Open Stack

Excerpts from Amrith Kumar's message of 2015-04-24 15:02:01 +0000:
> There have been many replies on this thread, I'll just reply to this one rather than trying to reply piecemeal.
> 
> Doug, there's asking a question because something is unclear (implying that the code is needlessly complex, missing a comment, is unintuitive, ...). I believe that this most definitely warrants a -1 as you describe because it is indicative that the code, once submitted, would be hard for a future reader to follow.
> 
> In my mind, the yardstick has been, and continues to be this; would a reasonable person believe that the patch set as presented should be allowed to merge. 
> 
> - If I can answer that question unambiguously, and unequivocally with a NO, then I will score the patch with a negative score. 
> 
> - If I can answer that question unambiguously, and unequivocally with a YES, then I will score the patch with a positive score. 
> 
> - For anything else, I'll use a 0.

I've run into too many cases where a "trivial" change has an
unintended consequence, so I suppose I'm more conservative with my
code reviews. I don't use 0 very often at all, not because of any
stats counting, but because I don't assume that conveys any information
to the author or other reviewers. I vote the way I mean for my
comments to be taken, so I use -1 to indicate that more work is
needed, even if that work is just explaining something better or
demonstrating that an edge case is going to be handled.

> 
> If there was a patch to make reviewstats count +0, I'd support that. But I would also like to understand what the differences are between reviewstats and stackalytics. Ideally I would like stackalytics to count 0's as well. If you can take the time to review a patch, you should get credit for it (no matter what tool is used to count). 
> 
> I would support changes to both reviewstats and stackalytics to do the following.

I'm not sure where all of the interest in stats counting comes from, but
it's definitely not a motivation of my own behavior.

Doug