I was really happy to hear Damon, at the MediaWiki Developer Summit, ask us how long we take to code review and whether we had communicated a timeframe in which we promised to do it to our community. He quite rightly stressed that this was vital for the survival of our community. I spoke to one of our more new developers during the summit and he also confessed to me that the reason he was an active volunteer in our extension was that he got feedback on his code pretty quickly.
I had a few ideas about how to measure this so in my spare time I have generated this report based on data from Gerrit patchsets using a hacked together python script [1] which I hope will be if nothing else an interesting artifact to talk about and generate some discussion.
Introducing: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension_health
To help you understand what you are reading, let's take Echo as an example:
Project: mediawiki/extensions/Echo 524 patches analysed (23 open, 501 merged) Average review time: 29 days Oldest open patch: (bug 41987) Updating tables indexes' names. (766 days) - https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/40095
The average time for code to go from submitted to merged appears to be 29 days over a dataset of 524 patches, excluding all that were written by the L10n bot. There is a patchset there that has been _open_ for 766 days - if you look at it it was uploaded on Dec 23, 2012 12:23 PM is -1ed by me and needs a rebase.
There are many patches like this outside Echo. We should probably be seeing those patchsets through to completion or abandoning them on the basis that if it hasn't been merged in over 2 years it's probably not important and shouldn't be clogging up people's review queues and hiding other more important patchsets which need review.
The more troubling situation is when patches have been open for some time and have not been reviewed at all or are awaiting for some response... let's get better at this!
Help make this ecosystem better. I will rerun the script in a month and see if we have improved. Note our average time to review across all those projects seems to be 18 days. That's really not good. We can do better. We will do better.
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 12:56 PM, Jon Robson jdlrobson@gmail.com wrote:
The average time for code to go from submitted to merged appears to be 29 days over a dataset of 524 patches, excluding all that were written by the L10n bot. There is a patchset there that has been _open_ for 766 days - if you look at it it was uploaded on Dec 23, 2012 12:23 PM is -1ed by me and needs a rebase.
Mean or median?
I recall talk a while back about someone else (Quim, I think?) doing this same sort of analysis, and considering the same issues over patches that seem to have been abandoned by their author and so on, which led to discussions of whether we should go around abandoning patches that have been -1ed for a long time, etc. Without proper consideration of those sorts of issues, the statistics don't seem particularly useful.
Thanks for kicking off the conversation Brad :-)
Just mean at the moment. I hacked together and I'm more than happy to iterate on this and improve the reporting.
On the subject of patch abandonment: Personally I think we should be abandoning inactive patches. They cause unnecessary confusion to someone coming into a new extension wanting to help out. We may want to change the name to 'abandon' to 'remove from code review queue' as abandon sounds rather nasty and that's not at all what it actually does - any abandoned patch can be restored at any time if necessary.
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 1:11 PM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) bjorsch@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 12:56 PM, Jon Robson jdlrobson@gmail.com wrote:
The average time for code to go from submitted to merged appears to be 29 days over a dataset of 524 patches, excluding all that were written by the L10n bot. There is a patchset there that has been _open_ for 766 days - if you look at it it was uploaded on Dec 23, 2012 12:23 PM is -1ed by me and needs a rebase.
Mean or median?
I recall talk a while back about someone else (Quim, I think?) doing this same sort of analysis, and considering the same issues over patches that seem to have been abandoned by their author and so on, which led to discussions of whether we should go around abandoning patches that have been -1ed for a long time, etc. Without proper consideration of those sorts of issues, the statistics don't seem particularly useful.
-- Brad Jorsch (Anomie) Software Engineer Wikimedia Foundation _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
This is a situation where disciplined testing can come in really handy.
If I submit a patch, and the patch passes the tests that have been specified for the feature it implements (or the bug it fixes), and the code coverage is sufficiently high, then a reviewer has a running start in terms of confidence in the correctness and completeness of the patch.
Practically speaking, this doesn't necessarily rely on rest of the project already having a very level of code coverage; as long as there are tests laid out for the feature in question, and the patch makes those tests pass, it gives the code reviewer a real shot in the arm.
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 1:14 PM, Jon Robson jdlrobson@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for kicking off the conversation Brad :-)
Just mean at the moment. I hacked together and I'm more than happy to iterate on this and improve the reporting.
On the subject of patch abandonment: Personally I think we should be abandoning inactive patches. They cause unnecessary confusion to someone coming into a new extension wanting to help out. We may want to change the name to 'abandon' to 'remove from code review queue' as abandon sounds rather nasty and that's not at all what it actually does - any abandoned patch can be restored at any time if necessary.
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 1:11 PM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) bjorsch@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 12:56 PM, Jon Robson jdlrobson@gmail.com
wrote:
The average time for code to go from submitted to merged appears to be 29 days over a dataset of 524 patches, excluding all that were written by the L10n bot. There is a patchset there that has been _open_ for 766 days - if you look at it it was uploaded on Dec 23, 2012 12:23 PM is -1ed by me and needs a rebase.
Mean or median?
I recall talk a while back about someone else (Quim, I think?) doing this same sort of analysis, and considering the same issues over patches that seem to have been abandoned by their author and so on, which led to discussions of whether we should go around abandoning patches that have been -1ed for a long time, etc. Without proper consideration of those
sorts
of issues, the statistics don't seem particularly useful.
-- Brad Jorsch (Anomie) Software Engineer Wikimedia Foundation _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
-- Jon Robson
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
How about a simple script to create a phabricator task after a few days (a week?) of a patch inactivity to review that patch. It will allow "assign to", allow managers to see each dev's review queue, and will prevent patches to fall through the cracks.
Obviously this won't be needed after we move gerrit to phabricator.
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 1:44 PM, James Douglas jdouglas@wikimedia.org wrote:
This is a situation where disciplined testing can come in really handy.
If I submit a patch, and the patch passes the tests that have been specified for the feature it implements (or the bug it fixes), and the code coverage is sufficiently high, then a reviewer has a running start in terms of confidence in the correctness and completeness of the patch.
Practically speaking, this doesn't necessarily rely on rest of the project already having a very level of code coverage; as long as there are tests laid out for the feature in question, and the patch makes those tests pass, it gives the code reviewer a real shot in the arm.
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 1:14 PM, Jon Robson jdlrobson@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for kicking off the conversation Brad :-)
Just mean at the moment. I hacked together and I'm more than happy to iterate on this and improve the reporting.
On the subject of patch abandonment: Personally I think we should be abandoning inactive patches. They cause unnecessary confusion to someone coming into a new extension wanting to help out. We may want to change the name to 'abandon' to 'remove from code review queue' as abandon sounds rather nasty and that's not at all what it actually does - any abandoned patch can be restored at any time if necessary.
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 1:11 PM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) bjorsch@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 12:56 PM, Jon Robson jdlrobson@gmail.com
wrote:
The average time for code to go from submitted to merged appears to be 29 days over a dataset of 524 patches, excluding all that were written by the L10n bot. There is a patchset there that has been _open_ for 766 days - if you look at it it was uploaded on Dec 23, 2012 12:23 PM is -1ed by me and needs a rebase.
Mean or median?
I recall talk a while back about someone else (Quim, I think?) doing
this
same sort of analysis, and considering the same issues over patches
that
seem to have been abandoned by their author and so on, which led to discussions of whether we should go around abandoning patches that have been -1ed for a long time, etc. Without proper consideration of those
sorts
of issues, the statistics don't seem particularly useful.
-- Brad Jorsch (Anomie) Software Engineer Wikimedia Foundation _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
-- Jon Robson
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
I'd like us to start by using the review request system already in gerrit more fully.
Personally I've got a bunch of incoming reviews in my queue where I'm not sure the current status of them or if it's wise to land them. :)
First step is probably to go through the existing old patches in everybody's queues and either do the review, abandon the patch, or trim down reviewers who aren't familiar with the code area.
Rejected patches should be abandoned to get them out of the queues.
Then we should go through unassigned patches more aggressively...
We also need to make sure we have default reviewers for modules, which will be relevant also to triaging bug reports.
-- brion On Jan 29, 2015 2:03 PM, "Yuri Astrakhan" yastrakhan@wikimedia.org wrote:
How about a simple script to create a phabricator task after a few days (a week?) of a patch inactivity to review that patch. It will allow "assign to", allow managers to see each dev's review queue, and will prevent patches to fall through the cracks.
Obviously this won't be needed after we move gerrit to phabricator.
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 1:44 PM, James Douglas jdouglas@wikimedia.org wrote:
This is a situation where disciplined testing can come in really handy.
If I submit a patch, and the patch passes the tests that have been specified for the feature it implements (or the bug it fixes), and the
code
coverage is sufficiently high, then a reviewer has a running start in
terms
of confidence in the correctness and completeness of the patch.
Practically speaking, this doesn't necessarily rely on rest of the
project
already having a very level of code coverage; as long as there are tests laid out for the feature in question, and the patch makes those tests
pass,
it gives the code reviewer a real shot in the arm.
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 1:14 PM, Jon Robson jdlrobson@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for kicking off the conversation Brad :-)
Just mean at the moment. I hacked together and I'm more than happy to iterate on this and improve the reporting.
On the subject of patch abandonment: Personally I think we should be abandoning inactive patches. They cause unnecessary confusion to someone coming into a new extension wanting to help out. We may want to change the name to 'abandon' to 'remove from code review queue' as abandon sounds rather nasty and that's not at all what it actually does - any abandoned patch can be restored at any time if necessary.
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 1:11 PM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) bjorsch@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 12:56 PM, Jon Robson jdlrobson@gmail.com
wrote:
The average time for code to go from submitted to merged appears to
be
29 days over a dataset of 524 patches, excluding all that were
written
by the L10n bot. There is a patchset there that has been _open_ for 766 days - if you look at it it was uploaded on Dec 23, 2012 12:23
PM
is -1ed by me and needs a rebase.
Mean or median?
I recall talk a while back about someone else (Quim, I think?) doing
this
same sort of analysis, and considering the same issues over patches
that
seem to have been abandoned by their author and so on, which led to discussions of whether we should go around abandoning patches that
have
been -1ed for a long time, etc. Without proper consideration of those
sorts
of issues, the statistics don't seem particularly useful.
-- Brad Jorsch (Anomie) Software Engineer Wikimedia Foundation _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
-- Jon Robson
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
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Brion, i would love to use gerrit more fully (that is until we finally migrate! :)), but gerrit to my knowledge does not differentiate between a CC (review if you want to) and TO (i want you to +2). Having multiple cooks means some patches don't get merged at all. I feel each patch should be assigned to a person who will +2 it. This does not preclude others from +2ing it, but it designates one responsible for the answer.
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 2:33 PM, Brion Vibber bvibber@wikimedia.org wrote:
I'd like us to start by using the review request system already in gerrit more fully.
Personally I've got a bunch of incoming reviews in my queue where I'm not sure the current status of them or if it's wise to land them. :)
First step is probably to go through the existing old patches in everybody's queues and either do the review, abandon the patch, or trim down reviewers who aren't familiar with the code area.
Rejected patches should be abandoned to get them out of the queues.
Then we should go through unassigned patches more aggressively...
We also need to make sure we have default reviewers for modules, which will be relevant also to triaging bug reports.
-- brion On Jan 29, 2015 2:03 PM, "Yuri Astrakhan" yastrakhan@wikimedia.org wrote:
How about a simple script to create a phabricator task after a few days
(a
week?) of a patch inactivity to review that patch. It will allow "assign to", allow managers to see each dev's review queue, and will prevent patches to fall through the cracks.
Obviously this won't be needed after we move gerrit to phabricator.
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 1:44 PM, James Douglas jdouglas@wikimedia.org wrote:
This is a situation where disciplined testing can come in really handy.
If I submit a patch, and the patch passes the tests that have been specified for the feature it implements (or the bug it fixes), and the
code
coverage is sufficiently high, then a reviewer has a running start in
terms
of confidence in the correctness and completeness of the patch.
Practically speaking, this doesn't necessarily rely on rest of the
project
already having a very level of code coverage; as long as there are
tests
laid out for the feature in question, and the patch makes those tests
pass,
it gives the code reviewer a real shot in the arm.
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 1:14 PM, Jon Robson jdlrobson@gmail.com
wrote:
Thanks for kicking off the conversation Brad :-)
Just mean at the moment. I hacked together and I'm more than happy to iterate on this and improve the reporting.
On the subject of patch abandonment: Personally I think we should be abandoning inactive patches. They cause unnecessary confusion to someone coming into a new extension wanting to help out. We may want to change the name to 'abandon' to 'remove from code review queue' as abandon sounds rather nasty and that's not at all what it actually does - any abandoned patch can be restored at any time if necessary.
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 1:11 PM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) bjorsch@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 12:56 PM, Jon Robson jdlrobson@gmail.com
wrote:
The average time for code to go from submitted to merged appears
to
be
29 days over a dataset of 524 patches, excluding all that were
written
by the L10n bot. There is a patchset there that has been _open_
for
766 days - if you look at it it was uploaded on Dec 23, 2012 12:23
PM
is -1ed by me and needs a rebase.
Mean or median?
I recall talk a while back about someone else (Quim, I think?)
doing
this
same sort of analysis, and considering the same issues over patches
that
seem to have been abandoned by their author and so on, which led to discussions of whether we should go around abandoning patches that
have
been -1ed for a long time, etc. Without proper consideration of
those
sorts
of issues, the statistics don't seem particularly useful.
-- Brad Jorsch (Anomie) Software Engineer Wikimedia Foundation _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
-- Jon Robson
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
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
Good point Yuri -- a lot of those items on my queue are assigned to several reviewers so none of us feels ownership, and that's definitely part of the reason some of them sit around so long.
A regular bot run that assigns untouched review requests to a single person in Phab probably does make sense...
-- brion
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 2:48 PM, Yuri Astrakhan yastrakhan@wikimedia.org wrote:
Brion, i would love to use gerrit more fully (that is until we finally migrate! :)), but gerrit to my knowledge does not differentiate between a CC (review if you want to) and TO (i want you to +2). Having multiple cooks means some patches don't get merged at all. I feel each patch should be assigned to a person who will +2 it. This does not preclude others from +2ing it, but it designates one responsible for the answer.
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 2:33 PM, Brion Vibber bvibber@wikimedia.org wrote:
I'd like us to start by using the review request system already in gerrit more fully.
Personally I've got a bunch of incoming reviews in my queue where I'm not sure the current status of them or if it's wise to land them. :)
First step is probably to go through the existing old patches in everybody's queues and either do the review, abandon the patch, or trim down reviewers who aren't familiar with the code area.
Rejected patches should be abandoned to get them out of the queues.
Then we should go through unassigned patches more aggressively...
We also need to make sure we have default reviewers for modules, which
will
be relevant also to triaging bug reports.
-- brion On Jan 29, 2015 2:03 PM, "Yuri Astrakhan" yastrakhan@wikimedia.org wrote:
How about a simple script to create a phabricator task after a few days
(a
week?) of a patch inactivity to review that patch. It will allow
"assign
to", allow managers to see each dev's review queue, and will prevent patches to fall through the cracks.
Obviously this won't be needed after we move gerrit to phabricator.
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 1:44 PM, James Douglas <jdouglas@wikimedia.org
wrote:
This is a situation where disciplined testing can come in really
handy.
If I submit a patch, and the patch passes the tests that have been specified for the feature it implements (or the bug it fixes), and
the
code
coverage is sufficiently high, then a reviewer has a running start in
terms
of confidence in the correctness and completeness of the patch.
Practically speaking, this doesn't necessarily rely on rest of the
project
already having a very level of code coverage; as long as there are
tests
laid out for the feature in question, and the patch makes those tests
pass,
it gives the code reviewer a real shot in the arm.
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 1:14 PM, Jon Robson jdlrobson@gmail.com
wrote:
Thanks for kicking off the conversation Brad :-)
Just mean at the moment. I hacked together and I'm more than happy
to
iterate on this and improve the reporting.
On the subject of patch abandonment: Personally I think we should
be
abandoning inactive patches. They cause unnecessary confusion to someone coming into a new extension wanting to help out. We may
want
to change the name to 'abandon' to 'remove from code review queue'
as
abandon sounds rather nasty and that's not at all what it actually does - any abandoned patch can be restored at any time if
necessary.
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 1:11 PM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) bjorsch@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 12:56 PM, Jon Robson <
jdlrobson@gmail.com>
wrote:
> The average time for code to go from submitted to merged appears
to
be
> 29 days over a dataset of 524 patches, excluding all that were
written
> by the L10n bot. There is a patchset there that has been _open_
for
> 766 days - if you look at it it was uploaded on Dec 23, 2012
12:23
PM
> is -1ed by me and needs a rebase. >
Mean or median?
I recall talk a while back about someone else (Quim, I think?)
doing
this
same sort of analysis, and considering the same issues over
patches
that
seem to have been abandoned by their author and so on, which led
to
discussions of whether we should go around abandoning patches
that
have
been -1ed for a long time, etc. Without proper consideration of
those
sorts
of issues, the statistics don't seem particularly useful.
-- Brad Jorsch (Anomie) Software Engineer Wikimedia Foundation _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
-- Jon Robson
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
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
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Brion Vibber wrote:
Good point Yuri -- a lot of those items on my queue are assigned to several reviewers so none of us feels ownership, and that's definitely part of the reason some of them sit around so long.
A regular bot run that assigns untouched review requests to a single person in Phab probably does make sense...
Many Gerrit changesets already have an associated Phabricator task, of course. I'm wary of trying to tear down one queue by building another.
For Bugzilla (now Phabricator), we ended up creating a full-time position that focuses on reviewing, triaging, and generally handling bugs (now tasks). While I'm not still not sure I agree with this approach, a Review Wrangler or similar wouldn't be without precedent.
MZMcBride
On 2015-01-29 1:14 PM, Jon Robson wrote:
Thanks for kicking off the conversation Brad :-)
Just mean at the moment. I hacked together and I'm more than happy to iterate on this and improve the reporting.
On the subject of patch abandonment: Personally I think we should be abandoning inactive patches. They cause unnecessary confusion to someone coming into a new extension wanting to help out. We may want to change the name to 'abandon' to 'remove from code review queue' as abandon sounds rather nasty and that's not at all what it actually does - any abandoned patch can be restored at any time if necessary.
Unfortunately, under Gerrit, abandoning a patch puts "inactive, restore if you can finish it" patches in the same bin as "this was a complete failure".
Not only do you have to examine each abandoned patch individually to see if it's worth reopening, but after they leave your recently closed list they are all segregated to an obscure place not everyone knows how to get to (you have to manually search for "owner:self status:abandoned").
Proper handling of 'remove from code review queue' abandonment should include a section on a user's dashboard listing patches that have been removed from the queue due to inactivity, etc... but not outright rejected.
~Daniel Friesen (Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) [http://danielfriesen.name/]
The "remove from code review queue" is not that hard really, you can just remove yourself (and reviewers you added) from reviewers. The most helpful reviewers also comment on why they've removed themselves. If reviewers removed themselves from patches they have no intention whatsoever to review (which is fine), things would be much easier.
Other effective ways to effectively remove an open patch from the review workflows (and from the korma stats, though not from [[Gerrit/Reports]]) is to self-give a -1 and/or slap a "[WIP]" in the first line.
Nemo
But this doesn't remove it from the projects review queue (or search queries, if you just use "project:mediawiki/extensions/MobileFrontend status:open").
Kind regards, Florian
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: wikitech-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikitech-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] Im Auftrag von Federico Leva (Nemo) Gesendet: Freitag, 30. Januar 2015 08:52 An: wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org Betreff: Re: [Wikitech-l] Improving our code review efficiency
The "remove from code review queue" is not that hard really, you can just remove yourself (and reviewers you added) from reviewers. The most helpful reviewers also comment on why they've removed themselves. If reviewers removed themselves from patches they have no intention whatsoever to review (which is fine), things would be much easier.
Other effective ways to effectively remove an open patch from the review workflows (and from the korma stats, though not from [[Gerrit/Reports]]) is to self-give a -1 and/or slap a "[WIP]" in the first line.
Nemo
_______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
But this doesn't remove it from the projects review queue (or search queries, if you just use "project:mediawiki/extensions/MobileFrontend status:open").
IMHO the distinction between cleaning up personal and global dashboards is not so important. In the end, code review is performed by individuals. If each reviewer has a more relevant review queue, all reviewers will be more efficient and the backlog will decrease for everyone.
After all, we see from https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Gerrit/Reports/Code_review_activity that 20 reviewers do 50 % of the merging in gerrit. Some queries like those listed at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Gerrit/Navigation show that over ten users have over 100 review requests in their dashboards, among those who merged something in the last month. I doubt that's efficient for them.
Nemo
What about a Gerrit Cleanup Day involving all Wikimedia Foundation developers and whoever else wants to be involved?
Feedback welcome: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T88531
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 12:56 PM, Jon Robson jdlrobson@gmail.com wrote:
Introducing: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension_health
Interesting! I'm hopping between flights back to Europe, and I don't have time to review these metrics more carefully, but please check http://korma.wmflabs.org/browser/gerrit_review_queue.html and let me know what you miss.
As I mentioned to Nemo on the talk page, I want an easy way to see how my code review efficiency compares to other projects and to see which projects are getting more love than others. A few thoughts:
1) From http://korma.wmflabs.org/browser/repository.html?repository=gerrit.wikimedia... I can see it takes 3.2 days to get a review (I think - there are too many numbers to look at and no key to tell the difference) I can see on Echo http://korma.wmflabs.org/browser/repository.html?repository=gerrit.wikimedia... it is 10.7 days but want I really want is to see a league table type thing to tell where we are giving more attention compared to other projects.
2) Also I think an average review time is only really useful if it is based on data from the last month.
3) What about open patchsets - does average review time take into account that some patches still haven't got merged? If a patch has been sitting around for 100 days, I care more about this then an existing patch that got merged after 5 days. These should impact the average.
4) Also this dashboard is not actionable and has no call to action - why don't we show the most neglected patchsets on each page and encourage people to actually go and review them!
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Quim Gil qgil@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 12:56 PM, Jon Robson jdlrobson@gmail.com wrote:
Introducing: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension_health
Interesting! I'm hopping between flights back to Europe, and I don't have time to review these metrics more carefully, but please check http://korma.wmflabs.org/browser/gerrit_review_queue.html and let me know what you miss.
-- Quim Gil Engineering Community Manager @ Wikimedia Foundation http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Qgil _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org