Re: year to date pull statistics (2016-07-09)
total open: 266 created since 2016-01-01 and still open: 137 created closed delta 2016-07-10 - today 25 24 -1 2016-07-03 - 2016-07-09 75 97 22 2016-06-26 - 2016-07-02 91 89 -2 2016-06-19 - 2016-06-25 44 24-20 2016-06-12 - 2016-06-18 37 48 11 2016-06-05 - 2016-06-11 40 42 2 2016-05-29 - 2016-06-04 59 66 7 2016-05-22 - 2016-05-28 46 33-13 2016-05-15 - 2016-05-21 40 36 -4 2016-05-08 - 2016-05-14 82 55-27 2016-05-01 - 2016-05-07 37 59+22 2016-04-24 - 2016-04-30 74 85+11 2016-04-17 - 2016-04-23 51 58 +7 2016-04-10 - 2016-04-16 52 58 +6 2016-04-03 - 2016-04-09 64 44-20 2016-03-27 - 2016-04-02 65 60 -5 2016-03-20 - 2016-03-26 65 62 -3 2016-03-13 - 2016-03-19 44 51 +7 2016-03-06 - 2016-03-12 41 46 +5 2016-02-28 - 2016-03-05 54 47 -7 2016-02-21 - 2016-02-27 29 20 -9 2016-02-14 - 2016-02-20 32 36 +4 2016-02-07 - 2016-02-13 52 52 0 2016-01-31 - 2016-02-06 54 61 +7 2016-01-24 - 2016-01-30 40 37 -3 2016-01-17 - 2016-01-23 31 21-10 2016-01-10 - 2016-01-16 39 42 +3 2016-01-03 - 2016-01-09 26 33 +7 2016-01-01 - 2016-01-02 2 5 +3 --- ------ 13911391 0 https://auto-tester.puremagic.com/chart.ghtml?projectid=1
Re: year to date pull statistics (2016-06-25)
On 06/29/2016 08:58 PM, Brad Roberts via Digitalmars-d wrote: total open: 295 created since 2016-01-01 and still open: 159 created closed delta 2016-06-26 - today 47 37-10 2016-06-19 - 2016-06-25 44 24-20 2016-06-12 - 2016-06-18 37 48 11 2016-06-05 - 2016-06-11 40 42 2 2016-05-29 - 2016-06-04 59 66 7 2016-05-22 - 2016-05-28 46 33-13 2016-05-15 - 2016-05-21 40 36 -4 2016-05-08 - 2016-05-14 82 55-27 2016-05-01 - 2016-05-07 37 59+22 2016-04-24 - 2016-04-30 74 85+11 2016-04-17 - 2016-04-23 51 58 +7 2016-04-10 - 2016-04-16 52 58 +6 2016-04-03 - 2016-04-09 64 44-20 2016-03-27 - 2016-04-02 65 60 -5 2016-03-20 - 2016-03-26 65 62 -3 2016-03-13 - 2016-03-19 44 51 +7 2016-03-06 - 2016-03-12 41 46 +5 2016-02-28 - 2016-03-05 54 47 -7 2016-02-21 - 2016-02-27 29 20 -9 2016-02-14 - 2016-02-20 32 36 +4 2016-02-07 - 2016-02-13 52 52 0 2016-01-31 - 2016-02-06 54 61 +7 2016-01-24 - 2016-01-30 40 37 -3 2016-01-17 - 2016-01-23 31 21-10 2016-01-10 - 2016-01-16 39 42 +3 2016-01-03 - 2016-01-09 26 33 +7 2016-01-01 - 2016-01-02 2 5 +3 --- ------ 12471218-29 https://auto-tester.puremagic.com/chart.ghtml?projectid=1 My dream: this is part of dlang.org, laid out in its style, and automatically kept up to date. -- Andrei
Re: year to date pull statistics (2016-06-25)
total open: 295 created since 2016-01-01 and still open: 159 created closed delta 2016-06-26 - today 47 37-10 2016-06-19 - 2016-06-25 44 24-20 2016-06-12 - 2016-06-18 37 48 11 2016-06-05 - 2016-06-11 40 42 2 2016-05-29 - 2016-06-04 59 66 7 2016-05-22 - 2016-05-28 46 33-13 2016-05-15 - 2016-05-21 40 36 -4 2016-05-08 - 2016-05-14 82 55-27 2016-05-01 - 2016-05-07 37 59+22 2016-04-24 - 2016-04-30 74 85+11 2016-04-17 - 2016-04-23 51 58 +7 2016-04-10 - 2016-04-16 52 58 +6 2016-04-03 - 2016-04-09 64 44-20 2016-03-27 - 2016-04-02 65 60 -5 2016-03-20 - 2016-03-26 65 62 -3 2016-03-13 - 2016-03-19 44 51 +7 2016-03-06 - 2016-03-12 41 46 +5 2016-02-28 - 2016-03-05 54 47 -7 2016-02-21 - 2016-02-27 29 20 -9 2016-02-14 - 2016-02-20 32 36 +4 2016-02-07 - 2016-02-13 52 52 0 2016-01-31 - 2016-02-06 54 61 +7 2016-01-24 - 2016-01-30 40 37 -3 2016-01-17 - 2016-01-23 31 21-10 2016-01-10 - 2016-01-16 39 42 +3 2016-01-03 - 2016-01-09 26 33 +7 2016-01-01 - 2016-01-02 2 5 +3 --- ------ 12471218-29 https://auto-tester.puremagic.com/chart.ghtml?projectid=1
Re: year to date pull statistics (week ending 2016-05-28)
On Thursday, 2 June 2016 at 18:36:02 UTC, Basile B. wrote: On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 at 23:48:00 UTC, Brad Roberts wrote: [...] You should take Jack Stouffer in dlang ;) . Perso I think that in the phobos the problem is that the people who should manage it are not enough available. I am fully for that - Jack has been doing a great job lately at cleaning up & reviewing Phobos. He has more than earned his promotion!
Re: year to date pull statistics (week ending 2016-05-28)
On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 at 23:48:00 UTC, Brad Roberts wrote: total open: 284 created since 2016-01-01 and still open: 142 created closed delta 2016-05-29 - today 25 25 0 2016-05-22 - 2016-05-28 46 34-12 2016-05-15 - 2016-05-21 40 36 -4 2016-05-08 - 2016-05-14 82 55-27 2016-05-01 - 2016-05-07 37 59+22 2016-04-24 - 2016-04-30 74 85+11 2016-04-17 - 2016-04-23 51 58 +7 2016-04-10 - 2016-04-16 52 58 +6 2016-04-03 - 2016-04-09 64 44-20 2016-03-27 - 2016-04-02 65 60 -5 2016-03-20 - 2016-03-26 65 62 -3 2016-03-13 - 2016-03-19 44 51 +7 2016-03-06 - 2016-03-12 41 46 +5 2016-02-28 - 2016-03-05 54 47 -7 2016-02-21 - 2016-02-27 29 20 -9 2016-02-14 - 2016-02-20 32 36 +4 2016-02-07 - 2016-02-13 52 52 0 2016-01-31 - 2016-02-06 54 61 +7 2016-01-24 - 2016-01-30 40 37 -3 2016-01-17 - 2016-01-23 31 21-10 2016-01-10 - 2016-01-16 39 42 +3 2016-01-03 - 2016-01-09 26 33 +7 2016-01-01 - 2016-01-02 2 5 +3 --- ------ 10451027-18 https://auto-tester.puremagic.com/chart.ghtml?projectid=1 You should take Jack Stouffer in dlang ;) . Perso I think that in the phobos the problem is that the people who should manage it are not enough available.
Re: year to date pull statistics (week ending 2016-05-28)
On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 at 23:48:00 UTC, Brad Roberts wrote: total open: 252 created since 2016-01-01 and still open: 106 ... total open: 284 created since 2016-01-01 and still open: 142 Ouch - that's a huge spike! What happened to the idea from dconf to automatically assing PR managers based on a hard-coded maintainers for modules and randomly otherwise? Other ideas?
Re: year to date pull statistics (week ending 2016-05-28)
total open: 284 created since 2016-01-01 and still open: 142 created closed delta 2016-05-29 - today 25 25 0 2016-05-22 - 2016-05-28 46 34-12 2016-05-15 - 2016-05-21 40 36 -4 2016-05-08 - 2016-05-14 82 55-27 2016-05-01 - 2016-05-07 37 59+22 2016-04-24 - 2016-04-30 74 85+11 2016-04-17 - 2016-04-23 51 58 +7 2016-04-10 - 2016-04-16 52 58 +6 2016-04-03 - 2016-04-09 64 44-20 2016-03-27 - 2016-04-02 65 60 -5 2016-03-20 - 2016-03-26 65 62 -3 2016-03-13 - 2016-03-19 44 51 +7 2016-03-06 - 2016-03-12 41 46 +5 2016-02-28 - 2016-03-05 54 47 -7 2016-02-21 - 2016-02-27 29 20 -9 2016-02-14 - 2016-02-20 32 36 +4 2016-02-07 - 2016-02-13 52 52 0 2016-01-31 - 2016-02-06 54 61 +7 2016-01-24 - 2016-01-30 40 37 -3 2016-01-17 - 2016-01-23 31 21-10 2016-01-10 - 2016-01-16 39 42 +3 2016-01-03 - 2016-01-09 26 33 +7 2016-01-01 - 2016-01-02 2 5 +3 --- ------ 10451027-18 https://auto-tester.puremagic.com/chart.ghtml?projectid=1
Re: year to date pull statistics (week ending 2016-05-07)
total open: 252 created since 2016-01-01 and still open: 106 created closed delta 2016-05-08 - today 46 35-11 2016-05-01 - 2016-05-07 37 59+22 2016-04-24 - 2016-04-30 74 85+11 2016-04-17 - 2016-04-23 51 58 +7 2016-04-10 - 2016-04-16 52 58 +6 2016-04-03 - 2016-04-09 64 44-20 2016-03-27 - 2016-04-02 65 60 -5 2016-03-20 - 2016-03-26 65 62 -3 2016-03-13 - 2016-03-19 44 51 +7 2016-03-06 - 2016-03-12 41 46 +5 2016-02-28 - 2016-03-05 54 47 -7 2016-02-21 - 2016-02-27 29 20 -9 2016-02-14 - 2016-02-20 32 36 +4 2016-02-07 - 2016-02-13 52 52 0 2016-01-31 - 2016-02-06 54 61 +7 2016-01-24 - 2016-01-30 40 37 -3 2016-01-17 - 2016-01-23 31 21-10 2016-01-10 - 2016-01-16 39 42 +3 2016-01-03 - 2016-01-09 26 33 +7 2016-01-01 - 2016-01-02 2 5 +3 --- ------ 898 912 14 https://auto-tester.puremagic.com/chart.ghtml?projectid=1
Re: year to date pull statistics (week ending 2016-04-30)
total open: 265 created since 2016-01-01 and still open: 110 created closed delta 2016-05-01 - today 16 14 -2 2016-04-24 - 2016-04-30 74 85+11 2016-04-17 - 2016-04-23 51 58 +7 2016-04-10 - 2016-04-16 52 58 +6 2016-04-03 - 2016-04-09 64 44-20 2016-03-27 - 2016-04-02 65 60 -5 2016-03-20 - 2016-03-26 65 62 -3 2016-03-13 - 2016-03-19 44 51 +7 2016-03-06 - 2016-03-12 41 46 +5 2016-02-28 - 2016-03-05 54 47 -7 2016-02-21 - 2016-02-27 29 20 -9 2016-02-14 - 2016-02-20 32 36 +4 2016-02-07 - 2016-02-13 52 52 0 2016-01-31 - 2016-02-06 54 61 +7 2016-01-24 - 2016-01-30 40 37 -3 2016-01-17 - 2016-01-23 31 21-10 2016-01-10 - 2016-01-16 39 42 +3 2016-01-03 - 2016-01-09 26 33 +7 2016-01-01 - 2016-01-02 2 5 +3 --- ------ 831 832 1 https://auto-tester.puremagic.com/chart.ghtml?projectid=1
Re: year to date pull statistics
The astute observer might notice that the past results aren't 100% constant (and that I skipped a week): 1) I had a sign flip issue for april in the delta column. That column is: closed - created. 2) some past weeks have slightly different closed counts than previous emails. That can occur when a pull is reopened and then closed. The pull will be removed from the past week and reappear in the newer week. total open: 273 created since 2016-01-01 and still open: 114 created closed delta 2016-04-24 - today 16 17 +1 2016-04-17 - 2016-04-23 51 58 +7 2016-04-10 - 2016-04-16 52 58 +6 2016-04-03 - 2016-04-09 64 44-20 2016-03-27 - 2016-04-02 65 60 -5 2016-03-20 - 2016-03-26 65 62 -3 2016-03-13 - 2016-03-19 44 51 +7 2016-03-06 - 2016-03-12 41 46 +5 2016-02-28 - 2016-03-05 54 47 -7 2016-02-21 - 2016-02-27 29 20 -9 2016-02-14 - 2016-02-20 32 36 +4 2016-02-07 - 2016-02-13 52 52 0 2016-01-31 - 2016-02-06 54 61 +7 2016-01-24 - 2016-01-30 40 37 -3 2016-01-17 - 2016-01-23 31 21-10 2016-01-10 - 2016-01-16 39 42 +3 2016-01-03 - 2016-01-09 26 33 +7 2016-01-01 - 2016-01-02 2 5 +3 --- ------ 757 750 -7 https://auto-tester.puremagic.com/chart.ghtml?projectid=1
Re: year to date pull statistics (week ending 2016-04-09)
On Monday, 11 April 2016 at 20:44:20 UTC, Brad Roberts wrote: 2016-04-03 - 2016-04-09 64 45+19 Ouch, slow week for reviewing I guess.
Re: year to date pull statistics (week ending 2016-04-09)
total open: 270 created since 2016-01-01 and still open: 100 created closed delta 2016-04-10 - today 9 10 -1 2016-04-03 - 2016-04-09 64 45+19 2016-03-27 - 2016-04-02 65 60 +5 2016-03-20 - 2016-03-26 65 63 +2 2016-03-13 - 2016-03-19 44 51 -7 2016-03-06 - 2016-03-12 41 46 +5 2016-02-28 - 2016-03-05 54 48 -6 2016-02-21 - 2016-02-27 29 20 -9 2016-02-14 - 2016-02-20 32 36 +4 2016-02-07 - 2016-02-13 52 52 0 2016-01-31 - 2016-02-06 54 61 +7 2016-01-24 - 2016-01-30 40 37 -3 2016-01-17 - 2016-01-23 31 21-10 2016-01-10 - 2016-01-16 39 42 +3 2016-01-03 - 2016-01-09 26 33 +7 2016-01-01 - 2016-01-02 2 5 +3 --- ------ 647 630+17 https://auto-tester.puremagic.com/chart.ghtml?projectid=1
Re: year to date pull statistics (week ending 2016-04-02)
total open: 270 created since 2016-01-01 and still open: 100 created closed delta 2016-04-03 - today 15 10 +5 2016-03-27 - 2016-04-02 65 60 +5 2016-03-20 - 2016-03-26 65 63 +2 2016-03-13 - 2016-03-19 44 51 -7 2016-03-06 - 2016-03-12 41 46 +5 2016-02-28 - 2016-03-05 54 48 -6 2016-02-21 - 2016-02-27 29 20 -9 2016-02-14 - 2016-02-20 32 36 +4 2016-02-07 - 2016-02-13 52 52 0 2016-01-31 - 2016-02-06 54 61 +7 2016-01-24 - 2016-01-30 40 37 -3 2016-01-17 - 2016-01-23 31 21-10 2016-01-10 - 2016-01-16 39 42 +3 2016-01-03 - 2016-01-09 26 33 +7 2016-01-01 - 2016-01-02 2 5 +3 --- ------ 589 585 +4 https://auto-tester.puremagic.com/chart.ghtml?projectid=1
Re: year to date pull statistics (week ending 2016-03-26)
total open: 264 created since 2016-01-01 and still open: 93 created closed delta 2016-03-27 - today 20 16 +4 2016-03-20 - 2016-03-26 65 63 +2 2016-03-13 - 2016-03-19 44 51 -7 2016-03-06 - 2016-03-12 41 46 +5 2016-02-28 - 2016-03-05 54 48 -6 2016-02-21 - 2016-02-27 29 20 -9 2016-02-14 - 2016-02-20 32 36 +4 2016-02-07 - 2016-02-13 52 52 0 2016-01-31 - 2016-02-06 54 61 +7 2016-01-24 - 2016-01-30 40 37 -3 2016-01-17 - 2016-01-23 31 21-10 2016-01-10 - 2016-01-16 39 42 +3 2016-01-03 - 2016-01-09 26 33 +7 2016-01-01 - 2016-01-02 2 5 +3 --- ------ 529 531 -2 https://auto-tester.puremagic.com/chart.ghtml?projectid=1
Re: year to date pull statistics
On Friday, 25 March 2016 at 14:50:49 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote: I think the problem is that we're horribly short of manpower here. Clearly. The D community is growing: http://forum.dlang.org/post/nbnl53$lb0$1...@digitalmars.com Unless the ranks of leadership are grown to match, it is inevitable that either the review queue will grow out of control, or D will simply develop a reputation as being more effort than it's worth to contribute to.
Re: year to date pull statistics
On Friday, 25 March 2016 at 14:50:49 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote: tl;dr: We need more Phobos reviewers, and more importantly, more committers. Many more, IMO. I've noticed recently that there has been an increase in the number of reviewers, which is a good sign, but not enough of them have been given commit rights. Which is understandable, since we don't want to just hand out commit rights to anybody who shows up -- but at the current rate we simply don't have the manpower to keep the PR queue to a reasonable size. Unfortunately, DMD has this problem threefold. There are like, four people who review and merge things for DMD, vs the 15-ish reviewers for Phobos and four of those people merge things. DMD's PR queue is not atypical however. I have heard that the Python interpreter has this same problem. DMD's problems are just more visable because it's on Github.
Re: year to date pull statistics
On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 04:11:15PM +, tsbockman via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Tuesday, 22 March 2016 at 15:33:23 UTC, PmLk wrote: > >On Tuesday, 22 March 2016 at 00:20:56 UTC, tsbockman wrote: > >>It's to the point where I feel kind of guilty about opening new pull > >>requests. > > > >You shouldn't. It's not your fault if the authors let their PR > >sleeping during 6 months without maintaining them. If you look at the > >tail of the queue, 60% of the PR don't even pass anymore. > > Yes, but it is also quite common for pull requests that *are* being > maintained to get stalled for weeks or months, simply because no one > with the right skills/merge rights can find the time to respond. > > It's not uncommon to find pull requests whose last few messages are > mostly just "pings" from the author, separated by weeks or even > months, trying to get someone to finally review/merge the thing. I think the problem is that we're horribly short of manpower here. The thing is, Phobos is large -- *very* large -- and encompasses a pretty wide range of functionalities, and I, for one thing, don't feel qualified to review a lot of them. I'm reasonably confident to review range algorithms and the like, because I use them on a regular basis and so am reasonably familiar with how they ought to work. But for something like a new numerical algorithm, I have no idea where to even begin. Or things like std.xml, or std.json, that I never used, so I simply don't have the confidence that my review would do the PR justice. Or things like GC changes, std.regex engine hacks, that I don't feel confident to review because I simply don't have the time to dig into all the gory implementation details to know how to do a good job reviewing. And this is on top of the fact that I don't always have the time to sit down and go through a large changeset in detail, so when faced with a growing Phobos queue with many changes to unfamiliar modules, stuff I don't use (and thus don't really know how they *ought* to be used), and limited free time, I simply balk and just stick to relatively small PRs that can be reviewed quickly, that affect familiar modules or only involves relatively simple changes like doc improvements, etc.. This generally shouldn't be a problem if there are enough Phobos committers so that most of the areas are covered by somebody with expertise in that area, but the fact is that Phobos is too big for the current number of Phobos committers, and the committers we do have don't quite cover all of the Phobos modules, or even if we do, too many of us have only limited free time and may not get around to reviewing what needs to be reviewed within a reasonable timeframe. tl;dr: We need more Phobos reviewers, and more importantly, more committers. Many more, IMO. I've noticed recently that there has been an increase in the number of reviewers, which is a good sign, but not enough of them have been given commit rights. Which is understandable, since we don't want to just hand out commit rights to anybody who shows up -- but at the current rate we simply don't have the manpower to keep the PR queue to a reasonable size. T -- Error: Keyboard not attached. Press F1 to continue. -- Yoon Ha Lee, CONLANG
Re: year to date pull statistics
On 22.03.2016 16:33, PmLk wrote: You shouldn't. It's not your fault if the authors let their PR sleeping during 6 months without maintaining them. If you look at the tail of the queue, 60% of the PR don't even pass anymore. Unfortunately, authors are often not the problem. We can't expect contributors to keep a PR up to date for months without review. A PR that has become unmergeable can usually still be reviewed. I'd guess that the merge conflicts are trivial most of the time. And if a committer wants to go forward with a PR, they can (and do) just ask the author to update it.
Re: year to date pull statistics
On Tuesday, 22 March 2016 at 15:33:23 UTC, PmLk wrote: On Tuesday, 22 March 2016 at 00:20:56 UTC, tsbockman wrote: It's to the point where I feel kind of guilty about opening new pull requests. You shouldn't. It's not your fault if the authors let their PR sleeping during 6 months without maintaining them. If you look at the tail of the queue, 60% of the PR don't even pass anymore. Yes, but it is also quite common for pull requests that *are* being maintained to get stalled for weeks or months, simply because no one with the right skills/merge rights can find the time to respond. It's not uncommon to find pull requests whose last few messages are mostly just "pings" from the author, separated by weeks or even months, trying to get someone to finally review/merge the thing.
Re: year to date pull statistics
On Tuesday, 22 March 2016 at 00:20:56 UTC, tsbockman wrote: On Monday, 21 March 2016 at 21:25:18 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote: But then Dicebot quit working on Phobos, and I got busy, and things just spiralled out of control again. On topic, I do notice the queue has gotten rather long... I've also noticed this, in phobos, 3 weeks ago the count has jumped from +/-70PR to +/-90PR. It's to the point where I feel kind of guilty about opening new pull requests. You shouldn't. It's not your fault if the authors let their PR sleeping during 6 months without maintaining them. If you look at the tail of the queue, 60% of the PR don't even pass anymore. I mean that people could stop proposing small improvments, small bug fixes, etc so that the manpower focuses on the "big" stuff but it doesn't mean that the status of the old stuff will change suddenly. (Note well that I only speak about Phobos here).
Re: year to date pull statistics
On Monday, 21 March 2016 at 21:25:18 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote: Let X be the set not defined by this sentence... [OT] Your signature line is trying to make my brain explode. Last year Dicebot, myself, and a bunch of others managed to get the queue down to the high 30's / low 40's, or thereabouts. But then Dicebot quit working on Phobos, and I got busy, and things just spiralled out of control again. On topic, I do notice the queue has gotten rather long... It's to the point where I feel kind of guilty about opening new pull requests.
Re: year to date pull statistics
On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 01:59:29PM -0700, Brad Roberts via Digitalmars-d wrote: > Another week, so another update to the pull statistics for the D-P-L > dmd, runtime, and phobos repositories. There's been a bit of progress > chipping away at the queue, though there's still a long way to go. > The number of open phobos pulls has grown quite a bit over the last > few weeks and months, currently 92. I don't have the details readily > available, but wasn't there a point in the last year where phobos was > down to something like 20 open pull requests? [...] Last year Dicebot, myself, and a bunch of others managed to get the queue down to the high 30's / low 40's, or thereabouts. But then Dicebot quit working on Phobos, and I got busy, and things just spiralled out of control again. T -- Let X be the set not defined by this sentence...
Re: year to date pull statistics
Another week, so another update to the pull statistics for the D-P-L dmd, runtime, and phobos repositories. There's been a bit of progress chipping away at the queue, though there's still a long way to go. The number of open phobos pulls has grown quite a bit over the last few weeks and months, currently 92. I don't have the details readily available, but wasn't there a point in the last year where phobos was down to something like 20 open pull requests? total open: 260 created since 2016-01-01 and still open: 85 created closed delta 2016-03-20 - today 21 19 +2 2016-03-13 - 2016-03-19 44 51 -7 2016-03-06 - 2016-03-12 41 46 +5 2016-02-28 - 2016-03-05 54 48 -6 2016-02-21 - 2016-02-27 29 20 -9 2016-02-14 - 2016-02-20 32 36 +4 2016-02-07 - 2016-02-13 52 52 0 2016-01-31 - 2016-02-06 54 61 +7 2016-01-24 - 2016-01-30 40 37 -3 2016-01-17 - 2016-01-23 31 21-10 2016-01-10 - 2016-01-16 39 42 +3 2016-01-03 - 2016-01-09 26 33 +7 2016-01-01 - 2016-01-02 2 5 +3 --- ------ 465 471 -6 Oldest open pull for each repository: dmd: 2012-09-27 https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/1145 Add -versions option to list predefined version identifiers. druntime: 2014-02-14 https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/druntime/pull/724 assumeLocal: convert shared lvalue to a non-shared one phobos: 2014-03-14 https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/2011 fix Issue 12368 - std.file.write conflicts with std.stdio.write Later, Brad
Re: year to date pull statistics
Updating last week's email, the pull statistics for the D-P-L dmd, runtime, and phobos repositories: total open: 263 created since 2016-01-01 and still open: 82 created closed delta 2016-03-13 - today 8 10 +2 2016-03-06 - 2016-13-12 41 46 +5 2016-02-28 - 2016-03-05 54 48 -6 2016-02-21 - 2016-02-27 29 20 -9 2016-02-14 - 2016-02-20 32 36 +4 2016-02-07 - 2016-02-13 52 52 0 2016-01-31 - 2016-02-06 54 61 +7 2016-01-24 - 2016-01-30 40 37 -3 2016-01-17 - 2016-01-23 31 21-10 2016-01-10 - 2016-01-16 39 42 +3 2016-01-03 - 2016-01-09 26 33 +7 2016-01-01 - 2016-01-02 2 5 +3 --- ------ 408 411 -3 Oldest open pull request: https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/692
year to date pull statistics
A topic that rolls around periodically is the number of open pulls and or the frequency at which a pull is 'ignored' (no, it's not ignored, it's just lost in the noise). I've dug up some rate of change statistics for the year to date for pulls to the D-P-L master branches of the dmd, druntime, and phobos repositories: created closed delta 2016-03-06 - today 12 10 -2 2016-02-28 - 2016-03-05 54 48 -6 2016-02-21 - 2016-02-27 29 20 -9 2016-02-14 - 2016-02-20 32 36 +4 2016-02-07 - 2016-02-13 52 52 0 2016-01-31 - 2016-02-06 54 61 +7 2016-01-24 - 2016-01-30 40 37 -3 2016-01-17 - 2016-01-23 31 21-10 2016-01-10 - 2016-01-16 39 42 +3 2016-01-03 - 2016-01-09 26 33 +7 2016-01-01 - 2016-01-02 2 5 +3 --- ------ 371 365 -6 Not bad at all; lots of activity going on pretty much constantly. The problem is that there's so much traffic with such a large backlog: total open: 272 created since 2016-01-01 and still open: 86 that unless something brings a pull request to the top of the queue then it's visibility is shot. A great illustration of that effect is in the age (in number of days) histogram of closed pulls for all pulls created since 2016-01-01: +--+--+ | age | count(*) | acc% of closed +--+--+ |0 | 120 | 42% |1 | 64 | 65% |2 | 25 | 73% |3 | 12 | 78% |4 |5 | 79% |5 |5 | 81% |6 |6 | 83% |7 |6 | 85% |8 |5 | 87% |9 |5 | 89% | 10 |2 | 89% | 11 |2 | 90% | 12 |4 | | 13 |1 | | 14 |2 | | 15 |1 | | 16 |1 | | 17 |1 | | 18 |1 | | 20 |1 | | 21 |1 | | 22 |1 | | 23 |3 | | 24 |1 | | 26 |1 | | 28 |1 | | 29 |1 | | 37 |1 | | 39 |1 | | 41 |2 | | 42 |1 | | 46 |1 | | 47 |1 | +--+--+ sum: 285 So, I guess one point that comes from this data, and is already anecdotally well known, if you have a pull request that you believe is ready to be merged and nothing has progressed in a couple days or maybe a week, please ping the PR. Chances are good that it has simply fallen off the active radar. To see a live view of the above data: https://auto-tester.puremagic.com/chart.ghtml?projectid=1 The top graph is a histogram of the current number of open pull requests in monthly sized buckets. The next two are the same data as the first chart above broken down by week for the last year. The last two are similar but looking at the issue data rather than the pull data. Later, Brad
