On 06/18/2014 08:26 AM, Duncan Thomas wrote: > On 18 June 2014 10:04, Thierry Carrez <thie...@openstack.org> wrote: > >> As an aside, we don't really need two core reviewers to bless a trivial >> change: one could be considered sufficient. So a patch marked as trivial >> which has a number of +1s could be +2/APRVed directly by a core reviewer. >> >> That would slightly reduce load on core reviewers, although I suspect >> most of the time is spent on complex patches, and trivial patches do not >> take that much time to process (or could even be seen as a nice break >> from more complex patch reviewing). > > > I think removing the need for two +2s is higher risk that you think - > the definition of 'trivial' gets stretched and stretched over time > because it allows people to get patches in quicker/easier and we end > up in a mess. I'm all for adding the tag, but reducing the review > requirements is, in my view, dangerous. If a change is truly trivial > then it is only going to take moments for the second core to review > it, so the saving really is negligible compared to the risk.
Agreed.
Even with 2 +2s you do the wrong thing. Yesterday we landed baremetal
tests that broke ironic. It has a ton of +1s from people that have been
working on those tests.
People throw +1s around with 'please do this thing', and miss the part
about 'and this current way of doing this thing is actually the correct
way to do it'.
-Sean
--
Sean Dague
http://dague.net
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
