Talk:Misc:Review Stats

It might also be a good idea to compare patches to the module owners page.

• How many patches have bounced from reviewer to reviewer without any progress? (Two or more reviewers without any reviews.)

-- Alex Vincent

• How many times has a patch been obseleted and an updated one posted due to bitrot while awaiting review?

-- Jon Henry

• How many patches have review granted and have not been landed?

-- Kurt Schultz

• For how many patches was the person who requested review not the one who attached it? (e.g. people not realizing they need review, and someone else stepping in)
• How many non-obsoleted patches don't have any review requests? (e.g. people attaching a patch and forgetting about it/giving up)

-- Jens Bannmann

Clarity on when one could request CVS checkin Access

While this is only semi-relevant, I would like to express some concern about how many reviewers there are in the first place, because I think this too influences the delays in giving out reviews. While of course, every module would like more reviewers, I have (from time to time) heard complaints especially about front-end code. One of the points I'd like to make about this is that the documentation on how to get cvs access on mozilla.org is targeted to a C/C++ oriented audience, and rather vague at actual requirements. (X-ray vision and such).

The requirements being detailed in such a way means that apparently, people who solely hack on front-end code cannot apply for CVS access, while I doubt mconnor and some of the other reviewers would say 'no' if asked if they would appreciate any help in reviews and/or checkins.

Even taking this into account: At this point, I have had nearly 50 patches checked into the tree, primarily for ChatZilla. The document doesn't give me the slightest clue whether this is 'enough' to apply for CVS access, and I'm not happy about randomly asking for cvs-access because of the general rules on IRC / Forums / Communities in general (asking to become ircop/admin/mod/anything-of-importance rules you out). While I guess this is not entirely the case here, it still means I (and I assume others) are reluctant in asking for cvs access, while I think that reviewers could certainly appreciate a hand at times.

I'm assuming I'm not the only one with this problem (or who would imagine such a problem occurring for potential new continuous contributors), in order for the above not to turn into a shameless self-promotion. If this assumption turns out to be erroneous (and I'm either of 'too humble' or 'too eager'), my apologies; it is definitely not intended to be a shameless self-promotion :-).

GijsKruitbosch 16:28, 22 Nov 2005 (PST)