On 30 October 2013 12:08, Tom Fifield <t...@openstack.org> wrote: > Hi all, > > Recently, I did something crazy and got into the "top 10" reviewers for > OpenStack in a 30/60 day window. Admittedly, this was for documentation - > which is quite a bit different than code - but the experience did give me a > small window of insight into the challenge faced by our venerable core > reviewers. It's a really tough job!
Indeed! > One of the aspects that I noticed in doing so many reviews is that a review > was much easier to perform if another reviewer had been through it > beforehand. That is, a patch had gone through a couple of -1 iterations to > finally get a +1 before I saw it. > > This made me think a little about how much emphasis we place as a community > on +2 reviews. It can seem at times like they're the only reviews we care > about. Hell, I've even heard song lyrics from a community member that imply > this :D I think the focus has to be on lifting everyone's game to the point they can contribute on reviews as effectively as -core folk do today. I waffled on about this in the hyper-v thread a couple weeks back,but in short: The cost of a patch upload is no less than 2 reviews. Therefore, if you upload a patch, you should do 2 reviews and pay it forward. If you're -core, cool, they might be +2's. If you're not core though, you *still* need to do those two reviews, or: - you don't advance along the path to being core capable yourself - the core reviewers end up bearing disproportionate load because they are doing initial reviews themselves. -Rob -- Robert Collins <rbtcoll...@hp.com> Distinguished Technologist HP Converged Cloud _______________________________________________ Mailing list: http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack Post to : openstack@lists.openstack.org Unsubscribe : http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack
