[teampractices] Patch review culture of Wikimedia teams

[Brion Vibber]

I think some best practices here would be really helpful; not just for
members of staff teams reviewing each others' code as they work but
ensuring that patches contributed from other teams, other organizations,
and individuals outside our constellation of organizations get timely
attention and useful feedback.

Since informal leadership positions in MediaWiki-related development have
been largely swallowed up by Wikimedia Foundation hiring over the years, I
think it's essential that we (re?)develop a healthy culture for working
with those who aren't plugged directly into our reporting structures at WMF.

-- brion

On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 5:16 AM, Andre Klapper <aklapper at wikimedia.org>
wrote:

> Hej,
>
> https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T101686 lists "Prioritization / weak
> open source culture: more pressure to write new code than to review
> patches contributed."
>
> Apart from whether that statement is true or not:
> Does the Team Practices Group encourage regular Gerrit patch backlog
> grooming? If so, how, and is there any documentation available, or even
> data which teams perform better or worse? Is there any differentiation
> between "internal" patches by team members vs. contributed patches?
> Or is this out of scope for TPG?
>
> Thanks a lot!
> andre
> --
> Andre Klapper | Wikimedia Bugwrangler
> http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper/
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> teampractices mailing list
> teampractices at lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/teampractices
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/teampractices/attachments/20160308/7e6f5149/attachment.html>