[Development] [RFC] more gerrit codereview scores?

Christian Kandeler christian.kandeler at theqtcompany.com
Fri Mar 6 18:10:46 CET 2015

On 03/06/2015 05:42 PM, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> 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

This makes sense under the assumption that there are patches of which 
you can be almost 100% sure that they are completely unfixable by 
whatever the author could come up with in the new patch set (including 
considerable changes to the concept).
Is that something that happens reasonably often?


More information about the Development mailing list