Open Stack

On 30 October 2013 12:08, Tom Fifield <tom at openstack.org> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Recently, I did something crazy and got into the "top 10" reviewers for
> OpenStack in a 30/60 day window. Admittedly, this was for documentation  -
> which is quite a bit different than code - but the experience did give me a
> small window of insight into the challenge faced by our venerable core
> reviewers. It's a really tough job!

Indeed!

> One of the aspects that I noticed in doing so many reviews is that a review
> was much easier to perform if another reviewer had been through it
> beforehand. That is, a patch had gone through a couple of -1 iterations to
> finally get a +1 before I saw it.
>
> This made me think a little about how much emphasis we place as a community
> on +2 reviews. It can seem at times like they're the only reviews we care
> about. Hell, I've even heard song lyrics from a community member that imply
> this :D

I think the focus has to be on lifting everyone's game to the point
they can contribute on reviews as effectively as -core folk do today.

I waffled on about this in the hyper-v thread a couple weeks back,but in short:

The cost of a patch upload is no less than 2 reviews.

Therefore, if you upload a patch, you should do 2 reviews and pay it
forward. If you're -core, cool, they might be +2's. If you're not core
though, you *still* need to do those two reviews, or:
 - you don't advance along the path to being core capable yourself
 - the core reviewers end up bearing disproportionate load because
they are doing initial reviews themselves.

-Rob

-- 
Robert Collins <rbtcollins at hp.com>
Distinguished Technologist
HP Converged Cloud