> If new contributors (as opposed to the bug owner) really have to actively
drive
> the review process, then the "review" keyword does more harm than good,
and its
> existence should come to an end.
You are absolutely right. I thought I posted a message here awhile ago
about removing these keywords.
>
> It was my understanding that once a bug has the patch & review keywords,
it's
> the bug owner's task to take some action, e.g.
> - reassign the bug to a more appropriate person (e.g. module owner)
> - review the patch, and drive the super-review & checkin process if the
patch
> is fine
> - ask the patch author to get reviews from someone else
> - leave a comment and remove the patch/review keywords if the approach is
bad
Whoever has a patch for a bug is typically the owner of the bug, or should
be. It is really the person with the patch's responsibility to push for
review. Sure, module owners can and should help this process along, but I
don't think it's fair to post a patch and wait for someone to do something
with it.
>
> http://www.mozilla.org/hacking/ asks contributors to attach patches to the
bug
> and then discuss them on the newsgroup. The newsgroup discussions don't
seem to
> happen in all cases, but if this is really the reason for bitrotting
patches,
> the bug owner should make sure contributors are aware.
http://mozilla.org/hacking/reviewers.html clearly states the process for
getting review, and it includes e-mailing the appropriate people and cc'ing
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Reading through these documents are really
considered prerequisites for creating patches and/or getting CVS accounts.
>
> If adding the "review" keyword is not meant to trigger some action from
someone
> else, this keyword should be destroyed.
Yes, it should. It is not really a good idea anyways because certain people
are supposed to review certain things (module owners for patches, certain
super-reviewers for each area).
> BTW, can someone give an example when
> to use "patch" without "review" (currently 131 bugs), or "review" without
> "patch" (currently 21 bugs)?
Don't ask me. I think the patch keyword should go also.
--Blake
