[Mesa-dev] Workflow Proposal
daniel at fooishbar.org
Mon Oct 18 08:52:30 UTC 2021
On Wed, 13 Oct 2021 at 20:13, Jordan Justen <jordan.l.justen at intel.com> wrote:
> 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
All of the above is true but also totally irrelevant to the actual discussion.
When R-b as a metric came up at the time of the first switch, I wrote
a really trivial Python script which used the GitLab API to scrape MR
discussions and pull 'Reviewed-by: ...' comments out and print a
leaderboard for number of reviewed MRs over the past calendar month.
Adapting that to look at approvals rather than comments would cut it
down to about 10 LoC.
Whether it's Reviewed-by in the trailer or an approval, both are
explicitly designed to be machine readable, which means it's trivial
to turn it into a metric if you want to. Whether or not that's a good
idea is the problem of whoever wields it.
More information about the mesa-dev