[theme-reviewers] splitting reviewers between queues
Chip Bennett
chip at chipbennett.net
Thu Jan 26 15:58:44 UTC 2012
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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/attachments/20120126/b2030ea9/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the theme-reviewers
mailing list