[openstack-dev] [heat] Core criteria, review stats vs reality
rbryant at redhat.com
Mon Dec 9 15:00:04 UTC 2013
On 12/09/2013 07:43 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Steven Hardy wrote:
>> The issues I have are:
>> - Russell's stats (while very useful) are being used by some projects as
>> the principal metric related to -core membership (ref TripleO's monthly
>> cull/name&shame, which I am opposed to btw). This is in some cases
>> encouraging some stats-seeking in our review process, IMO.
>> - Review quality can't be measured mechanically - we have some folks who
>> contribute fewer, but very high quality reviews, and are also very active
>> contributors (so knowledge of the codebase is not stale). I'd like to
>> see these people do more reviews, but removing people from core just
>> because they drop below some arbitrary threshold makes no sense to me.
> In our governance each program's PTL is free to choose his preferred
> method of selecting core reviewers, but FWIW I fully agree with you here.
> Using the review stats as the principal metric in deciding -core
> membership is IMHO destructive in the long run. You can use it to check
> for minimum volume, but then review quality should be the main factor,
> and the only way to assess that is to see consistent quality reviews
> made by others and then suggest them for -core membership.
Agreed here, as well. While the stats provide some important insight,
it's far from the whole picture.
More information about the OpenStack-dev