Open Stack

On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 02:46:40PM +0100, Yolanda Robla Mota wrote:
> I did an effort to review that, and some of the patches are merged. Although
> it's low priority, in general these patches have improved readability, and
> in some of the cases, have grouped the parameters in a more logical way. I
> always tend to space the parameters myself, and keep them ordered in a
> logical way because they are easier to maintain later, so I agreed with that
> patch, even if that was not reflecting style guides. And I also appreciate
> the high effort that Andrey has put on it.
> 
> However, I can see there is a cost to maintain the modules that way. I will
> not -1 for that, I found one case and i just suggested to keep the order,
> but I think it's not a reason for people to refactor a patch.
> 
> That's my two cents.
> 
> Best
> Yolanda
> 
> El 24/03/16 a las 14:38, Jeremy Stanley escribió:
> >On 2016-03-24 13:42:58 +0300 (+0300), Andrey Nikitin wrote:
> >>By this message I want to start a discussion about using of the
> >>Puppet style guide [0] in the 'openstack-infra/puppet-*' projects.
> >>As you can see, I've created a lot of change-requests to the
> >>repositories some days ago. I started this work, because I saw,
> >>that those manifests have different styles of the code, therefore
> >>I wanted to refactor and make much better them. For example, some
> >>of them have unsorted and unstructured lists of variables, some of
> >>them have no docstrings in the body with description of used
> >>variables and so on. I suppose, that we can unify those manifests
> >>by following the puppet style guide, but opinions are divided.
> >I don't think opinions are especially divided about rules mandated
> >by the style guide, so much as other changes you were introducing
> >not mandated by the style guide (alphabetizing class parameters,
> >aligning = assignment operators, et cetera).
> >
> >>My point of view is following: if we implement the style guide on
> >>puppet manifests, we will have unified and structured manifests
> >>with documentation for all classes. We can use it without
> >>alphabetically sorting of variables, of course.
> >>
> >>So, my questions to you are:
> >>1. Should we follow the style guide or not?
> >>2. What the recommendation we could implement on Openstack Infra manifests?
> >We've already stated in the past that for any modules besides
> >openstack_project (system-config), i.e. those we're publishing to
> >Puppetforge, we would follow rules mandated by the Puppet Style
> >Guide. I think things like making sure we declare required
> >parameters before optional ones, use docstrings for clarity, and so
> >on are fine. Just be aware that changes which refactor otherwise
> >syntactically and logically correct code will be low priority for
> >most of our reviewers and will likely have to be rebased many times
> >if they touch a lot of lines in a given file.
> 
I know we are bikeshedding over style guides again, but maybe we should look at
in another way.  We have a new contributor sending patches to openstack-infra,
which is an awesome thing for me.  Personally, lint changes usually are a simple
things to submit patches for and an easy way to learn more about a project.

So, for that, I am happy to help with the patches.  However, if people feel we
are doing needless churn, I can understand that too.  I would must rather see
the conversation then move towards what can new contributors do in
openstack-infra to get better involved.

I cannot thing of something, besides linting, to better understand our modules
and sub projects. And interested to here what others think.

---
Paul