[Ksummit-discuss] "Maintainer summit" invitation discussion
lee.jones at linaro.org
Thu Apr 27 10:41:08 UTC 2017
On Thu, 27 Apr 2017, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Apr 2017, James Bottomley <James.Bottomley at HansenPartnership.com> wrote:
> > Agreed, but I think you'll find most maintainers have a "trust factor"
> > for reviewers. Perhaps we should discuss how we arrive at this and how
> > we should make it more public. The way I often deal with less trusted
> > reviewers is to redo their review and point out all the things they
> > missed and ask them not to come back until they can be more thorough.
> I think that's also a bit harsh, because I think the only way to become
> a better reviewer is to... review. I know it's hard to balance being
> welcoming to new reviewers and ensuring the patches do get proper review
> in the end.
I'm inclined to agree, this is a harsh approach. My personal method
is to allow anyone to review, regardless of their credibility/trust
status. I make a point not to hamper or criticise anyone that's
genuinely tying to help, unless of f course they are dishing out bogus
review comments, then those will need addressing, but only picking up
even say 10% of the issues really isn't a problem. It doesn't matter
how many points are picked-up or missed, we as Maintainers can always
conduct an additional review or one in parallel.
I find additional reviewers particularly helpful if I'm overloaded,
since I can then insist that the contributor fixes all outstanding
review comments before I conduct my, hopefully thorough, review.
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blogs
More information about the Ksummit-discuss