Hi all,
To answer the financial question here:
we had 6k EUR in the 2020 budget. This was distributed between Nyall
(2.7k EUR) and Matthias/OPENGIS (2.7k EUR) and Alessandro (600 EUR,
Server related reviews).
In 2021 we increased and approved the budget to 10k. I am waiting for a
proposal how to distribute this amount in 2021.
Without having more sustaining members we can only increase these 10k by
chipping away money from bug fixing (the bulk of our expenses) or the
grant program (which is with 25k EUR not very large in 2021, less than
in 2020).
But finances are only parts of the problem, as discussed here. The main
issue might be finding skilled devs who know the code base well and
distribute this task more evenly between diffferent shoulders. Of course
there is a connection between available funds and finding people working
on reviewing ...
Greetings,
Andreas
On 2021-05-01 13:04, Alessandro Pasotti wrote:
Thank you Martin,
I agree with your proposal, this is in line with what we have already
discussed and it sounds a sustainable way to solve the problem, I'm not
sure about the budget though: Andreas will probably have more
information on that.
On Sat, May 1, 2021 at 12:33 PM Martin Dobias <[email protected]>
wrote:
Hi all
On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 12:07 AM Nyall Dawson <[email protected]>
wrote:
This is a public plea for more developers who are very familiar with
different parts of the QGIS codebase to become actively involved in
backport PR management.
(Nyall later clarified this is not only about backport PRs, but all
reviews in general)
Thanks for starting this thread - it is a discussion we definitely need
to have. (And apologies for getting back to this soooo late!)
Pull request reviews are absolutely vital part of the QGIS development,
a chance to get bugs fixed before they even get into QGIS code. Quality
reviews also need a good amount of expertise of the QGIS code - often
the hardest part of a review is not the code included is the pull
request, but figuring out what is missing...
Speaking of myself, I used to review pull requests regularly... But
after several years I have to admit I mostly gave up doing that unless
someone asks me to do a review. The pace of QGIS development is not
getting any slower (which is great!), so there is a constant flow of
new pull requests and doing code reviews regularly is not something I
want to do in my free time... I am happy to do some QGIS work in my
free time, but only doing what I want to do :-)
For a company, strictly business speaking, sparing 15 minutes a day of
a senior developer is roughly equivalent to lost profit of few
thousands of EUR (assuming ~50 hours / year). And many reviews need
much more time than 15 minutes... Moreover companies doing QGIS dev are
often already donating to QGIS as sustaining members...
In a mail in the thread it was suggested that companies doing QGIS
development should add extra cost to quotes to accommodate the time for
reviews (of unrelated pull requests). Not sure I agree with that - if a
company had constant income from QGIS dev, that's doable, but if we are
talking about occasional QGIS dev work, that is hard to plan.
From all of that above, my thinking is that in order to make things
sustainable, regular pull request reviews should be ideally funded by
QGIS.org similarly to how paid bug-fixing sprints work. It is the kind
of project maintainance work that needs to be done, it is not always
super fun and it requires input of someone from a small group of people
that are already donating lots of their free time.
My proposal would be therefore along these lines:
- PSC allocates annual budget to reviews
- core devs interested in participating would indicate their
availability (eligibility may be the same as with paid bug fixing)
- PSC tells devs how much paid time they can spend on reviews
- paid devs should do reviews regularly, e.g. at least twice a week,
ideally every day - not just once a month or so
- paid devs would self-assign themselves to PRs and do reviews
- if a PR is not picked up by anyone e.g. within 3 days, PR queue
manager would assign it to one of the paid devs
- paid devs keep track of their time in a spreadsheet and invoice
(quarterly?) up to the amount they were allocated
I believe this approach should solve our problems:
- remove stress from growing PR queue and reviewer burnout
- get more core devs (who otherwise may not be available) to do reviews
- reduce frustration from devs submitting PRs when their PRs are not
getting attention
In my humble opinion, good quality reviews are even more important than
the regular paid bug fixing or grants. A review that is rushed due to
lack of time may omit important code details, or focus only on code
style...
We could start with a relatively small budget and compensate the
extremely valuable work that reviewers (Nyall and others) are already
doing.
Regards
Martin
_______________________________________________
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
--
Alessandro Pasotti
QCooperative: www.qcooperative.net [1] ItOpen: www.itopen.it [2]
_______________________________________________
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
Links:
------
[1] https://www.qcooperative.net
[2] http://www.itopen.it
_______________________________________________
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
