--- Comment #24 from Quim Gil <> ---
(In reply to Nemo from comment #23)
> I note that all graphs are still completely meaningless because they still
> don't exclude self merges.

Could you point to a Gerrit changeset with an example of a self merge, please?
I'm still not sure I understand what you mean.

> Babel
> (<
> wikimedia.org_mediawiki_extensions_Babel>), which for some reason is ranked
> second in <>
> despite having only one open change (about 6 months old, but -2'd), is
> depicted as some sort of heaven where in every single month the same amount
> of commits are opened and merged. The reality is that it's a very quiet
> extension with only 9 changes in the last year, the rest being localisation
> updates.
> <
> owner:l10n-bot,n,z>

That list aims to be a ranking of shame. The projects at the top are the ones
with a oldest median of unresolved changesets (now counted by date of first
upload, soon by date of last review). 

Looking at,n,z
, the fact that Babel appears there shows that there might be a bug somewhere.
That table shows a couple of changesets with "Label not applicable", but
clicking themm one ca see that have been abandoned. Does Babel have any review
open currently? Looks like not.

Alvaro, can you explain the results of Babel based on the data you have
gathered from Gerrit?

> At the very least, l10n-bot should have its own line in graphs, it doesn't
> make sense to mix it with "Independent" or "Unknown" whatever those lines in
> "Are we improving?" mean.

We removed l10n-bot from but I'm not sure
whether it is being counted here.

You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Wikibugs-l mailing list

Reply via email to