lack of reviewers (Re: first set of new APIs + convert server to use them)

[Keith Packard]

On Mon, 14 May 2012 19:22:48 +0100, Dave Airlie <airlied at gmail.com> wrote:

> I've pretty much no idea how to deal with it sanely. We've moved to larger
> scale development model without a larger set of developers. The kernel
> isn't even as stringent wrt to reviews as xorg-devel is.

Small changes seem to get reviewed pretty quickly; it's big changes that
take actual thought that just aren't getting looked at quickly (if at
all).

> I'm guessing we'll probably have to have review swap parties or meetings
> or something insane like that to clear the backlog on occasions,
> it would be nice if patchwork could be kept up to date, but it would involve
> anyone handling patches to jump on and clean up the ones they've merged
> already.

If patchwork could figure out when stuff got merged automatically, it
would be a whole lot more useful. As it is, you have no idea which
patches need review, which patches are waiting for me to pull them into
the server and which patches are actually on master.

> I spent a major amount of my time either reviewing kernel patches, or
> persuading others to review other peoples patches so I don't have to,
> I'm not sure if we need some more tracking from Keith or others on
> what unreviewed stuff is outstanding and who best to direct it to, but
> again it involves a time commitment from someone and I've no idea
> who could afford it.

I had a notmuch rule to find unreviewed patches; that made finding them
easier at least; would it be useful to post the output of that on a
regular basis? I'm pretty sure I could script it.

> Like the input guys have a bit of crossover work, the build system
> stuff seems to be covered, but the rest of the server is a wasteland
> of unreviewedness.

Yeah, always easier to get review on code near the edges than DIX
stuff. No easy way to fix that unless we manage to get more people
needing to fix DIX code...

-- 
keith.packard at intel.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 827 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel/attachments/20120514/f692e41b/attachment.pgp>