On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 6:41 AM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri <pkarampu@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 8:50 PM, Ravishankar N <ravishankar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:On 09/30/2016 06:38 PM, Niels de Vos wrote:
+1 to this. For the argument that this *might* encourage me-too +1s, it only exposesOn Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 07:11:51AM +0530, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:hi, At the moment 'Reviewed-by' tag comes only if a +1 is given on the final version of the patch. But for most of the patches, different people would spend time on different versions making the patch better, they may not get time to do the review for every version of the patch. Is it possible to change the gerrit script to add 'Reviewed-by' for all the people who participated in the review?
such persons in bad light.
I'm not going to lie, for me, that takes away the incentive of doing any reviews at all.Or removing 'Reviewed-by' tag completely would also help to make sure it doesn't give skewed counts.Could you elaborate why? May be you should also talk about your primary motivation for doing reviews.
I guess it is probably because the effort needs to be recognized? I think there is an option to recognize it so it is probably not a good idea to remove the tag I guess.
--While the Linux kernel model is the poster child for projects to draw standardsI would not feel comfortable automatically adding Reviewed-by tags for people that did not review the last version. They may not agree with the last version, so adding their "approved stamp" on it may not be correct. See the description of Reviewed-by in the Linux kernel sources [0].
from, IMO, their email based review system is certainly not one to emulate. It
does not provide a clean way to view patch-set diffs, does not present a single
URL based history that tracks all review comments, relies on the sender to
provide information on what changed between versions, allows a variety of
'Komedians' [1] to add random tags which may or may not be picked up
by the maintainer who takes patches in etc.It depends on what tags would be processed to obtain statistics on review contributions.Maybe we can add an additional tag that mentions all the people that did do reviews of older versions of the patch. Not sure what the tag would be, maybe just CC?
I agree that not all reviewers might be okay with the latest revision but that
% might be miniscule (zero, really) compared to the normal case where the reviewer spent
considerable time and effort to provide feedback (and an eventual +1) on previous
revisions. If converting all +1s into 'Reviewed-by's is not feasible in gerrit
or is not considered acceptable, then the maintainer could wait for a reasonable
time for reviewers to give +1 for the final revision before he/she goes ahead
with a +2 and merges it. While we cannot wait indefinitely for all acks, a comment
like 'LGTM, will wait for a day for other acks before I go ahead and merge' would be
appreciated.
Enough of bike-shedding from my end I suppose.:-)
Ravi
[1] https://lwn.net/Articles/503829/
Niels 0. http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux. git/tree/Documentation/Submitt ingPatches#n552
_______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.gluster.org/mailman /listinfo/gluster-devel
Pranith
--
Pranith
_______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
