--- bpepple has changed the topic to: Package Review SIG Meeting | ||
bpepple | Hi, is anyone around for the Package Review sig meeting? | |
---|---|---|
kushal | bpepple, me me | |
limburgher | present. | |
kushal | bpepple, let me wake up chacha_chaudhry :p | |
bpepple | kushal: good, I was a little worried I would be the only one here. ;) | |
kushal | hehe | |
limburgher | nah. Just had to finish lunch ;) | |
bpepple | ok, let's wait another minute or so to see who else shows up before starting. | |
limburgher | \me taps foot awkwardly. | |
* chacha_chaudhry wakes up finally | ||
bpepple | ok, let's get started. | |
let's do a quick roll-call. | ||
BrianPepple | ||
limburgher | Jon Ciesla | |
chacha_chaudhry | Rakesh Pandit | |
bpepple | Since this is our first meeting, what would you guys like to discuss first? | |
limburgher | ways to get people to do reviews? | |
I'd also like to see attention paid to Merge Reviews. | ||
kushal | Kushal Das | |
ubertibbs | I'm here. | |
bpepple | limburgher: I would also, though I think our first priority should be making the New package reviews manageable first. | |
limburgher | ubertibbs: glad you could make it. | |
ubertibbs | Merge reviews are a "do when there's nothing else to do" thing for me. | |
And so far there's plenty of other reviews around, so... | ||
kushal | bpepple, for new reviews , review-o-matic is coming up :) | |
ubertibbs | Unfortunately review-o-matic doesn't actually review packages. | |
limburgher | ubertibbs: I agree, but I feel like it's silly to have some of the things so far out of compliance 3+ releases after the merger. | |
bpepple | kushal: yeah, I saw that. How about in a little bit we talk about that. | |
kushal | bpepple, main idea is simple | |
kushal | everytime someone put a new review request in bz | |
RoM (review-o-matic) will do an automagic review and post the result as comments | ||
ubertibbs | Please stop calling what it does a "review". | |
kushal | which is only to help the reviewer | |
ubertibbs | It doesn't do reviews; it just runs some checks. | |
kushal | ubertibbs, which is review , isn't it ? | |
limburgher | r-o-m is a great concept. I just think more focus should be on the backlog. | |
rdieter | pre-review-omatic? | |
kushal | rdieter, :) | |
limburgher | review>checks. | |
ubertibbs | kushal: No. | |
I mean, it's not going to do anything that people shouldn't already be doing before submitting packages. | ||
rdieter | review-helper? review-tool? | |
kushal | ubertibbs, it is going to check the spec according to guidelines | |
limburgher | r-o-m should really just be rpmlint on steroids. The packages still need the wetware sanity check, sniff test, etc. | |
kushal | and md5 checks | |
bpepple | ok, let's take a step back for a moment. One of the things I like to see us do is to produce a report that shows some weekly stats on the package review queue. | |
limburgher | i.e. how can a script decide what 'legible' means? | |
kushal | and rpmlint on scratch builds | |
limburgher | bpepple: +1 | |
kushal | chacha_chaudhry, is working on spec file review work | |
ubertibbs | bpepple: Sure, stats are good. | |
limburgher | stats can drive incentives, goals, etc. | |
chacha_chaudhry | point is get as much as possible checks into rpmlint and all other fedora specific checks which can be automated should go into review-o-matic. | |
bpepple | And publish them weekly, to keep in mind just what the backlog is. Hopefully, that will help drum up some support for reviews. | |
ubertibbs | Incentives? | |
bpepple | ubertibbs: I've been giving that some thought also. | |
limburgher | ubertibbs: Nothing concrete in mind, just throwing it out there. | |
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/PackageStatus is great. | ||
ubertibbs | Yes, that's Chris Iseli's work. | |
It was very useful in the old days, but the volume is so high now that it needs some tuning. | ||
limburgher | Maybe a "Reviewer of the Month" in FWN. | |
ubertibbs: How is volume affecting it? | ||
bpepple | limburgher: Yeah, I was thinking about modifying c4chris script, since I believe it needs some work for some of the recent bugzilla changes. | |
ubertibbs | Well, some of the useful stats are pushed so far down the list because of people like, well, me, who have done tons of reviews. | |
limburgher | bpepple: OIC. | |
bpepple | We could provide some Fedora swag drawing for folks that do a certain number of reviews in a month. | |
ubertibbs | You can't even see the new folks in the stats. | |
limburgher | ubertibbs: Good point. It's good to see the uber^H^H^H^Hsuper-reviewers, but also give the | |
ubertibbs: newbies something where they can say, "look, I made a dent in it". | ||
bpepple | ubertibbs: does c4chris script show a weekly total on reviews, or was it totals? | |
ubertibbs | I think it just did an overall total. | |
rdieter | a per week or monthly total would be interesting to see, could form a good basis for recognizing current work. | |
bpepple | rdieter: agreed. | |
limburgher | rdieter: +1. Reviews are very important, but somewhat thankless. | |
bpepple | Does anyone want to work on modifying c4chris script to meet our needs better? | |
I might have some free time to help out on that. | ||
ubertibbs | Not for myself, but if we're going to reward work we should go back and look at the folks who did a pile of work in the past. | |
limburgher | bpepple: Maybe, though my -fu may be tested. . . | |
limburgher | ubertibbs: Sort of a lifetime acheivement thing? Little gold statue. . .call it the Tibbsy. . . | |
:) | ||
ubertibbs | I haven't looked at that script in ages; it is still in Perl or was it ported to something else. | |
? | ||
bpepple | ubertibbs: I thought it was in python, but I could be wrong since I haven't looked at it in ages. | |
limburgher | $_DIETY, by perl's rusty. Hope it's python. | |
s/by/my/ | ||
kushal | :) | |
bpepple | I'll contact c4chris and grab the latest copy. | |
ubertibbs | It should be in CVS. The module is status-report-scripts. | |
limburgher | Does it produce html, or barf out wikicode? If option B, does it work with mediawiki or is it trac-specific? | |
bpepple | ubertibbs: thanks, I'll give it a look. | |
ubertibbs | One other thing to note is that we can't even track who does reviews reliably. | |
limburgher | Reliably meaning 'often' or 'of high quality'? | |
ubertibbs | "can't reliably track" | |
chacha_chaudhry | bpepple: I can help with perl/python script. | |
bpepple | ubertibbs: We can track who give the approval flag correct? Just not every one that provided comments. | |
limburgher | Gotcha. Wouldn't that be a BZ query though? | |
ubertibbs | You can track who set the flag, or who the ticket is assigned to. | |
bpepple | chacha_chaudhry: thanks. | |
limburgher | Right, no need to catch practice reviews. | |
ubertibbs | I can fix up badly-set flags but then it shows me as setting the flag. | |
And at least one reviewer insists on assigning the ticket back to the reporter once the flag is set just to get the ticket off of his BZ homepage. | ||
So if we're going to rely on process for generating reliable stats, we need everyone to actually follow the process. | ||
limburgher | ubertibbs: Eew, that's annoying. | |
ubertibbs: Bit of a horse-to-water issue, but I see no choice. | ||
ubertibbs | There's also the issue of doing triage and how to credit folks that do it. | |
limburgher | So, once we have stats, which we now seem to have a plan for, what will we do with them? | |
ubertibbs | Post them and talk about them, I guess. | |
bpepple | limburgher: Publish them reliably. | |
limburgher | ubertibbs: Do people triage reviews, or just breakage bugs? | |
bpepple | That will at least raise it's profile a bit. | |
ubertibbs | Well, I've tried to interest the triage folks in review tickets as well. | |
They're a bit swamped and we don't really have any process guidelines to give them in any case. | ||
bpepple | ubertibbs: yeah, that seems understandable. | |
limburgher | ubertibbs: How would that work? With breakage, you make sure it's against the right package. | |
ubertibbs | Plus the automated tool folks are working on could do a lot of this. | |
limburgher: Well, you make sure the package submissions actually build, for one. | ||
You'll also notice Mamoru and I doing a pile of gardening on the queue. | ||
limburgher | ubertibbs: Good point. | |
ubertibbs | "Did you still want to get this in?" "There's been no response for N weeks; are you still there?" and such. | |
limburgher | Also, making sure the SRPMS and SPEC aren't 404. Like, if they're in koji and got pruned. . . | |
ubertibbs: I have seen that. And quite happy about it. | ||
ubertibbs | Well, cleaning out the dead tickets sure helps to get the count down. | |
limburgher | True dat. | |
ubertibbs | I really need to redo the http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus stuff, but at least it hides blocked tickets and such now. | |
limburgher | ubertibbs: Which is helpful. | |
ubertibbs | Yes, it hides all of the mingw32 stiff for now. | |
Between that and globus, there are probably another 250 packages in the queue. | ||
bpepple | Is anyone reviewing the mingw stuff? | |
ubertibbs | Well, I looked at the -filesystem package; I'll probably finish that off soon. | |
Everything is blocked on that one, so... | ||
bpepple | ok, does anyone have any other brain-storming ideas on how to increase the number of reviewers? | |
limburgher | bpepple: Don't judge it by the movie, but what about a sort of Pay It Forward policy? | |
ubertibbs | I hate to suggest it, but things hinge on people reviewing at least a percentage of what they submit. | |
limburgher | You do my review, you link another review for me to do while you're working on mine. | |
Of someone else's. | ||
ubertibbs | Well, I rarely submit packages but I do plenty of reviews. | |
bpepple | yeah, we've always encouraged that, but maybe we could advertise it better than we have in the past. | |
limburgher | ubertibbs: Me too. a big chunk of what I maintain are orphans. | |
rdieter | ubertibbs: right, the usual answers... cross/trade reviews, new sponsoree's encouraged to help with other reviews, etc... | |
ubertibbs | Maybe prioritize the queue by the ratio of reviews done / package submissions ? | |
rdieter | I like that! | |
ubertibbs | That would be tough (both tough to do and tough on the submitters, though). | |
bpepple | that's an interesting idea, probably tough to implement though. | |
limburgher | ubertibbs: Explain. Details. Intriged. | |
[sic] | ||
ubertibbs | I can provide neither explanation nor details. | |
It was an idea. | ||
limburgher | Like, you submit a lot, but review next to never, we would like to see X reviews by you before we touch yours? | |
rdieter | kinda sorta | |
ubertibbs | Well, not "before we touch yours", but they'd go at the end of the list or something. | |
limburgher | Set up like a leader board graded by that ratio, so people looking for reviews to do will | |
ubertibbs | But nobody says that anyone has to do reviews in any specific order. | |
And honestly, some people just want to maintain packages. Is that actually a bad thing? | ||
limburgher | see the packages for those whove reviewed first. | |
ubertibbs | Reviewing requires a rather different skill set. | |
limburgher | No requirements, just those who review get bumped up the list and higher visibility. | |
* ianweller sucks at reviewing, btw ;) | ||
rdieter | another possible area of focus would be engaging (other) SIGs, for example, us kde-sig'ers usually try to keep an eye out for and help on kde-related reviews. | |
ubertibbs | Yes, and for that reason I tend to stay away from them and concentrate on something else. | |
Right now my focus is on ancient NEEDSPONSOR tickets. | ||
limburgher | same with games SIG | |
ubertibbs | To me, the old needsponsor tickets are our worst embarrassment, because we're basically turning someone away from Fedora. | |
rdieter | ubertibbs: totally +1 | |
limburgher | ubertibbs: +1, that's why I became a sponsor. | |
bpepple | ubertibbs: agreed. with the new containment that was implemented it should hopefully make it easier to sponsor someone. | |
ubertibbs | Ideally we'd address every review ticket, but especially the needsponsor ones, within some time period. | |
ubertibbs | Unfortunately our process is complicated and people often don't read it and so don't indicate the needsponsor stuff on their own tickets. | |
That's another triage issue. | ||
bpepple | Do we want to try to have coordinated review days? In the past we haven't had much success with them, but it might be worth trying again. | |
rdieter | something where some sort of priority queue could help, needsponsors get a bonus, nearing some timeout would get a bump too. | |
limburgher | bpepple and rdieter: +1 each | |
ubertibbs | I can sort the PackageReviewStatus pages by anything, I guess. | |
rdieter | bpepple: worth a shot, I promise to participate this time. :) | |
bpepple | yeah, I'll actually attend this time also. ;) | |
ubertibbs | Honestly I think some reviews would go better if we could team up on them. | |
bpepple | That what I was thinking also. | |
limburgher | That usually works well. | |
chacha_chaudhry | ubertibbs: need for sponsor triage could be automated also I guess. | |
rdieter | nod | |
ubertibbs | Because otherwise we're going to have to assign the tough tickets to various people. "You've been designated to take one for the team." | |
chacha_chaudhry: If there's a definite link between FAS and bugzilla addresses, yes. Otherwise, no. | ||
chacha_chaudhry | ubertibbs: yes | |
limburgher | Maybe if we triaged reviews into groups by potential comps category. | |
sorted on the stats list. | ||
limburgher | not in the bz | |
bpepple | Ok, we've brain-stormed a bunch of ideas. How about I write-up some minutes which lists them, and then we work on looking at implementing some of them. | |
ubertibbs | Sure. | |
limburgher | chacha:link how? | |
bp: Works for me. | ||
bpepple | Do we want to have weekly meetings? Or bi-weekly? Or some other timeframe? | |
ubertibbs | Or use a mailing list? | |
I find IRC to be generally inefficient, and some people can't attend things at the same time. | ||
bpepple | I'm fine with that, though I'm leery of starting another mailing list. | |
limburgher | mail is better for me, for tibbs' reasons. | |
rdieter | just use fedora-devel ? | |
ubertibbs | I was going to suggest just using fedora-packaging. | |
But I don't know what's more appropriate. I read both, so.... | ||
(for various definitions of "read") | ||
rdieter | works too. | |
limburgher | rdieter: And have our own threads, and maybe attract more members. -devel has wider readership, i think. | |
bpepple | ubertibbs: fedora-packaging has less traffic, but devel reaches a larger audience. | |
limburgher | We could agree on a subject tag convention, so I could procmail out this topic. :) | |
[ReviewSIG] | ||
bpepple | Ok, so does anyone object to using the devel list? | |
limburgher | bp: No. | |
ubertibbs | Not me. | |
chacha_chaudhry | no | |
rdieter | no | |
bpepple | alright, we'll use the devel list then. | |
chacha_chaudhry ChanServ | ||
ubertibbs | At least until we get flamed for it. | |
limburgher | Flames? In -devel? Naaah. . | |
rdieter | that's the sprit. you're not doing it right, unless you get at least a flame or 2. | |
limburgher | Whaddy mean I'm not doing it right? <napalm> | |
bpepple | rdieter: ;) | |
ubertibbs | Would we like to discuss specific review tickets, like the bugzappers do? | |
Or maybe considering holding some kind of IRC workshop for people who want to learn how to review packages? | ||
bpepple | might be worthwhile. | |
limburgher | Maybe a "5 oldest" List? It might get repetiive, but it'll clean aout the cruft. | |
Maybe 3 normal, 2 Merge each time? | ||
ubertibbs: +50 | ||
ubertibbs | merge reviews need a ton of triage before we can do much with them. | |
limburgher | Triage how? Like set reporter to owner? | |
ubertibbs | Well, you can't do that unfortunately. | |
limburgher | Clean out removed packaged? | |
ubertibbs | But you can at least CC them; many of the owners have changed since the tickets were opened. | |
limburgher | ubertibbs: That's been a huge headache of mine. | |
ubertibbs | Yes. just /msg zodbot and keep typing queries. | |
bpepple | Alright, we're coming up on the hour. | |
limburgher | Cool. So are we adjourned? Sadly, I have a 2pm. | |
bpepple | So, chacha_chaudhry, limburgher, and I will work on a script to produce a weekly report on package review stats. | |
And I'll write up a summary on the mailing list of the various ideas we've come up with, and we'll work on implementing some of them. | ||
anyone have anything else to add? Or should we wrap up? | ||
ubertibbs | I'm happy to brainstorm with someone about how we might teach reviewing to others. | |
I tried it in person (without any previous organization) and failed miserably. | ||
bpepple | ubertibbs: It might be worthwhile to have a review trac at FUDCon. | |
Assuming you will be there. | ||
ubertibbs | I wouldn't be against it but don't know if I'll be going to future fudcons. | |
rdieter | :( | |
limburgher | Depends on where they are. | |
ubertibbs | $4 million budget deficit in my college. | |
bpepple | ouch. | |
ubertibbs | The US fudcons are generally in Boston or Raleigh. | |
limburgher | My employer will pay for 2 volunteer days and travel, but not sure if FUDCon counts. | |
Any chance of one in Chicago? :) | ||
rdieter | someday maybe, I'd like that too. | |
ubertibbs | dgilmore was trying to get one in Chicago. | |
rdieter | FUDCon @ dgilmore's house! | |
bpepple | yeah, it would be closer for me, but having a convertion in Chicago is pretty pricey. | |
limburgher | I'll bring beer. | |
bpepple | s/convertion/convention/ | |
limburgher | Just use iconv like everyone else. . . | |
rdieter | a good venue could be hard to come by. BU/boston has it's advantages | |
limburgher | Just do it on Grant Park. On the grass. Picnic! | |
bpepple | rdieter: yeah, I taked to stickster_afk about it a bit when he was in Ohio. A good facility is one of the biggest hurdles. |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.5 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!