)]}'
{"/COMMIT_MSG":[{"author":{"_account_id":11604,"name":"sean mooney","email":"smooney@redhat.com","username":"sean-k-mooney"},"change_message_id":"9315cc5f6b98c4fe7224a2d43a04142cf6c60d6b","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[{"line_number":7,"context_line":"Revert \"Allow autopep8 to fix more things\""},{"line_number":8,"context_line":""},{"line_number":9,"context_line":"This reverts commit ebd75760e1907bb4b1bc089ecf6f4405bf52e208."},{"line_number":10,"context_line":"aggressive \u003d 3 is too agressive"},{"line_number":11,"context_line":""},{"line_number":12,"context_line":"Change-Id: Ic11f77b014e136053db36b1a6881d2da17cec62b"},{"line_number":13,"context_line":"Signed-off-by: Sean Mooney \u003cwork@seanmooney.info\u003e"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-gerrit-commit-message","patch_set":1,"id":"e560b4c9_a198329d","line":10,"updated":"2025-09-08 21:52:46.000000000","message":"so turns out this","commit_id":"638210ca969851419c6f7017aa12a29289f025db"}],"/PATCHSET_LEVEL":[{"author":{"_account_id":7166,"name":"Sylvain Bauza","email":"sbauza@redhat.com","username":"sbauza"},"change_message_id":"0a7f770c3539a0f63c82bd2f58f315257dafac74","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":1,"id":"46f90de4_e107a935","updated":"2025-09-09 13:52:34.000000000","message":"Can we please fast merge that revert as part of our Nova development policies and let the discussion happen in a subsequent patch ?","commit_id":"638210ca969851419c6f7017aa12a29289f025db"},{"author":{"_account_id":15334,"name":"Stephen Finucane","display_name":"stephenfin","email":"stephenfin@redhat.com","username":"sfinucan"},"change_message_id":"c53ecfef389fa0572774388ec8aa77c7e7d09769","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":1,"id":"5aff2bc5_fef309c1","updated":"2025-09-09 10:41:56.000000000","message":"We shouldn\u0027t do this. The entire point of autopep8 is to fix things. If it doesn\u0027t do that, we shouldn\u0027t use it. You can run flake8/hacking via a different method if needed but the default workflow should be the sensible (for the majority) one.","commit_id":"638210ca969851419c6f7017aa12a29289f025db"},{"author":{"_account_id":4393,"name":"Dan Smith","email":"dms@danplanet.com","username":"danms"},"change_message_id":"5faea645220818f7a3d00c3aa6ab3d234048840e","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":1,"id":"f6faf840_883da71f","updated":"2025-09-09 13:47:29.000000000","message":"recheck obviously unrelated ovs job fail","commit_id":"638210ca969851419c6f7017aa12a29289f025db"},{"author":{"_account_id":11604,"name":"sean mooney","email":"smooney@redhat.com","username":"sean-k-mooney"},"change_message_id":"9315cc5f6b98c4fe7224a2d43a04142cf6c60d6b","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":1,"id":"c4421930_7cbbf30d","updated":"2025-09-08 21:52:46.000000000","message":"recheck unrelated nova-multi-cell failrue","commit_id":"638210ca969851419c6f7017aa12a29289f025db"},{"author":{"_account_id":7166,"name":"Sylvain Bauza","email":"sbauza@redhat.com","username":"sbauza"},"change_message_id":"6fab37bcb59b069ba6e7eb192557643bbe1c78c3","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":1,"id":"5099008a_b55adef6","in_reply_to":"010f803a_b257b635","updated":"2025-09-09 16:41:41.000000000","message":"Given the tone of the recent exchanges, I reserve my right to stop reviewing that patch and  beg people here to revisit that discussion at the PTG.\nI wish you could understand that my goal wasn\u0027t to abuse a policy but rather to find a reasonable way forward on some situation I see controversial.","commit_id":"638210ca969851419c6f7017aa12a29289f025db"},{"author":{"_account_id":11604,"name":"sean mooney","email":"smooney@redhat.com","username":"sean-k-mooney"},"change_message_id":"ff8b92cac81f9d45b23627eb9ed94d1a2839c82a","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":1,"id":"f033924f_2261fe2a","in_reply_to":"0499a3bb_546ae7aa","updated":"2025-09-09 11:12:06.000000000","message":"i kind of agreee that we shoudl be keeping agressive\u003d3 but if we remove the inplace and recursive then autopep8  via pre-commit will still do both in the standard target\n\nand will not in the no-edit version\n\nunless i add --ignore-local-config this conflcit when i try to have the no edit version run --diff instead of --in-place.","commit_id":"638210ca969851419c6f7017aa12a29289f025db"},{"author":{"_account_id":15334,"name":"Stephen Finucane","display_name":"stephenfin","email":"stephenfin@redhat.com","username":"sfinucan"},"change_message_id":"9ad2281b1b7d0f8d52d9d83b7fe2d7fb8ca92e1b","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":1,"id":"f0726a69_87306a71","in_reply_to":"0e7b1f20_a25dd1bd","updated":"2025-09-09 15:04:59.000000000","message":"\u003e instead of going though normal review ye are electing via the revrt policy to shut down any discussion.\n\nI couldn\u0027t agree more. We are abusing a policy intended to prevent us shipping defective features to change non-production-affecting things a minority disagree with. Were we to revert this, I would fully expect the follow-up to garner an immediate -2 and suffer the fate of so many patches before it that have attempted to move the ball forward [1][2][3][4. I don\u0027t recall ever agreeing to the status quo, yet I am unable to yet a single core is sufficient to prevent us changing anything.\n\nThe PTG is a few weeks away. I am happy to have a broader discussion on this and come to a decision that a majority agree with, which we can all abide by. Until then, I believe we should stick with the status quo.\n\n[1] https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/706311\n[2] https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/896229\n[3] https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/651554","commit_id":"638210ca969851419c6f7017aa12a29289f025db"},{"author":{"_account_id":7166,"name":"Sylvain Bauza","email":"sbauza@redhat.com","username":"sbauza"},"change_message_id":"0a7f770c3539a0f63c82bd2f58f315257dafac74","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":1,"id":"f102de09_c8e7fdd7","in_reply_to":"0fba0802_bf10eec1","updated":"2025-09-09 13:52:34.000000000","message":"@stephenfin@redhat.com sorry I understand your concern but as per the Nova development policies, we have to quickly approve the revert and let the discussion happen *after* the revert : \nhttps://docs.openstack.org/nova/latest/contributor/policies.html#reverts-for-retrospective-vetos\n\n```\nOther core team members should quickly approve the revert. No detailed debate should be needed at this point. A -2 vote on a revert is strongly discouraged, because it effectively blocks the right of cores approving the revert from -2 voting on the original patch.\n```\n\nThe next steps allow then discussion : \n```\nThe original patch submitter should re-submit the change, with a reference to the original patch and the revert.\n\nThe original reviewers of the patch should restore their votes and attempt to summarize their previous reasons for their votes.\n\nThe patch should not be re-approved until the concerns of the people proposing the revert are worked through. A mailing list discussion or design spec might be the best way to achieve this.\n```\n\nBased on that policy, I have to formally ask you to undo your -2 and ask you to create an PTG etherpad topic where we could discuss such autopep8 feature and what Nova should do.","commit_id":"638210ca969851419c6f7017aa12a29289f025db"},{"author":{"_account_id":11604,"name":"sean mooney","email":"smooney@redhat.com","username":"sean-k-mooney"},"change_message_id":"a11b62d018207cb6e4f1405129bf0304d53add66","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":1,"id":"5326e349_6999f5ca","in_reply_to":"31e2e384_26d479d0","updated":"2025-09-09 11:20:23.000000000","message":"to be clear having -i in pyproject.toml causeesss issues if you try to use --diff because you cant have both -i and --diff at the same time and autopep8 reads this by default\n\nso you need to do --ignore-local-config --diff instead.","commit_id":"638210ca969851419c6f7017aa12a29289f025db"},{"author":{"_account_id":4393,"name":"Dan Smith","email":"dms@danplanet.com","username":"danms"},"change_message_id":"8559ab571f72f967f3eb316e0582dc1bb9924ce2","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":1,"id":"a4d66f8e_47c93391","in_reply_to":"42499dcf_135817b7","updated":"2025-09-09 14:25:15.000000000","message":"I literally just said that aggressive\u003d3 is part of my complaint, so please don\u0027t say what is and isn\u0027t \"my problem\". What you mean is it\u0027s not the part of the problem you care about (or care to even recognize).\n\nThe policy doesn\u0027t exclude things you think aren\u0027t serious (because of course you don\u0027t in this case). The original patch also says \"meh, aggressive\u003d3 isn\u0027t even all that aggressive\" which it clearly is based on the fact that it was rewriting code that flake8 said was fine, and also clearly appears to be a hedge against being controversial which is exactly what the policy is about. Without a bunch of examples or deep knowledge about what aggressive\u003d3 would rewrite, I think it\u0027s entirely reasonable that reviewers would have assumed that\u0027s not an overly controversial change and then had second thoughts later.\n\nTo me, what Sean and Stephen have said here is \"I don\u0027t respect my other cores enough to honor the policy that is written (even if I don\u0027t agree with it) to allow for some discussion.\" That\u0027s a really sad state to be in :(","commit_id":"638210ca969851419c6f7017aa12a29289f025db"},{"author":{"_account_id":15334,"name":"Stephen Finucane","display_name":"stephenfin","email":"stephenfin@redhat.com","username":"sfinucan"},"change_message_id":"0bfb1b82b8a9804c1f53cef343083308652c14cc","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":1,"id":"e38fcdb6_5add6cf5","in_reply_to":"5326e349_6999f5ca","updated":"2025-09-09 12:02:43.000000000","message":"So `in-place \u003d true` is the default and therefore unnecessary? It makes to remove that in that case. Happy to re-review if you can respin.","commit_id":"638210ca969851419c6f7017aa12a29289f025db"},{"author":{"_account_id":11604,"name":"sean mooney","email":"smooney@redhat.com","username":"sean-k-mooney"},"change_message_id":"ab189019d7036b0d1af6b89a71028c52e03be716","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":1,"id":"31e2e384_26d479d0","in_reply_to":"5591c724_8463cb09","updated":"2025-09-09 11:19:06.000000000","message":"we could also do that but beyodn removing agressinve this has no affect on the behvior becuse -i is the default \n\nhttps://github.com/hhatto/autopep8/blob/main/.pre-commit-hooks.yaml#L7\n\nand recursive did not matter in this specific case.","commit_id":"638210ca969851419c6f7017aa12a29289f025db"},{"author":{"_account_id":15334,"name":"Stephen Finucane","display_name":"stephenfin","email":"stephenfin@redhat.com","username":"sfinucan"},"change_message_id":"25245b631338db79d9dcda1e493a871088bed640","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":1,"id":"0499a3bb_546ae7aa","in_reply_to":"5aff2bc5_fef309c1","updated":"2025-09-09 11:02:31.000000000","message":"An alternative workflow could involve dhellmann\u0027s `virtualenvwrapper`, for example.\n\n```\nworkon nova-pep8\ngit rebase -i master --exec \u0027flake8 .\u0027\n```","commit_id":"638210ca969851419c6f7017aa12a29289f025db"},{"author":{"_account_id":11604,"name":"sean mooney","email":"smooney@redhat.com","username":"sean-k-mooney"},"change_message_id":"f22f766ef61882e81265582a8edab011f9440d90","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":1,"id":"42499dcf_135817b7","in_reply_to":"817b8564_a9cafff3","updated":"2025-09-09 14:17:16.000000000","message":"yes it would, but you said your problem was that it edited the code not the rules it was enforcing.\n\nand sylvain i agree with stephen this si an inapproagte use of that policy\n\ni also dont think this polocy shoudl be kept long term it can and has been abused in the past IMO","commit_id":"638210ca969851419c6f7017aa12a29289f025db"},{"author":{"_account_id":15334,"name":"Stephen Finucane","display_name":"stephenfin","email":"stephenfin@redhat.com","username":"sfinucan"},"change_message_id":"a6a8877b759e28143f9c9333d3477a0f445ceafd","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":1,"id":"2dfac220_6b791267","in_reply_to":"a4d66f8e_47c93391","updated":"2025-09-09 14:37:49.000000000","message":"\u003e To me, what Sean and Stephen have said here is \"I don\u0027t respect my other cores enough to honor the policy that is written (even if I don\u0027t agree with it) to allow for some discussion.\" That\u0027s a really sad state to be in :(\n\nThat would indeed be sad were it true.","commit_id":"638210ca969851419c6f7017aa12a29289f025db"},{"author":{"_account_id":11604,"name":"sean mooney","email":"smooney@redhat.com","username":"sean-k-mooney"},"change_message_id":"6f34e248af1a7243c6a89f557782f8619bb08c4a","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":1,"id":"0e7b1f20_a25dd1bd","in_reply_to":"a4d66f8e_47c93391","updated":"2025-09-09 14:44:00.000000000","message":"that is not the case and honestly dan it has felt like you have been bullying me lately which is not cool. i often change code even if i don\u0027t agree with it just to make you happy and i took time to try and resolve the issue you raised because i wanted to help.\n\ni can revert this patch to v1 the straight revert of the orgianl patch,\ni have gone out of my way to try and find a solution that works for everyone\nas i said i created v2 to adress stephes feedback before i read any of thse comemts.\n\ninstead of going though normal review ye are electing via the revrt policy to shut down any discussion.\n\nto be clear under that policy stephen would be free to ask for the revert to be reverted.\n\nim going to do the following\n\n1 ill make this a clean revert i.e. restore v1\n2 ill put aggressive mode back in a third patch at the end fo adress stephens concerns.\n\nif i did not respect you or other cores i would not have spent the time to work on this for you. \n\nif you also have a problem with the extra ruls it enforces that fine please just say that  stop makeing personal comments.\n\nonce i have those 3 patches pushed ye can review or update theam as  normal and im goign to step away as i have watcher things to do.","commit_id":"638210ca969851419c6f7017aa12a29289f025db"},{"author":{"_account_id":11604,"name":"sean mooney","email":"smooney@redhat.com","username":"sean-k-mooney"},"change_message_id":"e1b956367ac807ccccc11f442eab8117c2b91026","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":1,"id":"0fba0802_bf10eec1","in_reply_to":"e38fcdb6_5add6cf5","updated":"2025-09-09 12:38:14.000000000","message":"correct in-place \u003d true is not require i original added it in-case autopep8 ever changed there default in there pre-commit hook that not actually needed really either because we pin the hook version so it wont break on use by accident.\n\nas i said the only actual cahnge this will have is the removal of agressive\u003d3\n\nwhich will restict autopep8 back to whitespace only fixes\n\nso it will not auto fix `x \u003d\u003d None` to `x is None` and the other limited set of non whitespace fixes it can do.","commit_id":"638210ca969851419c6f7017aa12a29289f025db"},{"author":{"_account_id":15334,"name":"Stephen Finucane","display_name":"stephenfin","email":"stephenfin@redhat.com","username":"sfinucan"},"change_message_id":"beb60930adb27945f25f44c90e664ad53389232a","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":1,"id":"5591c724_8463cb09","in_reply_to":"f033924f_2261fe2a","updated":"2025-09-09 11:16:36.000000000","message":"Can\u0027t we just extend `fast8.sh` run `autopep8` with the `--diff` option?","commit_id":"638210ca969851419c6f7017aa12a29289f025db"},{"author":{"_account_id":15334,"name":"Stephen Finucane","display_name":"stephenfin","email":"stephenfin@redhat.com","username":"sfinucan"},"change_message_id":"a1db922dcbe15e869f5c757409798149e59f3676","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":1,"id":"010f803a_b257b635","in_reply_to":"f0726a69_87306a71","updated":"2025-09-09 15:05:46.000000000","message":"`s/yet I am unable to yet a/yet a/` 🤦‍♂️","commit_id":"638210ca969851419c6f7017aa12a29289f025db"},{"author":{"_account_id":15334,"name":"Stephen Finucane","display_name":"stephenfin","email":"stephenfin@redhat.com","username":"sfinucan"},"change_message_id":"a0b7bff4a53869c326c96bf25df2408f642534a6","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":1,"id":"29408684_74d449e7","in_reply_to":"f102de09_c8e7fdd7","updated":"2025-09-09 14:12:04.000000000","message":"@sbauza@redhat.com That\u0027s irrelevant. Per Sean\u0027s comments, this does not address the issue @dms@danplanet.com has as it would prevent him running autopep8 separate in diff mode. As Sean has now addressed just that, I\u0027m happy to switch my vote.\n\nAs an aside, I also don\u0027t believe that policy is (or ever was) intended to cover stuff like this. It is intended for things we consider serious (production-related) design flaws and the likes. It would not be reasonable for someone to propose a fast revert because they didn\u0027t like the name of variables used in a patch, for example.","commit_id":"638210ca969851419c6f7017aa12a29289f025db"},{"author":{"_account_id":11604,"name":"sean mooney","email":"smooney@redhat.com","username":"sean-k-mooney"},"change_message_id":"14a508ec79dd0affe2514b4e1d1f950de5242690","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":1,"id":"f3ed3959_7b178944","in_reply_to":"f102de09_c8e7fdd7","updated":"2025-09-09 14:04:28.000000000","message":"the revert was not actully the correcct thing. i created it before fully understandign what dans issue was.\n\ni have updated the patch to hopefully satisfy all parties.\n\ni did nto see you ror dans revew on thsi uhntile now but this should work end ot end with the follow up patch \n\nthis is how it looks if you have both pathces when you run tox -e pep8 and have a local pep8 issue.\n\nhttps://paste.opendev.org/show/bwhOls0JNg3HqxPVQpLX/","commit_id":"638210ca969851419c6f7017aa12a29289f025db"},{"author":{"_account_id":4393,"name":"Dan Smith","email":"dms@danplanet.com","username":"danms"},"change_message_id":"f4f63b24fc49f6c2b7c708c547fb34e6af618d9d","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":1,"id":"817b8564_a9cafff3","in_reply_to":"f3ed3959_7b178944","updated":"2025-09-09 14:07:10.000000000","message":"Isn\u0027t this going to fail your patch unless you adhere to the aggressive\u003d3 rules? Because those definitely _are_ part of what my problem was.","commit_id":"638210ca969851419c6f7017aa12a29289f025db"},{"author":{"_account_id":11604,"name":"sean mooney","email":"smooney@redhat.com","username":"sean-k-mooney"},"change_message_id":"c4a5e737ac041beeabe6977b6de73635ed7b1158","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":3,"id":"cacdd757_c0b4bee6","updated":"2025-09-10 12:42:30.000000000","message":"i obviously cant +2 my own changes but i would like to unblock dans workflow by merging the non controversial parts and deferring the the conversation on the stricter/additional rule enforcement on aggressive \u003d 3 to \nhttps://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/960274/1\nor any other forum where we want to discuss that more.\n\nthis is now a straight revert which will have the effect fo disabling all non whitespace formatting. it will not change the in-place behaviour of tox -e pep8.\n\nTo do that we need https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/960167 which\nwill prevent the `tox -e pep8` target form modifying any files as a result of autopep8\n\nThat was my original goal with this series, to restore `tox -e pep8`\nto not make modifications via autopep8.\n\nif we are ok with the pattern in https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/960167 we can consider the original issue resolved and decide as group if we \nwant to proceed with he final patch at a later date.\n\nhttps://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/nova/+/960274/1\n\nthere are other hooks that can modify files in a much more limited fashion\nspecifically fixing tab, trailing whitespace, newline and byte order markers\n\nhttps://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/.pre-commit-config.yaml#L32-L36\nhttps://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/.pre-commit-config.yaml#L6-L12\n\nif we also want to have those not modify code during local tox execution without regressing or ci of the same lints we would need to find a replacement hook that just checks. i beifly checked originally btu i dont htink i can just pass an arge to make tehm run in check only mode. in anycase if we ante ot alter that i think that should be discussed sperately in a different patch.\n\nStephen are you OK with proceeding this this approach.","commit_id":"9a22579858955a0d65bfca13514caf52c54875c5"}],"pyproject.toml":[{"author":{"_account_id":11604,"name":"sean mooney","email":"smooney@redhat.com","username":"sean-k-mooney"},"change_message_id":"9315cc5f6b98c4fe7224a2d43a04142cf6c60d6b","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[{"line_number":3,"context_line":"build-backend \u003d \"pbr.build\""},{"line_number":4,"context_line":""},{"line_number":5,"context_line":"[tool.autopep8]"},{"line_number":6,"context_line":"aggressive \u003d 3"},{"line_number":7,"context_line":"in-place \u003d true"},{"line_number":8,"context_line":"recursive \u003d true"},{"line_number":9,"context_line":""}],"source_content_type":"text/x-toml","patch_set":1,"id":"75984229_41165bb3","side":"PARENT","line":6,"updated":"2025-09-08 21:52:46.000000000","message":"so it turns out that ^ isnt actully the probpelm that dan reported\nbut i still need to remvoe V\nto make the next patch work.\n\nwe can reevacuate if we want to add \n\naggressive \u003d 1-3 again later.\n\nfor now this is not a priority to re-enable.","commit_id":"0dd7cb1fb0996c4298cc970dab9230f598d2d246"}]}