Open Stack

On 06/18/2014 08:31 PM, Joe Gordon wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Clint Byrum <clint at fewbar.com
> <mailto:clint at fewbar.com>> wrote:
> 
>     Excerpts from Duncan Thomas's message of 2014-06-17 03:56:10 -0700:
>     > 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.
>     >
> 
>     Perhaps we should incentivize having a good "reviews to patches" ratio
>     somehow. There are probably quite a few people who are not ever going to
>     be core reviewers, but who don't mind doing a few reviews per day.
> 
> 
> Perhaps we can add that
> to http://stackalytics.com/report/contribution/nova-group/30

I tried to add this stat once to the reviewstats [1][2] version of this
report.  Specifically, I tried to do a ratio of patches posted to
reviews *received*.  It didn't work out well, but it's worth trying
again.  I had trouble coming up with numbers that looked meaningful and
useful.  Rebasing large patch sets would skew the "patches" side.
Trivial rebase detection skews the "reviews received" side.  It was just
a mess.

[1] http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack-infra/reviewstats
[2] http://russellbryant.net/openstack-stats/nova-reviewers-30.txt

-- 
Russell Bryant