|
From: | Ricardo Wurmus |
Subject: | Re: Incentives for review |
Date: | Thu, 21 Oct 2021 16:10:13 +0000 |
User-agent: | mu4e 1.6.6; emacs 27.2 |
Katherine Cox-Buday <cox.katherine.e@gmail.com> writes:
It’s not about urgency but rather about not contributing to the growthof our patch backlog, which is a real problem.I have often seen folks on various projects worried about the size of various backlogs: bugs, issues, etc. I think it is human to want totry and contain something that appears to be growing, unbounded. I think the thing that bothers us is a sense that the backlog isbecoming unmanageable, or too large to triage. I submit that this is actually a tooling and organizational issue, and not an intrinsic issue to be solved. Bugs may still be valid; patches may still havevaluable bones to modify.I think the real issue is that as a backlog grows, the tools we're used to using cannot answer the questions we want to ask: what is most relevant to me or the project right now?To me, this sounds like a search and display problem.
I agree with your analysis. And with your earlier comments about the vagueness of what review means and how it can lead to a failure to communicate.
At least on the side of presenting submitted issues I’m sure we can do better. One attempt in the past was to automatically bring up “forgotten” issues to the fore; Thiago’s idea to allow people to subscribe to certain *kinds* of issues when they are reported is also good.
I would be happy if people used this opportunity to change mumi (the tool behind issues.guix.gnu.org) to present the backlog in more helpful ways.
Here’s the code for reference: https://git.elephly.net/gitweb.cgi?p=software/mumi.git
-- Ricardo
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |