[Freeciv-Dev] Re: [PATCH] advdomestic.c cleanup (PR#1149)

[Raimar Falke <hawk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 12:16:52PM -0500, Ross W. Wetmore wrote:
> At 09:45 AM 01/12/22 +0100, Raimar Falke wrote:
> >On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 08:02:47PM -0500, Ross W. Wetmore wrote:
> [...]
> >I don't like to force somebody. In the past I have asked for reviews
> >and usually there was none. This shows to me that not many people are
> >willing to spend time outside their "area of interest". This is ok. We
> >are still here on a voluntary basis. However spending time outside his
> >"area of interest" is something a maintainer has to do. I would really
> >like to work more on the agents stuff but I spend the time I have for
> >freeciv at reviewing patches. Patches which touch all other areas but
> >not the agent area.

> I think that by sending in their names reviewers are giving you the
> pre-authorization to ask them specifically to manage a patch through
                    ^^^^^^
> the initial cleanup stages. 

See above about the "force somebody". Can't a reviewer just say "I
like the patch and I want it in. I will work with the author to
produce a version which I consider bug free/ready"?

> This doesn't mean that they can't indicate up front areas of interest,
> or decline in specific cases for various reasons (i.e. lifestyle -
> girlfriend in town this weekend :-).
> 
> By choosing a point person, you get at least one thorough review, even
> if there are lots of other comments. And it helps the list in that
> people don't need to do that thorough a review on every patch that
> comes by, but rather can participate in the discussions that are more 
> of interest, rather than having everyone shift and flow to the same
> vague "wishes". 

What do you think about the idea that the patch author chooses its
reviewer?.

> [...]
> >Another thing: a review is only worth the reputation of the
> >reviewer. This reputation isn't based on how many patches the reviewer
> >has reviewed but how intensive. This is hard to measure but the number
> >of complains if a rough estimation. Yes every patch of a reasonable
> >has errors/places which can be improved. 
> 

> Some patches have few areas to suggest improvements on because the
> submitter has done a good job.

Nack for the first published version of a patch of reasonable
size. Except if the patch was made by a group or got review in any
other way.

> Finding nits or requesting changes to keep the number of complaints
> constant is counter productive. 

Ack.

> If I know someone will quit after 10 suggestions, I'll leave 10 bugs
> in for them to find :-).
> 

> But from the maintainer standpoint, if you have a list of peole and 
> know what each can do or how they do it, then you can assign patches
> accordingly, more intensive ones to the better reviewers, or in areas
> where the reviewer will be more effective. Reviewers will characterize
> themselves over time.

Ack. But I still don't know why the maintainers have to schedule the
patches and have to know the preferences and the current time
available of the reviewers. Can't the reviewers just express this by
the reviews?

> Note, reviewing is a lot of the work of maintaining with a lessened
> committment to longterm responsibility, i.e. one does not have to agree
> to give up a year of one's life to be a reviewer :-).
> 
> If you can't interest people in this, you won't necessarily get the 
> level and type of committment needed for a maintainer.

Yes this can be a chicken-and-egg problem especially since I don't
want to manage people. I want to manage code and open issues but not
people.

> [...]
> >I'm sorry but I have to leave now. Goodbye till the first week of the
> >new year.
> 
> Frohliche Weihnachten ..

Danke.

        Raimar

-- 
 email: rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  The trick is to keep breathing.