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(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 12:56 PM, Jon Robson
<jdlrobson(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l