Open Stack

On Tue, 2015-04-07 at 11:27 +1000, Michael Still wrote:
> Additionally, we have consistently asked for non-cores to help cover
> the review load. It doesn't have to be a core that notices a problem
> with a patch -- anyone can do that. There are many people who do help
> out with non-core reviews, and I am thankful for all of them. However,
> I keep meeting people who complain about review delays, but who don't
> have a history of reviewing themselves. That's confusing and
> frustrating to me.

I can understand why you're frustrated, but not why you're surprised:
the process needs to be different.  Right now the statement is that for
a patch series to be accepted it has to have a positive review from a
core plus one other, however the "one other" can be a colleague, so it's
easy.  The problem, as far as submitters see it, is getting that Core
Reviewer.  That's why so much frenzy (which contributes to your
frustration) goes into it.  And why all the complaining which annoys
you.

To fix the frustration, you need to fix the process:  Make the cores
more of a second level approver rather than a front line reviewer and I
predict the frenzy to get a core will go down and so will core
frustration.  Why not require a +1 from one (or even more than one)
independent (for some useful value of independent) reviewer before the
cores will even look at it?  That way the cores know someone already
thought the patch was good, so they're no longer being pestered to
review any old thing and the first job of a submitter becomes to find an
independent reviewer rather than go bother a core.

James