On 8 October 2013 22:44, Martyn Taylor <mtay...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 07/10/13 20:03, Robert Collins wrote:
> Whilst I can see that deciding on who is Core is a difficult task, I do feel > that creating a competitive environment based on no. reviews will be > detrimental to the project. I'm not sure how it's competitive : I'd be delighted if every contributor was also a -core reviewer: I'm not setting, nor do I think we need to think about setting (at this point anyhow), a cap on the number of reviewers. > I do feel this is going to result in quantity over quality. Personally, I'd > like to see every commit properly reviewed and tested before getting a vote > and I don't think these stats are promoting that. I think thats a valid concern. However Nova has been running a (very slightly less mechanical) form of this for well over a year, and they are not drowning in -core reviewers. yes, reviewing is hard, and folk should take it seriously. Do you have an alternative mechanism to propose? The key things for me are: - folk who are idling are recognised as such and gc'd around about the time their growing staleness will become an issue with review correctness - folk who have been putting in consistent reading of code + changes get given the additional responsibility of -core around about the time that they will know enough about whats going on to review effectively. -Rob -- Robert Collins <rbtcoll...@hp.com> Distinguished Technologist HP Converged Cloud _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
