I can't remember the last time I saw a super-review request, but
it's still documented as a policy[1]. Is it still a thing? Do we
want it to still be a thing?
The reason that I ask is that I have a problem that I think I
might be able to solve by co-opting the super-review flag, but I
don't want to trample on it if we're still using it as
originally designed.
My problem is essentially that, for a few areas of code, I'm the
final arbiter, or at least the main blocker, for a lot of large
or critical architectural or API changes. The upshot of that is
that I get a lot of review requests for patches in those areas,
and most of the patches that make it into my queue are large
and/or complicated. This situation gets exhausting after a
while. And since people know that I tend to be busy, they also
avoid flagging me to review smaller patches, even when I really
*should* look at those patches (and therefore notice issues with
them only when I read code later).
For a lot of these patches, my opinion is only really critical
for certain architectural aspects, or implementation aspects at
a few critical points. There are other reviewers who are
perfectly qualified to do a more detailed review of the
specifics of the patch, and have more spare cycles to devote to
it. Essentially, what's needed from me in these cases is a
super-review, which I can do fairly easily, but instead I become
a bottleneck for the code review as well.
So, for the areas where I have this responsibility, I'd like to
institute a policy that certain types of changes need a final
super-review from me, but should get a detailed code review from
another qualified reviewer when that makes sense.
Does anyone have any objection to this plan? Or any suggestions
for another way to go about it?
-Kris
[1]: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/governance/policies/reviewers/
_______________________________________________
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
