+1 to Niharika - the initial iteration caused some inconvenience, but I expect subsequent iterations to be useful. Thank you Paladox!
> On 22 Jan 2019, at 13:09, Niharika Kohli <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 6:12 PM Paladox via Wikitech-l < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> What your saying is making me think I’m wasting my time on improving this >> extension. >> Also other users that have spoken to me have thought this extension is >> great but could do with improvements which I am doing. We need to think of >> new users and how to improve there experence. The task was opened for a >> long while yet no one commented on it. >> I agree with legoktm feedback. >> “A process that annoys people based on nothing but the fact that >> theyhappened to be the last one touching a file *is* fundamentally broken.” >> yes hence why I’ve been making improvements by adding a button which is >> better then nothing right? >> As chad mentions it has no idea what is a typo fix compared to other >> things as it’s not A.I. >> > > Thanks for working on this, Paladox. I think this can be a really useful > feature for newcomers and experienced developers alike, if implemented > well. I look forward to seeing it in action. > > >> On Tuesday, 22 January 2019, 12:05:24 GMT, Thiemo Kreuz < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Fundamentally broken sounds like a bit of a stretch. >> >> A process that annoys people based on nothing but the fact that they >> happened to be the last one touching a file *is* fundamentally broken. >> This is not how anyone should look for reviewers, neither manually nor >> automatically. >> >> Here is a thought experiment: We could send review requests to the >> *least* active users that are still around, but *never* touched a >> file. The positive effects of such an approach include: >> * More people get familiar with the code. >> * Knowledge gets spread more evenly. >> * Bottlenecks and bus factors get reduced. >> * These people probably have more time. >> * Review requests are spread more evenly. >> * Workload is spread more evenly. >> >> Still sounds like a bad idea? Sure, because it is. Now tell me: How is >> it more clever to do the *opposite* and dump review requests on people >> that have to much workload already? >> >> At this point I don't care any more if we are talking about a fully >> automated process or a suggest button. Both are targeting the wrong >> people. >> >>> it was probably working quite well for our less-trafficked repositories. >> >> What is the difference between being the last one fixing a typo in a >> low-traffic vs. high-traffic repository? In both cases it's the wrong >> person. >> >> Thiemo >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > > > -- > Niharika > Product Manager > Community Tech > Wikimedia Foundation > _______________________________________________ > 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
