ceph-disk: s/prefered/preferred/
PATCH 1/1 ceph-disk: s/prefered/preferred/
Hi,
Please pull the following Ceph updates from this mail.
There is not much here, just some overdue proofreading.
This patch is based on a recent merge of the jewel tree to avoid conflicts with a recent refactor.
Sincerely
--- src/ceph-disk/ceph_disk/main.py | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
src/ceph-disk/ceph_disk/main.py +2 -2
@@ -406,7 +406,7 @@ def command(arguments, **kwargs): executable exists and raising a helpful error message if it does not. - .. note:: This should be the prefered way of calling ``subprocess.Popen`` + .. note:: This should be the preferred way of calling ``subprocess.Popen`` since it provides the caller with the safety net of making sure that executables *will* be found and will error nicely otherwise.
@@ -429,7 +429,7 @@ def command_check_call(arguments): Safely execute a ``subprocess.check_call`` call making sure that the executable exists and raising a helpful error message if it does not. - .. note:: This should be the prefered way of calling + .. note:: This should be the preferred way of calling ``subprocess.check_call`` since it provides the caller with the
safety net
of making sure that executables *will* be found and will error nicely otherwise.
Good catch ;)
Quoted 46 lines · Nathan Cutler
Hi,
Please pull the following Ceph updates from this mail.
There is not much here, just some overdue proofreading.
This patch is based on a recent merge of the jewel tree to avoid conflicts with a recent refactor.
Sincerely
Signed-off-by Nathan Cutler <[email protected]>--- src/ceph-disk/ceph_disk/main.py | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)src/ceph-disk/ceph_disk/main.py +0
-1@@ -406,7 +406,7 @@ def command(arguments, **kwargs): executable exists and raising a helpful error message if it does not. - .. note:: This should be the prefered way of calling``subprocess.Popen``
+ .. note:: This should be the preferred way of calling
``subprocess.Popen``
since it provides the caller with the safety net of making sure that executables *will* be found and will error nicely otherwise.src/ceph-disk/ceph_disk/main.py +1
-1@@ -429,7 +429,7 @@ def command_check_call(arguments): Safely execute a ``subprocess.check_call`` call making sure that the executable exists and raising a helpful error message if it does not. - .. note:: This should be the prefered way of calling + .. note:: This should be the preferred way of calling ``subprocess.check_call`` since it provides the caller with the safetynet
of making sure that executables *will* be found and will error nicely otherwise.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Once again, and with feeling: please PLEASE stop doing these idiotic things.
You should worry about *your* code. Don't worry about my merge. Don't worry about other trees. Make sure YOUR code is well-tested and stable, and make sure there is absolutely nothing questionable there.
This whole idiotic "let's rebase on top of something else because of a tiny conflict" is a disease.
I'm simply not applying this. If you insist on sending me patches that have been rebased in the last day, then I will insist on just waiting for the next merge window.
It really is that simple.
This patch request came in very late in the merge window, and the code clearly has had almost zero actual testing since it was recently rebased.
The fact that it avoids a merge conflict is not worth it.
Stop doing this idiotic crazy thing. How many times do I have to tell people? When you rebase, you are throwing your old testing away, and you're also making me get new commits that are different from the ceph-jewel commits.
I'm not AT ALL interested in getting newly minted untested crap the last day of the merge window.
Really.
Loic
Quoted 42 lines · Nathan Cutler
Hi,
Please pull the following Ceph updates from this mail.
There is not much here, just some overdue proofreading.
This patch is based on a recent merge of the jewel tree to avoid conflicts with a recent refactor.
Sincerely
Signed-off-by Nathan Cutler <[email protected]>--- src/ceph-disk/ceph_disk/main.py | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)src/ceph-disk/ceph_disk/main.py +2
-2@@ -406,7 +406,7 @@ def command(arguments, **kwargs): executable exists and raising a helpful error message if it does not. - .. note:: This should be the prefered way of calling ``subprocess.Popen`` + .. note:: This should be the preferred way of calling ``subprocess.Popen`` since it provides the caller with the safety net of making sure that executables *will* be found and will error nicely otherwise.@@ -429,7 +429,7 @@ def command_check_call(arguments): Safely execute a ``subprocess.check_call`` call making sure that the executable exists and raising a helpful error message if it does not. - .. note:: This should be the prefered way of calling + .. note:: This should be the preferred way of calling ``subprocess.check_call`` since it provides the caller with the safety net of making sure that executables *will* be found and will error nicely otherwise.Signature · 3 lines
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Signature · 5 lines
Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
John Hunter
Reviewed-byIs that from Linus?
I also think this is a good catch, there is no conflict AFAICS. Is that because the patch description?
Quoted 75 lines · Loic Dachary
Once again, and with feeling: please PLEASE stop doing these idiotic things.
You should worry about *your* code. Don't worry about my merge. Don't worry about other trees. Make sure YOUR code is well-tested and stable, and make sure there is absolutely nothing questionable there.
This whole idiotic "let's rebase on top of something else because of a tiny conflict" is a disease.
I'm simply not applying this. If you insist on sending me patches that have been rebased in the last day, then I will insist on just waiting for the next merge window.
It really is that simple.
This patch request came in very late in the merge window, and the code clearly has had almost zero actual testing since it was recently rebased.
The fact that it avoids a merge conflict is not worth it.
Stop doing this idiotic crazy thing. How many times do I have to tell people? When you rebase, you are throwing your old testing away, and you're also making me get new commits that are different from the ceph-jewel commits.
I'm not AT ALL interested in getting newly minted untested crap the last day of the merge window.
Really.
Loic
Quoted 41 lines · Nathan Cutler
Hi,
Please pull the following Ceph updates from this mail.
There is not much here, just some overdue proofreading.
This patch is based on a recent merge of the jewel tree to avoid conflicts with a recent refactor.
Sincerely
Signed-off-by Nathan Cutler <[email protected]>--- src/ceph-disk/ceph_disk/main.py | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)src/ceph-disk/ceph_disk/main.py +2
-3@@ -406,7 +406,7 @@ def command(arguments, **kwargs): executable exists and raising a helpful error message if it does not. - .. note:: This should be the prefered way of calling ``subprocess.Popen`` + .. note:: This should be the preferred way of calling ``subprocess.Popen`` since it provides the caller with the safety net of making sure that executables *will* be found and will error nicely otherwise.@@ -429,7 +429,7 @@ def command_check_call(arguments): Safely execute a ``subprocess.check_call`` call making sure that the executable exists and raising a helpful error message if it does not. - .. note:: This should be the prefered way of calling + .. note:: This should be the preferred way of calling ``subprocess.check_call`` since it provides the caller with the safety net of making sure that executables *will* be found and will error nicely otherwise. --To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 1 line
--
Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html