Patch Pilot report
ian.clatworthy at canonical.com
Mon Nov 23 01:59:05 GMT 2009
Andrew Bennetts wrote:
> Here's some scattered observations from the week:
Thanks for writing up this report. Lots of good information here.
> I took a “just do it” approach to piloting patches. If the changes required
> were fairly small, or even moderate, it usually seemed to me to be easier to
> just make the tweak and write the missing tests myself, rather than teach and
> cajole the contributors to do themselves. I did try to paste a diff of my
> changes into the review comments so that the contributor could see what I did
> and hopefully learn from it, if they are that way inclined.
+1 on your approach. If we're serious about cutting the time down from
itch-scratched to landed, this is the way to go IMO.
> Also, I deliberately chose patches from new contributors over
+1 here as well. We want new contributors to enjoy the experience, not
vow to never bother again. We do need to balance that though with
getting important deep fixes (from John say) though the system in a
> Subjectively, it doesn't feel like the queue on
> <https://code.launchpad.net/bzr/+activereviews> really shrank that much.
> Generally speaking, that Launchpad page fails as a “what
> should I [the patch pilot] look at next” page; any section of that page can have
> patches deserving of attention from a patch pilot. I touched patches from the
> top and bottom of that page.
The thing I love about LP reviews is that it works so nicely across
every project on LP. The thing I dislike about it is that BundleBuggy
was a better queue manager for bzr core reviews.
> * lp:~amanica/bzr/325618_log_returns_too_much: asked igc to review
Done. It's with Marius and I to work together (this week hopefully) on
addressing the issues I raised.
More information about the bazaar