State of the Sponsorship Queue - Can we get it to 0?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
10 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

State of the Sponsorship Queue - Can we get it to 0?

Simon Quigley-2
Hello,

Today I spent a few hours sifting through the sponsorship queue. I
sponsored everything I could review and was comfortable sponsoring, and
asked for changes on many bug reports. The queue started out at about 70
(I didn't catch the exact number) and is now down to 13.

One of the most common changes I requested was that people edit bug
descriptions to follow the SRU template for bugs which have sponsorship
requests open for stable releases. Perhaps a message recommending that
could be added to Brian's automatic reply bot.

Here is my current analysis of the queue:

Requests left: 13
 - https://pad.lv/1802483 - snap-related libnotify patch which I am not
comfortable reviewing. It otherwise seems ready.
 - https://pad.lv/1803385 - debian-installer-related patches which I am
not comfortable reviewing. I pinged slashd asking if he could take a look.
 - https://pad.lv/1763520 - Disco was fixed, but there are debdiffs for
Cosmic and Bionic as well. I pinged Laney to ask if he could review them.
 - https://pad.lv/1754075 - debian-installer-related patch which I am
not comfortable reviewing.
 - https://pad.lv/1762572 - dput patch which juliank said he would
review; I pinged him on IRC.
 - https://pad.lv/1814791 - dput patch which should probably be uploaded
alongside the above patch.
 - https://pad.lv/1770093 - debian-installer-related patch which I am
not comfortable reviewing.
 - https://pad.lv/1814118 - sil2100's name is on it; I subscribed him
but he hasn't had the chance to review it yet.
 - https://pad.lv/1778844 - vorlon sponsored it for a previous release;
I am assuming that, with it only being four days old, it is on someone's
TODO list.
 - https://pad.lv/1821811 - sarnold was looking into it but has not
followed up yet on the bug report. I pinged him on IRC.
 - https://pad.lv/1823778 - The Desktop Team has yet to review.
 -
https://code.launchpad.net/~azzar1/update-notifier/handle-applying-state-livepatch/+merge/366059
- Related to livepatch, so a Canonical employee with access to test that
should probably be the one to merge it.
 - https://pad.lv/1824073 - Looks to be an OEM-related
debian-installer-related patch that I am not comfortable reviewing.

Wouldn't it be excellent if we could get this down to 0 so we can start
the Eoan cycle with a clean slate? :)

--
Simon Quigley
[hidden email]
tsimonq2 on freenode and OFTC
5C7A BEA2 0F86 3045 9CC8
C8B5 E27F 2CF8 458C 2FA4


--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel

signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: State of the Sponsorship Queue - Can we get it to 0?

Robie Basak-4
On Sat, Apr 20, 2019 at 05:12:17PM -0500, Simon Quigley wrote:
>                                        The queue started out at about 70
> (I didn't catch the exact number) and is now down to 13.

Wow. Thank you!

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel

signature.asc (836 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: State of the Sponsorship Queue - Can we get it to 0?

Gunnar Hjalmarsson
In reply to this post by Simon Quigley-2
On 2019-04-21 00:12, Simon Quigley wrote:
> Today I spent a few hours sifting through the sponsorship queue. I
> sponsored everything I could review and was comfortable sponsoring,
> and asked for changes on many bug reports. The queue started out at
> about 70 (I didn't catch the exact number) and is now down to 13.
👏

--
Gunnar Hjalmarsson
https://launchpad.net/~gunnarhj

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: State of the Sponsorship Queue - Can we get it to 0?

Julian Andres Klode
In reply to this post by Simon Quigley-2
On Sat, Apr 20, 2019 at 05:12:17PM -0500, Simon Quigley wrote:
>  - https://pad.lv/1762572 - dput patch which juliank said he would
> review; I pinged him on IRC.
>  - https://pad.lv/1814791 - dput patch which should probably be uploaded
> alongside the above patch.

Done - Merged dput 1.0.3, and then fixes for those two bugs.

--
debian developer - deb.li/jak | jak-linux.org - free software dev
ubuntu core developer                              i speak de, en

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel

signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: State of the Sponsorship Queue - Can we get it to 0?

Sebastien Bacher
In reply to this post by Simon Quigley-2
Hey Simon,

Le 21/04/2019 à 00:12, Simon Quigley a écrit :
> Today I spent a few hours sifting through the sponsorship queue. I
> sponsored everything I could review and was comfortable sponsoring, and
> asked for changes on many bug reports. The queue started out at about 70
> (I didn't catch the exact number) and is now down to 13.

Good work, it's nice to see some sponsoring activity :-)

> One of the most common changes I requested was that people edit bug
> descriptions to follow the SRU template for bugs which have sponsorship
> requests open for stable releases. Perhaps a message recommending that
> could be added to Brian's automatic reply bot.

I'm not sure I agree with that being enough of a reason to get them out
of the sponsoring queue though. Did you unsubscribe sponsors? Or marked
them incomplete? It would be nice to keep those on the list in some way
because they can still be useful.

Depending of the fix I sometime do edit the description myself&do the
upload rather than bouncing back to the contributor.

While it's nicer when the bug is ready/needs to work, I don't think
enforcing roundtrips over 'paperwork' always benefits the project. When
a fix makes sense and addresses a real issue which is easy to verify it
can be less effort for everyone to have the sponsor go the extra mile.

(in some cases it's not obvious how the bugs can be triggered/tested,
then it makes sense to ask for the details and set as incomplete though).

Cheers,
Sebastien Bacher




--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: State of the Sponsorship Queue - Can we get it to 0?

Robie Basak-4
On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 11:47:05AM +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
> While it's nicer when the bug is ready/needs to work, I don't think
> enforcing roundtrips over 'paperwork' always benefits the project. When
> a fix makes sense and addresses a real issue which is easy to verify it
> can be less effort for everyone to have the sponsor go the extra mile.

I agree that extra roundtrips are painful, and that may put off
volunteers.

However as much as "doing useful work" is always going to be good for
the project, we can't impose that on people, and I think it's unfair on
Simon to criticize him for not going the extra mile given that he's
seemingly one of the few who are going any miles at all right now.

Given that we're so short of sponsors processing the sponsorship queue
at all right now, I don't think it's appropriate to ask sponsors to be
doing any more than they are already.

On the other hand, if someone wants to volunteer to sort out the
paperwork, that's always appreciated :-)

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel

signature.asc (836 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: State of the Sponsorship Queue - Can we get it to 0?

Sebastien Bacher
Hey Robie,

Le 23/04/2019 à 11:54, Robie Basak a écrit :
> and I think it's unfair on
> Simon to criticize him for not going the extra mile given that he's
> seemingly one of the few who are going any miles at all right now.

That was not my intend to criticize him, it's fine for Simon or anyone
to decide to 'skip over' those and/or ask for the contributor to add the
SRU info, sorry if I gave the impression I was being negative on that

What I was trying to say is that I would prefer for those items to stay
on the report (or have another subpage if that makes more sense?) so we
don't 'lose' them completely. If they are removed from the page and the
submitter doesn't come back then there is a good chance that no-one is
ever going to go and fish the contribution back. I'm still interested to
have those listed somewhere because I personally do find of those items
worth sponsoring and I'm wanting to do the work needed in some cases
(but I can't if they vanish from the queue)

Cheers,
Sebastien Bacher




--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Improving the Sponsorship Queue and Other Reports (WAS: Re: State of the Sponsorship Queue - Can we get it to 0?)

Simon Quigley-2
In reply to this post by Sebastien Bacher
Hello Sebastien,

On 4/23/19 4:47 AM, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
> Hey Simon,
>
> Le 21/04/2019 à 00:12, Simon Quigley a écrit :
>> Today I spent a few hours sifting through the sponsorship queue. I
>> sponsored everything I could review and was comfortable sponsoring, and
>> asked for changes on many bug reports. The queue started out at about 70
>> (I didn't catch the exact number) and is now down to 13.
>
> Good work, it's nice to see some sponsoring activity :-)

Thanks (to Robie and Gunnar as well)!

>> One of the most common changes I requested was that people edit bug
>> descriptions to follow the SRU template for bugs which have sponsorship
>> requests open for stable releases. Perhaps a message recommending that
>> could be added to Brian's automatic reply bot.
>
> I'm not sure I agree with that being enough of a reason to get them out
> of the sponsoring queue though. Did you unsubscribe sponsors? Or marked
> them incomplete? It would be nice to keep those on the list in some way
> because they can still be useful.
>
> Depending of the fix I sometime do edit the description myself&do the
> upload rather than bouncing back to the contributor.
>
> While it's nicer when the bug is ready/needs to work, I don't think
> enforcing roundtrips over 'paperwork' always benefits the project. When
> a fix makes sense and addresses a real issue which is easy to verify it
> can be less effort for everyone to have the sponsor go the extra mile.
>
> (in some cases it's not obvious how the bugs can be triggered/tested,
> then it makes sense to ask for the details and set as incomplete though).
While I agree with Robie that we have limited contributors working on
the queue (I have noticed more activity lately from others, thank you!),
my rationale was to review it purely with an Ubuntu Sponsors Team hat on
while I was getting the queue to a manageable point; a package is either
ready to sponsor (sometimes with fix-ups) or it isn't. Sometimes, I can
understand what a patch is doing by reviewing it, but I would like to
understand the wider ramifications (if any) from the person that
reported it. While I recognize this isn't always the case, getting their
feedback from what can otherwise be a terse bug report has, in my
experience at least, led to a higher quality paperwork end result.
Perhaps this is because most of the items I have dealt with recently
either have an Ubuntu Developer, a Canonical employee, a Debian
Developer, and/or upstream working on them.

I would like to address the wider point here, though. Right now we have
no way to leave a comment directly on the sponsorship queue, much like
we do with MoM, which would solve this. We have sorting, but the CSS
(while not entirely important) looks outdated. While I could spend a day
or two polishing that page specifically, and make it look presentable
with all the fields we would need, we have several other pages that are
in a similar state. Here are a few examples:
https://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/pending-sru.html
https://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/phased-updates.html
http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/proposed-migration/update_excuses.html

These pages are quite scattered; while outputs can come from different
machines (I have no idea what this looks like internally at Canonical,
this is just a guess) and different sources (Britney, sru-report, etc.),
it would be nice to bookmark *one* page that has each of these as clean,
modern-looking, and consistent pages as sub-pages. From there, we could
generate reports, perhaps similar to the Debian Maintainer Dashboard.

I understand this might seem like a significant undertaking, and I am
willing to do the work in order to make this happen, but I would like to
have the conversation about whether others would find this useful.
Please let me know if you are an Ubuntu Developer who would like this
(or if you object to it, more importantly), and I can create an initial
specification and mockup to send back to this thread.

Thanks!

--
Simon Quigley
[hidden email]
tsimonq2 on freenode and OFTC
5C7A BEA2 0F86 3045 9CC8
C8B5 E27F 2CF8 458C 2FA4


--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel

signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Improving the Sponsorship Queue and Other Reports (WAS: Re: State of the Sponsorship Queue - Can we get it to 0?)

Dan Streetman
On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 11:27 PM Simon Quigley <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Hello Sebastien,
>
> On 4/23/19 4:47 AM, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
> > Hey Simon,
> >
> > Le 21/04/2019 à 00:12, Simon Quigley a écrit :
> >> Today I spent a few hours sifting through the sponsorship queue. I
> >> sponsored everything I could review and was comfortable sponsoring, and
> >> asked for changes on many bug reports. The queue started out at about 70
> >> (I didn't catch the exact number) and is now down to 13.
> >
> > Good work, it's nice to see some sponsoring activity :-)
>
> Thanks (to Robie and Gunnar as well)!
>
> >> One of the most common changes I requested was that people edit bug
> >> descriptions to follow the SRU template for bugs which have sponsorship
> >> requests open for stable releases. Perhaps a message recommending that
> >> could be added to Brian's automatic reply bot.
> >
> > I'm not sure I agree with that being enough of a reason to get them out
> > of the sponsoring queue though. Did you unsubscribe sponsors? Or marked
> > them incomplete? It would be nice to keep those on the list in some way
> > because they can still be useful.
> >
> > Depending of the fix I sometime do edit the description myself&do the
> > upload rather than bouncing back to the contributor.
> >
> > While it's nicer when the bug is ready/needs to work, I don't think
> > enforcing roundtrips over 'paperwork' always benefits the project. When
> > a fix makes sense and addresses a real issue which is easy to verify it
> > can be less effort for everyone to have the sponsor go the extra mile.
> >
> > (in some cases it's not obvious how the bugs can be triggered/tested,
> > then it makes sense to ask for the details and set as incomplete though).
>
> While I agree with Robie that we have limited contributors working on
> the queue (I have noticed more activity lately from others, thank you!),
> my rationale was to review it purely with an Ubuntu Sponsors Team hat on
> while I was getting the queue to a manageable point; a package is either
> ready to sponsor (sometimes with fix-ups) or it isn't. Sometimes, I can
> understand what a patch is doing by reviewing it, but I would like to
> understand the wider ramifications (if any) from the person that
> reported it. While I recognize this isn't always the case, getting their
> feedback from what can otherwise be a terse bug report has, in my
> experience at least, led to a higher quality paperwork end result.
> Perhaps this is because most of the items I have dealt with recently
> either have an Ubuntu Developer, a Canonical employee, a Debian
> Developer, and/or upstream working on them.
>
> I would like to address the wider point here, though. Right now we have
> no way to leave a comment directly on the sponsorship queue, much like
> we do with MoM, which would solve this. We have sorting, but the CSS
> (while not entirely important) looks outdated. While I could spend a day
> or two polishing that page specifically, and make it look presentable
> with all the fields we would need, we have several other pages that are
> in a similar state. Here are a few examples:
> https://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/pending-sru.html
> https://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/phased-updates.html
> http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/proposed-migration/update_excuses.html

I've also been thinking of creating modern (dynamic) interfaces to this info.

>
> These pages are quite scattered; while outputs can come from different
> machines (I have no idea what this looks like internally at Canonical,
> this is just a guess) and different sources (Britney, sru-report, etc.),
> it would be nice to bookmark *one* page that has each of these as clean,
> modern-looking, and consistent pages as sub-pages. From there, we could
> generate reports, perhaps similar to the Debian Maintainer Dashboard.
>
> I understand this might seem like a significant undertaking, and I am
> willing to do the work in order to make this happen, but I would like to
> have the conversation about whether others would find this useful.
> Please let me know if you are an Ubuntu Developer who would like this
> (or if you object to it, more importantly), and I can create an initial
> specification and mockup to send back to this thread.
>
> Thanks!
>
> --
> Simon Quigley
> [hidden email]
> tsimonq2 on freenode and OFTC
> 5C7A BEA2 0F86 3045 9CC8
> C8B5 E27F 2CF8 458C 2FA4
>
> --
> ubuntu-devel mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Improving the Sponsorship Queue and Other Reports (WAS: Re: State of the Sponsorship Queue - Can we get it to 0?)

Robie Basak-4
In reply to this post by Simon Quigley-2
Hi Simon,

Thank you for volunteering to work on wider improvements!

I suggest that you start by ensuring that all the existing reports
provide machine readable output (for example json). Then you could work
on new, better UX based reports using that output as input. This way the
existing reports wouldn't be impacted while you make things better.

I do like the idea of MoM-style notes fields on the other reports.

For SRUs, I'd love to see the report have the option to be sorted by
package first, and release second - since it saves a ton of time to be
able to process SRUs for multiple releases at once - from an SRU review
and release perspective, at least.

Robie

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel

signature.asc (836 bytes) Download Attachment