Thanks for sending out this reminder Mark! Comments inline: On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 5:23 PM, Mark A. Hershberger <mhershber...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > CRStats (http://toolserver.org/~robla/crstats/) shows that on December > 24th we were had around 500 revisions left for review. > > This wasn't too bad except that we CRStats shows we were supposed to be > closer to 300 revisions left. > > Today is worse. We're up to over 600 revisions for review while Robla's > projections show that we're supposed to be closer to 200 revisions for > review.
I've been going over what we have, and it may not be all *that* dire, though I'd like to get everything tagged before making that pronouncement. Here's the tagging we've got so far: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki_1.19/Revision_report There's a couple of big areas that stand out: * "educationprogram": can we defer these until after we deploy? * "socialprofile": doesn't block 1.19 deployment. My understanding is that ashley would still like review on these, though. We can mark these as "nodeploy", though that won't take them out of the graph (only the revision report above) Also, as an aside, I've added a couple of psuedo-tags to the graph: http://toolserver.org/~robla/crstats/ The "newly new" psuedo-state is a plot of new revisions added in a given week. The "reviewed" psuedo-state is all revisions that transition from "new" to some other state in a given week. This shows that the review load has been steadily rising over the past year, which means even though we've been adding capacity, that's not enough to keep up with out either slowing down a little bit to catch up, or really stepping up. Rob Rob _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
