On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 3:37 AM, Rob Lanphier <robla(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
Our Analytics crew have worked out how to generate a
graph that gives
us a view into our code review backlog:
http://gerrit-stats.wmflabs.org/graphs/mediawiki
Yay. I've been awaiting this. Great to have something now.
These numbers seem to be +/- 10 revisions, and not
evenly off over the
history, so bear that in mind as you look at the numbers. In
particular, it seems to paint a slightly rosier picture for how we're
doing on keeping up with the backlog than we are.[2]
The graph for new changesets fluctuates a lot. I would guess this is
due to change sets submitted by user l10n-bot. Maybe it's a good idea
to filter those out, to get a line that's a little easier to
interpret.
As of this writing, there's 207 revisions that
have neither positive
nor negative reviews associated with them. That's still seems like a
pretty big number. 30 of those are more than a month old, and some
date back to May.
Add a third line that displays the open number of patch sets including comments?
How is the process working for everyone? Is stuff
getting reviewed
quickly enough? How has it been for the reviewers out there?
Review is a lot of work, especially if change sets are large. I try to
do a lot of it, both i18n/L10n related, as well as "easy patch sets".
I don't consider myself a well enough developer to approve the
harder/larger patch sets.
For some of the deprecated methods replacements, I have recently
teamed up with IAlex. Reciprocity works well in review.
A few things are very, very annoying. Most annoying is that pushing
directly to master still appears to be possible, which completely
removes patch sets from sight. They're there when you pull, but one
actually has to inspect the git log to see it's there and who dunnit.
From what I understand, Chad is planning on plugging
this hole, but
it's not going quick enough for me.
Cheers!
Siebrand