Hi, We will discuss this at our PSC meeting on Tue 5.
Greetings, Andreas On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 at 00:21, Nyall Dawson via QGIS-PSC < qgis-...@lists.osgeo.org> wrote: > Hi PSC, > > I would love for an official call to be made on which of two > conflicting pull request queue management policies should be adopted > by QGIS. > > There are currently two proposals, and the lack of a formal policy is > causing confusion/conflict in how pull requests are managed. > > Policy #1: https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/pull/56062 > > In short, Sandro proposes that the pull request queue be an open queue > of ALL work happening everywhere, in any state of completeness. Pull > requests are permitted for semi-complete work, and for long-term > (including multi-year) projects which are not yet ready for review or > merge. The justification here is that having this work open in the > queue makes it widely visible and so that other developers are aware > of ongoing work across the community. > > Currently, these pull requests will be auto-closed by stalebot due to > the lack of activity on the ticket. Sandro's proposal is to disable > stalebot handing of draft / WIP pull requests, and effectively to > formalise that the queue is a valid place for work of this nature and > status. > > (@strk please expand here if you feel I haven't summarised your point > of view correctly!) > > Policy #2: https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/pull/56523 > > In this PR I propose to set a formal policy that draft and WIP pull > requests are NOT suitable for opening against the QGIS repository. > > My justification is that we have a long-standing issue with > maintainability of the pull request queue, and anything which > decreases the signal-to-noise ratio on open tickets is undesirable. > When the queue includes work which is not ready for review, then it > becomes very tricky to work out the actual status of pull requests and > which ones should be focused on during review time. (Effectively right > now we have a situation where any pull request which is pushed on the > 2nd page of requests will basically NEVER get reviewed, as there is a > constant stream of ready-for-review work flowing into the first page > and the signal-to-noise ratio of ready-for-review/merge PRs on > subsequent pages is extremely low). I do not believe it is fair for > submissions like https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/pull/55172 or > https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/pull/55293 where reviews take SUCH a long > time, and it is my belief that by keeping the queue as small as > possible and avoiding WIP/draft work we will increase the likelihood > that PRs like these can be reviewed more quickly in future. > > Please note that there is considerable discussion on > https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/pull/56062 already which should be read > when reviewing this decision. > > Can I ask that PSC choose one of these two policies to formally adopt > so that there is no misunderstanding or conflict in future? > > Thanks in advance! > Nyall > _______________________________________________ > QGIS-PSC mailing list > qgis-...@lists.osgeo.org > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc > -- -- Andreas Neumann QGIS.ORG board member (treasurer)
_______________________________________________ QGIS-Developer mailing list QGIS-Developer@lists.osgeo.org List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
