Re: [Action Required] Stale Reviews

[Jake Farrell]

Seems like the discussion has died down on this, unless anyone objects i'll
run through and close out all marked pull requests in this doc later today

-Jake




On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 9:43 PM, Joris Van Remoortere 
wrote:

> I've discarded almost all reviews older than 3 months.
> Please do feel free to re-open them and work with a committer if you feel
> your review is still viable and want to continue making progress on it.
>
> I will be going through the remainder more carefully.
>
> Let's try to discard reviews when they don't make sense, or have been
> replaced. Many of the ones I closed ended up being irrelevant.
>
> Thanks for all your contributions. I will be engaging with the committers
> to get as many of the remaining patches committed as is possible.
>
> Joris
>
> —
> *Joris Van Remoortere*
> Mesosphere
>
> On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 10:52 PM, Joseph Wu  wrote:
>
> > On a related note, we will also be looking at the (usually neglected)
> > GitHub PRs.  We've accumulated ~50 of them over time.
> >
> > After making a quick scan of the list, it turns out we can close a
> majority
> > of these PRs by either directly closing the non-issues, or by committing
> > the small documentation changes they propose.
> >
> > Here's a doc summarizing what we will be doing:
> >
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BxUFRCis_4One-_Eoi19xJ9NJejh1Zl4ZCLTUcUUESE/
> >
> > Note: Direct access to the GitHub mirror is restricted, even to most
> > committers, which is one reason why stale PRs stick around :(
> >
> > On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 1:14 AM, Alex Rukletsov 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Joris, could we punt on this until after 1.0? Right now people focus on
> > > polishing things for the release and I would like to avoid any
> > > distractions.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 8:25 PM, Joris Van Remoortere <
> jo...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Your suggestion generally encompasses the spirit of what we will do
> > after
> > > > we've given the community time to act on their own. The reason we
> will
> > > > likely go through them manually is that there will be some patches
> that
> > > > don't apply but for which the contributor would still like to resume
> > > work.
> > > > Ideally people going through their outbox will have more context for
> > > which
> > > > things definitely don't make sense to keep open, so the list of
> which I
> > > > will have to go through manually will be shorter ;-)
> > > > I think the right thing is to provide people time to take these
> actions
> > > > themselves.
> > > >
> > > > We will be going through review of the github pull requests (already
> a
> > > much
> > > > smaller list) in the upcoming week.
> > > > After that I hope the reviewboard list will be significantly shorter
> > and
> > > we
> > > > will be able to go through reviews of the remaining patches with
> higher
> > > > confidence that we'll be able follow through on them with the
> > > contributor.
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 8:17 PM, Tomek Janiszewski <
> jani...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > How about running CI on all reviews. If patch is stale it probably
> > > can't
> > > > be
> > > > > applied,  CI will post bad patch and if nobody do any action on
> that
> > > > review
> > > > > we can close it.
> > > > >
> > > > > śr., 29.06.2016, 18:26 użytkownik Joris Van Remoortere <
> > > jo...@apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > > napisał:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hello developers,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Over the last year we've accumulated a significant review
> backlog.
> > > Over
> > > > > the
> > > > > > past month it has been floating around ~600 reviews.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It would be of great help if you could look through your personal
> > > list
> > > > > > (Dashboard -> Outgoing -> Open) and identify reviews that are *no
> > > > longer
> > > > > > relevant* or that you are *not actively working on*.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Suggested actions:
> > > > > > *No longer relevant: *Please discard them with a message
> explaining
> > > > why.
> > > > > > For example a link to the JIRA that was resolved already.
> > > > > > *Not actively working on: *Please discard them with a note that
> you
> > > are
> > > > > not
> > > > > > actively working on this, but to please involve you if someone
> > picks
> > > it
> > > > > up
> > > > > > in the future. A note in the JIRA referencing your discarded
> review
> > > > would
> > > > > > be much appreciated here. This way we can easily track previous
> > > effort.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Remember, discarded doesn't mean deleted. It doesn't even mean
> this
> > > was
> > > > > not
> > > > > > accepted. It just means we're not currently working on it. This
> > will
> > > > help
> > > > > > guide reviewers and new contributors to the active set we are all
> > > > working
> > > > > > on.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ideally as a community we can do this organically. After some
> time
> > > has
> > > 

Re: [Action Required] Stale Reviews

[Joris Van Remoortere]

I've discarded almost all reviews older than 3 months.
Please do feel free to re-open them and work with a committer if you feel
your review is still viable and want to continue making progress on it.

I will be going through the remainder more carefully.

Let's try to discard reviews when they don't make sense, or have been
replaced. Many of the ones I closed ended up being irrelevant.

Thanks for all your contributions. I will be engaging with the committers
to get as many of the remaining patches committed as is possible.

Joris

—
*Joris Van Remoortere*
Mesosphere

On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 10:52 PM, Joseph Wu  wrote:

> On a related note, we will also be looking at the (usually neglected)
> GitHub PRs.  We've accumulated ~50 of them over time.
>
> After making a quick scan of the list, it turns out we can close a majority
> of these PRs by either directly closing the non-issues, or by committing
> the small documentation changes they propose.
>
> Here's a doc summarizing what we will be doing:
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BxUFRCis_4One-_Eoi19xJ9NJejh1Zl4ZCLTUcUUESE/
>
> Note: Direct access to the GitHub mirror is restricted, even to most
> committers, which is one reason why stale PRs stick around :(
>
> On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 1:14 AM, Alex Rukletsov 
> wrote:
>
> > Joris, could we punt on this until after 1.0? Right now people focus on
> > polishing things for the release and I would like to avoid any
> > distractions.
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 8:25 PM, Joris Van Remoortere 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Your suggestion generally encompasses the spirit of what we will do
> after
> > > we've given the community time to act on their own. The reason we will
> > > likely go through them manually is that there will be some patches that
> > > don't apply but for which the contributor would still like to resume
> > work.
> > > Ideally people going through their outbox will have more context for
> > which
> > > things definitely don't make sense to keep open, so the list of which I
> > > will have to go through manually will be shorter ;-)
> > > I think the right thing is to provide people time to take these actions
> > > themselves.
> > >
> > > We will be going through review of the github pull requests (already a
> > much
> > > smaller list) in the upcoming week.
> > > After that I hope the reviewboard list will be significantly shorter
> and
> > we
> > > will be able to go through reviews of the remaining patches with higher
> > > confidence that we'll be able follow through on them with the
> > contributor.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 8:17 PM, Tomek Janiszewski 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > How about running CI on all reviews. If patch is stale it probably
> > can't
> > > be
> > > > applied,  CI will post bad patch and if nobody do any action on that
> > > review
> > > > we can close it.
> > > >
> > > > śr., 29.06.2016, 18:26 użytkownik Joris Van Remoortere <
> > jo...@apache.org
> > > >
> > > > napisał:
> > > >
> > > > > Hello developers,
> > > > >
> > > > > Over the last year we've accumulated a significant review backlog.
> > Over
> > > > the
> > > > > past month it has been floating around ~600 reviews.
> > > > >
> > > > > It would be of great help if you could look through your personal
> > list
> > > > > (Dashboard -> Outgoing -> Open) and identify reviews that are *no
> > > longer
> > > > > relevant* or that you are *not actively working on*.
> > > > >
> > > > > Suggested actions:
> > > > > *No longer relevant: *Please discard them with a message explaining
> > > why.
> > > > > For example a link to the JIRA that was resolved already.
> > > > > *Not actively working on: *Please discard them with a note that you
> > are
> > > > not
> > > > > actively working on this, but to please involve you if someone
> picks
> > it
> > > > up
> > > > > in the future. A note in the JIRA referencing your discarded review
> > > would
> > > > > be much appreciated here. This way we can easily track previous
> > effort.
> > > > >
> > > > > Remember, discarded doesn't mean deleted. It doesn't even mean this
> > was
> > > > not
> > > > > accepted. It just means we're not currently working on it. This
> will
> > > help
> > > > > guide reviewers and new contributors to the active set we are all
> > > working
> > > > > on.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ideally as a community we can do this organically. After some time
> > has
> > > > > passed, we will go through and discard ones we think are
> categorized
> > as
> > > > > above with a note on how to re-open them.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > Joris
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [Action Required] Stale Reviews

[Joseph Wu]

On a related note, we will also be looking at the (usually neglected)
GitHub PRs.  We've accumulated ~50 of them over time.

After making a quick scan of the list, it turns out we can close a majority
of these PRs by either directly closing the non-issues, or by committing
the small documentation changes they propose.

Here's a doc summarizing what we will be doing:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BxUFRCis_4One-_Eoi19xJ9NJejh1Zl4ZCLTUcUUESE/

Note: Direct access to the GitHub mirror is restricted, even to most
committers, which is one reason why stale PRs stick around :(

On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 1:14 AM, Alex Rukletsov  wrote:

> Joris, could we punt on this until after 1.0? Right now people focus on
> polishing things for the release and I would like to avoid any
> distractions.
>
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 8:25 PM, Joris Van Remoortere 
> wrote:
>
> > Your suggestion generally encompasses the spirit of what we will do after
> > we've given the community time to act on their own. The reason we will
> > likely go through them manually is that there will be some patches that
> > don't apply but for which the contributor would still like to resume
> work.
> > Ideally people going through their outbox will have more context for
> which
> > things definitely don't make sense to keep open, so the list of which I
> > will have to go through manually will be shorter ;-)
> > I think the right thing is to provide people time to take these actions
> > themselves.
> >
> > We will be going through review of the github pull requests (already a
> much
> > smaller list) in the upcoming week.
> > After that I hope the reviewboard list will be significantly shorter and
> we
> > will be able to go through reviews of the remaining patches with higher
> > confidence that we'll be able follow through on them with the
> contributor.
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 8:17 PM, Tomek Janiszewski 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > How about running CI on all reviews. If patch is stale it probably
> can't
> > be
> > > applied,  CI will post bad patch and if nobody do any action on that
> > review
> > > we can close it.
> > >
> > > śr., 29.06.2016, 18:26 użytkownik Joris Van Remoortere <
> jo...@apache.org
> > >
> > > napisał:
> > >
> > > > Hello developers,
> > > >
> > > > Over the last year we've accumulated a significant review backlog.
> Over
> > > the
> > > > past month it has been floating around ~600 reviews.
> > > >
> > > > It would be of great help if you could look through your personal
> list
> > > > (Dashboard -> Outgoing -> Open) and identify reviews that are *no
> > longer
> > > > relevant* or that you are *not actively working on*.
> > > >
> > > > Suggested actions:
> > > > *No longer relevant: *Please discard them with a message explaining
> > why.
> > > > For example a link to the JIRA that was resolved already.
> > > > *Not actively working on: *Please discard them with a note that you
> are
> > > not
> > > > actively working on this, but to please involve you if someone picks
> it
> > > up
> > > > in the future. A note in the JIRA referencing your discarded review
> > would
> > > > be much appreciated here. This way we can easily track previous
> effort.
> > > >
> > > > Remember, discarded doesn't mean deleted. It doesn't even mean this
> was
> > > not
> > > > accepted. It just means we're not currently working on it. This will
> > help
> > > > guide reviewers and new contributors to the active set we are all
> > working
> > > > on.
> > > >
> > > > Ideally as a community we can do this organically. After some time
> has
> > > > passed, we will go through and discard ones we think are categorized
> as
> > > > above with a note on how to re-open them.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks!
> > > > Joris
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [Action Required] Stale Reviews

[Alex Rukletsov]

Joris, could we punt on this until after 1.0? Right now people focus on
polishing things for the release and I would like to avoid any distractions.

On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 8:25 PM, Joris Van Remoortere 
wrote:

> Your suggestion generally encompasses the spirit of what we will do after
> we've given the community time to act on their own. The reason we will
> likely go through them manually is that there will be some patches that
> don't apply but for which the contributor would still like to resume work.
> Ideally people going through their outbox will have more context for which
> things definitely don't make sense to keep open, so the list of which I
> will have to go through manually will be shorter ;-)
> I think the right thing is to provide people time to take these actions
> themselves.
>
> We will be going through review of the github pull requests (already a much
> smaller list) in the upcoming week.
> After that I hope the reviewboard list will be significantly shorter and we
> will be able to go through reviews of the remaining patches with higher
> confidence that we'll be able follow through on them with the contributor.
>
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 8:17 PM, Tomek Janiszewski 
> wrote:
>
> > How about running CI on all reviews. If patch is stale it probably can't
> be
> > applied,  CI will post bad patch and if nobody do any action on that
> review
> > we can close it.
> >
> > śr., 29.06.2016, 18:26 użytkownik Joris Van Remoortere  >
> > napisał:
> >
> > > Hello developers,
> > >
> > > Over the last year we've accumulated a significant review backlog. Over
> > the
> > > past month it has been floating around ~600 reviews.
> > >
> > > It would be of great help if you could look through your personal list
> > > (Dashboard -> Outgoing -> Open) and identify reviews that are *no
> longer
> > > relevant* or that you are *not actively working on*.
> > >
> > > Suggested actions:
> > > *No longer relevant: *Please discard them with a message explaining
> why.
> > > For example a link to the JIRA that was resolved already.
> > > *Not actively working on: *Please discard them with a note that you are
> > not
> > > actively working on this, but to please involve you if someone picks it
> > up
> > > in the future. A note in the JIRA referencing your discarded review
> would
> > > be much appreciated here. This way we can easily track previous effort.
> > >
> > > Remember, discarded doesn't mean deleted. It doesn't even mean this was
> > not
> > > accepted. It just means we're not currently working on it. This will
> help
> > > guide reviewers and new contributors to the active set we are all
> working
> > > on.
> > >
> > > Ideally as a community we can do this organically. After some time has
> > > passed, we will go through and discard ones we think are categorized as
> > > above with a note on how to re-open them.
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > > Joris
> > >
> >
>

Re: [Action Required] Stale Reviews

[Joris Van Remoortere]

Your suggestion generally encompasses the spirit of what we will do after
we've given the community time to act on their own. The reason we will
likely go through them manually is that there will be some patches that
don't apply but for which the contributor would still like to resume work.
Ideally people going through their outbox will have more context for which
things definitely don't make sense to keep open, so the list of which I
will have to go through manually will be shorter ;-)
I think the right thing is to provide people time to take these actions
themselves.

We will be going through review of the github pull requests (already a much
smaller list) in the upcoming week.
After that I hope the reviewboard list will be significantly shorter and we
will be able to go through reviews of the remaining patches with higher
confidence that we'll be able follow through on them with the contributor.

On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 8:17 PM, Tomek Janiszewski 
wrote:

> How about running CI on all reviews. If patch is stale it probably can't be
> applied,  CI will post bad patch and if nobody do any action on that review
> we can close it.
>
> śr., 29.06.2016, 18:26 użytkownik Joris Van Remoortere 
> napisał:
>
> > Hello developers,
> >
> > Over the last year we've accumulated a significant review backlog. Over
> the
> > past month it has been floating around ~600 reviews.
> >
> > It would be of great help if you could look through your personal list
> > (Dashboard -> Outgoing -> Open) and identify reviews that are *no longer
> > relevant* or that you are *not actively working on*.
> >
> > Suggested actions:
> > *No longer relevant: *Please discard them with a message explaining why.
> > For example a link to the JIRA that was resolved already.
> > *Not actively working on: *Please discard them with a note that you are
> not
> > actively working on this, but to please involve you if someone picks it
> up
> > in the future. A note in the JIRA referencing your discarded review would
> > be much appreciated here. This way we can easily track previous effort.
> >
> > Remember, discarded doesn't mean deleted. It doesn't even mean this was
> not
> > accepted. It just means we're not currently working on it. This will help
> > guide reviewers and new contributors to the active set we are all working
> > on.
> >
> > Ideally as a community we can do this organically. After some time has
> > passed, we will go through and discard ones we think are categorized as
> > above with a note on how to re-open them.
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Joris
> >
>

Re: [Action Required] Stale Reviews

[Tomek Janiszewski]

How about running CI on all reviews. If patch is stale it probably can't be
applied,  CI will post bad patch and if nobody do any action on that review
we can close it.

śr., 29.06.2016, 18:26 użytkownik Joris Van Remoortere 
napisał:

> Hello developers,
>
> Over the last year we've accumulated a significant review backlog. Over the
> past month it has been floating around ~600 reviews.
>
> It would be of great help if you could look through your personal list
> (Dashboard -> Outgoing -> Open) and identify reviews that are *no longer
> relevant* or that you are *not actively working on*.
>
> Suggested actions:
> *No longer relevant: *Please discard them with a message explaining why.
> For example a link to the JIRA that was resolved already.
> *Not actively working on: *Please discard them with a note that you are not
> actively working on this, but to please involve you if someone picks it up
> in the future. A note in the JIRA referencing your discarded review would
> be much appreciated here. This way we can easily track previous effort.
>
> Remember, discarded doesn't mean deleted. It doesn't even mean this was not
> accepted. It just means we're not currently working on it. This will help
> guide reviewers and new contributors to the active set we are all working
> on.
>
> Ideally as a community we can do this organically. After some time has
> passed, we will go through and discard ones we think are categorized as
> above with a note on how to re-open them.
>
> Thanks!
> Joris
>

Re: [Action Required] Stale Reviews

[Cong Wang]

On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 9:25 AM, Joris Van Remoortere  wrote:
> Hello developers,
>
> Over the last year we've accumulated a significant review backlog. Over the
> past month it has been floating around ~600 reviews.

Why do you keep thinking the problem is on this side rather than
your side?

What about stale committers/maintainers? What actions do you plan
to do to those committers who don't commit anything for 6+ months?

[Action Required] Stale Reviews

[Joris Van Remoortere]

Hello developers,

Over the last year we've accumulated a significant review backlog. Over the
past month it has been floating around ~600 reviews.

It would be of great help if you could look through your personal list
(Dashboard -> Outgoing -> Open) and identify reviews that are *no longer
relevant* or that you are *not actively working on*.

Suggested actions:
*No longer relevant: *Please discard them with a message explaining why.
For example a link to the JIRA that was resolved already.
*Not actively working on: *Please discard them with a note that you are not
actively working on this, but to please involve you if someone picks it up
in the future. A note in the JIRA referencing your discarded review would
be much appreciated here. This way we can easily track previous effort.

Remember, discarded doesn't mean deleted. It doesn't even mean this was not
accepted. It just means we're not currently working on it. This will help
guide reviewers and new contributors to the active set we are all working
on.

Ideally as a community we can do this organically. After some time has
passed, we will go through and discard ones we think are categorized as
above with a note on how to re-open them.

Thanks!
Joris