Open Stack

On 8 October 2013 22:44, Martyn Taylor <mtaylor at redhat.com> wrote:
> On 07/10/13 20:03, Robert Collins wrote:


> Whilst I can see that deciding on who is Core is a difficult task, I do feel
> that creating a competitive environment based on no. reviews will be
> detrimental to the project.

I'm not sure how it's competitive : I'd be delighted if every
contributor was also a -core reviewer: I'm not setting, nor do I think
we need to think about setting (at this point anyhow), a cap on the
number of reviewers.

> I do feel this is going to result in quantity over quality. Personally, I'd
> like to see every commit properly reviewed and tested before getting a vote
> and I don't think these stats are promoting that.

I think thats a valid concern. However Nova has been running a (very
slightly less mechanical) form of this for well over a year, and they
are not drowning in -core reviewers. yes, reviewing is hard, and folk
should take it seriously.

Do you have an alternative mechanism to propose? The key things for me are:
 - folk who are idling are recognised as such and gc'd around about
the time their growing staleness will become an issue with review
correctness
 - folk who have been putting in consistent reading of code + changes
get given the additional responsibility of -core around about the time
that they will know enough about whats going on to review effectively.

-Rob

-- 
Robert Collins <rbtcollins at hp.com>
Distinguished Technologist
HP Converged Cloud