[QGIS-Developer] A plea: more volunteers needed for reviewing backports

Wed May 5 03:05:47 PDT 2021

Hi Andreas

Thanks for the overview of the financial side of things. Regarding budget
allocation it would make sense to me to reduce bug-fixing and grants budget
and increase the spending on reviews. In my opinion both bug-fixing and
grants need some improvements anyway to bring more value to QGIS project,
but that's for a separate discussion (e.g. more focus on high priority
bugs, better voting system for grants to consider relevance/impact +
proposal quality + cost).

Speaking of myself, I would be happy to join the paid reviews efforts to
lower the fatigue of reviewers. And I hope it would attract some other QGIS
devs to join as well...

Regards
Martin

On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 11:06 AM Andreas Neumann <a.neumann at carto.net> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> To answer the financial question here:
>
> we had 6k € in the 2020 budget. This was distributed between Nyall (2.7k
> €) and Matthias/OPENGIS (2.7k €) and Alessandro (600 €, Server related
> reviews).
>
> In 2021 we increased and approved the budget to 10k. I am waiting for a
> proposal how to distribute this amount in 2021.
>
> Without having more sustaining members we can only increase these 10k by
> chipping away money from bug fixing (the bulk of our expenses) or the grant
> program (which is with 25k € not very large in 2021, less than in 2020).
>
> But finances are only parts of the problem, as discussed here. The main
> issue might be finding skilled devs who know the code base well and
> distribute this task more evenly between diffferent shoulders. Of course
> there is a connection between available funds and finding people working on
> reviewing ...
>
> Greetings,
>
> Andreas
>
> On 2021-05-01 13:04, Alessandro Pasotti wrote:
>
> Thank you Martin,
>
> I agree with your proposal, this is in line with what we have already
> discussed and it sounds a sustainable way to solve the problem, I'm not
> sure about the budget though: Andreas will probably have more information
> on that.
>
>
>
> On Sat, May 1, 2021 at 12:33 PM Martin Dobias <wonder.sk at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi all
>
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 12:07 AM Nyall Dawson <nyall.dawson at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> This is a public plea for more developers who are very familiar with
> different parts of the QGIS codebase to become actively involved in
> backport PR management.
>
>
> (Nyall later clarified this is not only about backport PRs, but all
> reviews in general)
>
> Thanks for starting this thread - it is a discussion we definitely need to
> have. (And apologies for getting back to this soooo late!)
>
> Pull request reviews are absolutely vital part of the QGIS development, a
> chance to get bugs fixed before they even get into QGIS code. Quality
> reviews also need a good amount of expertise of the QGIS code - often the
> hardest part of a review is not the code included is the pull request, but
> figuring out what is missing...
>
> Speaking of myself, I used to review pull requests regularly... But after
> several years I have to admit I mostly gave up doing that unless someone
> asks me to do a review. The pace of QGIS development is not getting any
> slower (which is great!), so there is a constant flow of new pull requests
> and doing code reviews regularly is not something I want to do in my free
> time... I am happy to do some QGIS work in my free time, but only doing
> what I want to do :-)
>
> For a company, strictly business speaking, sparing 15 minutes a day of a
> senior developer is roughly equivalent to lost profit of few thousands of
> EUR (assuming ~50 hours / year). And many reviews need much more time than
> 15 minutes... Moreover companies doing QGIS dev are often already donating
> to QGIS as sustaining members...
>
> In a mail in the thread it was suggested that companies doing QGIS
> development should add extra cost to quotes to accommodate the time for
> reviews (of unrelated pull requests). Not sure I agree with that - if a
> company had constant income from QGIS dev, that's doable, but if we are
> talking about occasional QGIS dev work, that is hard to plan.
>
> From all of that above, my thinking is that in order to make things
> sustainable, regular pull request reviews should be ideally funded by
> QGIS.org similarly to how paid bug-fixing sprints work. It is the kind of
> project maintainance work that needs to be done, it is not always super fun
> and it requires input of someone from a small group of people that are
> already donating lots of their free time.
>
> My proposal would be therefore along these lines:
> - PSC allocates annual budget to reviews
> - core devs interested in participating would indicate their availability
> (eligibility may be the same as with paid bug fixing)
> - PSC tells devs how much paid time they can spend on reviews
> - paid devs should do reviews regularly, e.g. at least twice a week,
> ideally every day - not just once a month or so
> - paid devs would self-assign themselves to PRs and do reviews
> - if a PR is not picked up by anyone e.g. within 3 days, PR queue manager
> would assign it to one of the paid devs
> - paid devs keep track of their time in a spreadsheet and invoice
> (quarterly?) up to the amount they were allocated
>
> I believe this approach should solve our problems:
> - remove stress from growing PR queue and reviewer burnout
> - get more core devs (who otherwise may not be available) to do reviews
> - reduce frustration from devs submitting PRs when their PRs are not
> getting attention
>
> In my humble opinion, good quality reviews are even more important than
> the regular paid bug fixing or grants. A review that is rushed due to lack
> of time may omit important code details, or focus only on code style...
>
> We could start with a relatively small budget and compensate the extremely
> valuable work that reviewers (Nyall and others) are already doing.
>
> Regards
> Martin
>
> _______________________________________________
> QGIS-Developer mailing list
> QGIS-Developer at lists.osgeo.org
> List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
>
>
>
> --
> Alessandro Pasotti
> QCooperative:  www.qcooperative.net
> ItOpen:   www.itopen.it
>
> _______________________________________________
> QGIS-Developer mailing list
> QGIS-Developer at lists.osgeo.org
> List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-developer/attachments/20210505/7ad5fb99/attachment.html>