This is a situation where disciplined testing can come in really handy. If I submit a patch, and the patch passes the tests that have been specified for the feature it implements (or the bug it fixes), and the code coverage is sufficiently high, then a reviewer has a running start in terms of confidence in the correctness and completeness of the patch.
Practically speaking, this doesn't necessarily rely on rest of the project already having a very level of code coverage; as long as there are tests laid out for the feature in question, and the patch makes those tests pass, it gives the code reviewer a real shot in the arm. On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 1:14 PM, Jon Robson <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for kicking off the conversation Brad :-) > > Just mean at the moment. I hacked together and I'm more than happy to > iterate on this and improve the reporting. > > On the subject of patch abandonment: Personally I think we should be > abandoning inactive patches. They cause unnecessary confusion to > someone coming into a new extension wanting to help out. We may want > to change the name to 'abandon' to 'remove from code review queue' as > abandon sounds rather nasty and that's not at all what it actually > does - any abandoned patch can be restored at any time if necessary. > > > On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 1:11 PM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 12:56 PM, Jon Robson <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> The average time for code to go from submitted to merged appears to be > >> 29 days over a dataset of 524 patches, excluding all that were written > >> by the L10n bot. There is a patchset there that has been _open_ for > >> 766 days - if you look at it it was uploaded on Dec 23, 2012 12:23 PM > >> is -1ed by me and needs a rebase. > >> > > > > Mean or median? > > > > I recall talk a while back about someone else (Quim, I think?) doing this > > same sort of analysis, and considering the same issues over patches that > > seem to have been abandoned by their author and so on, which led to > > discussions of whether we should go around abandoning patches that have > > been -1ed for a long time, etc. Without proper consideration of those > sorts > > of issues, the statistics don't seem particularly useful. > > > > > > -- > > Brad Jorsch (Anomie) > > Software Engineer > > Wikimedia Foundation > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikitech-l mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > > > > -- > Jon Robson > * http://jonrobson.me.uk > * https://www.facebook.com/jonrobson > * @rakugojon > > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
