On 20 Jul 2021, at 20:41, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> The OVS review process has greatly slowed over the last few years. This
> is partly because I haven't been able to spend as much time on review,
> since I was once the most productive reviewer. Ilya has been able to
> step up the amount of review he does, but that still isn't enough to
> keep up with the workload.
>
> We need to come up with some way to improve things. Here are a few
> ideas, mostly from a call earlier today (that was mainly about the OVS
> conference). I hope they will prompt a discussion.
>
> * Since patches are coming in, we have people who are knowledgable about
> the code. Those people should be pitching in with reviews as well.
> It doesn't seem like they or their managers have the right incentives
> to do that. Maybe there is some way to improve the incentives.
I do agree that it takes (very) long sometimes to get a patch
reviewed/accepted, and I do see people complain about it. However, some of the
people who do complain have not done a single review. Maybe we can ask people
who send in a patch, to review at least one patch while they are waiting for
theirs to be reviewed?
Maybe have the zero-day robot sent them a thank you email for the patch with a
list of patches that did not yet receive a single review comment?
> * The Linux kernel uses something like a "default accept" policy for
> patches that superficially look good and compile and boot, if there is
> no review from a specific maintainer within a few days. The patches
> do get some small amount of review from a subsystem maintainer. OVS
> could adopt a similar policy.
>
> * Some lack of review can be attributed to a reluctance to accept a
> review from a reviewer who is at the same company as the patch
> submitter. There is good reason for this, but it is certainly
> possible to get quality reviews from a coworker, and perhaps we should
> relax the convention.
>
> * A flip side of the above could be to codify the requirement for review
> from a non-coworker. This would have the benefit of being able to
> push back against requests to commit unreviewed long series on the
> basis that it hasn't been reviewed by a third party.
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
