Hi everyone,
As you know, the review backlog didn't go away when we moved to Gerrit, but our visibility and pretty graphs did. I haven't had the time to sort out a new way of generating the graphs, but I at least have a way of querying the number of revisions, so long as it stays below 500.
Here's the technique, which works if you've got a valid gerrit account: ssh -p 29418 gerrit.wikimedia.org gerrit query 'status:open project:^mediawiki/.*' | grep rowCount
On Friday, we had 101 unreviewed revisions. As of a little bit ago, it's 88, so we seem to be holding steady, at least. To see what those 88 revisions are, go here: https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#q,status:open+project:%255Emediawiki/.*,n,z
Note that the review queue is different in a number of ways from the old way of doing things. The biggest and most obvious is that none of these have actually been merged into master (trunk), so nothing in this queue really blocks a deployment. Also, that query is a bit simplistic, as it doesn't filter out the stuff that was rejected or reviewed and effectively "fixme"d, but not abandoned by the author. To do that, you need:
ssh -p 29418 gerrit.wikimedia.org gerrit query 'status:open project:^mediawiki/.* AND NOT label:CodeReview=-2 AND NOT label:CodeReview=-1' | grep rowCount
...which knocks the count back to 51.
What I think this all means we're doing pretty good so far at keeping up. We don't have enough experience to really feel confident we're on top of this, but so far, so good.
Rob
I'd be curious to see some stats on commit activity. I suspect it took quite a dive when switching to git and has still to fully recover. So does not seem very surprising that we have no backlog building up.
Sent from my Android phone.
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Jeroen De Dauw jeroendedauw@gmail.comwrote:
I'd be curious to see some stats on commit activity. I suspect it took quite a dive when switching to git and has still to fully recover. So does not seem very surprising that we have no backlog building up.
I don't have full stats, but I did a little ad hoc investigation of core (not extensions)
It appears as though we did take a hit right after the migration, but not a huge one. Last week was a return to normal: Week of 2012-01-01: 203 Week of 2012-01-08: 179 Week of 2012-01-15: 118 Week of 2012-01-22: 108 Week of 2012-01-29: 100 Week of 2012-02-05: 168 Week of 2012-02-12: 131 Week of 2012-02-19: 125 Week of 2012-02-26: 99 Week of 2012-03-04: 107 Week of 2012-03-11: 88 Week of 2012-03-18: 87 Week of 2012-03-25: 53 Week of 2012-04-01: 118
It's a bit of an apples-to-apples comparison, because code that was reverted shows up in the pre-Git numbers, but doesn't show up post-Git. However, on the flip side, Roan's mass revert shows up as post-review merging.
Here's the command used to generate last week's number: echo "Week of 2012-04-01: "`git log --format="%s" --abbrev-commit --since="2012-04-01 00:00 UTC" --until="2012-04-08 00:00 UTC" | grep -v "^Merge " | wc -l`
Note that I'm trying to filter out merge commits, which there are a lot of.
Maybe extensions tell a different story, and maybe there's something I'm missing, but it looks like we're getting reasonably healthy activity as measured by commits.
You can see a longer history on the SVN side (though once again not entirely apples-to-apples) by going here: http://toolserver.org/~robla/crstats/?report=trunkphase3
...and graphing "newly new", which is new commits for a given week. 100-150 week is fairly typical for the past couple of years.
Rob
On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 18:37:03 -0700, Rob Lanphier robla@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Jeroen De Dauw jeroendedauw@gmail.comwrote:
I'd be curious to see some stats on commit activity. I suspect it took quite a dive when switching to git and has still to fully recover. So does not seem very surprising that we have no backlog building up.
I don't have full stats, but I did a little ad hoc investigation of core (not extensions)
It appears as though we did take a hit right after the migration, but not a huge one. Last week was a return to normal: Week of 2012-01-01: 203 Week of 2012-01-08: 179 Week of 2012-01-15: 118 Week of 2012-01-22: 108 Week of 2012-01-29: 100 Week of 2012-02-05: 168 Week of 2012-02-12: 131 Week of 2012-02-19: 125 Week of 2012-02-26: 99 Week of 2012-03-04: 107 Week of 2012-03-11: 88 Week of 2012-03-18: 87 Week of 2012-03-25: 53 Week of 2012-04-01: 118
It's a bit of an apples-to-apples comparison, because code that was reverted shows up in the pre-Git numbers, but doesn't show up post-Git. However, on the flip side, Roan's mass revert shows up as post-review merging.
Here's the command used to generate last week's number: echo "Week of 2012-04-01: "`git log --format="%s" --abbrev-commit --since="2012-04-01 00:00 UTC" --until="2012-04-08 00:00 UTC" | grep -v "^Merge " | wc -l`
Note that I'm trying to filter out merge commits, which there are a lot of.
Maybe extensions tell a different story, and maybe there's something I'm missing, but it looks like we're getting reasonably healthy activity as measured by commits.
You can see a longer history on the SVN side (though once again not entirely apples-to-apples) by going here: http://toolserver.org/~robla/crstats/?report=trunkphase3
...and graphing "newly new", which is new commits for a given week. 100-150 week is fairly typical for the past couple of years.
Rob
It would be interesting to recalculate this on a person-to-person basis. Instead of counting by totals look at the frequency of a user's contributions and see if it looks like the switch caused any of our contributors to commit less frequently.
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 10:28 PM, Daniel Friesen lists@nadir-seen-fire.comwrote:
It would be interesting to recalculate this on a person-to-person basis. Instead of counting by totals look at the frequency of a user's contributions and see if it looks like the switch caused any of our contributors to commit less frequently.
You should do that! ;-)
Rob
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org