On Sep 30, 7:22 pm, Russell Keith-Magee <russ...@keith-magee.com> wrote:
> What is also needed is a whole lot more people volunteering. Any > suggestions on how to get more people doing the entirely unglamorous, > but completely necessary work will be gratefully accepted. I'd like to suggest (1) easy to find and use pre-defined searches to find tickets at each stage of triage, (2) a clearer indication of the next steps and the person responsible for it whenever a ticket is reviewed, and (3) tickets that have been sitting on DDN for a while be put to a vote. The "stage" is not just unreviewed, DDN, accepted, RFC, someday/maybe, and fixed on a branch. The "accepted" stage itself is broken down into has patch, needs docs, needs tests, patch needs improvement. As an example, http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/13291 and http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/12398 both have a patch with docs and tests, and were marked as "accepted" by a core committer (not that it matters who reviewed them), without providing any actual feedback and without stating that they need a better patch. These tickets are fairly trivial and have been in limbo for 6-8 months. As the original reporter and developer, I assumed that since these tickets were reviewed by a core committer and "accepted" without any feedback about needing a better patch, that they would be committed shortly, or at least be moved to RFC shortly. These tickets are ideal candidates for anyone doing triage (not only core committers) to review and move to RFC, but they've been forgotten about by the reviewer, assumed no further action was required by the developer, and ignored in the sea of "accepted" tickets by everyone else. So for (1), I'd like to see the how to contribute documentation asking for people to triage specific sets of tickets with specific goals. For example, to review tickets that are almost RFC and just waiting on review (with a link to tickets that are accepted, with a patch that has docs and tests and doesn't need improvement), or to review tickets that just need docs or test (with links to appropriate searches), etc. And for (2), I'd like to see tickets remember who reviewed them (who accepted it, or who decided it needed a better patch, etc.) and for the system to ping both the original reporter (or recently active developer) and the reviewer after a period of inactivity. This should hopefully catch tickets which are initially "accepted" and then forgotten about. Lastly I also have several tickets that have been DDN for 1-2 years, so for (3), the reporter and recently active developers could be notified that the DDN ticket will be put to a vote in say 1 or 2 weeks time and allow them time to prepare any arguments or improved patch that may sway the decision, or try to reach a consensus on django- developers prior to the vote. I've been working with Django for several years now and I have tried to contribute useful tickets with patches including docs and tests when possible, and it has at times been extremely discouraging to see this effort go unnoticed for literally years without review (beyond a passing glance to "accept" a ticket, in an attempt to reduce the "unreviewed" backlog). I've also felt that at busy times, some tickets that had merit but didn't have an immediately apparent and elegant solution were rejected simply save time leading up to a release. I was pleased to see the recent announcement from Jacob about the changes to the decision making process, but I think we also need to improve the triage process so that tickets requiring action (including decisions) can be directed to or found by the people responsible for making those next steps happen. Cheers. Tai. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-develop...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en.
