Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Remove vim configuration from Python files #4123

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 10, 2017

Conversation

rhcarvalho
Copy link
Contributor

In a project where contributors are free to use whatever editor they want and we have linting tools that verify the proper formatting of Python files, it should not be required to have a vim-specific line in Python files.


The intention here is not to proclaim an editor war, but to pragmatically simplify the list of manual rules we want to enforce on contributors.

Inspired by code review in #3630 (comment).

In a project where contributors are free to use whatever editor they
want and we have linting tools that verify the proper formatting of
Python files, it should not be required to have a vim-specific line in
Python files.
@sdodson
Copy link
Member

sdodson commented May 9, 2017

FYI, We discussed and approved this in a prior arch call where we decided to forego the vim mode lines in favor of CI jobs that just enforced the rule which is already in place.

@rhcarvalho
Copy link
Contributor Author

aos-ci-test

@rhcarvalho
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thanks @sdodson

@rhcarvalho
Copy link
Contributor Author

bot, retest this please

@rhcarvalho
Copy link
Contributor Author

aos-ci-test

@openshift-bot
Copy link

error: aos-ci-jenkins/OS_3.5_containerized for a0539d0 (logs)

@openshift-bot
Copy link

success: "aos-ci-jenkins/OS_3.5_NOT_containerized, aos-ci-jenkins/OS_3.5_NOT_containerized_e2e_tests" for a0539d0 (logs)

@openshift-bot
Copy link

success: "aos-ci-jenkins/OS_3.6_NOT_containerized, aos-ci-jenkins/OS_3.6_NOT_containerized_e2e_tests" for a0539d0 (logs)

@openshift-bot
Copy link

success: "aos-ci-jenkins/OS_3.6_containerized, aos-ci-jenkins/OS_3.6_containerized_e2e_tests" for a0539d0 (logs)

Copy link
Contributor

@tbielawa tbielawa left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I gladly, without bias, approve this PR.

@tbielawa
Copy link
Contributor

tbielawa commented May 9, 2017

edit

@openshift-bot
Copy link

success: "aos-ci-jenkins/OS_3.5_NOT_containerized, aos-ci-jenkins/OS_3.5_NOT_containerized_e2e_tests" for a0539d0 (logs)

@openshift-bot
Copy link

success: "aos-ci-jenkins/OS_3.6_NOT_containerized, aos-ci-jenkins/OS_3.6_NOT_containerized_e2e_tests" for a0539d0 (logs)

@openshift-bot
Copy link

success: "aos-ci-jenkins/OS_3.5_containerized, aos-ci-jenkins/OS_3.5_containerized_e2e_tests" for a0539d0 (logs)

@openshift-bot
Copy link

success: "aos-ci-jenkins/OS_3.6_containerized, aos-ci-jenkins/OS_3.6_containerized_e2e_tests" for a0539d0 (logs)

@sdodson
Copy link
Member

sdodson commented May 9, 2017

[merge]

@sdodson
Copy link
Member

sdodson commented May 10, 2017

re[merge]

@openshift-bot
Copy link

Evaluated for openshift ansible merge up to a0539d0

@sdodson
Copy link
Member

sdodson commented May 10, 2017

flake on openshift/origin#14122

@openshift-bot
Copy link

continuous-integration/openshift-jenkins/merge FAILURE (https://ci.openshift.redhat.com/jenkins/job/merge_pull_request_openshift_ansible/342/) (Base Commit: 5d408ee)

@rhcarvalho
Copy link
Contributor Author

Same flake / bug in the merge script -- openshift/origin#14122.

This has passed all Ansible-based install tests and , should cover what we need to merge it.
The fedora/* job failed with what seems to be some infra problem (timeout in a curl call to the OpenShift API server?).
Travis is green.

Merging it manually as per https://github.com/openshift/openshift-ansible/blob/master/docs/pull_requests.md#manual-merges.

@rhcarvalho rhcarvalho merged commit 402e8ca into openshift:master May 10, 2017
@rhcarvalho rhcarvalho deleted the remove-vim-line branch May 10, 2017 06:29
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants