The general rule I follow (and would propose we stick to) is is as follows:
If it requires a backport – it requires a bug id. (This is to facilitate the tracking of backports to make sure we do the job correctly) If it doesn’t require a backport but is a feature submission, it should include a blueprint header (for tracking purposes, yet again) If it doesn’t fit into the above two categories, I really don’t see a need for any type of extra tagging including TrivialFix. TrivialFix was a nice idea to help core reviewers understand if the work needed a backport, or was a feature request. Our core reviewer team is smart enough to make that determination during the very thorough review process we undertake on all patches. TrivialFix can go assuming the core reviewers can determine what is needed for a backport (high/critical bugs only) – and request a bug ID during the review with an appropriate -1. Regards -steve From: Swapnil Kulkarni <cools...@gmail.com> Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> Date: Friday, November 4, 2016 at 10:50 AM To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla] Propose removal of TrivialFix requirement On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 10:01 PM, Jeremy Stanley <fu...@yuggoth.org<mailto:fu...@yuggoth.org>> wrote: On 2016-11-04 15:42:17 +0000 (+0000), Paul Bourke wrote: We have no desire to do this, that's not what is being discussed here. On the contrary we're looking to reduce the barrier to entry for committers. Also the team is aware that cross project efforts should not be nit picked. That's what it seemed like to me up to this point in the thread as well; I was specifically replying to Swapnil's suggestion that any important change to Kolla deliverables should have a bug filed or should continue to add a TrivialFix header in the commit message otherwise. (And yes, as Andreas pointed out the other thread on the related topic of mass changes for cross-project efforts does address the case specifically, but becomes less necessary if you end up agreeing to drop the TrivialFix requirement.) -- Jeremy Stanley __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org>?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev Jeremy, I am sorry if I have miscommunicated earlier. I am referring to the situation where people are using TrivialFix just to get the changes in which is not good practice. I agree with removing TrivialFix just that we need to be very careful with changes that need tracking (e.g. bug/bp). __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org>?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
__________________________________________________________________________ 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
