On Tue, Jan 12 2016, Amrith Kumar wrote: > My question to the ML is this, should stylistic changes of this kind be > handled > in a consistent way across all projects, maybe with a hacking rule and some > discussion on the ML first? After all, if this change is worthwhile, it is > worth ensuring that this construct that we are seeking to eliminate, does not > reenter the code base.
This is not stylistic, these are actual changes that can break the code for no good reason. I've already -2'ed the Ceilometer one. Honestly, this kind of change are getting more and more a problem to us. People invent a false bug, maybe report it to LP and mass-assign projects, and then spam all the projects without any discussion before. The worse thing is that most of these patches are wrong or incorrect, add code-churn that just pollutes project history for no benefit. At the beginning, I had hope, and was being patient and tried to mentor these new people with the hope that they'll learn and stick around. None stayed. Is it just a "get me an free ATC pass" behavior, like someone suggested? Now the spam amount is getting so high (several of these patches per week these days) that I can't afford to be so patient and gentle anymore, and I just -2 the patch with a brief explanation. I also have to use the "mute bug mail" feature of Launchpad a lot, since I get spammed by all the changes done the mass-assigned Launchpad bugs. So, how what can we do to fix that? It seems we're not communicating proper behavior on how to jump into OpenStack to contribute and that those "contributors" are not used to FOSS communities. Cheers, -- Julien Danjou // Free Software hacker // https://julien.danjou.info
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
__________________________________________________________________________ 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
