On 10/16/2013 08:59 AM, Alessandro Pilotti wrote:
When somebody (especially a core reviewer) puts a -1 and a new patch is
committed to address it,
I noticed that other reviewers wait for the guy that put the -1 to say
something before +1/+2 it.
My feeling on this is that if somebody reviews a patch (positively or
negatively) he/she should also
keep on with it (in a timely manner) until it is merged or clearly stating that
there's no interest in reviewing it further.
This is especially true for core revs as other reviewers tend to be shy and
avoid contradicting a core rev,
generating further delays.
What do you guys think?
Yeah, it's no fun when someone gives you a -1 then goes away.
But the people who do a lot of reviews do a lot of reviews, so they
can't be immediately responsive to every change to every patch they've
reviewed, or they'd never be able to do anything else.
The fundamental problem is that the ratio of patches to reviewers, and
especially patches to core reviewers, is too high. We either need
people to submit fewer patches or do more reviewing.
I'm tempted to submit a patch to next-review to give priority to patches
from authors who do a lot of reviews. That would provide an incentive
for everyone to review more.
--
David Ripton Red Hat drip...@redhat.com
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
