Forgot to attach the graph referred to (or it is not showing up in the archives) Lars
] > On 20 Jul 2015, at 07:02, Lars Kurth <lars.kurth....@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi all, > > I have been travelling on Friday and wanted to appeal for calm on this > particular issue. Let's try and focus on making as much progress as we can on > the patch series which have freeze exceptions (or partial freeze exception) > this week. Continuing a debate on what may have gone wrong with Remus/COLO or > other series at this stage is going to be distracting and will affect > everyones chances to get the remaining code with freeze exceptions into Xen > 4.6. So please, let's focus on making as much progress as we can this week. > Having said that, it is absolutely true that the first Remus/COLO and COLO > RFC patches have received very little or no review time when they were posted > first by Wen Congyang in April 2013. And that situation had not changed until > a year later, when the issue was first raised with me (if I recall > correctly). > > I do sincerely apologise for this. Personally I would like to see COLO in Xen > 4.6, but this is not my decision. > > I do also believe that there has been tremendous progress on Remus and COLO > in the last 12 months. There has also been great collaboration between > maintainers and contributors in the last 12 months, in particular around > Remus and COLOPre. Let's build on this and move forward. > > = After July 24th = > > We should have a discussion *after* July 24th, to see what is going wrong and > what we can improve as a community. We can also cover some of the accusations > that were made then. It is clear that as a community we do have some issues > and challenges that we have to address. I have to personally take > responsibility for underestimating some of the issues we face: until about 4 > weeks ago, it looked as if many of the issues that I knew of are well on the > way of being resolved. I honestly believe that many of the changes we made > recently, such as focus on designs, had a very positive effect. I do not > believe, that what we are seeing is a sign of a dying community. There were > also some specific issues related to Remus/COLO: some have been addressed; > others have not yet been addressed. > > However, it is not clear yet from the data that I can mine, exactly what is > going on in the general case. We have good data mining capability when it > comes to git, but *no* data mining capability when it comes to the review > process. I am meeting Bitergia tomorrow to see whether they (or I) can > implement some functionality that allows us to get metrics related to the > review process. > > = Data we have = > > What is interesting is that since 2012, we have seen an average annual > increase of 9% of patches that made it into the Xen Hypervisor. We also have > seen a slightly higher increase of Reviewed-by and ACKED-by tags during the > same time period (around 10% a year). However, this does not tell us much, as > the review period leading up to commits is not covered by git data. > > The following graph shows the number of e-mails related to patches on > xen-devel@ - both patches, comments on patches, submissions of new versions > of patches, etc. > > <default.png> > > What is striking is that the ratio of discussions related to patches > (including posted patches) on xen-devel divided by the patches that made it > into Xen has increased almost grown exponentially recently: 5.85 (2012), 7.89 > (2013), 8.63 (2014) to 11.65 (2015). This clearly shows that we have some > issues with code reviews that are getting worse and that there is an > underlying issue which we have to address: there are a number of possible > reasons. But let's not speculate now. > > Best Regards > Lars
_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
