Thanks Amrith! I am a big supporter on including +0s.
On 4/9/16 6:31 PM, Amrith Kumar wrote: > Thanks to Dims and Steve for bringing this up. > > It has long been my opinion that +0's are invaluable for the question > asking, and for getting to understand software, and unfortunately +0's are > lost in the noise. So a while ago, I posted to the ML [1] asking about making > +0's more visible. I signed up to submit a request on gerrit upstream (and > promptly forgot to do that). This mail thread has reminded me of that. I have > now posted a request for the upstream gerrit folks to fix [2]. > > I believe that people don't use +0's enough because they often get > ignored. I know that one can be cynical and say it is because it gives one no > credit in stackalytics; I choose not to be that person. > > I post +0's a lot. But, I find that they are often ignored. If you > agree with me that +0's are useful, and could be highlighted better in the > gerrit review screen, please post a comment on [2]. > > Thanks, > > -amrith > > [1] http://openstack.markmail.org/thread/nj4onttaibjmfxew > [2] https://code.google.com/p/gerrit/issues/detail?id=4050 > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Matt Riedemann [mailto:mrie...@linux.vnet.ibm.com] >> Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2016 9:43 AM >> To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org >> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][stackalytics] Gaming the Stackalytics >> stats >> >> >> >> On 4/8/2016 5:54 PM, Jay Faulkner wrote: >>> I know a lot of folks explicitly avoid a +0 vote with a comment >>> because you don't get "credit" for it in statistics. Whether or not >>> that should matter is another discussion, but there is a significant >>> disincentive to no-voting right now. >>> >>> >>> - >>> >>> Jay Faulkner >>> >>> >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> -- >>> *From:* Dolph Mathews <dolph.math...@gmail.com> >>> *Sent:* Friday, April 8, 2016 1:54 PM >>> *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) >>> *Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [all][stackalytics] Gaming the >>> Stackalytics stats >>> >>> >>> On Friday, April 8, 2016, John Dickinson <m...@not.mn >>> <mailto:m...@not.mn>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 8 Apr 2016, at 13:35, Jeremy Stanley wrote: >>> >>> > On 2016-04-08 19:42:18 +0200 (+0200), Dmitry Tantsur wrote: >>> >> There are many ways to game a simple +1 counter, such as +1'ing >>> changes >>> >> that already have at least 1x +2, or which already approved, or >>> which need >>> >> rechecking... >>> > [...] >>> > >>> > The behavior which baffles me, and also seems to be on the rise >>> > lately, is random +1 votes on changes whose commit messages >> and/or >>> > status clearly indicate they should not merged and do not need to >> be >>> > reviewed. I suppose that's another an easy way to avoid the >> dreaded >>> > "disagreements" counter? >>> > -- >>> > Jeremy Stanley >>> >>> >>> I have been told that some OpenStack on boarding teaches new members >>> of the community to do reviews. And they say, effectively, "muddle >>> through as you can. You won't understand it all at first, but do >>> your best. When you're done, add a +1 and move to the next one" >>> >>> >>> I advocate for basically this, but instead of a +1, leave a +0 and ask >>> questions. The new reviewer will inevitably learn something and the >>> author will benefit by explaining their change (teaching is the best >>> way to learn). >>> >>> >>> I've been working to correct this when I've seen it, but +1 reviews >>> with no comments might not be people trying to game. It might simply >>> be people trying to get involved that don't know any better yet. >>> >>> --John >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ______________________________________________________________________ >>> ____ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) >>> Unsubscribe: >>> openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe >>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >>> >> There is also disincentive in +1ing a change that you don't understand and >> is wrong and then a core comes along and -1s it (you get dinged for the >> disagreement). And there is disincentive in -1ing a change for the wrong >> reasons (silly nits or asking questions for understanding). I ask a lot of >> questions in a lot of changes and I don't vote on those because it would >> be inappropriate. >> >> I also notice when "newcomers" are asking good questions for understanding >> and not voting on them, it shows me they are trying to learn and are >> getting invested in the project, not just trying to pad stats. Those are >> the people we look to mentor into bigger roles in the project team, be >> that working on subteams or eventually looking at for the core reviewer >> team. >> >> -- >> >> Thanks, >> >> Matt Riedemann >> >> >> __________________________________________________________________________ >> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) >> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Thanks, Nikhil __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
