In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Gervase Markham wrote:
>> help make sure contributed code gets reviewed. I've seen a lot of code
>> rotting in Bugzilla because the author didn't know about the review
>> process,
>
>
> If that's the case, we need to improve either the content or the
> visibility of the docs that describe the process. All suggestions welcome.
Visibility: there should be a pointer to the document on
review/superreview in Bugzilla, from the page generated when you are
adding a new attachment. Something to the effect of: "Important! If you
are attaching a patch, please follow the procedures at
I-forgot-the-url-for-review, or your patch WILL NOT be checked in to the
Mozilla codebase!" I suspect at least some people in the Bugzilla
community may not be aware of this resource.
There should also be a pointer at the URL covering review procedures to
the module owners page, which should be religiously updated.
>> or couldn't get r= when he solicited and gave up, etc.,
>
>
> If they can't get review, they should be talking to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
>
>
>
>> and I'm
>> worried that soliciting new contributions may result in a lot of code
>> going the same way. IMO, we should have some sort of periodic sweep
>> (like BugDay perhaps, but monthly), wherein people hunt through bugs with
>> the "patch" keyword (and attach the keyword, if they hit a bug with an
>> attached patch) and ascertain the status of the patch, try to get review
>> moving on it, &etc.
>
> There's nothing to stop contributors doing this off their own bat, and
> that would be great. IMO, though, attaching the patch keyword does
> absolutely nothing - reviewers are too busy to go through their
> components looking for patches to review. You need to ask them by email.
>
Maybe what we should do is hold "Patch Day" or "Bitrot Day" or something,
say, every fourth Bug Day; instead of just triaging unconfirmeds,
participants would be asked to look for bugs with the "patch" keyword
which appear to be foundering (i.e., patch attached for some time and no
signs of review or discussion of the merits of the patch) and email an
appropriate reviewer themselves.
If we went ahead with this, I suspect we might get a backup due to a
shortage of superreviewers, but that can be dealt with then.
--
Chris Hoess
