Open Stack

On 10/02/2012 03:16 PM, Gabriel Hurley wrote:
> It did come up several months back, yep.
>
> I'm against any enforced minimum review time. Much like using "sleep" in your code, it's an arbitrary solution that's always going to be wrong in some cases. I see it this way:
>
>      1. Your core devs should have some level of consideration for each other and should be able to discern a change that deserves more review.
>      2. If you don't trust the judgment of every one of your core devs, you've got a problem that a timeout won't help.
>      3. Requiring that, say, a typo docs fix, or a version number bump for release have a mandatory "waiting period" only slows down the machinery overall and adds another frustrating barrier for developers and maintainers alike.
>
> If someone approves a patch too quickly, talk to them about it. Let them know you would've liked more time to review that patch and ask them to consider giving it a little more time in the future. Let's not go shoving in more roadblocks. :-)
>
> All the best,

Agreed. Not trying to enforce something in code. Just bringing it up for 
community convention. Raising the discussion point. :)

If people are looking to review code, there is a lot of stuff that's 
nearly 2 weeks old that hasn't seen any core reviewers in nova. No need 
to only review things on the top of the heap.

	-Sean

-- 
Sean Dague
IBM Linux Technology Center
email: sdague at linux.vnet.ibm.com
alt-email: sldague at us.ibm.com