Open Stack

Excerpts from Slawomir Kaplonski's message of 2018-05-29 22:49:07 +0200:
> 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 guess it never occurred to me that someone would do that without
also leaving a comment explaining the situation.

Doug

> 
> > 
> > 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
>