Merge "[doc] propose Review-Priority label for contribs"
This commit is contained in:
commit
bb2984b9c7
|
@ -697,34 +697,46 @@ Our experience was:
|
|||
review time on the patches in the slots. Such commitment is hard to get or
|
||||
follow up on without being aggressive.
|
||||
|
||||
3) Non-cores were not able to tell they were happy with reviewing some change
|
||||
|
||||
So the aim of the new review priority process is to be as decentralized amongst
|
||||
cores as possible. We trust cores that when they mark something as priority
|
||||
then they also themselves commit to review the patch. We also assume that if a
|
||||
core reviewed a patch then that core should easily find another core as a
|
||||
second reviewer when needed.
|
||||
second reviewer when needed. We also want contributors to be able to "ping"
|
||||
cores asynchronously by asking them to review some changes they saw.
|
||||
|
||||
Note that this process does not want to change how a patch is discovered to be
|
||||
ready for review. The patch authors free to you any existing forums and ways to
|
||||
get review attention.
|
||||
That said, this process doesn't explain how a patch is discovered to be
|
||||
ready for review. While previously The patch authors were able to
|
||||
asynchronously beg for reviews by adding their changes to the etherpad, now
|
||||
they need to find ways to get review attention. For this, we need to understand
|
||||
first whether this is a problem for contributors or not, so let us know please
|
||||
if you have issues for asking to get reviews by going to the nova meeting.
|
||||
|
||||
Therefore we use the Review-Priority label in Gerrit in the following way:
|
||||
|
||||
* Review-Priority is a label with 0 or +1 values, that can be set by the
|
||||
members of the core team
|
||||
* Review-Priority is a label with 0, +1 or +2 values.
|
||||
|
||||
* A core sets the Review-Priority flag to +1 to indicate that they will help
|
||||
* A contributor can set the Review-Priority flag to +1 to indicate they will
|
||||
want cores to review the patch.
|
||||
|
||||
* A core sets the Review-Priority flag to +2 to indicate that they will help
|
||||
the author to get the patch merged.
|
||||
|
||||
* We expect that the cores will limit the number of patches marked with +1
|
||||
* We expect the contributors setting +1 for a patch that they will continue
|
||||
to look at the patch even if a core reviews it so they can then provide
|
||||
their own comments or replies.
|
||||
|
||||
* We expect that the cores will limit the number of patches marked with +2
|
||||
Review-Priority based on their actual review bandwidth
|
||||
|
||||
* We expect that cores will check the list of reviews already having
|
||||
Review-Priority +1 set by other cores before they mark a new one as such to
|
||||
Review-Priority +2 set by other cores before they mark a new one as such to
|
||||
see where they can help first by being the second core.
|
||||
|
||||
* There will be a regular agenda point on the weekly meeting where the team
|
||||
look at the list of patches with +1 mark to keep an overall view what is
|
||||
happening in nova.
|
||||
look at the list of patches with +1 or +2 mark to keep an overall view what
|
||||
is happening in nova.
|
||||
|
||||
Pros:
|
||||
|
||||
|
@ -742,9 +754,6 @@ Cons:
|
|||
* No externally enforced limit on how many things can be a priority at any
|
||||
given time.
|
||||
|
||||
* Does not (want to) solve the problem of discovering reviews that are ready to
|
||||
core review
|
||||
|
||||
Process Evolution Ideas
|
||||
=======================
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue