On 01/12/2016 09:32 AM, Julien Danjou wrote: > 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. >
For anyone interested here, this is the most recent example of this that I've seen (and not the first time this same faulty change has been discussed in Cinder): https://bugs.launchpad.net/cinder/+bug/1512207 The change suggested here makes unit tests weaker, but many projects have already landed this change. I'd just like to be another voice to say: these changes are often not as simple as they look, and really need careful review. __________________________________________________________________________ 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
