Open Stack

Hi,

> Wiadomość napisana przez Jay S Bryant <jungleboyj at gmail.com> w dniu 29.05.2018, o godz. 22:25:
> 
> 
> On 5/29/2018 3:19 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>> 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
> 
> Maybe it would be different now that I am a Core/PTL but in the past I had been warned to be careful as it could be misinterpreted if I was changing other people's patches or that it could look like I was trying to pad my numbers. (I am a nit-picker though I do my best not to be.

Exactly. I remember when I was doing my first patch (or one of first patches) and someone pushed new PS with some very small nits fixed. I was a bit confused because of that and I was thinking why he did it instead of me?
Now it’s of course much more clear for me but for someone who is new contributor I think that this might be confusing. Maybe such person should at least remember to explain in comment why he pushed new PS and that’s not „stealing” work of original author :)

> 
> I am happy if people understand I am just trying to keep the process moving and keep the read/flow of Cinder consistent.  :-)
> 
> Jay
> 
>> __________________________________________________________________________
>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Unsubscribe: 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?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

— 
Slawek Kaplonski
Senior software engineer
Red Hat