On 8 May 2018 at 14:39, James Shaeffer <[email protected]> wrote: > I personally like this strategy, but as someone who is new to the project > and has made only one PR (which was merged rather quickly), how can I help? > > This seems to really only concern those who maintain the code, leaving many > unable to do much.
Unfortunately that's true - it really comes down to current maintainers and anyone with an open, unmerged PR to assist. But, of course, new contributions are ALWAYS welcome :D Nyall > -- > James > > On May 7, 2018 4:15:59 PM MST, Nyall Dawson <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> It's no surprise to anyone familiar with the QGIS project that we've >> got an issue with the Pull Request queue. It's been slowly growing >> over time, recently hitting over 150 open requests! It's a bit of an >> embarrassment to the project (some of these PRs have been open for >> years!), and is likely causing us to lose new contributors and code. >> >> The usual magic QGIS coding pixies did some work lately and squashed >> the queue back below 100 requests. But the remaining ones are all the >> difficult, unfinished or orphaned PRs... >> >> PR reviewing is hard. Not everyone can review every open PR due to >> different familiarity with areas of the codebase. (Which is why I >> don't think a funding grant to cover this will ever work >> successfully). And no-one wants to be the 'bad guy" who closes an >> unmerged PR representing someone else's hard work. >> >> So I propose a "32 by 3.2" sprint, where we ALL collaboratively aim to >> reduce the PR queue to <32 open requests before 3.2 release. >> >> I think we could achieve this by: >> >> 1. Adopting a hard-line approach to the older, orphaned PRs. Even if >> they have some value or reflect real issues, if no-one is interested >> in cleaning up the request to get it merge ready then we close it. >> >> 2. Adopt a "open-one, close-one" guideline for core committers. Heck, >> I think every core committer has at least 1 or 2 open PRs representing >> various experiments and WIP in unfinished states. These should either >> be finished off, or closed and re-opened when the work is actually >> ready to go. And for test PRs which are "for comment only" I'd suggest >> a QEP is more likely to get better feedback and is the more >> appropriate place for this discussion of this nature. >> >> 3. Closing orphaned or risky PRs which are targeted to 2.18 and which >> have been fixed in master branch. >> >> 4. Sharing the hard work so that the magic pixies don't lose their >> magic powers :) >> >> Thoughts? >> >> Nyall >> ________________________________ >> >> QGIS-Developer mailing list >> [email protected] >> List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer > > > _______________________________________________ > QGIS-Developer mailing list > [email protected] > List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer > Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer _______________________________________________ QGIS-Developer mailing list [email protected] List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
