Re: oVirt site
<snip>
> Voting -
>
> 1. If the R-T-C policy is in effect the document says that +1 means
> ‘I have tested this patch myself, and found it good.’.
>
> I find this requirement to be too strict. I think that testing a patch
> is the responsibility of the patch submitter and reviewing a patch
> should not require actual testing.
changed it to reviewed/tested
thanks
> I suggest the following instead -
>
> For me reviewing a patch (+1 for a patch) means:
> - The patch make sense
> - The patch follows the project standards (e.g. code format)
> - The patch takes into account the different aspects/components of the
> project
> - The patch does not changes any core behavior or introduces new
> concepts that were not discussed in the mailing list beforehand.
I've incorporated this, take a look and shout if you don't like how I
did it...
looks good
> If the reviewer wants to test the patch or thinks additional testing is
> needed then he better do so but i would not go and set that as a
> requirement.
>
>
> 2. The document says that a three +1 votes are required for a pass.
> In the context of patch approval that requirement might be an overkill.
>
> I am looking at the engine project as an example there are a lot of
> patches a day, large part of them are not too complicated and one ack
> can be enough for validation.
> Requiring 3 acks can slow the development and i am not sure it is
> justified/needed.
>
> I suggest that by default a patch should require only one ack. If a
> patch introduces a major change or new concepts the patch submitter
> should mark the patch as such and ask for 3 acks. In addition if a patch
> reviewer thinks a patch has some level of complexity he can also ask the
> patch to have 3 acks before approval.
>
> This approach can also contribute for Developing and Maturing projects
> which do not have the needed resources to deal with 3 acks for each patch.
I thought I covered this, you want 3 for anything big, but a simple ack
for minor stuff is fine. I re-read and added a bit to make it clearer.
I see it now, yep.
All applied to the web site.
Thanks, how about changing the "Adding a sub-project" to "Adding a
project"? i am fine with keeping it sub-project, just wanted to make
sure it did not simply sleep.
Livnat