Open Stack

All the points sound quite reasonable. I agree with Chris, the more
reviewers read this, the better will be our review quality.

Do we have some kind of reviewing guide?, if we don't this could be an
start.

--
irc: ajo  / mangelajo
Miguel Angel Ajo Pelayo
+34 636 52 25 69
skype: ajoajoajo


2013/11/6 Christopher Armstrong <chris.armstrong at rackspace.com>

> On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 2:34 AM, Radomir Dopieralski <
> openstack at sheep.art.pl> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I'm quite new in the OpenStack project, but I love it already. What is
>> especially nifty is the automated review system -- I'm really impressed.
>> I'm coming from a project in which we also did reviews of every change
>> -- although it was mostly manual, and just one review was enough to
>> merge -- and at some point in that project I noticed that it is very
>> easy to give reviews that are unhelpful, frustrating and just get in the
>> way of the actual work. I started paying attention to how I am reviewing
>> code, and I managed to come up with several patterns that are bad. Once
>> I know the patterns, it's easier to recognize when I'm doing something
>> wrong and rethink the review. I would like to share the patterns that I
>> noticed.
>>
>>
>
> Agreed on all points. I think Gerrit is nice in that it automates a lot of
> stuff, but unfortunately the workflow has not encouraged the best behavior
> for reviewers. This is a good list to follow -- but how can we be sure
> people will? This mailing list thread will only be seen by a small number
> of reviewers over the life of the project, I'm sure.
>
>
> --
> IRC: radix
> Christopher Armstrong
> Rackspace
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20131106/4170695c/attachment.html>