Tim
Landscheidt <tim(a)tim-landscheidt.de> wrote:
I'm all for abandoning changes when the author doesn't react
and the patch doesn't apply anymore (not in a technical
sense, but the patch's concept cannot be rebased to the cur-
rent HEAD). But forcing work on many just so that a metric
can be easier calculated by one is putting the burden on the
wrong side.
As somebody who contributes something in development
surges (like a week per three months or so), I think
that cleaning up statistics to make our code review
process look nicer is not the way to go.
What about automatically accepting the change
that has not been reviewed by anybody for two weeks
or so instead?
I agree that -1 is practically a death penalty to a change.
But that's not a positive development, because
even a mild -1's completety discourages anybody to post
a positive review (I wonder how many +1 or neutral
comments were posted *after* some of the WMF reviewers
posted a -1).
Some examples from my own dashboard:
1)
https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/99068/
practically dead although I completely disagree
with the -1 reviewer, as reflected in the comment afterwards.
2)
https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/11562/
My favourite -1 here is "needs rebase".
In general our review process disourages somehow
incremental updating of the patches (do we know
how many non-original-submitters posted follow up patchsets,
not comments?).
This kind of review discourages refactoring or some
non-trivial changes. See "seems too complex" in the example
#2 above.
Regarding Openstack policies: I'd say we should not follow them.
I used to be #2 git-review contributor according to launchpad
until recently. I gave up mainly because of my inability
to propose some larger change to this relatively simple
script. For a nice example of this, please see
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/5720/
I have given up to contribute to this project some time
after this, I have no time to play politics to submit
a set of tiny changes and play the rebase game depending
on the random order they might would have got reviewed.
The next time I find time to improve Johnny the causual
developer experience with gerrit I will just rewrite
git-review from scratch. The amount of the red tape
openstack-infra has built around their projects is
simply not justifiable for such a simple utility
like git-review. Time will tell if gerrit-based
projects generally fare better than others.
//Saper