Open Stack

On 06/17/2014 12:22 PM, Joe Gordon wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 3:56 AM, Duncan Thomas <duncan.thomas at gmail.com
> <mailto:duncan.thomas at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>     A far more effective way to reduce the load of trivial review issues
>     on core reviewers is for none-core reviewers to get in there first,
>     spot the problems and add a -1 - the trivial issues are then hopefully
>     fixed up before a core reviewer even looks at the patch.
> 
>     The fundamental problem with review is that there are more people
>     submitting than doing regular reviews. If you want the review queue to
>     shrink, do five reviews for every one you submit. A -1 from a
>     none-core (followed by a +1 when all the issues are fixed) is far,
>     far, far more useful in general than a +1 on a new patch.
> 
> 
> ++
> 
> I think this thread is trying to optimize for the wrong types of
> patches.  We shouldn't be focusing on making trivial patches land
> faster, but rather more important changes such as bugs and blueprints.
> As some simple code motion won't directly fix any users issue such as
> bugs or missing features.

In fact, landing easier and less important changes causes churn in the
code base can make the more important bugs and blueprints even *harder*
to get done.

In the end, as others have said, the biggest problem by far is just that
we need more of the right people reviewing code.

-- 
Russell Bryant