[QGIS-Developer] 32 by 3.2?

[Alessandro Pasotti]

On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 1:15 AM, Nyall Dawson <nyall.dawson at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> It's no surprise to anyone familiar with the QGIS project that we've
> got an issue with the Pull Request queue. It's been slowly growing
> over time, recently hitting over 150 open requests! It's a bit of an
> embarrassment to the project (some of these PRs have been open for
> years!), and is likely causing us to lose new contributors and code.
>
> The usual magic QGIS coding pixies did some work lately and squashed
> the queue back below 100 requests. But the remaining ones are all the
> difficult, unfinished or orphaned PRs...
>
> PR reviewing is hard. Not everyone can review every open PR due to
> different familiarity with areas of the codebase. (Which is why I
> don't think a funding grant to cover this will ever work
> successfully). And no-one wants to be the 'bad guy" who closes an
> unmerged PR representing someone else's hard work.
>
> So I propose a "32 by 3.2" sprint, where we ALL collaboratively aim to
> reduce the PR queue to <32 open requests before 3.2 release.
>
> I think we could achieve this by:
>
> 1. Adopting a hard-line approach to the older, orphaned PRs. Even if
> they have some value or reflect real issues, if no-one is interested
> in cleaning up the request to get it merge ready then we close it.
>
> 2. Adopt a "open-one, close-one" guideline for core committers. Heck,
> I think every core committer has at least 1 or 2 open PRs representing
> various experiments and WIP in unfinished states. These should either
> be finished off, or closed and re-opened when the work is actually
> ready to go. And for test PRs which are "for comment only" I'd suggest
> a QEP is more likely to get better feedback and is the more
> appropriate place for this discussion of this nature.
>
> 3. Closing orphaned or risky PRs which are targeted to 2.18 and which
> have been fixed in master branch.
>
> 4. Sharing the hard work so that the magic pixies don't lose their
> magic powers :)
>
> Thoughts?
>


These are all good ideas!

I'd expecially go for 1, 3 and 4.


-- 
Alessandro Pasotti
w3:   www.itopen.it
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-developer/attachments/20180508/cf7ae938/attachment.html>