On 2016-04-04 04:51, Arun Raghavan wrote: > On Sat, 2016-04-02 at 17:19 +0300, Tanu Kaskinen wrote: >> On Thu, 2016-03-31 at 10:55 +0530, Arun Raghavan wrote: >>> >>> We have two opposing axes to optimise along. The first is code quality, >>> as you point out. The other is developer motivation. >>> >>> My feeling is that being able to work on things and push them out >>> without a long wait would help us feel more productive and motivated to >>> work on all aspects of the project. >>> >>> With the current system, I think we're spending more and more time >>> reviewing things and waiting for reviews. >>> >>> Having the ability to work on things and push them out provides a much >>> shorter path between "this is something I'd like to do" and "this thing >>> is done". This allows for a positive feedback loop, and I think that >>> will bolster our motivation to perform reviews, bug triaging, and >>> everything else. >> That sounds like a plausible theory, although I don't personally feel >> demotivated by the large amount of time it takes for my own patches to >> get merged. If you really think that your review bandwidth increases if >> your own patches go through faster, it seems to me that I could >> prioritize reviewing your patches over others, and that way get more >> reviews from you. What do you think? > I think that a this would help, but I fear that this does not do > enough. My preference is still the relaxed (but still existent) review > process that I outlined before, so that we have /some/ hope of catching > up on the patch and bug backlog over time. > > Perhaps we can give it a try what I'd proposed for a couple of release > cycles and evaluate how things stand? > > For me, the demotivator has been when we disagree on things, if someone wants my patch written in another way: I can then choose either to rewrite my code to someone else's liking even though I like it better the way it is (which is demotivating), or I can choose to respond back which can lead to long discussions, which is in itself demotivating and time consuming. I don't know if there exists a good solution to that problem, but I've been thinking along the lines of having areas of responsibility, where one is effectively dictator for some pieces of the code, and someone else is dictator for other pieces, etc. As for Tanu's suggestion (to prioritise Arun and see if that helps) vs Arun's (every committer is free to push their own stuff), I prefer evaluating Tanu's, as I see a risk with Arun's proposal that committers will spend more time on their own stuff rather than reviewing, if the former is what gives that positive feedback loop. // David
