Open Stack

Excerpts from Morgan Fainberg's message of 2016-04-10 16:47:28 -0700:
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Clint Byrum <clint at fewbar.com> wrote:
> 
> > Excerpts from Matt Riedemann's message of 2016-04-09 06:42:54 -0700:
> > > There is also disincentive in +1ing a change that you don't understand
> > > and is wrong and then a core comes along and -1s it (you get dinged for
> > > the disagreement). And there is disincentive in -1ing a change for the
> > > wrong reasons (silly nits or asking questions for understanding). I ask
> > > a lot of questions in a lot of changes and I don't vote on those because
> > > it would be inappropriate.
> > >
> >
> > Why is disagreement a negative thing? IMO, reviewers who agree too much
> > are just part of the echo chamber.
> >
> >
> There is no problem with disagreement IMHO. However, we track it as a stat,
> and people don't want to feel as though they are in disagreement with the
> cores. I think this is just some level of psychology.
> 
> I very, very rarely look at disagreement stat for anything (now or when I
> was PTL).
> 

Agreed, as a number, it can be highly misleading and is especially hard
to compare to any of the other numbers.

However, in meta-reviews, I found actual occurrences very useful to
analyze how a reviewer handles confronting the other cores and how
confident they are in their understanding of the code base. So it worries
me that new people might be somehow discouraged from disagreement.

So let me just say it here, disagreeing with the core reviewers when
there is a valid reason _is what somebody who wants to be a core reviewer
should be doing_.