moin, 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 non-approvers probably should not be able to give -2, as before. 2) i'd like to propose the introduction of the code review score +3. let's start with the scores: +3: "Looks good to me, approved", enabling +2: "Looks good to me, but someone else must approve", advisory +1: "Someone else must review this", advisory possible uses: - non-approvers (specifically, not-yet-approvers) would have two levels to express their opinion - the new +1 gives the possibility to explicitly give a neutral score (substitute for +0, which gerrit does not permit) - *maybe* some approvers would feel less inclined to approve changes they don't fully understand (yes, this is actually a problem), simply because of the psychological effect of the possibility to express the opinion with more "numerical nuance". i don't feel very strongly about this one, but i think it would add value. _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
