On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 1:09 AM, Jeff Darcy wrote:
> > The feedback I got is, "it is not motivating to review patches that are
> > already merged by maintainer."
>
> I can totally understand that. I've been pretty active reviewing lately,
> and it's an *awful* demotivating
y Bellur" <vbel...@redhat.com>
> To: "Jeff Darcy" <jda...@redhat.com>, "Pranith Kumar Karampuri"
> <pkara...@redhat.com>
> Cc: "Gluster Devel" <gluster-devel@gluster.org>
> Sent: Friday, 15 July, 2016 9:01:55 AM
> Subject: Re: [Glu
On 07/14/2016 03:39 PM, Jeff Darcy wrote:
The feedback I got is, "it is not motivating to review patches that are
already merged by maintainer."
I can totally understand that. I've been pretty active reviewing lately,
and it's an *awful* demotivating grind. On the other hand, it's also
On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 1:09 AM, Jeff Darcy wrote:
> > The feedback I got is, "it is not motivating to review patches that are
> > already merged by maintainer."
>
> I can totally understand that. I've been pretty active reviewing lately,
> and it's an *awful* demotivating
On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 1:25 AM, Jeff Darcy wrote:
> > I absolutely hate what '-1' means though, it says 'I would prefer you
> > didn't submit this'. Somebody who doesn't know what he/she is doing still
> > goes ahead and sends his/her first patch and we say 'I would prefer
> I absolutely hate what '-1' means though, it says 'I would prefer you
> didn't submit this'. Somebody who doesn't know what he/she is doing still
> goes ahead and sends his/her first patch and we say 'I would prefer you
> didn't submit this'. It is like the tool is working against more
>
> The feedback I got is, "it is not motivating to review patches that are
> already merged by maintainer."
I can totally understand that. I've been pretty active reviewing lately,
and it's an *awful* demotivating grind. On the other hand, it's also
pretty demotivating to see one's own hard work
On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 11:29 PM, Joe Julian wrote:
> On 07/07/2016 08:58 PM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 8:40 AM, Jeff Darcy wrote:
>
>> > What gets measured gets managed.
>>
>> Exactly. Reviewing is part of
On 07/07/2016 08:58 PM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:
On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 8:40 AM, Jeff Darcy > wrote:
> What gets measured gets managed.
Exactly. Reviewing is part of everyone's job, but reviews aren't
tracked
in any way
On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 7:27 PM, Jeff Darcy wrote:
> (combining replies to multiple people)
>
> Pranith:
> > I agree about encouraging specific kind of review. At the same time we
> need
> > to make reviewing, helping users in the community as important as sending
> > patches
(combining replies to multiple people)
Pranith:
> I agree about encouraging specific kind of review. At the same time we need
> to make reviewing, helping users in the community as important as sending
> patches in the eyes of everyone. It is very important to know these
> statistics to move in
uch about the component he is reviewing. So how can
we encourage more people to pick up new components? Do you have any ideas?
Getting more reviews will be a very small problem if we have more
knowledgeable people per component.
> Regards,
> Poornima
>
> - Original Message -
t; upcoming release, it should be attached to the tracker bug to ensure
> release is blocked with out the patch. Having a -1 just for not targeting
> it for a specific release doesn't make sense to me.
>
>
>> The release manager should ensure that there are no patches in below
>
;
> Any thoughts?
>
> Regards,
> Poornima
>
> - Original Message -
> > From: "Jeff Darcy" <jda...@redhat.com>
> > To: "Gluster Devel" <gluster-devel@gluster.org>
> > Sent: Friday, July 8, 2016 2:02:27 AM
> > Sub
rovided by Jeff.
Any thoughts?
Regards,
Poornima
- Original Message -
> From: "Jeff Darcy" <jda...@redhat.com>
> To: "Gluster Devel" <gluster-devel@gluster.org>
> Sent: Friday, July 8, 2016 2:02:27 AM
> Subject: [Gluster-devel] Reducing merge conflic
- Original Message -
> From: "Pranith Kumar Karampuri" <pkara...@redhat.com>
> To: "Jeff Darcy" <jda...@redhat.com>
> Cc: "Gluster Devel" <gluster-devel@gluster.org>
> Sent: Friday, July 8, 2016 9:28:57 AM
> Subject: Re: [G
On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 8:40 AM, Jeff Darcy wrote:
> > What gets measured gets managed.
>
> Exactly. Reviewing is part of everyone's job, but reviews aren't tracked
> in any way that matters. Contrast that with the *enormous* pressure most
> of us are under to get our own
+Nigel
On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 7:42 AM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:
> What gets measured gets managed. It is good that you started this thread.
> Problem is two fold. We need a way to first find people who are reviewing a
> lot and give them more karma points in the
> What gets measured gets managed.
Exactly. Reviewing is part of everyone's job, but reviews aren't tracked
in any way that matters. Contrast that with the *enormous* pressure most
of us are under to get our own patches in, and it's pretty predictable
what will happen. We need to change that
What gets measured gets managed. It is good that you started this thread.
Problem is two fold. We need a way to first find people who are reviewing a
lot and give them more karma points in the community by encouraging that
behaviour(making these stats known to public lets say in monthly news
I'm sure a lot of you are pretty frustrated with how long it can take to get
even a trivial patch through our Gerrit/Jenkins pipeline. I know I am. Slow
tests, spurious failures, and bikeshedding over style issues are all
contributing factors. I'm not here to talk about those today. What I
21 matches
Mail list logo