+1 to the general sentiment of trying to get more eyes on a larger change before committing.
We could start making a more conscious decision of calling out these changes and then seeing if it's gets any attention I don't have any tool preference so I started with review board for my latest patch to see where it takes On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 11:32 AM, Stefan Matheis <ste...@mathe.is> wrote: > > This seems to be what the majority thinks and I see the point, I’m > concerned of this myself. I’m just not sure how to encourage people to > submit for review and review other peoples more since the option is there > now and is not very frequently used. I’m open to suggestions if anyone has > ideas. > > It's not an easy thing to apply and the details are maybe a bit witty .. > I've seen a budget/credit system in use. Where you earn points doing > reviews .. which are basically needed to get something in _without_ a > review. > > I'm not proposing exactly that, because I don't like the incentive it's > using .. just the underlying system is appealing. Sometimes you need a > little bit more than just say please. > > Perhaps picking up what Shawn mentioned: if you could "subscribe" to > certain parts of the code and get notified about patches that are related > to it? Obviously that's not a perfect solution by itself either (because it > could potentially mean that people are only just looking at those anymore > and none of the others) .. > > But it's what some git(hub)-based review systems use: they @-mention you > in a upcoming change because you touched that code at least once before. So > you are kind of a good fit to review it. > > ... Uhm okay, that was not as straight forward as I'd like my reply to be > - hopefully it still helps :) > > Best > Stefan > > On Mar 1, 2018 4:59 AM, "Tomas Fernandez Lobbe" <tflo...@apple.com> wrote: > > > Like Dawid I hope we won't add strict requirements to get changes reviewed > before merging but I do agree with the general sentiment that reviews are > helpful and improve code quality. > > This seems to be what the majority thinks and I see the point, I’m > concerned of this myself. I’m just not sure how to encourage people to > submit for review and review other peoples more since the option is there > now and is not very frequently used. I’m open to suggestions if anyone has > ideas. > > I really appreciate getting feedback on patches that I upload, including > negative feedback and I don't mind being pinged on issues if anyone thinks > I might have valuable feedback to give. > > Exactly, same here. The times I got my patches reviewed and I got very > valuable feedback, including someone fixing something broken in my patch. > > I encourage people to go and review some random commits and see if they > could have given any valuable feedback. Someone could tell me “you can go, > review, and create a new Jira with your proposed changes”, but that doesn’t > happen usually, so back to my point. > > > On Feb 28, 2018, at 5:11 PM, Adrien Grand <jpou...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Like Dawid I hope we won't add strict requirements to get changes reviewed > before merging but I do agree with the general sentiment that reviews are > helpful and improve code quality. I really appreciate getting feedback on > patches that I upload, including negative feedback and I don't mind being > pinged on issues if anyone thinks I might have valuable feedback to give. > > I didn't know Solr had a CTR policy. I understand CTR and RTC have pros > and cons but since there seems to be agreement that we want more changes to > be reviewed I think RTC is better at encouraging a review culture: as a > reviewer it's easier to recommend that the change should be done in a > totally different way if that is what you think, and you also feel more > useful since someone considered that the change needs your pair of eyes > before being merged. > > Le mer. 28 févr. 2018 à 21:07, Cassandra Targett <casstarg...@gmail.com> > a écrit : > >> On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 1:58 PM, Shawn Heisey <apa...@elyograg.org> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> I notice in ZK issues that projects associated with Hadoop have an >>> *automatic* machine-generated QA check whenever a patch is submitted on >>> those projects. This obviously is not the same as a real review by a >>> person, but the info it outputs seems useful. >>> >>> >>> >> This is what SOLR-10912 intends to achieve. >> >> > >