Open Stack

How many of the reviews that we WIP-1 will actually be revisited?

I'm sure there will be cases where a current developer forgetting they 
had started on something, seeing the e-mail about the WIP-1, and then 
abandoning the change.

But what about developers who have moved off the project entirely? Is 
this only masking the problem of stale reviews from our review stats and 
leaving the review queue to bloat?

I honestly don't know; those are real questions, not rhetorical ones 
trying to prove a point. I'd guess the longer-running OpenStack projects 
have had to deal with this as well, and perhaps I'm overestimating just 
how many of these perpetually in limbo reviews there are.


On 09/18/2014 03:26 AM, marios at redhat.com wrote:
> On 18/09/14 00:29, James Polley wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 6:26 PM, marios at redhat.com
>> <mailto:marios at redhat.com> <mandreou at redhat.com
>> <mailto:mandreou at redhat.com>> wrote:
>>
>>      Hi,
>>
>>      as part of general housekeeping on our reviews, it was discussed at last
>>      week's meeting [1] that we should set workflow -1 for stale reviews
>>      (like gerrit used to do when I were a lad).
>>
>>      The specific criteria discussed was 'items that have a -1 from a core
>>      but no response from author for 14 days'. This topic came up again
>>      during today's meeting and it wasn't clear if the intention was for
>>      cores to start enforcing this? So:
>>
>>      Do we start setting WIP/workflow -1 for those reviews that have a -1
>>      from a core but no response from author for 14 days
>>
>>
>> I'm in favour of doing this; as long as we make it clear that we're
>> doing it to help us focus review effort on things that are under active
>> development - it doesn't mean we think the patch shouldn't land, it just
>> means we know it's not ready yet so we don't want reviewers to be
>> looking at it until it moves forward.
>>
>> For the sake of making sure new developers don't get put off, I'd like
>> to see us leaving a comment explaining why we're WIPing the change and
>> noting that uploading a new revision will remove the WIP automatically
>>
>
> +1 - indeed, I'd say as part of this discussion, or if/when it comes up
> as a motion for a vote in the weekly meeting, we should also put out and
> agree on the 'standard' text to be used for this and stick it on the
> wiki (regardless of whether this is to be implemented manually at first
> and perhaps automated later),
>
> thanks, marios
>
> "setting workflow -1 as this review has been inactive for two weeks
> following a negative review. Please see the wiki @ foo for more
> information. Note that once you upload a new revision the workflow is
> expected to be reset (feel free to shout on freenode/#tripleo if it isn't)."
>
>
>
>>
>>      thanks, marios
>>
>>      [1]
>>      http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/tripleo/2014/tripleo.2014-09-09-19.04.log.html
>>
>>      _______________________________________________
>>      OpenStack-dev mailing list
>>      OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>>      <mailto:OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
>>      http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>