În dum., 17 mar. 2019 la 23:22, Gergo Tisza gtisza@wikimedia.org a scris:
On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 8:23 AM Strainu strainu10@gmail.com wrote:
A large backlog by itself is not alarming. A growing one for components deployed to WMF sites is. It indicates insufficient attention is given to ongoing maintenance of projects after they are no longer "actively developed", which in turn creates resentment with the reporters.
It really doesn't. The backlog is the contact surface between stuff that exists and stuff that doesn't; all the things we don't have but which seem realistically within reach. As functionality expands, that surface expands too. It is a normal process.
Except functionality doesn't expand for not actively developed products, but the backlog does.
(We do have projects which are basically unmaintained. Those are not typically the ones producing lots of new tasks though, since most relevant issues have been filed already. And realistically the choice is between having poorly maintained components and having far less components. Would undeploying UploadWizard, for example, reduce resentment? I don't think so.)
It's all relative: if UW would be undeployed in favor of a different component that would cover some of the stuff lacking from UW, than I don't think we'd see much resentment. I would personally love to see regular code stewardship reviews for every deployed components which haven't had one in 2-3 years. After a couple of such iterations, I'm pretty sure we'd have a non-negligible number of extensions undeployed. Would that lead to resentment? Sure, but I don't think the level would be comparable. The main problem I see is there is no good way to decide how important something is beyond usage metrics.