Re: gnu-patches back log

[Pjotr Prins]

On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 01:16:25AM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote:
> > Would it be an idea to send out weekly E-mails with patches that had
> > no attention to a select list of reviewers? Or maybe to the ML as a
> > whole? Basically it would read:
> 
> As long as the list of reviewers volunteered for that.
> 
> We already get the messages with the patches. I wonder if adding yet
> another message to our mail boxes is going to help. At least for me, the
> issue is finding the energy to review things, not tools for finding old
> patches.

With the 'Journal of Open Source Software' we created such a reminder
and it worked well. The back log of pending pre-reviews disappeared :).

> If we are interested in handling submissions more quickly, we could
> arrange for package-related changes to be linted and built before they
> get sent to the list subscribers. Spending time on a patch series before
> learning that the submitter did not even test it reduces my motivation
> to review.

Automation solves something but not all.

Debbugs is a good step because it displays our shortcomings
immediately. I know Ludo is away now, which explains some back log,
but it should not depend on 1 or 2 people to move forward. The back
log does not look long now - but at this rate I predict it will grow.

Now, the questions are: (1) how to we get master reviewers to push
more patches, (2) how do we get normal contributors to contribute more
reviews - anyone can review a few patches a week - and (3) how do we
get more 'newbie' reviewers (like me) to do more. I am happy to add
LGTM. A normal reviewer can add PLEASE PUSH. And all Ricardo has to do
is push.

Scaling up has to come from more people doing less, rather than less
people doing more. My answer is to lighten the load and 'ask' people
to look at patches. Most people respond to queries.

I would like to ask the Guix mailing list members whether it is
*acceptable* that a good looking patch has not been touched for two
weeks. Like this one

  https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=25725

Looks to me like it could go right in, even if it has no tests. And I
bet it was linted. 

I.e., LGTM, and apologies for the submitter. It is just embarrassing
and as a project we can do better *together*. If two weeks is
acceptable, will 4 weeks be acceptable? Where do we draw the line?

Pj.

--