Open Stack

Excerpts from Jonathan Proulx's message of 2018-05-29 16:05:06 -0400:
> 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
> 

OK, that's all good. I'm just surprised to learn that throwing a
follow-up patch on top of someone else's patch was ever seen as
discouraged.

The spice must flow,
Doug