On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 4:07 AM, Pedro Roque Marques <
pedro.r.marq...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Radomir,
> An extra issue that i don't believe you've covered so far is about comment
> ownership. I've just read an email on the list that follows a pattern that
> i've heard many complaints about:
>
On 11/11/13 23:35, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
[...]
> I make a habit of leaving comments in reviews - positive, negative,
> neutral, whatever. If I have something to say which might be useful to
> the author, other reviewers, my future self, whatever ... then I'll say
> it.
>
> e.g. if I spend 10 mi
On Thu, 2013-11-07 at 20:40 -0500, David Ripton wrote:
> On 11/07/2013 07:54 PM, Sean Dague wrote:
> > On 11/08/2013 01:37 AM, Pedro Roque Marques wrote:
> >> Radomir,
> >> An extra issue that i don't believe you've covered so far is about comment
> >> ownership. I've just read an email on the lis
On Fri, 2013-11-08 at 09:32 +1300, Robert Collins wrote:
> On 7 November 2013 13:15, Day, Phil wrote:
> >
> >
>
> >>
> >> Core reviewers look for the /comments/ from people, not just the votes. A
> >> +1 from someone that isn't core is meaningless unless they are known to be
> >> a thoughtful cod
Thats really cool. This kinda gets around the fact that gerrit's REST api
is not available in the version that is currently deployed. I think this
will help me in a tool i was working on to aggregate a view of everything i
want in a single location. Thanks!
-Craig
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 3:16 PM
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 3:43 AM, Michael Basnight wrote:
> On Nov 11, 2013, at 11:27 AM, Joe Gordon wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Sean Dague wrote:
>
>> Not that I know of. I've considered writing my own gerrit front end
>> mail service to do just that, because I agree, the curre
> On Nov 11, 2013, at 11:27 AM, Joe Gordon wrote:
>
>
>> On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Sean Dague wrote:
>> Not that I know of. I've considered writing my own gerrit front end
>> mail service to do just that, because I agree, the current mail volume
>> and granularity is not very good. If I
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Sean Dague wrote:
> Not that I know of. I've considered writing my own gerrit front end
> mail service to do just that, because I agree, the current mail volume
> and granularity is not very good. If I manage to carve time on it,
> I'll do it on stackforge. Joe Go
Not that I know of. I've considered writing my own gerrit front end
mail service to do just that, because I agree, the current mail volume
and granularity is not very good. If I manage to carve time on it,
I'll do it on stackforge. Joe Gordon took a different approach and
wrote a front end client t
On 07/11/13 18:37, Pedro Roque Marques wrote:
[...]
> btw: this is not at all exclusive to OpenStack. The issues you have
> pointed out exist for instance in code reviews inside company's
> proprietary code bases when different teams are involved. I'm yet to
> see a perfect solution to the problem
On 11/07/2013 07:54 PM, Sean Dague wrote:
On 11/08/2013 01:37 AM, Pedro Roque Marques wrote:
Radomir,
An extra issue that i don't believe you've covered so far is about comment
ownership. I've just read an email on the list that follows a pattern that i've
heard many complaints about:
On 11/08/2013 01:37 AM, Pedro Roque Marques wrote:
> Radomir,
> An extra issue that i don't believe you've covered so far is about comment
> ownership. I've just read an email on the list that follows a pattern that
> i've heard many complaints about:
> -1 with a reasonable comment, submitt
On 11/07/2013 05:35 PM, Jiri Tomasek wrote:
> On 11/07/2013 08:25 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 12:21:38AM +, Day, Phil wrote:
Leaving a mark.
===
You review a change and see that it is mostly fine, but you feel
that since you
On 11/07/2013 01:56 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-11-07 at 00:21 +, Day, Phil wrote:
>>>
>>> Leaving a mark.
>>> ===
>>>
>>> You review a change and see that it is mostly fine, but you feel that since
>>> you
>>> did so much work reviewing it, you should at least find
>
On 8 November 2013 00:02, Radomir Dopieralski wrote:
> I created a page on the wiki,
> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/CodeReviewGuidelines
>
> I put some initial content there, based on the discussion in this
> thread. Please feel free to discuss those points further here, and to
> amend that pa
On 7 November 2013 13:15, Day, Phil wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Core reviewers look for the /comments/ from people, not just the votes. A
>> +1 from someone that isn't core is meaningless unless they are known to be
>> a thoughtful code reviewer. A -1 with no comment is also bad, because it
>> doesn't help
Radomir,
An extra issue that i don't believe you've covered so far is about comment
ownership. I've just read an email on the list that follows a pattern that i've
heard many complaints about:
-1 with a reasonable comment, submitter addresses the comment, reviewer
never comes back.
Revi
On 06/11/13 09:34, Radomir Dopieralski wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm quite new in the OpenStack project, but I love it already. What is
> especially nifty is the automated review system -- I'm really impressed.
> I'm coming from a project in which we also did reviews of every change
> -- although it was
On 06/11/13 21:23, Eugene Nikanorov wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I would like do disagree with some of the points.
> First of all, '-1' mark may have a wrong perception especially among new
> contributors.
> -1 doesn't mean reviewers don't want your code (which is -2), it means
> they either not sure it is g
On 11/07/2013 08:25 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 12:21:38AM +, Day, Phil wrote:
Leaving a mark.
===
You review a change and see that it is mostly fine, but you feel that since you
did so much work reviewing it, you should at least find
*something* wrong.
On 06/11/13 23:07, Robert Collins wrote:
> On 6 November 2013 21:34, Radomir Dopieralski wrote:
> [...] Firstly, things
> like code duplication is a sliding scale, and I think it's ok for a
> reviewer to say 'these look similar, give it a go please'. If the
> reviewee tries, and it's no good - th
On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 12:21:38AM +, Day, Phil wrote:
> >
> > Leaving a mark.
> > ===
> >
> > You review a change and see that it is mostly fine, but you feel that since
> > you
> > did so much work reviewing it, you should at least find
> > *something* wrong. So you find some n
On Thu, 2013-11-07 at 00:21 +, Day, Phil wrote:
> >
> > Leaving a mark.
> > ===
> >
> > You review a change and see that it is mostly fine, but you feel that since
> > you
> > did so much work reviewing it, you should at least find
> > *something* wrong. So you find some nitpick
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 7:21 PM, Day, Phil wrote:
> >
> > Leaving a mark.
> > ===
> >
> > You review a change and see that it is mostly fine, but you feel that
> since you
> > did so much work reviewing it, you should at least find
> > *something* wrong. So you find some nitpick and -1
>
> Leaving a mark.
> ===
>
> You review a change and see that it is mostly fine, but you feel that since
> you
> did so much work reviewing it, you should at least find
> *something* wrong. So you find some nitpick and -1 the change just so that
> they know you reviewed it.
>
> Thi
> -Original Message-
> From: Robert Collins [mailto:robe...@robertcollins.net]
> Sent: 06 November 2013 22:08
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] Bad review patterns
>
> On 6 November 2013 21:34, Radomir
On 6 November 2013 21:34, Radomir Dopieralski wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm quite new in the OpenStack project, but I love it already. What is
> especially nifty is the automated review system -- I'm really impressed.
> I'm coming from a project in which we also did reviews of every change
> -- although
t.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Stanisław Pitucha
> > Cloud Services
> > Hewlett Packard
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Sergey Skripnick [mailto:sskripn...@mirantis.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 6:50 PM
> >
find it.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Stanisław Pitucha
> > Cloud Services
> > Hewlett Packard
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Sergey Skripnick [mailto:sskripn...@mirantis.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 6:50 PM
> >
ailto:sskripn...@mirantis.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 6:50 PM
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] Bad review patterns
>
>
> This definitely should be somewhere in wiki or blog and in the bookmarks.
>
>
--
From: Sergey Skripnick [mailto:sskripn...@mirantis.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 6:50 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] Bad review patterns
This definitely should be somewhere in wiki or blog and i
This definitely should be somewhere in wiki or blog and in the bookmarks.
___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
All the points sound quite reasonable. I agree with Chris, the more
reviewers read this, the better will be our review quality.
Do we have some kind of reviewing guide?, if we don't this could be an
start.
--
irc: ajo / mangelajo
Miguel Angel Ajo Pelayo
+34 636 52 25 69
skype: ajoajoajo
2013/1
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 2:34 AM, Radomir Dopieralski
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm quite new in the OpenStack project, but I love it already. What is
> especially nifty is the automated review system -- I'm really impressed.
> I'm coming from a project in which we also did reviews of every change
> -- al
+1
Regards
-Harshad
> On Nov 6, 2013, at 12:36 AM, Radomir Dopieralski
> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I'm quite new in the OpenStack project, but I love it already. What is
> especially nifty is the automated review system -- I'm really impressed.
> I'm coming from a project in which we also did revi
35 matches
Mail list logo
