On 04/08/2016 01:42 PM, Dmitry Tantsur wrote: > 2016-04-08 19:26 GMT+02:00 Davanum Srinivas <davanum at gmail.com>: > >> Team, >> >> Steve pointed out to a problem in Stackalytics: >> https://twitter.com/stevebot/status/718185667709267969 > > > There are many ways to game a simple +1 counter, such as +1'ing changes > that already have at least 1x +2, or which already approved, or which need > rechecking... > > >> >> >> It's pretty clear what's happening if you look here: >> >> https://review.openstack.org/#/q/owner:openstack-infra%2540lists.openstack.org+status:open >> >> Here's the drastic step (i'd like to avoid): >> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/303545/ >> >> What do you think? >> > > One more possible (though also imperfect) mitigation is to make exception > from the usual 2x +2 rule for requirements updates passing gates and use > only 1x +2. Then requirements reviews will take substantially less time to > land, reducing need/possibility of having such +1's. Proposal bot patches merge in many cases with 1 +2 already. Have you looked at the timing of the bot patches generated and the first +1's? If not, take a look at that. I don't think we should be expecting core reviewers to schedule approving bot proposals to prevent extraneous +1s. Thanks, Anita. > >> >> Thanks, >> Dims >> >> -- >> Davanum Srinivas :: https://twitter.com/dims >> >> __________________________________________________________________________ >> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) >> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> > > > > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >