Provide guidelines to improve the quality and speed of the documentation review process.
- Commit message
- Commit message
- Other suggestions
- Try to keep reviews limited to the contents of the bug, contents of the commit message, and changes made by the patch. In other words, if the patch solves the stated problem, but there are other improvements it could lead to, approve the patch and file a subsequent bug, rather than -1'ing the patch with a comment about improvements.
- If you find an issue, do your best to mark all instances of it.
- If the author uploads a patch correcting your objective issue and you find another instance that you didn't mark, comment on it and score with a -1. Preferably, upload a patch to fix it.
- If the author uploads a patch correcting your subjective issue and you find another instance that you didn't mark, comment on it and score with a 0.
- If the author uploads a patch correcting your objective and/or subjective issue and you find another objective issue, comment on it and score with a -1. Preferably, upload a patch to fix it.
- If the author uploads a patch correcting your objective and/or subjective issue and you find another subjective issue, comment on it and score with a 0.
- If you find an issue that could affect other portions of a book, provide appropriate comments, score the patch with a -1, and consider mentioning your issue on the mailing list or in a meeting.
- Example: A new service uses "key = value" in the configuration file and all other services use "key=value" in their configuration files. Both methods work, but the book should maintain consistency.
Tagging Additional Reviewers
- In some cases, you should tag one or more people with interest in or experience with the content of your patch to review it.
- How long should an author wait for reviews by these people?
The Waiting Game
- After the first review with a 0 or -1 score, how long should an author wait for additional reviews before addressing issues in the first review?
Review Scoring and Approvals
- Scores available to contributors
- -1, 0, +1
- Scores available to core reviewers
- -2, -1, 0, +1, +2
- A core reviewer can approve a patch with +4 points, typically after it obtains two +2 scores from other core reviewers.
- A core reviewer can +2 score a patch with a +2 score from another core reviewer and approve it.
Note: If you find an issue with a patch that already has a +2 score from another core reviewer, consider commenting on the issue and scoring the patch with a 0 rather than scoring it with a -1.
Considerations for Documentation Aligned with Release Cycles
- Beginning with milestone releases, shift focus to objective issues, especially with new services and existing services with significant changes. Only patches with significant subjective issues should receive a -1 score. Otherwise, comment on subjective issues and score with a 0.
- Beginning with release candidates, focus almost entirely on content issues. Only comment on subjective issues if the patch should receive a -1 score for objective issues.