Role of the Sponsorship Queue

[Emmet Hikory]

Daniel Holbach wrote:
> On 04.03.2010 12:06, Emmet Hikory wrote:
>> Complicating the process by which
>> a patch is reviewed is not the way to make more patches get reviewed.
>> Developers asking non-developers to go review patches before
>> developers do is likely to just reduce the average quality of response
>> to patch submitters : If developers are good at patch review, we're
>> removing our best team from the set of reviewers.  If developers
>> aren't especially better at review, we're telling everyone else they
>> are second class which can't help motivation.
>
> I'm not sure I understand.

    Having to subscribe a team is more complicated than not
subscribing a team.  Creating a process that discourages developers
from reviewing the patch queue reduces the people looking at patches,
and further reduces the people we believe to be best suited at review
to review patches.

>> If 2000 is the correct
>> number, then that's only about 15 patches per developer.  If not so
>> many developers are active, that's maybe 30.  If everyone reviews one
>> patch a day, we'll be done somewhere between a two and six weeks,
>> depending on how many of us there are.
>
> By the same logic keeping on top of the sponsoring queue should be a
> piece of cake. It just isn't. That's what I mean by "reality".

    The ubuntu-universe-sponsors queue gets to zero several times a
cycle.  I believe part of the reason that this happens is because the
guidelines for processing this queue encourage developers to
prioritise uploads of stuff that is ready to upload, and remove stuff
that needs work from the queue (subscribing themsellves and following
up later).  That the main sponsors queue doesn't get unclogged is not,
to me, a good argument for why it makes sense to encourage
non-candiate patches, but precisely the opposite.

-- 
Emmet HIKORY