I'd like us to start by using the review request system already in gerrit more fully.
Personally I've got a bunch of incoming reviews in my queue where I'm not sure the current status of them or if it's wise to land them. :) First step is probably to go through the existing old patches in everybody's queues and either do the review, abandon the patch, or trim down reviewers who aren't familiar with the code area. Rejected patches should be abandoned to get them out of the queues. Then we should go through unassigned patches more aggressively... We also need to make sure we have default reviewers for modules, which will be relevant also to triaging bug reports. -- brion On Jan 29, 2015 2:03 PM, "Yuri Astrakhan" <[email protected]> wrote: > How about a simple script to create a phabricator task after a few days (a > week?) of a patch inactivity to review that patch. It will allow "assign > to", allow managers to see each dev's review queue, and will prevent > patches to fall through the cracks. > > Obviously this won't be needed after we move gerrit to phabricator. > > On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 1:44 PM, James Douglas <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
