On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Salvatore Orlando <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On 24 April 2015 at 16:50, Chris Friesen <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> On 04/24/2015 07:26 AM, Salvatore Orlando wrote: >> >> If you think it might be beneficial to adjust tooling to that these >>> "contributions" get counted this is fine by me. I just wanted to point >>> out that >>> I do not consider those contributions at all (and btw it would be at >>> least more >>> polite to put a +1 rather than a -1). >>> >> >> If you're asking a question to elicit information, then it's quite >> possible you don't have enough information for a +1 yet. > > > This makes sense in general. I was referring to the specific cases posed > by Julien - curiosities, pedantry, or questions unrelated to the scope of > the patch. > Julien clarified that there actually questions which grant a -1, and > surely never a +1. For instance the kind of "what if" questions listed by > Doug. In this case it make sense for a reviewer to put a hold a patch while > waiting for an answer. > > Would anybody be willing to codify this into a document that we can point offenders to so that we can get better review quality over time? Maybe http://docs.openstack.org/infra/manual/developers.html#peer-review (was https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/ReviewChecklist ). (Just don't be surprised when some joker posts a question with a -1 on the review.) - Brant
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
