[ovs-dev] ideas for improving the OVS review process

[Tonghao Zhang]

On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 2:41 AM Ben Pfaff <blp at ovn.org> wrote:
>
> The OVS review process has greatly slowed over the last few years.  This
> is partly because I haven't been able to spend as much time on review,
> since I was once the most productive reviewer.  Ilya has been able to
Thanks for your work!
> step up the amount of review he does, but that still isn't enough to
> keep up with the workload.
>
> We need to come up with some way to improve things.  Here are a few
> ideas, mostly from a call earlier today (that was mainly about the OVS
> conference).  I hope they will prompt a discussion.
>
> * Since patches are coming in, we have people who are knowledgable about
>   the code.  Those people should be pitching in with reviews as well.
>   It doesn't seem like they or their managers have the right incentives
>   to do that.  Maybe there is some way to improve the incentives.
Do we need more maintainers? even though there are many maintainers, but
a few people are active. Am I wrong ?
> * The Linux kernel uses something like a "default accept" policy for
>   patches that superficially look good and compile and boot, if there is
>   no review from a specific maintainer within a few days.  The patches
>   do get some small amount of review from a subsystem maintainer.  OVS
>   could adopt a similar policy.
Good.
I think we should make sure every patch is reviewed. The patches sent
firstly and which we
think are important, review them. Patches sent from maintainers are
important, and others' patches
is important too. So far as I know, linux kernel makes sure  every
patch is reviewed, no matter who
sent them.
> * Some lack of review can be attributed to a reluctance to accept a
>   review from a reviewer who is at the same company as the patch
>   submitter.  There is good reason for this, but it is certainly
>   possible to get quality reviews from a coworker, and perhaps we should
>   relax the convention.
There still are people who contributed to ovs，just for fun.
> * A flip side of the above could be to codify the requirement for review
>   from a non-coworker.  This would have the benefit of being able to
>   push back against requests to commit unreviewed long series on the
>   basis that it hasn't been reviewed by a third party.
>
> I hope that there can be some discussion here.
> _______________________________________________
> dev mailing list
> dev at openvswitch.org
> https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev



-- 
Best regards, Tonghao