How many of the reviews that we WIP-1 will actually be revisited?

I'm sure there will be cases where a current developer forgetting they had started on something, seeing the e-mail about the WIP-1, and then abandoning the change.

But what about developers who have moved off the project entirely? Is this only masking the problem of stale reviews from our review stats and leaving the review queue to bloat?

I honestly don't know; those are real questions, not rhetorical ones trying to prove a point. I'd guess the longer-running OpenStack projects have had to deal with this as well, and perhaps I'm overestimating just how many of these perpetually in limbo reviews there are.


On 09/18/2014 03:26 AM, mar...@redhat.com wrote:
On 18/09/14 00:29, James Polley wrote:


On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 6:26 PM, mar...@redhat.com
<mailto:mar...@redhat.com> <mandr...@redhat.com
<mailto:mandr...@redhat.com>> wrote:

     Hi,

     as part of general housekeeping on our reviews, it was discussed at last
     week's meeting [1] that we should set workflow -1 for stale reviews
     (like gerrit used to do when I were a lad).

     The specific criteria discussed was 'items that have a -1 from a core
     but no response from author for 14 days'. This topic came up again
     during today's meeting and it wasn't clear if the intention was for
     cores to start enforcing this? So:

     Do we start setting WIP/workflow -1 for those reviews that have a -1
     from a core but no response from author for 14 days


I'm in favour of doing this; as long as we make it clear that we're
doing it to help us focus review effort on things that are under active
development - it doesn't mean we think the patch shouldn't land, it just
means we know it's not ready yet so we don't want reviewers to be
looking at it until it moves forward.

For the sake of making sure new developers don't get put off, I'd like
to see us leaving a comment explaining why we're WIPing the change and
noting that uploading a new revision will remove the WIP automatically


+1 - indeed, I'd say as part of this discussion, or if/when it comes up
as a motion for a vote in the weekly meeting, we should also put out and
agree on the 'standard' text to be used for this and stick it on the
wiki (regardless of whether this is to be implemented manually at first
and perhaps automated later),

thanks, marios

"setting workflow -1 as this review has been inactive for two weeks
following a negative review. Please see the wiki @ foo for more
information. Note that once you upload a new revision the workflow is
expected to be reset (feel free to shout on freenode/#tripleo if it isn't)."




     thanks, marios

     [1]
     
http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/tripleo/2014/tripleo.2014-09-09-19.04.log.html

     _______________________________________________
     OpenStack-dev mailing list
     OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
     <mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
     http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev




_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev



_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Reply via email to