[Dev] [Gerrit-status] To-merge:18 To-review:137 To-verify:41 To-review-and-verify:272 Invalid:26 Total:494

Patrick Ohly patrick.ohly at intel.com
Mon Apr 7 08:51:33 GMT 2014

On Mon, 2014-04-07 at 09:34 +0200, Kévin THIERRY wrote:
> On 04/04/2014 09:26 PM, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> > On Fri, 2014-04-04 at 20:31 +0200, Stéphane Desneux wrote:
> >> Casey,
> >>
> >> IMO, the most important information is in the title:
> >> - To-merge:18
> >> - To-review:137
> >> - To-verify:41
> >> - To-review-and-verify:*272*
> >> - Invalid:26
> >> - Total:494
> >>
> >> Maybe you'd prefer to see those stats inside the email body ?
> >>
> >> In those stats, 272 is the number to check very carefully, and we all agree on
> >> the problem.
> >>
> >> That's why I think those stats are useful: they should induce some reaction from
> >> maintainers.
> > But the mail is not addressed to maintainers.
> Is there a "maintainers" mailing list ? How can I send this mail 
> directly to *all* the maintainers ?

That's the key problem. Sending to all maintainers will achieve the same
thing as the original Gerrit review emails: nothing, because maintainers
will get too many emails and will have to ignore them.

This can only be fixed by making a small set of people responsible for
each package and then remind them when there really is work for them.
This is work in progress, see Thiago's email.

> > Let me phrase the problem differently: whom do you expect to act on the
> > email reminder?
> Maintainers. And the people who are responsible for the maintainers list.

I doubt that you'll reach maintainers this way. For the others, yes,
they may find this reminder useful. I'm not one of them, but find them
useful nonetheless and worth looking at (occasionally), so I appreciate
that they get sent to the list.

> The idea of this weekly mail is, as explained by Stephane, to remind 
> concerned people of the pending reviews and show where bottlenecks are.
> It also shows the health of the review process and its evolution over 
> time. When we will have more data sets, graphs could be sent instead of 
> raw data...

That's all worthwhile, so +1 from me.

Best Regards, Patrick Ohly

The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although
I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way
represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak
on behalf of Intel on this matter.

More information about the Dev mailing list