On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 6:48 AM, Ihar Hrachyshka <ihrac...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Clint Byrum <cl...@fewbar.com> wrote: > > Excerpts from Morgan Fainberg's message of 2016-04-10 16:47:28 -0700: >> >>> On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Clint Byrum <cl...@fewbar.com> wrote: >>> >>> Excerpts from Matt Riedemann's message of 2016-04-09 06:42:54 -0700: >>>> >>>>> There is also disincentive in +1ing a change that you don't understand >>>>> and is wrong and then a core comes along and -1s it (you get dinged for >>>>> the disagreement). And there is disincentive in -1ing a change for the >>>>> wrong reasons (silly nits or asking questions for understanding). I ask >>>>> a lot of questions in a lot of changes and I don't vote on those >>>>> because >>>>> it would be inappropriate. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Why is disagreement a negative thing? IMO, reviewers who agree too much >>>> are just part of the echo chamber. >>>> >>> There is no problem with disagreement IMHO. However, we track it as a >>> stat, >>> and people don't want to feel as though they are in disagreement with the >>> cores. I think this is just some level of psychology. >>> >>> I very, very rarely look at disagreement stat for anything (now or when I >>> was PTL). >>> >> >> Agreed, as a number, it can be highly misleading and is especially hard >> to compare to any of the other numbers. >> >> However, in meta-reviews, I found actual occurrences very useful to >> analyze how a reviewer handles confronting the other cores and how >> confident they are in their understanding of the code base. So it worries >> me that new people might be somehow discouraged from disagreement. >> >> So let me just say it here, disagreeing with the core reviewers when >> there is a valid reason _is what somebody who wants to be a core reviewer >> should be doing_. >> > > Amen to that! I find that people who have higher disagreement stats are > actually the people that add value to review process, since they obviously > look at patches from perspectives that are different from existing core > members. > > Now, I agree that if the disagreements are solely for nits in commit > messages or random misunderstandings, then it’s not of value. But if those > are legit concerns, that’s usually a good sign, not a bad one. > Note that the original definition of "disagreement" from reviewstats [1][2] paid particular attention to ordering. A disagreement is only when a -core team member votes against you, not the other way around. It was kind of an experimental thing to see if it could help expose overly eager +1 reviewers (lots of reviews for stats, missing lots of errors). Maybe it hasn't proved to be that valuable. I haven't looked at how stackalytics implements it, though. [1] http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack-infra/reviewstats [2] http://www.russellbryant.net/openstack-stats/ -- Russell Bryant
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
