On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 11:33:30AM -0700, Joe Gordon wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 11:07 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
>
> After seeing a bunch of code changes to enforce new hacking rules, I'd
> like to propose dropping some of the rules we have. The overall patch
> series is her
Sean Dague writes:
> On 06/25/2014 07:53 AM, Martin Geisler wrote:
>> Sean Dague writes:
>>
>> I've only submitted some small trivial patches. As far as I could
>> tell, Gerrit triggered a full test cycle when I just changed the
>> commit message. That surprised me and made the reviews more
>>
On 06/24/2014 09:51 PM, Steve Kowalik wrote:
On 25/06/14 07:26, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
There's two sides to this coin - concern about alienating
non-english-as-a-first-language speakers who feel undervalued because
their language is nitpicked to death and concern about alienating
english-as-a-fi
On 06/25/2014 07:53 AM, Martin Geisler wrote:
> Sean Dague writes:
>
>> On 06/25/2014 03:56 AM, Martin Geisler wrote:
>>>
>>> In the Mercurial project we accept contributions sent as patches
>>> only. There it's common for the core developers to fix the commit
>>> message locally before importing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 25/06/14 12:59, Sean Dague wrote:
> On 06/25/2014 03:56 AM, Martin Geisler wrote:
>> Mark McLoughlin writes:
>>
>>> On Tue, 2014-06-24 at 13:56 -0700, Clint Byrum wrote:
Excerpts from Mark McLoughlin's message of 2014-06-24
12:49:52 -0
Sean Dague writes:
> On 06/25/2014 03:56 AM, Martin Geisler wrote:
>>
>> In the Mercurial project we accept contributions sent as patches
>> only. There it's common for the core developers to fix the commit
>> message locally before importing a patch. That makes it quick to fix
>> these problems
On 06/25/2014 03:56 AM, Martin Geisler wrote:
> Mark McLoughlin writes:
>
>> On Tue, 2014-06-24 at 13:56 -0700, Clint Byrum wrote:
>>> Excerpts from Mark McLoughlin's message of 2014-06-24 12:49:52 -0700:
>>>
>>> However, there is a debate, and thus I would _never_ block a patch
>>> based on this
Mark McLoughlin writes:
> On Tue, 2014-06-24 at 13:56 -0700, Clint Byrum wrote:
>> Excerpts from Mark McLoughlin's message of 2014-06-24 12:49:52 -0700:
>>
>> However, there is a debate, and thus I would _never_ block a patch
>> based on this rule. It was feedback.. just as sometimes there is
>>
On 25/06/14 07:26, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> There's two sides to this coin - concern about alienating
> non-english-as-a-first-language speakers who feel undervalued because
> their language is nitpicked to death and concern about alienating
> english-as-a-first-language speakers who struggle to un
On Tue, 2014-06-24 at 22:26 +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> There's two sides to this coin - concern about alienating
> non-english-as-a-first-language speakers who feel undervalued because
> their language is nitpicked to death and concern about alienating
> english-as-a-first-language speakers wh
On Tue, 2014-06-24 at 13:56 -0700, Clint Byrum wrote:
> Excerpts from Mark McLoughlin's message of 2014-06-24 12:49:52 -0700:
> > On Tue, 2014-06-24 at 09:51 -0700, Clint Byrum wrote:
> > > Excerpts from Monty Taylor's message of 2014-06-24 06:48:06 -0700:
> > > > On 06/22/2014 02:49 PM, Duncan Tho
Excerpts from Mark McLoughlin's message of 2014-06-24 12:49:52 -0700:
> On Tue, 2014-06-24 at 09:51 -0700, Clint Byrum wrote:
> > Excerpts from Monty Taylor's message of 2014-06-24 06:48:06 -0700:
> > > On 06/22/2014 02:49 PM, Duncan Thomas wrote:
> > > > On 22 June 2014 14:41, Amrith Kumar wrote:
On Tue, 2014-06-24 at 09:51 -0700, Clint Byrum wrote:
> Excerpts from Monty Taylor's message of 2014-06-24 06:48:06 -0700:
> > On 06/22/2014 02:49 PM, Duncan Thomas wrote:
> > > On 22 June 2014 14:41, Amrith Kumar wrote:
> > >> In addition to making changes to the hacking rules, why don't we manda
Excerpts from Monty Taylor's message of 2014-06-24 06:48:06 -0700:
> On 06/22/2014 02:49 PM, Duncan Thomas wrote:
> > On 22 June 2014 14:41, Amrith Kumar wrote:
> >> In addition to making changes to the hacking rules, why don't we mandate
> >> also
> >> that perceived problems in the commit messa
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
>
> """
> This is a summary.
>
> And this is a description
> """
>
> will result in a failure of H404, due to the "This is a summary." not
> being on the first line, like this:
>
> """This is a summary.
>
> And this is a description
> """
>
> It
On 06/24/2014 10:34 AM, Robert Collins wrote:
On 23 June 2014 07:04, Jay Pipes wrote:
I would also love to get rid of H404, otherwise known as the dumb rule that
says if you have a multiline docstring, that there must be a summary line,
then a blank line, then a detailed description. It makes
On 23 June 2014 07:04, Jay Pipes wrote:
> I would also love to get rid of H404, otherwise known as the dumb rule that
> says if you have a multiline docstring, that there must be a summary line,
> then a blank line, then a detailed description. It makes things like this
> illegal, which, IMHO, is
On 06/22/2014 02:49 PM, Duncan Thomas wrote:
> On 22 June 2014 14:41, Amrith Kumar wrote:
>> In addition to making changes to the hacking rules, why don't we mandate also
>> that perceived problems in the commit message shall not be an acceptable
>> reason to -1 a change.
>
> -1.
>
> There are s
On 06/20/2014 02:33 PM, Joe Gordon wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 11:07 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
>
>> After seeing a bunch of code changes to enforce new hacking rules, I'd
>> like to propose dropping some of the rules we have. The overall patch
>> series is here -
>>
>> https://review.openstack.o
On Jun 20, 2014, at 11:07, Sean Dague wrote:
> H402 - 1 line doc strings should end in punctuation. The real statement
> is this should be a summary sentence. A sentence is not just a set of
> words that end in a period. Squirel fast bob. It's something deeper.
> This rule thus isn't really seman
On 2014-06-23 1:28 PM, Clint Byrum wrote:
We've had this discussion already, but just remember that not everybody
reading those commit messages will be a native English speaker. The more
incorrect the grammar and punctuation is, the more confusing it will be
to somebody who is already struggling
Answers to the specifics of this thread here, and I will follow up with a
seperate thread on the broader topic.
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 7:21 AM, Ben Nemec wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 06/23/2014 06:18 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
> > On 06/22/2014 03:04 PM, Jay Pipes
Excerpts from Christopher Yeoh's message of 2014-06-22 18:46:59 -0700:
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 4:43 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
>
> > On 06/22/2014 09:41 AM, Amrith Kumar wrote:
> >
> >> In addition to making changes to the hacking rules, why don't we mandate
> >> also
> >> that perceived problems in
Excerpts from Mark McLoughlin's message of 2014-06-22 00:39:29 -0700:
> The main point is that this is something worth addressing as a wider
> community rather than in individual reviews with a limited audience. And
> that doing it with a bit of humor might help take the sting out of it.
>
Yes, a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/23/2014 06:18 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
> On 06/22/2014 03:04 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
>> On 06/20/2014 02:07 PM, Sean Dague wrote:
>>> After seeing a bunch of code changes to enforce new hacking
>>> rules, I'd like to propose dropping some of the rules
On 06/22/2014 03:04 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
> On 06/20/2014 02:07 PM, Sean Dague wrote:
>> After seeing a bunch of code changes to enforce new hacking rules, I'd
>> like to propose dropping some of the rules we have. The overall patch
>> series is here -
>> https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 4:43 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
> On 06/22/2014 09:41 AM, Amrith Kumar wrote:
>
>> In addition to making changes to the hacking rules, why don't we mandate
>> also
>> that perceived problems in the commit message shall not be an acceptable
>> reason to -1 a change.
>>
>> Would t
I agree Duncan.
I think the commit message is one of the most important parts of a
commit. If the message is not useful, the code shouldn't go in.
Jay Bryant
On Jun 22, 2014 1:51 PM, "Duncan Thomas" wrote:
> On 22 June 2014 14:41, Amrith Kumar wrote:
> > In addition to making changes to the
On 06/22/2014 09:41 AM, Amrith Kumar wrote:
In addition to making changes to the hacking rules, why don't we mandate also
that perceived problems in the commit message shall not be an acceptable
reason to -1 a change.
Would this improve the situation?
I actually *do* think a very poor commit m
On 06/20/2014 02:07 PM, Sean Dague wrote:
After seeing a bunch of code changes to enforce new hacking rules, I'd
like to propose dropping some of the rules we have. The overall patch
series is here -
https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack-dev/hacking+branch:master+topic:be
On 22 June 2014 14:41, Amrith Kumar wrote:
> In addition to making changes to the hacking rules, why don't we mandate also
> that perceived problems in the commit message shall not be an acceptable
> reason to -1 a change.
-1.
There are some /really/ bad commit messages out there, and some of us
r
IRC: amrith @freenode
| -Original Message-
| From: Sean Dague [mailto:s...@dague.net]
| Sent: Friday, June 20, 2014 2:08 PM
| To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
| Subject: [openstack-dev] [hacking] rules for removal
|
| After seeing a bunch of code changes to en
On Sat, 2014-06-21 at 07:36 -0700, Clint Byrum wrote:
> Excerpts from Sean Dague's message of 2014-06-21 05:08:01 -0700:
> > Pedantic reviewers that are reviewing for this kind of thing only should
> > be scorned. I realistically like the idea markmc came up with -
> > https://twitter.com/markmc_/
Excerpts from Sean Dague's message of 2014-06-21 05:08:01 -0700:
> On 06/20/2014 09:26 PM, Clint Byrum wrote:
> > Excerpts from Sean Dague's message of 2014-06-20 11:07:39 -0700:
> >>
> >> H803 - First line of a commit message must *not* end in a period. This
> >> was mostly a response to an unreas
On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 6:08 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
> https://twitter.com/markmc_/status/480073387600269312
Don't think it needs to be said, but I'm TOTALLY on board with all of the
items Sean pointed out.
___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev
On 06/20/2014 09:26 PM, Clint Byrum wrote:
> Excerpts from Sean Dague's message of 2014-06-20 11:07:39 -0700:
>> After seeing a bunch of code changes to enforce new hacking rules, I'd
>> like to propose dropping some of the rules we have. The overall patch
>> series is here -
>> https://review.open
Excerpts from Sean Dague's message of 2014-06-20 11:07:39 -0700:
> After seeing a bunch of code changes to enforce new hacking rules, I'd
> like to propose dropping some of the rules we have. The overall patch
> series is here -
> https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack-dev/h
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 11:07 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
[snip]
> We have to remember we're all humans, and it's ok to have grey space.
> Like in 305, you *should* group the libraries if you can, but stuff like
> that should be labeled as 'nit' in the review, and only ask the author
> to respin it if t
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 11:07 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
> After seeing a bunch of code changes to enforce new hacking rules, I'd
> like to propose dropping some of the rules we have. The overall patch
> series is here -
>
> https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack-dev/hacking+br
Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Date: June 20, 2014 at 11:09:41
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: [openstack-dev] [hacking] rules for removal
After seeing a bunch of code
After seeing a bunch of code changes to enforce new hacking rules, I'd
like to propose dropping some of the rules we have. The overall patch
series is here -
https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack-dev/hacking+branch:master+topic:be_less_silly,n,z
H402 - 1 line doc strings s
41 matches
Mail list logo
