To follow up on Robert's post, Gerrit's query command [1] supports the
retrieval of comments for each patchset so maybe we just need to add the
'--comments' option when requesting changes [2] ?
Since I've posted, I'll just provide my own opinion on this topic. I have
no problems with a -1 ask a q
On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 6:28 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
> On 04/24/2015 04:33 PM, Ryan Brown wrote:
>
>> On 04/24/2015 03:00 PM, Julien Danjou wrote:
>>
>>> I like that point and I agree with you. The problem, as someone already
>>> stated, is that these people are rarely on IRC and sometimes just neve
On 04/24/2015 04:33 PM, Ryan Brown wrote:
On 04/24/2015 03:00 PM, Julien Danjou wrote:
I like that point and I agree with you. The problem, as someone already
stated, is that these people are rarely on IRC and sometimes just never
reply on the review. Right, maybe next time I'll chase them down
On 25 April 2015 at 05:43, Ben Nemec wrote:
> On 04/24/2015 07:11 AM, Russell Bryant wrote:
>> On 04/24/2015 07:21 AM, Amrith Kumar wrote:
>>> We had a hypothesis about why +0 was rarely used (never conclusively
>>> proved). Our hypothesis was that since Stackalytics didn't count +0's
>>> it led t
On 25 April 2015 at 01:13, Zane Bitter wrote:
> On 24/04/15 07:21, Amrith Kumar wrote:
>>
>> Julien,
>>
>> We had a similar discussion within Trove several months ago and agreed to
>> a convention that if you have a question, that should not warrant a -1
>> unless, as you indicate there's a strong
On 25 April 2015 at 00:11, Russell Bryant wrote:
> On 04/24/2015 07:21 AM, Amrith Kumar wrote:
>> We had a hypothesis about why +0 was rarely used (never conclusively
>> proved). Our hypothesis was that since Stackalytics didn't count +0's
>> it led to an increased propensity to -1 something. It w
Re: [openstack-dev] Please stop reviewing code while asking
questions
> In defense of those of us asking questions, I'll just point out
> that as a core reviewer I need to be sure I understand the intent
> and wide-ranging ramifications of patches as I review the
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Julien Danjou wrote:
> I like that point and I agree with you. The problem, as someone already
> stated, is that these people are rarely on IRC and sometimes just never
> reply on the review. Right, maybe next time I'll chase them down via
> email. Sometimes I wis
On 04/24/2015 03:00 PM, Julien Danjou wrote:
> I like that point and I agree with you. The problem, as someone already
> stated, is that these people are rarely on IRC and sometimes just never
> reply on the review. Right, maybe next time I'll chase them down via
> email. Sometimes I wish we were a
On Fri, Apr 24 2015, Joe Gordon wrote:
Hi Joe,
> By calling them out in the review or on irc, and explain to them when its
> appropriate to use a -1. I don't think its safe to assume that a
> significant number of people who do these -1s are read every thread on the
> ML.
I like that point and
On 2015-04-24 11:01:53 -0700 (-0700), Joe Gordon wrote:
[...]
> in trying to figure out why that line is there I do a git blame
> only to see a useless commit message with me as the author.
[...]
"Always wanted to travel back in time to try fighting a younger
version of yourself? Software developm
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Julien Danjou wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 24 2015, Joe Gordon wrote:
>
> > When I get a -1 on one of my patches with a question, I personally treat
> it
> > as a short coming of the commit message. To often in the past I have
> looked
> > at a file, and in trying to fig
On Fri, Apr 24 2015, Joe Gordon wrote:
> When I get a -1 on one of my patches with a question, I personally treat it
> as a short coming of the commit message. To often in the past I have looked
> at a file, and in trying to figure out why that line is there I do a git
> blame only to see a useles
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Doug Hellmann
wrote:
> Excerpts from Amrith Kumar's message of 2015-04-24 15:02:01 +:
> > There have been many replies on this thread, I'll just reply to this one
> rather than trying to reply piecemeal.
> >
> > Doug, there's asking a question because somethi
On 04/24/2015 07:11 AM, Russell Bryant wrote:
> On 04/24/2015 07:21 AM, Amrith Kumar wrote:
>> We had a hypothesis about why +0 was rarely used (never conclusively
>> proved). Our hypothesis was that since Stackalytics didn't count +0's
>> it led to an increased propensity to -1 something. It would
Excerpts from Jeremy Stanley's message of 2015-04-24 15:15:18 +:
> On 2015-04-24 10:23:35 -0400 (-0400), Doug Hellmann wrote:
> [...]
> > I will often ask questions like, "what is going to happen in X
> > situation if we change this default" or "how does this change in
> > behavior affect the c
Excerpts from Amrith Kumar's message of 2015-04-24 15:02:01 +:
> There have been many replies on this thread, I'll just reply to this one
> rather than trying to reply piecemeal.
>
> Doug, there's asking a question because something is unclear (implying that
> the code is needlessly complex,
Excerpts from Doug Hellmann's message of 2015-04-24 07:23:35 -0700:
> Excerpts from Julien Danjou's message of 2015-04-24 10:14:38 +0200:
> > Hi there,
> >
> > This is now happening weekly to me now, probably because I write too
> > many patches touching almost all OpenStack projects once a cycle,
On 04/24/2015 09:27 AM, Brant Knudson wrote:
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 3:14 AM, Julien Danjou mailto:jul...@danjou.info>> wrote:
Hi there,
This is now happening weekly to me now, probably because I write too
many patches touching almost all OpenStack projects once a cycle, and
I'm
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 04/24/2015 10:11 AM, Morgan Fainberg wrote:
> This is really an important reason why -1 with a question cannot
> be simply "not done". If I don't understand the code, or what will
> happen in a specific case, a -1 is more useful than a no score.
24, 2015 11:16 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] Please stop reviewing code while asking questions
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Salvatore Orlando
mailto:sorla...@nicira.com>> wrote:
On 24 April 2015 at 16:50, Chris F
On 04/24/2015 04:14 AM, Julien Danjou wrote:
Hi there,
This is now happening weekly to me now, probably because I write too
many patches touching almost all OpenStack projects once a cycle, and
I'm really tired of that behavior, so PLEASE:
*Stop sending Code-Review-1 when asking a question i
On Fri, Apr 24 2015, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> I will often ask questions like, "what is going to happen in X
> situation if we change this default" or "how does this change in
> behavior affect the case where Y happens, which isn't well tested
> in our unit tests."
Well I didn't say you weren't all
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Salvatore Orlando
wrote:
>
>
> On 24 April 2015 at 16:50, Chris Friesen
> wrote:
>
>> On 04/24/2015 07:26 AM, Salvatore Orlando wrote:
>>
>> If you think it might be beneficial to adjust tooling to that these
>>> "contributions" get counted this is fine by me.
On 2015-04-24 10:23:35 -0400 (-0400), Doug Hellmann wrote:
[...]
> I will often ask questions like, "what is going to happen in X
> situation if we change this default" or "how does this change in
> behavior affect the case where Y happens, which isn't well tested
> in our unit tests." If those det
> On Apr 24, 2015, at 06:27, Brant Knudson wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 3:14 AM, Julien Danjou wrote:
>> Hi there,
>>
>> This is now happening weekly to me now, probably because I write too
>> many patches touching almost all OpenStack projects once a cycle, and
>> I'm really tir
On 24 April 2015 at 16:50, Chris Friesen
wrote:
> On 04/24/2015 07:26 AM, Salvatore Orlando wrote:
>
> If you think it might be beneficial to adjust tooling to that these
>> "contributions" get counted this is fine by me. I just wanted to point
>> out that
>> I do not consider those contribution
opriately, potentially as not being reviews but something else.
Thanks for reading this far,
-amrith
| -Original Message-
| From: Doug Hellmann [mailto:d...@doughellmann.com]
| Sent: Friday, April 24, 2015 10:24 AM
| To: openstack-dev
| Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] Please stop revi
On 04/24/2015 07:26 AM, Salvatore Orlando wrote:
If you think it might be beneficial to adjust tooling to that these
"contributions" get counted this is fine by me. I just wanted to point out that
I do not consider those contributions at all (and btw it would be at least more
polite to put a +1
> In defense of those of us asking questions, I'll just point out
> that as a core reviewer I need to be sure I understand the intent
> and wide-ranging ramifications of patches as I review them. Especially
> in the Oslo code, what appears to be a small local change can have
> unintended consequen
Excerpts from Julien Danjou's message of 2015-04-24 10:14:38 +0200:
> Hi there,
>
> This is now happening weekly to me now, probably because I write too
> many patches touching almost all OpenStack projects once a cycle, and
> I'm really tired of that behavior, so PLEASE:
>
> *Stop sending Code
om/openstack/trove/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.rst
{2] http://openstack.markmail.org/thread/2xfapsmyy5i44adj
| -Original Message-
| From: Gorka Eguileor [mailto:gegui...@redhat.com]
| Sent: Friday, April 24, 2015 4:29 AM
| To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
| Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] Please
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 3:14 AM, Julien Danjou wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> This is now happening weekly to me now, probably because I write too
> many patches touching almost all OpenStack projects once a cycle, and
> I'm really tired of that behavior, so PLEASE:
>
> *Stop sending Code-Review-1 when
On 24 April 2015 at 14:11, Russell Bryant wrote:
> On 04/24/2015 07:21 AM, Amrith Kumar wrote:
> > We had a hypothesis about why +0 was rarely used (never conclusively
> > proved). Our hypothesis was that since Stackalytics didn't count +0's
> > it led to an increased propensity to -1 something.
Ive seen this a lot too. It is frustrating.
Kevin
From: Julien Danjou
Sent: Friday, April 24, 2015 1:14:38 AM
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: [openstack-dev] Please stop reviewing code while asking questions
Hi there,
This is now happening weekly
On 04/24/2015 08:30 AM, Sylvain Bauza wrote:
>
>
> Le 24/04/2015 14:11, Russell Bryant a écrit :
>> On 04/24/2015 07:21 AM, Amrith Kumar wrote:
>>> We had a hypothesis about why +0 was rarely used (never conclusively
>>> proved). Our hypothesis was that since Stackalytics didn't count +0's
>>> it
Le 24/04/2015 14:11, Russell Bryant a écrit :
On 04/24/2015 07:21 AM, Amrith Kumar wrote:
We had a hypothesis about why +0 was rarely used (never conclusively
proved). Our hypothesis was that since Stackalytics didn't count +0's
it led to an increased propensity to -1 something. It would be
wo
On 04/24/2015 07:21 AM, Amrith Kumar wrote:
> We had a hypothesis about why +0 was rarely used (never conclusively
> proved). Our hypothesis was that since Stackalytics didn't count +0's
> it led to an increased propensity to -1 something. It would be
> wonderful if we could try the experiment of g
adj
| -Original Message-
| From: Gorka Eguileor [mailto:gegui...@redhat.com]
| Sent: Friday, April 24, 2015 4:29 AM
| To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
| Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] Please stop reviewing code while asking
| questions
|
| On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 10:14:38AM +0200, Julien
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 04/24/2015 10:14 AM, Julien Danjou wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> This is now happening weekly to me now, probably because I write
> too many patches touching almost all OpenStack projects once a
> cycle, and I'm really tired of that behavior, so PLEASE:
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 10:14:38AM +0200, Julien Danjou wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> This is now happening weekly to me now, probably because I write too
> many patches touching almost all OpenStack projects once a cycle, and
> I'm really tired of that behavior, so PLEASE:
>
> *Stop sending Code-Revi
Hi there,
This is now happening weekly to me now, probably because I write too
many patches touching almost all OpenStack projects once a cycle, and
I'm really tired of that behavior, so PLEASE:
*Stop sending Code-Review-1 when asking a question in a patch*
_Sometimes_ there are good reasons t
42 matches
Mail list logo
