On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 7:51 AM, Jay S. Bryant <jsbry...@electronicjungle.net> wrote: > > On 09/21/2014 07:37 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote: >> >> When I'm essentially +2 on a change but for a small issue like typos in >> the commit message, the need for a note in the code or a test (or change to >> a test), I've been doing those myself lately and then will give the +2. If >> the change already has a +2 and I'd be +W but for said things, I'm more >> inclined lately to approve and then push a dependent patch on top of it with >> the changes to keep things from stalling. >> >> This might be a change in my workflow just because we're late in the >> release and want good bug fixes getting into the release candidates, it >> could be because of the weekly tirade of how the project is going down the >> toilet and we don't get enough things reviewed/approved, I'm not sure, but >> my point is I agree with making it socially acceptable to rewrite the commit >> message as part of the review. > > Matt, > > This is consistent with what I have been doing for Cinder as well. I know > there are some people who prefer I not touch the commit messages and I > respect those requests, but otherwise I make changes to keep the process > moving. > > Jay
This is also consistent with how I've been doing things in Ironic and I have been encouraging the core team to use their judgement when doing this as well -- especially when it's a patch from someone we know won't get back to it for a while (eg, because they're on vacation) or someone that has already OK'd this workflow (eg, other members of the core team, and regular developers we know). -Devananda _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
