Re: Stale PR stats @Jun01

2020-06-02 Thread Mark J Cox
Rich Salz mailed me about the issues that were in the "waiting for
reporter" state in my summary noting that some of them shouldn't be in
that state.  I investigated just now and made some changes to my
script, so if you are a reviewer or reporter you may get some extra
pings today as things moved to the right state.

The script looked at the github timeline 'reviewed' events, however
those events only happen when changes are requested or the review is
approved or rejected.  So if a reporter does an update and re-requests
a review, it still shows up for the script in state
"changes_requested" which isn't true.  So now the script also looks at
"review_requested" events, and a "review_requested" will change the
state from "changes_requested".

When looking through the list one by one I spotted quite a few PRs
which had changes_requested but where the reporter had made some
changes or commented about the changes but had not re-requested a
review.  I manually did that re-request.

I'll also add a OpenSSL Machine comment to stale "changes_requested"
state issues to remind the reporter to do that action (and to be sure
to re-request a review once they have done so).

So here was the state before:

>  waiting for reporter  ( 16 issues, median  299.5  days)
>
> 11530 branch: 1.1.1, branch: master, cla: trivial,
> reviewed:changes_requested days:46
> 11514 reviewed:changes_requested days:50
> 11310 reviewed:changes_requested days:74
> 10724 reviewed:changes_requested days:37
> 10590 reviewed:changes_requested days:146
> 9575 reviewed:changes_requested days:293
> 9461 reviewed:changes_requested days:306
> 9427 reviewed:changes_requested days:313
> 9243 reviewed:changes_requested days:315
> 9240 reviewed:changes_requested days:340
> 8992 reviewed:changes_requested days:257
> 8962 reviewed:changes_requested days:75
> 8730 reviewed:changes_requested days:354
> 8674 reviewed:changes_requested days:409
> 7961 reviewed:changes_requested days:511
> 7432 reviewed:changes_requested days:590
>
>  waiting for review  ( 2 issues, median  40.5  days)
>
> 11526 approval: review pending, branch: 1.1.1, branch: master,
> reviewed:approved days:32
> 11278 approval: review pending, branch: master, reviewed:commented days:49

And now it is:

 waiting for reporter  ( 9 issues, median  308  days)

11530 branch: 1.1.1, branch: master, cla: trivial,
reviewed:changes_requested days:48
10590 reviewed:changes_requested days:148
9575 reviewed:changes_requested days:294
9461 reviewed:changes_requested days:308
9427 reviewed:changes_requested days:315
8962 reviewed:changes_requested days:76
8674 reviewed:changes_requested days:411
7961 reviewed:changes_requested days:513
7432 reviewed:changes_requested days:592

 waiting for review  ( 8 issues, median  51.5  days)

11526 approval: review pending, branch: 1.1.1, branch: master,
reviewed:approved days:34
11514 reviewed:review pending days:52
11278 approval: review pending, branch: master, reviewed:commented days:51
10724 reviewed:review pending days:38
10632 reviewed:review pending days:35
8992 reviewed:review pending days:258
8730 reviewed:review pending days:356
6725 milestone:Assessed, reviewed:review pending days:363


Re: Cherry-pick proposal

2020-06-02 Thread Matt Caswell



On 29/04/2020 14:28, Dr. Matthias St. Pierre wrote:
> - First, a pull request needs to be opened against the master branch for
> discussion.
> 
>   Only after that pull request has received the necessary amount of
> approvals,
> 
>   a separate pull request can be opened  against the
> OpenSSL_1_1_1-stable branch.
> 
>  
> 
> - A separate pull request against the OpenSSL_1_1_1-stable branch is
> required.
> 
>   This holds - contrary to common practice - even if the change can be
> cherry-picked
> 
>   without conflicts from the master branch. The only exception from this
> rule are
> 
>   changes which are considered 'CLA: trivial', like e.g. typographical
> fixes.
> 

There's been no further discussion on this for quite a while, so I will
start an OTC vote based on the vote text proposed by Matthias and report
back the results here.

Matt