https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46148
[email protected] changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://gerrit.wikimedia.or | |g/r/#/c/27022 --- Comment #1 from [email protected] --- Just for reference, the screenshot seems to stem from https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/27022 > as a code reviewer, only the highlighted comments would be of any > interest Why would code reviewing want ignore jenkins output? Why would code reviewing want ignore newer patch sets? > One solution maybe could be to [...] have the comments be separated > into sections based on patchset. Comments specific to a patch set are typically made right in the code (See for example patch set 7 of the referenced change). To me, comments visible on the change screen are typically high level comments that rather focus on the change itself than on a specific detail that's only relevant to a single patch set. Even if such comments were made when patch set 7 was current, the warnings to check against ConfirmEdit are still relevant when reviewing patch set 14. So when tying such comments to a patch set, they'd probably get lost. To me, it's a huge benefit to see all the high level comments in a complete timeline. While I do not have any concrete metrics for our gerrit instance, it seems to me that changes with more than a dozen patch sets and being actively worked on more than five months after opening the change are rather the exception. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug. You are watching all bug changes. _______________________________________________ Wikibugs-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
