Skip to contentSkip to conversation

ceph-disk: s/prefered/preferred/

PATCH In review Nathan Cutler 4 participants 4 messages Apr 1, 2016

lore
Share & tools
lore
#0 lore raw

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
index d0ec596..a137967 100755
@@ -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.

Tested-by on v1 1/1
#1 lore raw

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

---
 src/ceph-disk/ceph_disk/main.py | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
src/ceph-disk/ceph_disk/main.py +0 -1
index d0ec596..a137967 100755
@@ -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 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

#2 lore raw
In reply to Nathan Cutler

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

---
 src/ceph-disk/ceph_disk/main.py | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
src/ceph-disk/ceph_disk/main.py +2 -2
index d0ec596..a137967 100755
@@ -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
Reviewed-by
#3 lore raw

Is 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

---
 src/ceph-disk/ceph_disk/main.py | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
src/ceph-disk/ceph_disk/main.py +2 -3
index d0ec596..a137967 100755
@@ -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