

As for editing just prior to approving, we have learned there can be
absolutely no delay between that edit being made and the patch
approved to land. In essence patches would begin to look like only a
single core reviewer had approved the change they just edited even if
the prior revision had a second core approving the prior revision.. In
my experience, the async nature of waiting for a second core to
sign-off on your edits incurs additional time for nitpicks to occur
and a patch to be blocked.

Sadly putting the burden on the person approving changes to land is a
bit much as well. I think anyone should be free to propose a follow-up
to any patch, at least that is my opinion and why I wrote the
principles change as I did.