From patchwork Thu Oct 19 23:31:04 2023 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Andrew Jeffery X-Patchwork-Id: 1852216 Return-Path: X-Original-To: incoming@patchwork.ozlabs.org Delivered-To: patchwork-incoming@legolas.ozlabs.org Authentication-Results: legolas.ozlabs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=codeconstruct.com.au header.i=@codeconstruct.com.au header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=2022a header.b=iQeqMHpA; dkim-atps=neutral Authentication-Results: legolas.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=lists.ozlabs.org (client-ip=112.213.38.117; helo=lists.ozlabs.org; envelope-from=openbmc-bounces+incoming=patchwork.ozlabs.org@lists.ozlabs.org; receiver=patchwork.ozlabs.org) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [112.213.38.117]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (secp384r1) server-digest SHA384) (No client certificate requested) by legolas.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4SBPBB42Y9z23jP for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2023 10:31:45 +1100 (AEDT) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=codeconstruct.com.au header.i=@codeconstruct.com.au header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=2022a header.b=iQeqMHpA; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4SBPB73zBYz30f9 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2023 10:31:43 +1100 (AEDT) X-Original-To: openbmc@lists.ozlabs.org Delivered-To: openbmc@lists.ozlabs.org Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=codeconstruct.com.au header.i=@codeconstruct.com.au header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=2022a header.b=iQeqMHpA; dkim-atps=neutral Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=codeconstruct.com.au (client-ip=203.29.241.158; helo=codeconstruct.com.au; envelope-from=andrew@codeconstruct.com.au; receiver=lists.ozlabs.org) Received: from codeconstruct.com.au (pi.codeconstruct.com.au [203.29.241.158]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4SBP9n0BvLz2yDD for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2023 10:31:24 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from [192.168.68.112] (ppp118-210-136-142.adl-adc-lon-bras33.tpg.internode.on.net [118.210.136.142]) by mail.codeconstruct.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 68A8B2014B; Fri, 20 Oct 2023 07:31:20 +0800 (AWST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=codeconstruct.com.au; s=2022a; t=1697758282; bh=Q0/lQkkKRVRll0zqErSO8syq7TpcTle1bJJnWjovKF0=; h=Subject:From:To:Cc:Date; b=iQeqMHpApuNPnv3olgVM8MWqoVeMpkWAAQNG3LFgN5SXPj5GRjVWLPqokGfz+7HEt v+LqFFpSvTz9f2csdYtJBZ8AXMtbVVQ/NefOnjMT33sLeONAU95fxvc0EIVOSU54BW oQnJ1zd3asI8y7gS/XefU2IgcQn7umexVUdgQRfJTia0vtY8YzW/9tMDrPJFNftWtU XtC63U5Yq226pZX6oAT1OHmULqWRQlqPYSfsUXpNAQbNcGSKuvuhjD+9yAhxNDuCrS VyPk0+uQVwpd2armp5wxez4EiaobydKa5uFc0lpvaGtRpcAWyYWfxfOdA0S/AFN21u Ikg6dJm9jhMOA== Message-ID: Subject: Transfer of responsibility with Gerrit's Code-Review -1 From: Andrew Jeffery To: openbmc@lists.ozlabs.org Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2023 10:01:04 +1030 User-Agent: Evolution 3.46.4-2 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: openbmc@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Development list for OpenBMC List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Zev Weiss Errors-To: openbmc-bounces+incoming=patchwork.ozlabs.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "openbmc" Hello, Recent discussions identified a couple of community concerns: 1. Patches stall in Gerrit with comments that make it unclear who should take action 2. Scoring patches `Code-Review -1: I would prefer this is not merged as is` feels overbearing for some types of review "I would prefer this is not merged as is" does seem like an opportunity to stall reviews. It opens the door to leaving feedback that doesn't explain how to improve the change. It's also possible that the hesitance in the second point leads to the confusion in the first. After some discussion with Patrick and Zev, I've made the following tweak to the Gerrit config: ``` ``` It's a small change. However, I think it softens the feeling of a Code- Review -1. Increasing the use of Code-Review -1 may clarify where responsibility lies for driving the patch forward. Andrew diff --git a/project.config b/project.config index 23cb59ecfca8..e2ee9c7691b0 100644 --- a/project.config +++ b/project.config @@ -64,7 +64,7 @@ function = MaxWithBlock defaultValue = 0 value = -2 This shall not be merged - value = -1 I would prefer this is not merged as is + value = -1 Changes should be made to address my concerns value = 0 No score value = +1 Looks good to me, but someone else must approve value = +2 Looks good to me, approved