[Sugar-devel] Fwd: Proposal on how to speed up patch reviews

[Ajay Garg]

On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 11:27 PM, Anish Mangal <anish at sugarlabs.org> wrote:

> I don't have a dog in the fight, but I can give my two cents
> (disclaimer: I'm sorry if I misunderstood facts or misquoted people):
>
> With dextrose, we had the same bottleneck problem, of patches getting
> stuck in the review queue, then the commit queue. One associated
> problem is that the longer a patch lingers on, the more it loses
> contextual value and the harder it is to remember/understand for
> everyone what the patch was for or what it did (even with good commit
> messages). What would happen many times is that once the patch finally
> reaches the maintainer, he has to make an effort to recall the
> relevance of the patch and spend time in reviewing it again.
>
> Gonzalo also raises pertinent points:
> * We don't have enough reviewers
> * We don't have enough maintainers
>
> In dextrose, addressed this problem this way:
> * There was one release manager
> * There were multiple people with the access and the authority to commit
> patches
> * There were dedicated testers
>
> * There were foul-ups initially, but this increased the pace of
> development by at least 2x.
>
> What could this mean in context of sugar/mainline:
> * Have one or two maintainers. Simon and Manuq are excellent. They are
> responsible for setting roadmaps, deadlines, and making releases.
> * Have multiple people with commit access authority. Daniel and
> Gonzalo perhaps? I don't know who else.
> * The criteria for committing could be as simple as:
> ** The patch has been reviewed by atleast one person from this group
> ** The patch has been *tested* by atleast one person from this group
>
> Normally, one wouldn't recommend this as it increases the chance of
> breakage, but I guess we're at the other end of the spectrum. If
> development pace needs to be ramped up, I'd recommend the above.
>


Very well put - practical, and not too bothersome to anyone !!




>
> Cheers,
> Anish
>
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 7:26 AM, Simon Schampijer <simon at schampijer.de>
> wrote:
> > On 03/26/2013 12:21 PM, Manuel Quiñones wrote:
> >>
> >> I would like to applaud the discussion.
> >>
> >> Yes, I think we are blocking too much, in regards to stuff that is out
> >> of bugfixing, and polishing the gtk3 port.  This is indeed not good
> >> for the community.
> >>
> >> When I started in this project, my patches received reviews from many
> >> people, not only maintainers.  Many discussions went by.  I don't see
> >> that happening anymore.  We also had periodic design meetings guiding
> >> features.  Discussing design after the development is made isn't good,
> >> imho.
> >>
> >> It would be great if someone can stand up and become a maintainer.
> >> Maybe you, Daniel?  You have demonstrated your skills with
> >> sugar-build, and helping on the gtk3 port.
> >
> >
> > A reviewer with the authority described in this discussion is probably a
> > good first start. I think that is what Daniel would be able to help us
> with.
> >
> >
> > Simon
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Sugar-devel mailing list
> > Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
> > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>
>
>
> --
> Anish | anish at sugarlabs.org
> _______________________________________________
> Sugar-devel mailing list
> Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>



-- 
Regards,
Ajay
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/attachments/20130327/15c05bdf/attachment-0001.html>