Dries Buytaert wrote:
On 30 Jul 2005, at 18:28, Dries Buytaert wrote:
The patch is live on drupal.org. What remains to be done is defining new status values. Let's do that now. Here are some that could be useful:
1. Needs code review 2. Needs testing 3. Needs benchmarking 4. Needs update/work 5. Needs feedback
OK, I setup 3 new categories:
1. patch (code needs review) 2. patch (code needs work) 3. patch (ready to be committed)
We can refine or reword these later on. Right now, all patches default to 'patch (code needs review)' so we'll want to work our way to the patch queue and update the patches according to the new fields.
Thoughts?
These new options sure will be an improvement. The problem that still persist is the cycle of updating/reviewing/testing/approving, with some issues becoming long long threads to read, and also who takes the responsibility to update status for a patch, and whether you can trust that person's judgement or not. One way to address this could be approaching it as a rating system better than a simple 'status' field. I'm thinking of a 'moderation queue' like system, in which several users/reviewers could post their votes on a patch. Then you -or someone reviewing patches for final 'commit' could see it like: - 6 people are against this specific feature (list...) - 5 people thinks patch needs work (list: user1, user2,...) - 4 people thinks patch is ready to be committed (list....) Reviewers should be able too, to change their 'vote' on the patch once its been updated. Votes like 'ready to be committed' could be restricted, by role, to a reduced number of users. Or votes could be weighted depending on some 'trust level' assigned to each users. I know this 'rating system' wont be easy to implement. But once its up and running it coul be the killer feature for speeding up patch reviewing. You could also have some filter system, so only patches that already have a number of +1 reviews will have to catch your attention.
-- Dries Buytaert :: http://www.buytaert.net/