[theme-reviewers] splitting reviewers between queues
Edward Caissie
edward.caissie at gmail.com
Thu Jan 26 16:16:31 UTC 2012
Perhaps the Priority #2 queue should be Priority #1 ...
... and granted the number of eyes able to look at the themes could ideally
be much greater, but there is still the issue of theme complexity
increasing *and* theme guidelines becoming more encompassing. The
combination of the two is a significant contributing factor to pushing out
the amount of time required to fully review any theme regardless of its
past record.
Cais.
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net> wrote:
> Surely you remember the pains that led to creation of the priority queues
> in the first place? I, for one, do not wish to return to those conditions.
>
> The queues are helpful, and are NOT the problem; rather, the problem is,
> always has been, and remains: simply not enough eyeballs. The number of
> reviewer-hours continues to be outpaced by the rate of Theme submissions.
>
> The FIFO issue, I think, is adequately handled by the new Priority #2
> queue, which is a *true* FIFO queue that takes precedence for tickets older
> than two weeks.
>
> Chip
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Edward Caissie <edward.caissie at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> To be honest, I would accept removing the Priority queues altogether and
>> going back to the much more simpler FIFO approach.
>>
>> Granted, if a theme author is submitting a "bug-fix" on an approved theme
>> then those should take some precedence over other themes, but if the
>> submission is simply an update to an existing approved theme the only real
>> difference we have in the process is, generally speaking, the theme is
>> reviewed via Diff versus a complete "new" review.
>>
>> Using a simple FIFO approach would then (hopefully) address the issue of
>> "old" tickets.
>>
>>
>> Cais.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>wrote:
>>
>>> That is true; while we want to encourage and facilitate bugfixes for
>>> currently approved Themes, we still hold those Themes to the same
>>> standards, and expect the developers to remain current with respect to the
>>> Theme Review Guidelines. Note that the two-day rule will help here, as a
>>> Theme would only regress to the Priority #3 queue if/when a ticket is
>>> *closed* as not-approved.
>>>
>>> That said: we could certainly consider revising the Priority #1 queue
>>> query, to include *all* Themes with a previously *approved* ticket.
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> Chip
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Angelo Bertolli <
>>> angelo.bertolli at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I thought once you get rejected, you get sent to #3 the next time, even
>>>> if your theme is already on extend... shouldn't the priority to get bug
>>>> fixes out apply to anything that's on extend?
>>>>
>>>> On 01/26/2012 10:15 AM, Chip Bennett wrote:
>>>> > ...and also - equally importantly - as an incentive for developers of
>>>> > already approved Themes to continue to submit improvements and
>>>> bugfixes
>>>> > for their Themes. It is imperative that Themes already in use by end
>>>> > users have an expedited path to approval of such bugfixes and updates.
>>>> >
>>>> > Chip
>>>> >
>>>> > On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 9:13 AM, Edward Caissie
>>>> > <edward.caissie at gmail.com <mailto:edward.caissie at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > The essential premises of the Trac review priority is still one of
>>>> > FIFO (First-In First-Out).
>>>> > The ideas behind the Priority queues was to facilitate quicker
>>>> > reviewers of known themes; and to help identify themes for
>>>> reviewers
>>>> > so they are aware of any history that may be involved.
>>>> >
>>>> > For example a custom query such as this one:
>>>> >
>>>> http://themes.trac.wordpress.org/query?owner=&status=new&col=id&col=summary&col=status&col=type&col=priority&col=time&col=changetime&order=time
>>>> > <
>>>> http://themes.trac.wordpress.org/query?owner=&status=new&col=id&col=summary&col=status&col=type&col=priority&col=time&col=changetime&order=time
>>>> >
>>>> > shows a list of all open tickets (168 at the moment) where the one
>>>> > at the top should be the prime priority theme. The Priority queues
>>>> > were introduced to quickly pick out those themes (ideally
>>>> previously
>>>> > approved in their last submission) to pick the "low hanging
>>>> fruit".
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Cais.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Chandra Maharzan
>>>> > <maharzan at gmail.com <mailto:maharzan at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > This would be great. I haven't seen queue 2, 3 moving at all
>>>> for
>>>> > a long time. :)
>>>> >
>>>> > 2012/1/26 futeng.org <http://futeng.org> <bbq at futeng.org
>>>> > <mailto:bbq at futeng.org>>:
>>>> > > I hope so!
>>>> > >
>>>> > >
>>>> > > ------------------ Original ------------------
>>>> > > From: "Kirk Wight";
>>>> > > Date: 2012年1月26日(星期四) 晚上10:25
>>>> > > To: "theme-reviewers";
>>>> > > Subject: [theme-reviewers] splitting reviewers between
>>>> queues
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Hello reviewers,
>>>> > >
>>>> > > I'm wondering if we should consider splitting reviewers
>>>> between
>>>> > some
>>>> > > different queues, just to keep all queues moving.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > I haven't seen queue 1 empty yet myself since the "getting
>>>> back
>>>> > on track"
>>>> > > changes in December. I've also noticed that queue 1 can get
>>>> a
>>>> > bit dominated
>>>> > > if submitters are quite active (no fault of their own -
>>>> > obviously we need to
>>>> > > keep encouraging regular updates to themes).
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Maybe, for now, we could assign a reviewer to each of
>>>> queues 2,
>>>> > 3 and 4, and
>>>> > > everyone else plugs away as always?
>>>> > >
>>>> > > _______________________________________________
>>>> > > theme-reviewers mailing list
>>>> > > theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>>>> > <mailto:theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org>
>>>> > > http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>>> > >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > --
>>>> > cmans
>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>> > theme-reviewers mailing list
>>>> > theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>>>> > <mailto:theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org>
>>>> > http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>> > theme-reviewers mailing list
>>>> > theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>>>> > <mailto:theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org>
>>>> > http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>> > theme-reviewers mailing list
>>>> > theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>>>> > http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>>>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>>>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> theme-reviewers mailing list
> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/attachments/20120126/e794c059/attachment.htm>
More information about the theme-reviewers
mailing list