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 <jdoug...@wikimedia.org> 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 <jdlrob...@gmail.com> 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) > > <bjor...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 12:56 PM, Jon Robson <jdlrob...@gmail.com> > > 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 > > > Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > > > > > > > > -- > > Jon Robson > > * http://jonrobson.me.uk > > * https://www.facebook.com/jonrobson > > * @rakugojon > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikitech-l mailing list > > Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list > Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
