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.<div><br></div><div>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.</div>
<div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>Chip<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Edward Caissie <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:edward.caissie@gmail.com">edward.caissie@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
To be honest, I would accept removing the Priority queues altogether and going back to the much more simpler FIFO approach.<br><br>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.<br>
<br>Using a simple FIFO approach would then (hopefully) address the issue of "old" tickets.<br><br><br clear="all">Cais.<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Chip Bennett <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:chip@chipbennett.net" target="_blank">chip@chipbennett.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
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.<div>
<br></div><div>That said: we could certainly consider revising the Priority #1 queue query, to include *all* Themes with a previously *approved* ticket. Thoughts?</div><span><font color="#888888"><div><br>
</div></font></span><div><span><font color="#888888">Chip</font></span><div><div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Angelo Bertolli <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:angelo.bertolli@gmail.com" target="_blank">angelo.bertolli@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
I thought once you get rejected, you get sent to #3 the next time, even<br>
if your theme is already on extend... shouldn't the priority to get bug<br>
fixes out apply to anything that's on extend?<br>
<div><br>
On 01/26/2012 10:15 AM, Chip Bennett wrote:<br>
> ...and also - equally importantly - as an incentive for developers of<br>
> already approved Themes to continue to submit improvements and bugfixes<br>
> for their Themes. It is imperative that Themes already in use by end<br>
> users have an expedited path to approval of such bugfixes and updates.<br>
><br>
> Chip<br>
><br>
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 9:13 AM, Edward Caissie<br>
</div><div>> <<a href="mailto:edward.caissie@gmail.com" target="_blank">edward.caissie@gmail.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:edward.caissie@gmail.com" target="_blank">edward.caissie@gmail.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> The essential premises of the Trac review priority is still one of<br>
> FIFO (First-In First-Out).<br>
> The ideas behind the Priority queues was to facilitate quicker<br>
> reviewers of known themes; and to help identify themes for reviewers<br>
> so they are aware of any history that may be involved.<br>
><br>
> For example a custom query such as this one:<br>
> <a href="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" target="_blank">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</a><br>
> <<a href="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" target="_blank">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</a>><br>
> shows a list of all open tickets (168 at the moment) where the one<br>
> at the top should be the prime priority theme. The Priority queues<br>
> were introduced to quickly pick out those themes (ideally previously<br>
> approved in their last submission) to pick the "low hanging fruit".<br>
><br>
><br>
> Cais.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Chandra Maharzan<br>
</div><div>> <<a href="mailto:maharzan@gmail.com" target="_blank">maharzan@gmail.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:maharzan@gmail.com" target="_blank">maharzan@gmail.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> This would be great. I haven't seen queue 2, 3 moving at all for<br>
> a long time. :)<br>
><br>
</div>> 2012/1/26 <a href="http://futeng.org" target="_blank">futeng.org</a> <<a href="http://futeng.org" target="_blank">http://futeng.org</a>> <<a href="mailto:bbq@futeng.org" target="_blank">bbq@futeng.org</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:bbq@futeng.org" target="_blank">bbq@futeng.org</a>>>:<br>
<div>> > I hope so!<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > ------------------ Original ------------------<br>
> > From: "Kirk Wight";<br>
> > Date: 2012年1月26日(星期四) 晚上10:25<br>
> > To: "theme-reviewers";<br>
> > Subject: [theme-reviewers] splitting reviewers between queues<br>
> ><br>
> > Hello reviewers,<br>
> ><br>
> > I'm wondering if we should consider splitting reviewers between<br>
> some<br>
> > different queues, just to keep all queues moving.<br>
> ><br>
> > I haven't seen queue 1 empty yet myself since the "getting back<br>
> on track"<br>
> > changes in December. I've also noticed that queue 1 can get a<br>
> bit dominated<br>
> > if submitters are quite active (no fault of their own -<br>
> obviously we need to<br>
> > keep encouraging regular updates to themes).<br>
> ><br>
> > Maybe, for now, we could assign a reviewer to each of queues 2,<br>
> 3 and 4, and<br>
> > everyone else plugs away as always?<br>
> ><br>
> > _______________________________________________<br>
> > theme-reviewers mailing list<br>
> > <a href="mailto:theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org" target="_blank">theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org</a><br>
</div>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org" target="_blank">theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org</a>><br>
<div>> > <a href="http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers" target="_blank">http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers</a><br>
> ><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> --<br>
> cmans<br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> theme-reviewers mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org" target="_blank">theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org</a><br>
</div>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org" target="_blank">theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org</a>><br>
<div>> <a href="http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers" target="_blank">http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers</a><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> theme-reviewers mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org" target="_blank">theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org</a><br>
</div>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org" target="_blank">theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org</a>><br>
<div>> <a href="http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers" target="_blank">http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers</a><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> theme-reviewers mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org" target="_blank">theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org</a><br>
> <a href="http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers" target="_blank">http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers</a><br>
</div><div><div>_______________________________________________<br>
theme-reviewers mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org" target="_blank">theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers" target="_blank">http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
theme-reviewers mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org" target="_blank">theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers" target="_blank">http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br>
</div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
theme-reviewers mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org">theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers" target="_blank">http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>