On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:57 PM, Ashar Voultoiz hashar+wmf@free.fr wrote:
On 07/06/11 23:27, Rob Lanphier wrote:
http://toolserver.org/~robla/crstats/crstats.118all.html
And here's the goals I posted on Friday: 2011-Jun-03 1594 2011-Jun-10 1329 2011-Jun-17 1064 2011-Jun-24 799 2011-Jul-01 534 2011-Jul-08 269 2011-Jul-15 4
This is a linear progression, the revision become harder and harder to review since, with time, most of the easy stuff got reviewed :-) Make it a long tail maybe ? :-)
Well, kinda moot at this point. Unfortunately, we're not even beating a linear progression to a July 15 target: 2011-Jun-03 1594 2011-Jun-10 1435 2011-Jun-13 1427
Extrapolating from just the June 3 to June 10 review rates (two points! woohoo, it's a trend!), here's the rate: 2011-Jun-03 1594 2011-Jun-10 1435 2011-Jun-17 1276 2011-Jun-24 1117 2011-Jul-01 958 2011-Jul-08 799 2011-Jul-15 640 2011-Jul-22 481 2011-Jul-29 322 2011-Aug-05 163 2011-Aug-12 4
Not all of the news is bad. Most of the progress in the past week was in trunk, which is where the hardest review work is: 2011-Jun-03 670 2011-Jun-10 529
A linear projection there has us finishing up July 5. So, really, it's a matter of making sure we apply the same focus to extensions that we're applying to core, as well as keeping up with core reviews.
Ashar, you're point isn't lost, though. We know from past history that we don't tend to review at a linear rate when we buckle down. For example, here's the 1.17 cycle: http://toolserver.org/~robla/crstats/crstats.117all.html
We could probably figure out which flavor of curve fits the December-February portion of that graph, and probably get something with better predictive power. I'll admit to being too lazy + mathematically disinclined to work out which one it is, but I'd be happy if someone wanted to take a shot at it. The raw data: http://toolserver.org/~robla/crstats/data/1.17all/crstatsdata.js
The depressing projection that's likely to come of that is that instead of August, we're probably looking at October or later at our current rate of review.
I'm not making a big fuss about this until 1.17 is done, since I know, for example, that Tim has been doing the last bits of detail work necessary for a 1.17 tarball release, so he hasn't been able to make as much of a dent as others have been available for. Still, we're going to need to go faster than this to expect a deploy before August. Thoughts on how to accelerate?
Rob