[Development] Nominating for approver: commentby vs reviewedby vs reviewer search operators

[Fabian Kosmale]

Hi,

looking at some of the more recent nominations, we didn't really follow 
this suggestion (even though we had lazy consensus). I agree with Mårten 
and Volker that "commentby" & "-owne" would give a a better overview of 
how someone is participating in reviews.

Thus, I would suggest that we either mention it on 
https://wiki.qt.io/The_Qt_Governance_Model#Approvers or even put it into 
https://contribute.qt-project.org/quips/2) to steer everyone into using 
this link instead of reviewby

Regards,
Fabian

On 15.08.23 16:55, Mårten Nordheim via Development wrote:
> Hey!
> 
> Yeah, I think reviewer: is sometimes a bit misleading, so +1 for changing to commentby:
> Though, in that case we might want to also, for transparency, add "-owner:<nominated>". It's only natural
> to reply on your own changes of course :)
> 
> 
> Mårten
> 
> ________________________________________
> From: Development <development-bounces at qt-project.org> on behalf of Volker Hilsheimer via Development <development at qt-project.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 16:47
> To: development at qt-project.org
> Subject: [Development] Nominating for approver: commentby vs reviewedby vs reviewer search operators
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Emails in which we nominate contributors for Approver status usually have two queries: the list of changes owned [1], and the list of changes that the nominee reviewed [2].
> 
> [1] https://codereview.qt-project.org/q/owner:volker.hilsheimer%2540qt.io
> [2] https://codereview.qt-project.org/q/reviewer:volker.hilsheimer%2540qt.io
> 
> The first query should be pretty clear: all changes I owned, which is usually all changes I authored.
> 
> However, the second query selects all changes on which I was added as a reviewer, no matter whether I actually provided any input. So the list produced by [2] includes
> 
> https://codereview.qt-project.org/c/qt/qtdeclarative/+/496546
> 
> even though I didn’t provide any input to this change.
> 
> Being added as a reviewer by other contributors is a sign of trust. However, for the sake of evaluating a nomination, perhaps we want to get an idea of how much someone actually participated in code reviews.
> 
> Gerrit provides two selectors to get a list of changes where someone actually participated: reviewedby [3] and commentby [4]:
> 
> [3] https://codereview.qt-project.org/q/reviewedby:volker.hilsheimer%2540qt.io
> [4] https://codereview.qt-project.org/q/commentby:volker.hilsheimer%2540qt.io
> 
> The former lists all the changes for which I voted on any of the patch sets (it doesn’t have to be the patch set that ultimately got merged). The latter lists all changes where I made a comment. The list produced by [3] doesn’t include https://codereview.qt-project.org/c/qt/qtbase/+/489071 (even though I commented), while the list produced by [4] does.
> 
> Commenting is very valuable, even when not voting. And voting implies commenting, e.g. the list from [4] does include https://codereview.qt-project.org/c/qt/qtopcua/+/496329, where I only voted but didn’t leave a comment.
> 
> Hence, I’d like to propose that nomination emails include the two links as per [1] and [4], using `owner` and `commentby` search operators.
> 
> 
> Volker
> 
> --
> Development mailing list
> Development at qt-project.org
> https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development

-- 
Fabian Kosmale
Manager R&D

The Qt Company GmbH
Erich-Thilo-Str. 10
D-12489 Berlin
fabian.kosmale at qt.io
+49 1638686070