On Fri 19 Sep 2014 09:25:10 AM PDT, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > Here we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think core reviewers > hiding behind an automated process so that they don't have to > confront contributors about stalled/inadequate changes is inherently > less friendly. Clearly you feel that contributors are less likely to > be offended if a machine tells them they need to revisit a change > because it's impersonal and therefore without perceived human > judgement.
I think that, if done well, having an automated process that nudges owners of a patch when needed could be valuable. Having to rely on core-reviewers to start a confrontation may also work, but they need to be given tools to engage gently and not piss people off. Sometimes leaving the hard job to machines is the right thing to do: don't we automatically welcome new committers? Why not nudge them if they disappear? What I don't understand is how hard is to implement the automated workflow in newer gerrit and if it's worth pursuing it. /stef -- Ask and answer questions on https://ask.openstack.org _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStackfirstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev