[cdwg] Monitoring Ticket Progress

[Christopher J. Morrone]

I think you got your titles switched around for your filters.  But even 
then, the filters have some problems with over and under reporting.

I think one of the issues is with the process we employ in gerrit, which 
does not mesh well with its reporting capabilities.  We have a process 
that says multiple +1 reviews are good enough to allow the patch to go 
to the Gatekeeper.  Unfortunately, gerrit does not distinguish between a 
single +1 and multiple +1s in either its visual output or its searching 
capabilities.  That concept of multiple +1s is something that we have 
applied only in our heads.

Perhaps we should adjust the procedures to better suite the tool.  If we 
have someone apply the +2 when the patch is fully reviewed, it would 
make searching and the visual report in the "CR" column of gerrit's 
output much easier to deal with.

Chris

On 07/25/2013 04:47 AM, John Forgan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> With so much happening with Lustre and the nature of Open Source
> participation in general it can be pretty tricky to keep track of ticket
> states and, in particular, defects. Different organisations will
> possibly have different priorities and it is difficult for the
> Gatekeepers and other monitors to determine relative priorities.
>
> With that in mind, I'm wondering if it might be useful to track those
> tickets that seem to have stalled. For example, fixes that have not been
> reviewed, or that have been reviewed but not landed and that haven't had
> any activity for say a month.
>
> A couple of filters that we've looked at that might be used are:
>
> *Not Completed Review*:
>
> http://review.whamcloud.com/#/q/status:open+age:1mon+Verified%252B1+CodeReview%252B2+-Verified-1+-CodeReview-1+-CodeReview-2,n,z
>
> *Reviewed, but not landed*:
>
> http://review.whamcloud.com/#/q/status:open+age:1mon+Verified%252B1+-Verified-1+-CodeReview-1+-CodeReview-2,n,z
>
>
> Perhaps the results of these, or similar, filters could be embedded in
> the CDWG Wiki page and could be discussed at the CDWG meetings?
>
>
> To highlight individual priorities we could also ask participants to
> provide notice to the CDWG of "troublesome" tickets prior to the CDWG
> meeting where they could then be discussed.
>
> I'd be keen to hear your thoughts and perhaps we can discuss the
> proposal at the next call?
>
> Best regards
>
> John
>
> --
>
> John Forgan
> Senior Software Engineering Manager
> Xyratex
> Office : +44 (0)2392 496819
> Mobile: +44 (0)7738 136207
> _john_forgan at xyratex.com <http://john_forgan@xyratex.com>
> _www.xyratex.com <http://www.xyratex.com>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> For additional information including the registered office and the treatment of Xyratex confidential information please visitwww.xyratex.com  <http://www.xyratex.com/>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cdwg mailing list
> cdwg at lists.opensfs.org
> http://lists.opensfs.org/listinfo.cgi/cdwg-opensfs.org
>