Skip to content

thoughts on churn #22351

Description

@MylesBorins

hey all,

I was reading through the contribution guidelines for the git project today and noticed an interesting bit.

Fixing style violations while working on a real change as a
preparatory clean-up step is good, but otherwise avoid useless code
churn for the sake of conforming to the style.

While backporting from master to 8.x, 9.x, and 10.x I've noticed an increase in refactoring that is not supporting a more substantial change in the codebase. These changes have improved the developer experience of node, tightened our style guide, and have quite a number of people more involved in the project.

The churn does have a cost, 8.x in particular has been quite a bit harder to backport too. With 10.x moving to LTS soon and stumbling across the above bit from the git repo, I thought it might be a good idea to weigh the pro's an con's to such a policy and if it something the project may want to adopt.

To be explicit, I am torn. Very interested in other collaborators thoughts here.

Activity

  1. added
    discussIssues opened for discussion and feedback.
    metaIssues and PRs related to the general management of the project.
    on Aug 16, 2018
  2. gireeshpunathil commented on Aug 16, 2018

    @gireeshpunathil
    Member

    I echo your view, and share similar opinion. While style nits are good, flooding our project machinery with those can potntially cause:

    • features and bug fixes take a backseat
    • difficult to maintain
    • recursively introduce new bugs
    • strain our people
    • strain our CI

    Probably recommending style nit PRs to only doc is a good idea?

  3. cjihrig commented on Aug 16, 2018

    @cjihrig
    Contributor

    I would love to restrict churn to docs and tests.

  4. jasnell commented on Aug 16, 2018

    @jasnell
    Member

    Assuming we can make progress on the notion of an automated commit queue, a great deal of churn can be dealt with more organically.

  5. mhdawson commented on Aug 23, 2018

    @mhdawson
    Member

    @jasnell I'm not sure I understand your comment. I think Myles concern was from the additional work the churn introduces to the backporting process as opposed to the work to land the commits in the first place. I think the commit queue only addresses the latter.

  6. mhdawson commented on Aug 23, 2018

    @mhdawson
    Member

    I'd also suggest that it could be worded to suggest limiting the amount of fixup is included in a PR for another purpose. If there are a larger number of changes for fixup its better that they be in a different PR.

  7. apapirovski commented on Oct 26, 2018

    @apapirovski
    Contributor

    Given the lack of movement here since August, I'm going to close it out but feel free to reopen and continue the conversation. Just closing out stale issues with no clear action plan.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    discussIssues opened for discussion and feedback.metaIssues and PRs related to the general management of the project.

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions