Hi Chris,
On 2013/08/10 13:13, Chris Jones wrote:
Hi
On 8 October 2013 11:59, Jaromir Coufal <jcou...@redhat.com
<mailto:jcou...@redhat.com>> wrote:
* Example: It doesn't make sense, that someone who is
core-reviewer based on image-builder is able to give +2 on UI or
CLI code and vice-versa.
I'm not sure this is a technical problem as much as a social problem -
if someone isn't able to give a good review (be it -1/+1 or +2) on a
particular change, they should just not review it, regardless of which
part of the project it relates to.
I completely agree on this point. It depends on people's judgement.
Question is if we will depend only on this judgment or we help that with
splitting reviewers based on projects. I believe that the split can help
us. Anyway, it is just proposal it depends what others think about that.
I'm a tripleo core reviewer, but I have been ignoring the tuskar
reviews until I have had some time to play with it and get a feel for
the code. You can argue that I therefore shouldn't even have the power
to give a +2 on tuskar code, but I would note that before Robert added
me to core he wasn't simply watching the quantity of my reviews, he
was also giving me feedback on areas I was going wrong. I would
imagine that if I was wildly throwing around inappropriate reviews on
code I wasn't qualified to review, he would give me feedback on that
too and ultimately remove me as a reviewer.
Well it depends on the approach, if we think first or second way. I
might argue that you shouldn't have the +2 power for Tuskar until you
have bigger contribution on Tuskar code (reviews or patches or ...).
Just for me it sounds logical, because you are not that close to it and
you are not familiar with all the background there.
If somebody will be contributing regularly there, he can become
core-reviewer on that project as well.
If you did bad code reviews on Tuskar and you were removed the 'core-'
status, you still can do excellent job on other TripleO projects, so why
to lose it at all of them?
Let me give one example:
There is tuskar-client which is very important project and there is not
that big activity as in other projects. There are people who actually
wrote the whole code and based on the amount of work (reviews), they
doesn't have to get between core-reviewers. In the future, if they need
to move forward or quickly fix something, they would need to ask some
core-reviewer who is not familiar with that code, just to approve it.
You see where I am getting?
Perhaps this is something that won't scale well, but I have a great
deal of faith in Robert's judgement on who is or isn't reviewing
effectively.
I have no experience with Rob's distribution of core-members and I
believe that he does it based on his best faith.
I am just suggesting more project based approach since the whole program
expanded into more projects. It doesn't have to be strict project based
metric, it can be combined with 'across projects contribution', so we
assure that people are aware of the whole effort. But I believe that the
project focus should stay as primary metric.
--
Cheers,
Chris
Thanks
-- Jarda
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
