[theme-reviewers] splitting reviewers between queues

Angelo Bertolli angelo.bertolli at gmail.com
Thu Jan 26 15:54:28 UTC 2012


So "not-approved" actually has two meanings:  1) the theme (in any
version) is not approved to be on extend, and 2) the current version of
the theme being submitted is not approved.  While #2 makes sense in
terms of the Trac workflow, maybe the two concepts should be separated
in Trac somehow so that they are differentiated.


On 01/26/2012 10:48 AM, Chip Bennett 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 <mailto: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>
>     <mailto: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>
>     >    
>     <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>
>     <mailto: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>
>     <http://futeng.org> <bbq at futeng.org <mailto:bbq at futeng.org>
>     >         <mailto: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>
>     >         <mailto: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>
>     >         <mailto: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>
>     >     <mailto: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
>     <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


More information about the theme-reviewers mailing list