Hi,
looking at some of the more recent nominations, we didn't really follow
this suggestion (even though we had lazy consensus). I agree with Mårten
and Volker that "commentby" & "-owne" would give a a better overview of
how someone is participating in reviews.
Thus, I would suggest that we either mention it on
https://wiki.qt.io/The_Qt_Governance_Model#Approvers or even put it into
https://contribute.qt-project.org/quips/2) to steer everyone into using
this link instead of reviewby
Regards,
Fabian
On 15.08.23 16:55, Mårten Nordheim via Development wrote:
Hey!
Yeah, I think reviewer: is sometimes a bit misleading, so +1 for changing to
commentby:
Though, in that case we might want to also, for transparency, add
"-owner:<nominated>". It's only natural
to reply on your own changes of course :)
Mårten
________________________________________
From: Development <development-boun...@qt-project.org> on behalf of Volker Hilsheimer
via Development <development@qt-project.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 16:47
To: development@qt-project.org
Subject: [Development] Nominating for approver: commentby vs reviewedby vs
reviewer search operators
Hi,
Emails in which we nominate contributors for Approver status usually have two
queries: the list of changes owned [1], and the list of changes that the
nominee reviewed [2].
[1] https://codereview.qt-project.org/q/owner:volker.hilsheimer%2540qt.io
[2] https://codereview.qt-project.org/q/reviewer:volker.hilsheimer%2540qt.io
The first query should be pretty clear: all changes I owned, which is usually
all changes I authored.
However, the second query selects all changes on which I was added as a
reviewer, no matter whether I actually provided any input. So the list produced
by [2] includes
https://codereview.qt-project.org/c/qt/qtdeclarative/+/496546
even though I didn’t provide any input to this change.
Being added as a reviewer by other contributors is a sign of trust. However,
for the sake of evaluating a nomination, perhaps we want to get an idea of how
much someone actually participated in code reviews.
Gerrit provides two selectors to get a list of changes where someone actually
participated: reviewedby [3] and commentby [4]:
[3] https://codereview.qt-project.org/q/reviewedby:volker.hilsheimer%2540qt.io
[4] https://codereview.qt-project.org/q/commentby:volker.hilsheimer%2540qt.io
The former lists all the changes for which I voted on any of the patch sets (it
doesn’t have to be the patch set that ultimately got merged). The latter lists
all changes where I made a comment. The list produced by [3] doesn’t include
https://codereview.qt-project.org/c/qt/qtbase/+/489071 (even though I
commented), while the list produced by [4] does.
Commenting is very valuable, even when not voting. And voting implies
commenting, e.g. the list from [4] does include
https://codereview.qt-project.org/c/qt/qtopcua/+/496329, where I only voted but
didn’t leave a comment.
Hence, I’d like to propose that nomination emails include the two links as per
[1] and [4], using `owner` and `commentby` search operators.
Volker
--
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
--
Fabian Kosmale
Manager R&D
The Qt Company GmbH
Erich-Thilo-Str. 10
D-12489 Berlin
fabian.kosm...@qt.io
+49 1638686070
--
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
