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

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

On Thu, 2015-10-15 at 22:36 +0100, Lars Kurth wrote:
> > On 15 Oct 2015, at 10:26, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > wrote:
> > 
> > On Thu, 2015-10-15 at 10:06 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:

> > > On Wed, 2015-10-14 at 18:32 +0100, Lars Kurth wrote:
> [...]

> That is correct and a case we need to look at if it's worthwhile and
> possible to fix it. However the fact remains that pretty much all the
> graphs cover data for completed reviews only, except for backlog
> data. We have two options
> 1) Spend some effort trying to fix it
> 2) Accept that "stalled" reviews are not that meaningful
> Not sure what the answer is at this stage

I guess there are three possible solutions here:

* To send some message to the mailing list to "abandon" or close a
review. This would allow us to detect those reviews, and everyone to
know that they are not really stalled. But this would require changes
to your policy, I assume.

* To consider that when there is no activity for a certain period, the
review is no longer going to progress, and can be considered abandoned.
The main trouble with this could be that we have seen some patch series
inactive for very long periods, and still coming back to life after
that. But being a very small fraction of the cases, for statistical
purposes those could be considered as abandoned.

* To label "by hand" the reviews that are abandoned, by some of you
knowing about the project. But this is (I assume) too time-consuming
and probably error-prone....

> > I'm afraid that on that basis I think C1 has skewed the conclusion
> > that
> > there are 600 stalled series, possibly by a considerable factor.
> 
> I agree with that and should have maybe highlighted this more
> clearly.
> 
> For the other data, it is of course also possible that there is some
> skew. But given that we had 60% of a sample (and that the 60% is
> likely higher as xen-devel also is CC'ed when patches are posted to
> QEMU, Linux, ...) the sample is big enough to make significant skew
> very unlikely.

Yes, I think so. In any case, this will be improved when the heuristics
for matching improve.

        Jesus.

-- 
Bitergia: http://bitergia.com
/me at Twitter: https://twitter.com/jgbarah


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel