Good points from John. The only concern for first time reviewers is that their comments gets overseen by the committer. If the review comment is good, I feel core-reviewer must put some weight on it and thus encourage genuine suggestions.
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 9:33 AM, John Dennis <jden...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 10/31/2013 10:36 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > > As has been said many times already, OpenStack does not lack > > developers... it lacks reviewers. > > In regards to reviews in general and in particular for welcoming new > committers I think we need to be careful about reviewers NAK'ing a > submission for what is essentially bikeshedding [1]. Reviewers should > focus on code correctness and adherence to required guidelines and not > NAK a submission because the submission offends their personal coding > preferences [2]. > > If a reviewer thinks the code would be better with changes which do not > affect correctness and are more in the vein of "style" modifications > they should make helpful suggestions but give the review a 0 instead of > actually NAK'ing the submission. NAK'ed reviews based on style issues > force the submitter to adhere to someone else's unsubstantiated opinion > and slows down the entire contribution process while submissions are > reworked multiple times without any significant technical change. It's > also demoralizing for submitters to have their contributions NAK'ed for > reasons that are issues of opinion only, the submitter has to literally > submit [3]. > > [1] http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bikeshedding > > [2] Despite the best attempts of computer science researchers over the > years software development remains more of a craft than a science with > unambiguous rules yielding exactly one solution. Often there are many > valid approaches to solve a particular coding problem, the selection of > one approach often boils down to the personal preferences of the > craftsperson. This does not diminish the value of coding guidelines > gleaned from years of analyzing software issues, what it does mean is > those guidelines still leave plenty of room for different approaches and > no one is the arbiter of the "one and only correct way". > > [3] to give over or yield to the power or authority of another. > > -- > John > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > -- Ravi
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev