> On 16 Oct 2015, at 12:06, Stefano Stabellini
> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 14 Oct 2015, Lars Kurth wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I wanted to walk you through some of the results of the Review Process study
>> https://github.com/dicortazar/ipython-notebooks/blob/master/projects/xen-analysis/Code-Revie
On Wed, 14 Oct 2015, Lars Kurth wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I wanted to walk you through some of the results of the Review Process study
> https://github.com/dicortazar/ipython-notebooks/blob/master/projects/xen-analysis/Code-Review-Metrics.ipynb
>
>
I noticed that the "time to ack" doesn't see
On Fri, 2015-10-16 at 10:29 +0100, Lars Kurth wrote:
> > On 16 Oct 2015, at 10:19, Ian Campbell wrote:
> >
> > > * To consider that when there is no activity for a certain period,
> > > the
> > > review is no longer going to progress, and can be considered
> > > abandoned.
> > > The main trouble
> On 16 Oct 2015, at 10:19, Ian Campbell wrote:
>
>> * To consider that when there is no activity for a certain period, the
>> review is no longer going to progress, and can be considered abandoned.
>> The main trouble with this could be that we have seen some patch series
>> inactive for very l
On Fri, 2015-10-16 at 00:32 +0200, Jesus M. Gonzalez-Barahona wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-10-15 at 22:36 +0100, Lars Kurth wrote:
> > > On 15 Oct 2015, at 10:26, Ian Campbell
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 2015-10-15 at 10:06 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
>
> > > > On Wed, 2015-10-14 at 18:32 +0100, La
On Thu, 2015-10-15 at 22:18 +0100, Lars Kurth wrote:
> > Separately, I suppose it is impossible to distinguish stalled from
> > abandoned (and perhaps in some senses they are the same thing so we don't
> > need to distinguish).
>
> Agreed. Unless we come up with some sort of convention, marking a
On Thu, 2015-10-15 at 22:18 +0100, Lars Kurth wrote:
>
> > On 15 Oct 2015, at 10:06, Ian Campbell wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 2015-10-14 at 18:32 +0100, Lars Kurth wrote:
> >> C1) Only 60% percent of the reviews on the mailing list could be matched
> >> to commits. This can be improved going forward,
On Thu, 2015-10-15 at 12:58 +0100, Wei Liu wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 06:32:37PM +0100, Lars Kurth wrote:
> [...]
> >
> > == Cycle Time [27] to [29] ==
> > This is not quite obvious from the definition in 1. For the cycle
> > time, we basically ignore the mapping to a patch or patch series
>
On Thu, 2015-10-15 at 22:36 +0100, Lars Kurth wrote:
> > On 15 Oct 2015, at 10:26, Ian Campbell
> > wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 2015-10-15 at 10:06 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2015-10-14 at 18:32 +0100, Lars Kurth wrote:
> [...]
> That is correct and a case we need to look at if it's wo
On Thu, 2015-10-15 at 22:36 +0100, Lars Kurth wrote:
> > On 15 Oct 2015, at 10:26, Ian Campbell
> > wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 2015-10-15 at 10:06 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2015-10-14 at 18:32 +0100, Lars Kurth wrote:
> > > > C1) Only 60% percent of the reviews on the mailing list coul
> On 15 Oct 2015, at 10:26, Ian Campbell wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2015-10-15 at 10:06 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
>> On Wed, 2015-10-14 at 18:32 +0100, Lars Kurth wrote:
>>> C1) Only 60% percent of the reviews on the mailing list could be
>>> matched
>>> to commits. This can be improved going forward,
> On 15 Oct 2015, at 12:58, Wei Liu wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 06:32:37PM +0100, Lars Kurth wrote:
> [...]
>>
>> == Cycle Time [27] to [29] ==
>> This is not quite obvious from the definition in 1. For the cycle time, we
>> basically ignore the mapping to a patch or patch series and ju
> On 15 Oct 2015, at 10:06, Ian Campbell wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2015-10-14 at 18:32 +0100, Lars Kurth wrote:
>> C1) Only 60% percent of the reviews on the mailing list could be matched
>> to commits. This can be improved going forward, but we felt that the
>> dataset is big enough for statical analy
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 06:32:37PM +0100, Lars Kurth wrote:
[...]
>
> == Cycle Time [27] to [29] ==
> This is not quite obvious from the definition in 1. For the cycle time, we
> basically ignore the mapping to a patch or patch series and just look at the
> cycle times between review iterations
On Thu, 2015-10-15 at 10:06 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-10-14 at 18:32 +0100, Lars Kurth wrote:
> > C1) Only 60% percent of the reviews on the mailing list could be
> > matched
> > to commits. This can be improved going forward, but we felt that the
> > dataset is big enough for stati
On Wed, 2015-10-14 at 18:32 +0100, Lars Kurth wrote:
> C1) Only 60% percent of the reviews on the mailing list could be matched
> to commits. This can be improved going forward, but we felt that the
> dataset is big enough for statical analysis and didn't want to spend too
> much time to get the ma
Hi everyone,
I wanted to walk you through some of the results of the Review Process study
https://github.com/dicortazar/ipython-notebooks/blob/master/projects/xen-analysis/Code-Review-Metrics.ipynb
I am also looking for input and views.
Best Regards
Lars
== Caveats ==
C1) Only 60% percent of
17 matches
Mail list logo
