No, super-review has not really been a thing for some time, we should remove documentation suggesting it is. That said we definitely have room for this kind of architectural review. Webidl for example already uses something like this.
On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 2:24 PM Kris Maglione <kmagli...@mozilla.com> wrote: > I can't remember the last time I saw a super-review request, but > it's still documented as a policy[1]. Is it still a thing? Do we > want it to still be a thing? > > The reason that I ask is that I have a problem that I think I > might be able to solve by co-opting the super-review flag, but I > don't want to trample on it if we're still using it as > originally designed. > > My problem is essentially that, for a few areas of code, I'm the > final arbiter, or at least the main blocker, for a lot of large > or critical architectural or API changes. The upshot of that is > that I get a lot of review requests for patches in those areas, > and most of the patches that make it into my queue are large > and/or complicated. This situation gets exhausting after a > while. And since people know that I tend to be busy, they also > avoid flagging me to review smaller patches, even when I really > *should* look at those patches (and therefore notice issues with > them only when I read code later). > > For a lot of these patches, my opinion is only really critical > for certain architectural aspects, or implementation aspects at > a few critical points. There are other reviewers who are > perfectly qualified to do a more detailed review of the > specifics of the patch, and have more spare cycles to devote to > it. Essentially, what's needed from me in these cases is a > super-review, which I can do fairly easily, but instead I become > a bottleneck for the code review as well. > > So, for the areas where I have this responsibility, I'd like to > institute a policy that certain types of changes need a final > super-review from me, but should get a detailed code review from > another qualified reviewer when that makes sense. > > > Does anyone have any objection to this plan? Or any suggestions > for another way to go about it? > > -Kris > > [1]: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/governance/policies/reviewers/ > _______________________________________________ > dev-platform mailing list > dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform > _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
