[Mesa-dev] Workflow Proposal

[Jordan Justen]

Alyssa Rosenzweig <alyssa at collabora.com> writes:

>>  Upstream should do what's best for upstream, not for Intel's "unique"
>>  management.
>> 
>>    Not sure how from Emma explaining how Rb tags were used by Intel
>>    management it came the conclusion that it were used in that way only by
>>    Intel management. Spoiler: it is not.
>
> Sorry, I'll make that point more emphatic.
>
> Upstream must do what's best for upstream without zero regard for the
> whims of management. Doubly so for bad management.

If the r-b process ever had any notice from any company's management, I
haven't seen it. (Actually, I think most management would rather have
the short sighted view of skipping code review to more quickly merge
patches.) In terms of who to "track down", that is also a tenuous
connection.

The value of r-b is to give reviewers credit for the hard work that they
do. (Which, I believe is what Matt and apinheiro are also saying.)

Personally I try to make a rework log on patch commit messages to give
reviewers more explicit credit for changes that are made based on their
code review.

I hope Marge Bot doesn't start stripping the r-b tags. But, if Marge can
add Approved-by which allows the review process to flow more quickly for
some types of merge-requests, then I think that's a good thing. I
wouldn't be surprised if this became the most commonly used review
process in Mesa.

-Jordan