Open Stack

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 04/24/2015 11:50 AM, Amrith Kumar wrote:

> I'm not interested in these numbers, personally (well, other than
> the usual fishing stories at summit after umpteen beers; I did 14 
> bazillion reviews in Kilo, how many did you do?).
> 
> My concern (earlier in the thread) is that there is a metric. Once 
> there's a metric someone attempts to use it to measure
> performance. And once someone uses a metric to measure performance,
> it influences behavior.
> 
> If I propose that a +0 should now get counted, given how
> overloaded the CI is, I don't want the system to get abused by
> wanton 'recheck's which start to count towards performance.

Be careful what you wish for; you just might get it... :)

If people are going to game the system, changing a rule here or there
won't stop them. Now if +0 are counted, what's to stop someone from
adding +0s to every review? It won't affect the flow, and damn, they'll
get to 14 bazillion reviews without breaking a sweat!

- -- 

- -- Ed Leafe
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=0NDE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----