+1 to Niharika - the initial iteration caused some inconvenience, but I expect subsequent iterations to be useful. Thank you Paladox!
On 22 Jan 2019, at 13:09, Niharika Kohli nkohli@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 6:12 PM Paladox via Wikitech-l < wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
What your saying is making me think I’m wasting my time on improving this extension. Also other users that have spoken to me have thought this extension is great but could do with improvements which I am doing. We need to think of new users and how to improve there experence. The task was opened for a long while yet no one commented on it. I agree with legoktm feedback. “A process that annoys people based on nothing but the fact that theyhappened to be the last one touching a file *is* fundamentally broken.” yes hence why I’ve been making improvements by adding a button which is better then nothing right? As chad mentions it has no idea what is a typo fix compared to other things as it’s not A.I.
Thanks for working on this, Paladox. I think this can be a really useful feature for newcomers and experienced developers alike, if implemented well. I look forward to seeing it in action.
On Tuesday, 22 January 2019, 12:05:24 GMT, Thiemo Kreuz < thiemo.kreuz@wikimedia.de> wrote:
Fundamentally broken sounds like a bit of a stretch.
A process that annoys people based on nothing but the fact that they happened to be the last one touching a file *is* fundamentally broken. This is not how anyone should look for reviewers, neither manually nor automatically.
Here is a thought experiment: We could send review requests to the *least* active users that are still around, but *never* touched a file. The positive effects of such an approach include:
- More people get familiar with the code.
- Knowledge gets spread more evenly.
- Bottlenecks and bus factors get reduced.
- These people probably have more time.
- Review requests are spread more evenly.
- Workload is spread more evenly.
Still sounds like a bad idea? Sure, because it is. Now tell me: How is it more clever to do the *opposite* and dump review requests on people that have to much workload already?
At this point I don't care any more if we are talking about a fully automated process or a suggest button. Both are targeting the wrong people.
it was probably working quite well for our less-trafficked repositories.
What is the difference between being the last one fixing a typo in a low-traffic vs. high-traffic repository? In both cases it's the wrong person.
Thiemo
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
-- Niharika Product Manager Community Tech Wikimedia Foundation _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l