Open Stack

On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 03:53:41PM -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote:
:> >> maybe we're all saying the same thing here?
:> > 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.
:
:Has it ever not been?
:
:It seems like it has always come down to a bit of negotiation with
:the original author, hasn't it? And that won't change, except that
:we will be emphasizing to reviewers that we encourage them to be
:more active in seeking out that negotiation and then proposing
:patches?

Exactly, it's more codifying a default.

It's not been unacceptable but I think there's some understandable
reluctance to make changes to someone else's work, you don't want to
seem like your taking over or getting in the way.  At least that's
what's in my head when deciding should this be a comment or a patch.

I think this discussion suggests for certain class of "nits" patch is
preferred to comment.  If that is true making this explicit is a good
thing becuase let's face it my social skills are only marginally
better than my speeling :)

-Jon