The number of un-reviewed revisions for 1.18 has dropped below 500 for all of /trunk and below 200 for phase3:
mysql> select count(*),cr_status from code_rev where cr_repo_id = 1 \ and cr_id > 47450 and cr_id < 87529 and cr_path like \ '/trunk%' group by cr_status; +----------+-----------+ | count(*) | cr_status | +----------+-----------+ | 13951 | deferred | | 82 | fixme | | 339 | new | | 16534 | ok | | 1240 | old | | 1585 | resolved | | 793 | reverted | +----------+-----------+ 7 rows in set (0.06 sec) mysql>
This is great news!
From this and
http://toolserver.org/~robla/crstats/crstats.118all.html, It looks like we *could* drive the number of “new” revisions to 0 by the end of the week.
That would be stunning.
Mark.
Mark A. Hershberger wrote:
The number of un-reviewed revisions for 1.18 has dropped below 500 for all of /trunk and below 200 for phase3:
mysql> select count(*),cr_status from code_rev where cr_repo_id = 1 \ and cr_id > 47450 and cr_id < 87529 and cr_path like \ '/trunk%' group by cr_status; +----------+-----------+ | count(*) | cr_status | +----------+-----------+ | 13951 | deferred | | 82 | fixme | | 339 | new | | 16534 | ok | | 1240 | old | | 1585 | resolved | | 793 | reverted | +----------+-----------+ 7 rows in set (0.06 sec) mysql>
Your bounds seem a little strange here. I don't understand the lower bound in particular. Is there some special significance to r47450? The upper bound would most logically be r87519 given the "Branch points" document.[1] Clarification on the meaning behind these values would be appreciated. :-)
MZMcBride
MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com writes:
Your bounds seem a little strange here. I don't understand the lower bound in particular. Is there some special significance to r47450?
If you look at the CRstats page (http://toolserver.org/~robla/crstats/crstats.118all.html), you'll see the bounds match the ones given on that page:
Below is a history of commits and state changes to /trunk/phase3 between r47450 and r87529 since June 1, 2009.
Although r47450 is from February 18, 2009, so I'm not sure what the deal is there.
Mark.
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 10:59 PM, Ashar Voultoiz hashar+wmf@free.fr wrote:
Someone is copy pasting the same .html file on each release over and over since the tool was created :-)
Yeah, it was a rush job.
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 1:53 AM, Roan Kattouw roan.kattouw@gmail.com wrote:
I think r47450 is RobLa's cut-off point for "before this point, revisions being mass-set to old/ok screw up the stats".
Yup, that's it.
Rob
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Ashar Voultoiz hashar+wmf@free.fr wrote:
On 29/06/11 18:53, Rob Lanphier wrote: ..
Yeah, it was a rush job.
You gave me the git repo at one point. Still haven't managed to look at the code and enhance it. Maybe we could add it to the subversion repository and have volunteers enhance it.
Even cooler would be integrating this into CodeReview itself, perhaps alongside what we have at [0]
-Chad
[0] http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:Code/MediaWiki/stats
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 3:03 AM, Mark A. Hershberger mhershberger@wikimedia.org wrote:
Although r47450 is from February 18, 2009, so I'm not sure what the deal is there.
I think r47450 is RobLa's cut-off point for "before this point, revisions being mass-set to old/ok screw up the stats".
Roan
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org