doc: clarify "Reviewed-By" iff "LGTM" #7183
Conversation
As per conversation with @Trott, make it clear that Reviewed-By lines should only be added for collaborators who've actually put a LGTM on the PR.
|
LGTM |
|
lgtm |
|
LGTM |
2 similar comments
|
LGTM |
|
LGTM |
mscdex
added
the
meta
|
I've been pretty liberal in the past including others who have reviewed and I know add value to the process yet are not collaborators. This is particularly helpful when you have specialist issues that require an understanding not widely shared across the team but you want assurance. It's also helpful getting bug reporters reviewing stuff. I don't mind the "at least one collaborator must sign off" rule, but I don't see a reason not to include outsiders in the review process and acknowledge them as such in the commits. |
News to me! (Not saying it's wrong; just saying I was unaware!) Perhaps that's a sufficiently atypical edge-case that it doesn't need to be covered in onboarding? Maybe it can be mentioned in the onboarding_extras doc for people who like to read everything? |
|
Likewise, I've sometimes included people who have reviewed it in a clearly positive way once others have given lgtm signoff. |
|
Given that there have been several complaints made (generally via private conversations) about overly "liberal" use of sign off, I think being clearer and stricter about this is generally a good thing. One possible way to allow for additional recognition is to use a separate metadata label for others who helped with the review but aren't collaborators who gave a LGTM. For instance, |
|
Would those complaints have been addressed with "at least N L.G.T.Ms from collaborators" ?. I'd lean towards updating to require at least some number of collaborators and then possibly identifying them by adding (collaborator) after their entry in the Reviewed-by. |
The current ground rules are that one The ground rules are also that no matter how many |
I don't believe so. The complaints were about the "quality" of the LGTM's. Without going into too much detail, the gist is that several individuals felt that "Reviewed-By" sign-offs should only be given by people who were "qualified" to fix any potential issues / regressions that occur as a result of the PR. |
|
The intent of this PR was not to establish who has reviewing/LGTM rights, but simply to confirm that "Reviewed-By" sign-offs should only be added for a person when they have LGTM'd, rather than having simply commented. To that end, would a simple |
|
My vote is for this PR as it is currently worded: |
|
as a non-collaborator, LGTM! |
|
A |
|
@rvagg I think you are referring to https://github.com/evanlucas/core-get-reviewers |
|
I'd just like to point out (as a collaborator), that my judgement in ~80% of Node would be meaningless. I just don't have enough kowledge to take the judgement call. Using common sense, I just don't LGTM things that I don't feel qualified to, but it looks like this is already a problem. That said, a non-collaborator could be a lot more qualified to detrmine if something is right or not that an actual collaborator. As an example, in libuv I (pretty much blindly, when I can't make sense of it) trust Alexis (not a collaborator) for Windows related reviews. His LGTM is a lot more valuable than mine on that realm. Alas, I also don't have an answer for a better system, but I thought I had to get this in writing. |
|
Almost need both |
|
Can we land this as is and punt the "what metadata to use for non-collaborators" to another issue? This clarifies a rather important gap in the onboarding doc. As longtime collaborators. most of the folks commenting here have simply internalized that an The whole "whether and how to note non-collaborators who provide significant review" issue is important. But for the onboarding document, that is a bikeshed conversation in comparison to the hole this plugs. |
|
@bengl: Maybe remove the word I'd also consider moving it to the first thing in that bulleted list. |
As per conversation with @Trott, make it clear that Reviewed-By lines should only be added for collaborators who've actually put a LGTM on the PR. PR-URL: #7183 Reviewed-By: Myles Borins <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Evan Lucas <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: JacksonTian - Jackson Tian <[email protected]>
|
Landed as is in 5d6d3ee. @Trott, i know you had some additional suggestions but those can be handled in a separate PR. |
| @@ -169,6 +169,7 @@ Landing a PR | |||
| * `Reviewed-By: human <email>` | |||
| * Easiest to use `git log` then do a search | |||
| * (`/Name` + `enter` (+ `n` as much as you need to) in vim) | |||
| * Only include collaborators who have commented "LGTM" | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Does CTC members should be included as well?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, certainly. All of the ctc members are also collaborators.
On Saturday, August 6, 2016, Yorkie Liu [email protected] wrote:
In doc/onboarding.md
#7183 (comment):@@ -169,6 +169,7 @@ Landing a PR
*Reviewed-By: human <email>
* Easiest to usegit logthen do a search
* (/Name+enter(+nas much as you need to) in vim)
\* Only include collaborators who have commented "LGTM"Does CTC members should be included as well?
—
You are receiving this because you modified the open/close state.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/7183/files/f645b4c8da57891c7cf5b59987548e87e32479fb#r73786541,
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAa2eXgC6ANpp1R5Da2oSUQu7NEtHcdmks5qdJUvgaJpZM4Ivauh
.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
But currently the CTC members & collaborators are different lists in our README.md#Current Project Team Members, I thought that might have something confused to new comers :-)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh good point! I hadn't considered that. It might be worthwhile clarifying
that in the readme, I think :)
On Saturday, August 6, 2016, Yorkie Liu [email protected] wrote:
In doc/onboarding.md
#7183 (comment):@@ -169,6 +169,7 @@ Landing a PR
*Reviewed-By: human <email>
* Easiest to usegit logthen do a search
* (/Name+enter(+nas much as you need to) in vim)
\* Only include collaborators who have commented "LGTM"But currently the CTC members & collaborators are different lists in our README.md#Current
Project Team Members
https://github.com/nodejs/node#current-project-team-members, I thought
that might be have something confused to new comers :-)—
You are receiving this because you modified the open/close state.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/7183/files/f645b4c8da57891c7cf5b59987548e87e32479fb#r73786660,
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAa2eQ5zIYoRSJARismkpHzT-BoE0xn2ks5qdJhUgaJpZM4Ivauh
.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How about expanding it as well?
- Only include collaborators who have commented "LGTM" (Looks Good To Me)
inspired by this conversation nodejs#7183 (comment) PR-URL: nodejs#7996 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Сковорода Никита Андреевич <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Evan Lucas <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]>
inspired by this conversation #7183 (comment) PR-URL: #7996 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Сковорода Никита Андреевич <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Evan Lucas <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]>
As per conversation with @Trott, make it clear that Reviewed-By lines should only be added for collaborators who've actually put a LGTM on the PR. PR-URL: #7183 Reviewed-By: Myles Borins <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Evan Lucas <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: JacksonTian - Jackson Tian <[email protected]>
inspired by this conversation #7183 (comment) PR-URL: #7996 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Сковорода Никита Андреевич <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Evan Lucas <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]>
As per conversation with @Trott, make it clear that Reviewed-By lines should only be added for collaborators who've actually put a LGTM on the PR. PR-URL: #7183 Reviewed-By: Myles Borins <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Evan Lucas <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: JacksonTian - Jackson Tian <[email protected]>
inspired by this conversation #7183 (comment) PR-URL: #7996 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Сковорода Никита Андреевич <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Evan Lucas <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]>
As per conversation with @Trott, make it clear that Reviewed-By lines should only be added for collaborators who've actually put a LGTM on the PR. PR-URL: #7183 Reviewed-By: Myles Borins <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Evan Lucas <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: JacksonTian - Jackson Tian <[email protected]>
inspired by this conversation #7183 (comment) PR-URL: #7996 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Сковорода Никита Андреевич <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Evan Lucas <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]>
As per conversation with @Trott, make it clear that Reviewed-By lines should only be added for collaborators who've actually put a LGTM on the PR. PR-URL: #7183 Reviewed-By: Myles Borins <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Evan Lucas <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: JacksonTian - Jackson Tian <[email protected]>
inspired by this conversation #7183 (comment) PR-URL: #7996 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Сковорода Никита Андреевич <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Evan Lucas <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]>
As per conversation with @Trott, make it clear that Reviewed-By lines should only be added for collaborators who've actually put a LGTM on the PR. PR-URL: #7183 Reviewed-By: Myles Borins <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Evan Lucas <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: JacksonTian - Jackson Tian <[email protected]>
inspired by this conversation #7183 (comment) PR-URL: #7996 Reviewed-By: James M Snell <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Сковорода Никита Андреевич <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Evan Lucas <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]>
Checklist
Affected core subsystem(s)
doc
Description of change
As per conversation with @Trott, make it clear that Reviewed-By lines
should only be added for collaborators who've actually put a LGTM on the
PR.