[Gluster-devel] Reducing merge conflicts

[Pranith Kumar Karampuri]

On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 1:09 AM, Jeff Darcy <jdarcy at redhat.com> wrote:

> > The feedback I got is, "it is not motivating to review patches that are
> > already merged by maintainer."
>
> I can totally understand that.  I've been pretty active reviewing lately,
> and it's an *awful* demotivating grind.  On the other hand, it's also
> pretty demotivating to see one's own hard work "rot" as the lack of
> reviews forces rebase after rebase.  Haven't we all seen that?  I'm
> sure the magnitude of that effect varies across teams and across parts
> of the code, but I'm equally sure that it affects all of us to some
> degree.
>
>
> > Do you suggest they should change that
> > behaviour in that case?
>
> Maybe.  The fact is that all of our maintainers have plenty of other
> responsibilities, and not all of them prioritize the same way.  I know I
> wouldn't be reviewing so many patches myself otherwise.  If reviews are
> being missed under the current rules, maybe we do need new rules.
>
> > let us give equal recognition for:
> > patches sent
> > patches reviewed - this one is missing.
> > helping users on gluster-users
> > helping users on #gluster/#gluster-dev
> >
> > Feel free to add anything more I might have missed out. May be new
> > ideas/design/big-refactor?
>
> Also doc, infrastructure work, blog/meetup/conference outreach, etc.
>
> > let people do what they like more among these and let us also recognize
> them
> > for all their contributions. Let us celebrate their work in each monthly
> > news letter.
>
> Good idea.
>

I think may be we should summarize and come up with action items so that we
can take proper steps to improve things. Or do we have any other things we
need to discuss?

-- 
Pranith
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-devel/attachments/20160715/2d1ba6a9/attachment.html>