RTBC is now "reviewed & tested by the community"
Hello world, After Daniel F. Kudwien pointed at http://drupal.org/node/156637 (rename RTBC) in my other RTBC thread, the issue saw a flurry of activity and, much to my delight, I was able to rename this status to something which much better reflects what it actually is. Thanks to: * fajerstarter for the new name * webchick for rerolling my small patch to make the issue state accomodate the longer name. * hunmonk for commiting and applying it on drupal.org. Enjoy! Karoly Negyesi
I'm REALLY happy that, after our long "RTBC - how does it work?" discussion after the D6 code freeze (http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/development/2007-July/thread.html ), we will avoid such misunderstandings by "new drupal contributors" after D7's code freeze. Yay, RTBC! - John On Feb 21, 2008, at 4:18 PM, Karoly Negyesi wrote:
Hello world,
After Daniel F. Kudwien pointed at http://drupal.org/node/156637 (rename RTBC) in my other RTBC thread, the issue saw a flurry of activity and, much to my delight, I was able to rename this status to something which much better reflects what it actually is.
Thanks to:
* fajerstarter for the new name * webchick for rerolling my small patch to make the issue state accomodate the longer name. * hunmonk for commiting and applying it on drupal.org.
Enjoy!
Karoly Negyesi
This new status name seems like a good idea. Let's monitor e.g. whether the new status should leads to a lower threshold than RTBC did.. The new status still needs to meet the need for core committers to have a meaningful list of fully reviewed and refined patches. In future, if needed, we could consider e.g. additional status options for expert review to cover that minority of issues that need an extra level of review by a maintainer or other developer with recognized applicable expertise. Nedjo
"RTBC": truly, finally, RTBC. Drupal community at its finest :)
Simon Hobbs wrote:
"RTBC": truly, finally, RTBC.
Drupal community at its finest :)
Please note that this only counts for core, really, and core actually only accounts for some of the issues in Drupal. I challenge you to find a contrib module where the community actually does enough reviewing and testing for this flag to actually mean what it says for the rest of the issue queue. Not that anybody in the issue queue really cares much about non-core anyway, but just thought I'd point out that contrib is, as usual, a second class citizen here.
Quoting Earl Miles <merlin@logrus.com>:
Simon Hobbs wrote:
"RTBC": truly, finally, RTBC.
Drupal community at its finest :)
Please note that this only counts for core, really, and core actually only accounts for some of the issues in Drupal.
I challenge you to find a contrib module where the community actually does enough reviewing and testing for this flag to actually mean what it says for the rest of the issue queue.
Not that anybody in the issue queue really cares much about non-core anyway, but just thought I'd point out that contrib is, as usual, a second class citizen here.
Isn't this mostly true with the original wording as well? The biggest advantage to have a module moved to core is that it takes on more scrutiny so that it maintains balance with core. Earnie -- http://for-my-kids.com/ -- http://give-me-an-offer.com/
I'm slightly worried that 'reviewed and tested by the community' will have lower quality submissions than 'ready to be committed'. The problem with 'reviewed and tested by the community' is that people will set it to 'reviewed and tested by the community' after one review, whereas with 'ready to be committed', we typically had different people looking at a patch. Read: I think 'ready to committed' was perfectly fine and I don't understand why this was changed without my approval. After all, I'm the one reviewing and committing these patches. Also, why the 'by the community' part? Why not just 'reviewed and tested'? Please rename at least to 'reviewed and tested'. Everything we do is community-driven so 'by the community' is completely redundant. It seems to suggest that there is a non-community body as well. On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 12:18 AM, Karoly Negyesi <karoly@negyesi.net> wrote:
Hello world,
After Daniel F. Kudwien pointed at http://drupal.org/node/156637 (rename RTBC) in my other RTBC thread, the issue saw a flurry of activity and, much to my delight, I was able to rename this status to something which much better reflects what it actually is.
Thanks to:
* fajerstarter for the new name * webchick for rerolling my small patch to make the issue state accomodate the longer name. * hunmonk for commiting and applying it on drupal.org.
Enjoy!
Karoly Negyesi
-- Dries Buytaert :: http://buytaert.net/
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 1:11 AM, Dries Buytaert <dries.buytaert@gmail.com> wrote:
Also, why the 'by the community' part? Why not just 'reviewed and tested'? Please rename at least to 'reviewed and tested'. Everything we do is community-driven so 'by the community' is completely redundant. It seems to suggest that there is a non-community body as well.
Dries, The reason is backward compatibility for the acronym, so that newcomers would check old issues and see "RTBC" and the new words would match it same with the old words. Personally, we break backward compatibility all the time in Drupal, and saw what the heck, it is worth it. So why not do the same with issue status and documentation too? Yeah, some inconvenience for sure, but better in the long term. -- Khalid M. Baheyeldin 2bits.com, Inc. http://2bits.com Drupal optimization, development, customization and consulting.
The reason is backward compatibility for the acronym, so that newcomers would check old issues and see "RTBC" and the new words would match it same with the old words.
Personally, we break backward compatibility all the time in Drupal, and saw what the heck, it is worth it. So why not do the same with issue status and documentation too? Yeah, some inconvenience for sure, but better in the long term.
So we're choosing sub-optimal status fields to preserve backward compatibility? That is very non-Drupal ... The whole 'tested and reviewed by the community' stuff doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. I wouldn't mind to have us switch back to 'ready to be committed'. -- Dries Buytaert :: http://buytaert.net/
The whole 'tested and reviewed by the community' stuff doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. I wouldn't mind to have us switch back to 'ready to be committed'.
Not I. -- Morbus Iff ( relax have a happy meal ) Technical: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/au/779 Enjoy: http://www.disobey.com/ and http://www.videounderbelly.com/ aim: akaMorbus / skype: morbusiff / icq: 2927491 / jabber.org: morbus
The whole 'tested and reviewed by the community' stuff doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. I wouldn't mind to have us switch back to 'ready to be committed'.
Nor I. -- Morbus Iff ( relax have a happy meal ) Technical: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/au/779 Enjoy: http://www.disobey.com/ and http://www.videounderbelly.com/ aim: akaMorbus / skype: morbusiff / icq: 2927491 / jabber.org: morbus
The whole 'tested and reviewed by the community' stuff doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. I wouldn't mind to have us switch back to 'ready to be committed'.
Nor I.
/me sighs. THIS was the right message, not my typo of "Not I". I coulda swore I had canceled that message in time. Curse critical typos! -- Morbus Iff ( relax have a happy meal ) Technical: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/au/779 Enjoy: http://www.disobey.com/ and http://www.videounderbelly.com/ aim: akaMorbus / skype: morbusiff / icq: 2927491 / jabber.org: morbus
On Feb 22, 2008, at 11:53 PM, Dries Buytaert wrote:
So we're choosing sub-optimal status fields to preserve backward compatibility? That is very non-Drupal ...
The whole 'tested and reviewed by the community' stuff doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. I wouldn't mind to have us switch back to 'ready to be committed'.
But as we discussed in July (http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/development/2007-July/025007.html ), newcomers think that "ready to be committed" means that it WILL get committed. So the "ready to be committed" wording doesn't make a whole lot of sense to them. From July:
We need a solution [to the RTBC problem] that naturally aligns new developers expectations with how core development is actually done.
'reviewed and tested by the community' is /slightly/ better (IMO) than the old RTBC meaning because it doesn't imply (to newcomers) that committers should commit everything that is RTBC. BUT... I don't think any 4-5 word phrase is adequate to explain when an issue should be marked RTBC. It would be much more useful to have a #description text below the Priority and Status pull-down menus that briefly describes those fields and links to the full Priority and Status definitions. For example in the line directly below the "Status" pull-down menu, place something like this: Descriptions of how to use Priority and Status levels can be found in the Contributing to Development Handbook [http://drupal.org/node/10259]. See this feature request: http://drupal.org/node/159457 Wouldn't that be much more useful than reverting RTBC? - John
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 7:28 PM, John Wilkins <drupal.user@albin.net> wrote:
On Feb 22, 2008, at 11:53 PM, Dries Buytaert wrote:
So we're choosing sub-optimal status fields to preserve backward compatibility? That is very non-Drupal ...
The whole 'tested and reviewed by the community' stuff doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. I wouldn't mind to have us switch back to 'ready to be committed'.
But as we discussed in July (http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/development/2007-July/025007.html ), newcomers think that "ready to be committed" means that it WILL get committed. So the "ready to be committed" wording doesn't make a whole lot of sense to them.
From July:
We need a solution [to the RTBC problem] that naturally aligns new developers expectations with how core development is actually done.
I agree. But I don't see why we need to preserve "backwards compatibility." Lets say I'm new, I go to the drupal issue queue and find an old issue that mentions "Marking RTBC." In that unlikely case that I actually care we could have a handbook page or forum discussion explaining what it means. I could easily find it by searching I'm sure. And likely there will be some questions but... I think Ready for comment(RFC) or Ready for review(RFR) have connotations that fit in line with what RTBC really means. IE, we're looking to have I high level peer review or review by the commiters.
'reviewed and tested by the community' is /slightly/ better (IMO) than the old RTBC meaning because it doesn't imply (to newcomers) that committers should commit everything that is RTBC.
BUT... I don't think any 4-5 word phrase is adequate to explain when an issue should be marked RTBC.
It would be much more useful to have a #description text below the Priority and Status pull-down menus that briefly describes those fields and links to the full Priority and Status definitions. For example in the line directly below the "Status" pull-down menu, place something like this: Descriptions of how to use Priority and Status levels can be found in the Contributing to Development Handbook [http://drupal.org/node/10259].
See this feature request: http://drupal.org/node/159457
Wouldn't that be much more useful than reverting RTBC?
I think it would be a great place to help explain a change or explain what's going on. -- James
Quoting Dries Buytaert <dries.buytaert@gmail.com>:
I'm slightly worried that 'reviewed and tested by the community' will have lower quality submissions than 'ready to be committed'. The problem with 'reviewed and tested by the community' is that people will set it to 'reviewed and tested by the community' after one review, whereas with 'ready to be committed', we typically had different people looking at a patch.
As was stated in the issue at least two reviewers and testers should comment before setting to this status. As for the control of the setting, it operates the same as Ready To Be Committed.
Read: I think 'ready to committed' was perfectly fine and I don't understand why this was changed without my approval. After all, I'm the one reviewing and committing these patches.
It is a user perception thing. Ready To Be Committed not committed inflames developers. Reviewed and Tested is implies that some role level greater than the patch creator can now take his precious time to look at this lowly patch.
Also, why the 'by the community' part? Why not just 'reviewed and tested'? Please rename at least to 'reviewed and tested'. Everything we do is community-driven so 'by the community' is completely redundant. It seems to suggest that there is a non-community body as well.
Agreed. Earnie -- http://for-my-kids.com/ -- http://give-me-an-offer.com/
Dries:
Also, why the 'by the community' part? Why not just 'reviewed and tested'? Please rename at least to 'reviewed and tested'. Everything we do is community-driven so 'by the community' is completely redundant. It seems to suggest that there is a non-community body as well.
When I saw that, I thought it was mainly about being more than one person. But "Reviewed and tested by more than one person" doesn't sound too good either.
The main issue here of course isn't so much the number of people setting things to RTBC without properly reviewing. It's the lack of people reviewing full stop.
Very nice! Congrats! Robin On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 7:18 PM, Karoly Negyesi <karoly@negyesi.net> wrote:
Hello world,
After Daniel F. Kudwien pointed at http://drupal.org/node/156637 (rename RTBC) in my other RTBC thread, the issue saw a flurry of activity and, much to my delight, I was able to rename this status to something which much better reflects what it actually is.
Thanks to:
* fajerstarter for the new name * webchick for rerolling my small patch to make the issue state accomodate the longer name. * hunmonk for commiting and applying it on drupal.org.
Enjoy!
Karoly Negyesi
-- Robin Monks @ www.robinmonks.com @ www.gmking.org @ www.multimediachurches.org Fax: (419) 791-8076 "Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might." ~ Ephesians 6:10
participants (12)
-
catch -
Dries Buytaert -
Earl Miles -
Earnie Boyd -
James Gilliland -
John Wilkins -
Karoly Negyesi -
Khalid Baheyeldin -
Morbus Iff -
Nedjo Rogers -
Robin Monks -
Simon Hobbs