Re: [RFC] Results of Phase 1 of the Review Process study

["Jesus M. Gonzalez-Barahona" <jgb@bitergia.com>]

On Thu, 2015-10-15 at 12:58 +0100, Wei Liu wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 06:32:37PM +0100, Lars Kurth wrote:
> [...]
> > 
> > == Cycle Time [27] to [29] ==
> > This is not quite obvious from the definition in 1. For the cycle
> > time, we basically ignore the mapping to a patch or patch series
> > and just look at the cycle times between review iterations
> > *regardless* of which series it belongs to.
> > 
> > For example [29] then tells us that the median cycle of any code
> > review has been fairly static around 5 days from 2012.
> > 
> > == Backlog Analysis ==
> > This section shows us the total of patch series reviews that could
> > be modelled (60%) over the project's life-time 
> > 
> > Complete: 5641
> > Active (aka activity in the last 7 days) : 78
> > Ongoing (aka activity in the last 12 months): 403
> > Stalled (no activity for 12 months): 600
> 
> Do note that this category covers several things: patches no longer
> needed, patches superseded by newer version but with different
> titles,
> patches to be upstreamed but lost momentum, so I wouldn't use this as
> primary index for how bad the community functions. In fact I think it
> shouldn't be given the same importance as the other two.

I agree. In fact, this data was not the core for the study, which was
more focused on how long the review process is. As I commented in
another message, we would need to more clearly define "stalled" and if
possible "abandoned", but that is not easy.

> >  
> > This is an area where time based diagrams would help, such that we
> > understand whether things have become much worse than in the past.
> > On the face of it, the figures are *worrying*: in particular if you
> > consider we historically have handled an average of 513 patch
> > series a year, we have the equivalent of 
> > - a year's worth of backlog which is active
> > - a bit more than a year's backlog which is stalled - there is no
> > way to identify abandoned reviews  
> > 
> 
> I notice that you noticed the same thing. :-)

>From a "problem identification" point of view, if you had a way of
telling apart the abandoned from the stalled, it would be great.
Otherwise, it is very difficult to draw conclusions. If for those 600
reviews, 550 are for example due to superseded and no longer needed
patches, you only have 50 stalled patches. That's a very different
number than if say 500 are really stalled...

So, I guess we need better matching and some kind of labeling of
abandoned reviews to have any conclusion about the real backlog, and
its trends.

Saludos,

	Jesus..

> Wei.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
> http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
-- 
Bitergia: http://bitergia.com
/me at Twitter: https://twitter.com/jgbarah