-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 12/10/15 22:15, hasufell wrote: > On 10/12/2015 06:44 AM, wraeth wrote: >> >> I am aware of this and that it has been the way for quite some >> time. However, while it may be the norm in the wider FOSS >> community, it has not been the norm on the gentoo-dev list - >> certainly people will post things specifically for review, or may >> highlight critical issues; but it has not until recently been a >> channel for review of any and all commits that the Reviewers >> inspect. >> >> It is not the fact that there is a review or education process, >> but that this process was executed with the level of tact and >> grace becoming of a flock of ducks flying into the side of a >> building. >> >> This education process was implemented in a way that >> indiscriminately pointed the finger at contributors, developer >> and user alike, sometimes for things that mattered, and other >> times for things that simply didn't. What's more, it was >> implemented without warning and included publishing who the >> author of those mistakes was without the contributor knowing that >> it would be used so (you know, since the whole commit header was >> in this educational message, too). >> > > We already have been working on making an internal policy about > _how_ and _where_ to review. > > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Reviewers/Internal_policy
I have noticed this and have been watching it evolve over the last day or so. >> What I am saying is that until now contributors to Gentoo have >> received feedback on their work in channels that they elected, >> whether it was IRC, Bugzilla, Pull Requests or E-Mail; until >> suddenly their work (or more accurately, the Reviewers teams >> issues with their work) were getting broadcast to anyone who is >> subscribed to this list, regardless of if that contributor wanted >> that kind of public critiquing. > > And another point that I have to make very clear... while we are > certainly trying to find the best suited channel for reviews, the > selection of which one is the best is definitely _not_ about "how > do I minimize public exposure?", but "where is this review > relevant?" and "where does the author of the patch respond to most > quickly?". I can appreciate that it is difficult to find the right channel for these sort of reviews - it's something that could be useful to a lot of people. As I've mentioned, I support the idea of the Reviewers project and welcome feedback to my own work. > And frankly, if "public exposure" is a problem for you, then > that's something you have to work on if you like to contribute to > FOSS. It's not personal, it's technical. We will definitely not > keep a list of people who are afraid that a review of their code is > posted somewhere more public (assuming that the ebuild is already > GPL-2 or similar and public). But we'll try to post it where it is > relevant and where the author will respond... if that place is > private mail, then so be it, but again... we'll not keep a list for > that around. And it will be a learning experience for us too to > figure out how to approach this best, including the correct place, > the amount of nitpicking and so on. You cannot expect that > everything happens at day 1. A relevant counterpoint to this is: >> This is not a case where I am particularly embarrassed or upset >> - if others can learn from my mistakes, then they are mistakes I >> am happy to make (preferably only once). I expanded upon this in a different reply to earlier message. It's not the fact that the reviews were posted publicly, it's the fact that it was done so without warning. And further, while I'm somewhat taken aback by it myself, it's more the fact that this type sudden change to how feedback is given affects more than just seasoned developers, it also affects existing and potential contributors, both those who are used to the FOSS 'norm' and those who are offering their first contributions to their favourite project. As I explained in my other reply, typically when you begin contributing to a FOSS community, you do so knowing what mechanisms are used for review and where critiques of your work may end up. I don't expect everything to have been within the N^th degree of perfection from day one; and I honestly hope the Reviewers project finds its feet and benefits the community; I just believe that it's first day could have been handled better. Kind Regards; - -- Sam Jorna (wraeth) <wra...@wraeth.id.au> GnuPG Key: B2D9F759 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iF4EAREIAAYFAlYbvGwACgkQXcRKerLZ91k1/gD/e3Tbigd1BeEtb6ghOAFZv0Jq 9PmPPbSDrq6v8NfKd5kA/1CQoJnrHzFB38BrHvZHQmvuuQtKG+9kmHQ10WJ5kJD2 =9UP+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
