[Development] [RFC] more gerrit codereview scores?

Oswald Buddenhagen oswald.buddenhagen at theqtcompany.com
Fri Mar 6 17:42:00 CET 2015


1) i'd like to propose the introduction of the code review score -3.

rationale: it's quite common that a particular patchset is so broken
that it must not be merged. this is typically done by giving a -2 score,
in particular when it's needed to counterweight a pre-existing +2 score
(yes, people tend to overlook -1 given after approval).
however, -2 scores are "sticky" - even a new patchset stays -2. the
reason for that is the double meaning of -2: it represents "this is
inherently broken" as well. i'd like to decouple this, resulting in the
following negative scores:

-1: "I would prefer this is not merged as is", advisory, non-sticky
-2: "This shall not be merged as is", blocking, non-sticky
-3: "This shall not be merged [at all]", blocking, sticky

non-approvers probably should not be able to give -2, as before.

2) i'd like to propose the introduction of the code review score +3.

let's start with the scores:

+3: "Looks good to me, approved", enabling
+2: "Looks good to me, but someone else must approve", advisory
+1: "Someone else must review this", advisory

possible uses:
- non-approvers (specifically, not-yet-approvers) would have two levels
  to express their opinion
- the new +1 gives the possibility to explicitly give a neutral score
  (substitute for +0, which gerrit does not permit)
- *maybe* some approvers would feel less inclined to approve changes
  they don't fully understand (yes, this is actually a problem), simply
  because of the psychological effect of the possibility to express the
  opinion with more "numerical nuance".

i don't feel very strongly about this one, but i think it would add

More information about the Development mailing list