Open Stack

On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Salvatore Orlando <sorlando at nicira.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On 24 April 2015 at 16:50, Chris Friesen <chris.friesen at windriver.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 04/24/2015 07:26 AM, Salvatore Orlando wrote:
>>
>>  If you think it might be beneficial to adjust tooling to that these
>>> "contributions" get counted this is fine by me. I just wanted to point
>>> out that
>>> I do not consider those contributions at all (and btw it would be at
>>> least more
>>> polite to put a +1 rather than a -1).
>>>
>>
>> If you're asking a question to elicit information, then it's quite
>> possible you don't have enough information for a +1 yet.
>
>
> This makes sense in general. I was referring to the specific cases posed
> by Julien - curiosities, pedantry, or questions unrelated to the scope of
> the patch.
> Julien clarified that there actually questions which grant a -1, and
> surely never a +1. For instance the kind of "what if" questions listed by
> Doug. In this case it make sense for a reviewer to put a hold a patch while
> waiting for an answer.
>
>
Would anybody be willing to codify this into a document that we can point
offenders to so that we can get better review quality over time? Maybe
http://docs.openstack.org/infra/manual/developers.html#peer-review (was
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/ReviewChecklist ).

(Just don't be surprised when some joker posts a question with a -1 on the
review.)

- Brant
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20150424/bb20be4b/attachment.html>