All patches which are more than 60days old: https://hackmd.io/GYIwhsEMYOwLQGYAMBOATHALCmm4oEZgBTOGYgVgA5qxiqqY0g==#
AFR patches : https://hackmd.io/BwTgbARgTAJmDMBaeVgDNEBYzAIaJFxhgPELRHlwHYBGMIA= DHT patches : https://hackmd.io/EYNg7AZghsUMYFoQBNkGYEBYCMICcCAHJmiAnsnttgEwAMemdEcQA=== libglusterfs/ changes: https://hackmd.io/CwNgxghgDOBmC0BTEEBM9QGYCs8AcEARiPGAOyECcElqYAjCCkA= glusterd & CLI : https://hackmd.io/IYRgZgpgnArFYFoJgMZQQFgOwCMUKhGwQGZgAmNKANmWBiyA storage/posix only: https://hackmd.io/IwFgnAbBwQZgtGADAVmPEBTWL4EMBjAJgSIgGYAOSgdk2JsqKA== performance xlators only: https://hackmd.io/MbBsEMFMCMBYEYC0BOYAzATI2BmD5Fp4B2A5DAVlmgA5hjQATZeIA===# Nigel, how would you want to go about this next? On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Amar Tumballi <[email protected]> wrote: > Did get hold of all the pending patches till 2017-05-20 (660 in total). > Note that it includes "All open" patches. > > Attached is the file with all the details. Nigel, considering we have dump > to have reference, can we go ahead and close everything which is 79 days > old? > > Let me know if anyone wants CSV output of the pending patches, and what > all the info they need? > > I recommend all the maintainers to go through the list and make sure they > take appropriate action on all old patches. If people are lazy to go > through all the patches, i can provide list of files changed per patch > (url), so you can choose what matters to you. > > Regards, > Amar > > > On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 8:34 PM, Shyam <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 03/17/2017 03:22 AM, Nigel Babu wrote: >> >>> Hello folks, >>> >>> I put this up for discussion at the last community meeting, but I was >>> unable to >>> attend the meeting. We have a lot of reviews that are quite old[1]. They >>> have, >>> at some point, become unmergable or the person who proposed them lost >>> interest. >>> This is on us. We've let reviews slip through the cracks. There are also >>> the >>> odd cases when a second patch has been merged which fixes the actual >>> issue, but >>> the old one isn't abandoned. >>> >>> There's no way we can work our way through the entire list. I suggest >>> that we >>> abandon all patches with no updates in the last 90 days. If it hits on a >>> patch >>> that someone is particularly passionate to get merged in, they're >>> welcome to >>> re-open it. >>> >> >> I agree with this, also it makes the dashboard more manageable. >> >> >>> A. Current master dashboard: https://review.gluster.org/#/p >>> rojects/glusterfs,dashboards/dashboard:master-dashboard >>> B. Master dashboard (older than 90 days): http://bit.ly/2m8FX6m >>> C. Master dashboard (only patches newer than 90 days): >>> http://bit.ly/2mB0xsl >>> >>> If we abandon older patches, our master dashboard will look like (C) >>> above. >>> This means that there's already patches that are quite a few reviews >>> that need >>> some hand holding. Is it possible for us to catch up to the ones that are >>> currently pending? >>> >> >> We should focus on getting things out of the way at least in 90 days, one >> way or the other. So, I would assume as we start using the dashboard, we >> will have better focus on the "Awaiting Reviews Or Regression" section as >> we go bottom up on that. >> >> So I would say we can catch up here (as in C), but not with B, so the >> overall idea seems to be useful to reduce noise at first, and possibly >> never get into this problem in the future as we catch up. >> >> >>> [1]: http://bit.ly/2nfBq1N >>> >>> -- >>> nigelb >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Gluster-devel mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >> Gluster-devel mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel >> > > > > -- > Amar Tumballi (amarts) > -- Amar Tumballi (amarts)
_______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers
