[Development] Proposal: Allow contributors to +1 sanity review.

Alan Alpert 416365416c at gmail.com
Tue Aug 13 19:51:17 CEST 2013

On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Thiago Macieira
<thiago.macieira at intel.com> wrote:
> On terça-feira, 13 de agosto de 2013 10:26:42, Alan Alpert wrote:
>> > (or because they enjoy outsmarting the system just for the sake
>> > of it, like you apparently do)
>> We *define* the system. The fact that I have to work around it in
>> order to do my job properly shows that the system is defective and
>> needs to be rectified. Lars mentioned at the contributor summit that
>> we need to make the review process easier for people, and fixing the
>> system to have fewer unnecessary hurdles is an obvious way to do that.
>> A more effective change which I recommend would be to have the bot not
>> give -1 on the heuristics which are known to give false positives more
>> frequently. It's enough that it provides a warning comment, allowing
>> the contributors to address the issue if legitimate. But the -1 can
>> also be viewed as a hint that there's relevant output, since it's so
>> prominent in the gerrit interface, so the -1 isn't a problem so long
>> as it doesn't slow us down.
> I don't see what's wrong with the current system. Let's keep it.
> The bot usually doesn't make a mistake.

I run into it fairly often.
shows five times this month that it needed to be overridden in my

> When it does, we can override it.
> That's why we can override it in the first place: because it sometimes makes
> mistakes.

Agreed. I just don't think that process is as smooth as it could be.

Alan Alpert

More information about the Development mailing list