Ruby Loo said on Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 11:26:56AM -0500: > I was wondering what people thought about patches that only fix grammatical > issues or misspellings in comments in our code.
For my money, a patch fixing nits has value but only if it fixes a few. If it's a follow-up patch it should fix all the nits; otherwise it should be of a significant chunk, EG a file, class or large method. > It has already been suggested (and maybe > discussed to death) that we should approve patches if there are only nits. > These grammatical and misspellings fall under nits. If we are explicitly > saying that it is OK to merge these nits, then why fix them later, unless > they are part of a patch that does more than only address those nits? We'd rather they were fixed though, right? Letting patches with nits land is a pragmatic response to long response times or social friction. Likewise a follow-up patch to fix nits can be a very pragmatic way to allow the original patch to land quickly without sacrificing code readability. Alexis -- Nova Engineer, HP Cloud. AKA lealexis, lxsli. __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
