+1 to Niharika - the initial iteration caused some inconvenience, but I expect subsequent
iterations to be useful. Thank you Paladox!
On 22 Jan 2019, at 13:09, Niharika Kohli
<nkohli(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 6:12 PM Paladox via Wikitech-l <
wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
What your saying is making me think I’m wasting
my time on improving this
extension.
Also other users that have spoken to me have thought this extension is
great but could do with improvements which I am doing. We need to think of
new users and how to improve there experence. The task was opened for a
long while yet no one commented on it.
I agree with legoktm feedback.
“A process that annoys people based on nothing but the fact that
theyhappened to be the last one touching a file *is* fundamentally broken.”
yes hence why I’ve been making improvements by adding a button which is
better then nothing right?
As chad mentions it has no idea what is a typo fix compared to other
things as it’s not A.I.
Thanks for working on this, Paladox. I think this can be a really useful
feature for newcomers and experienced developers alike, if implemented
well. I look forward to seeing it in action.
On Tuesday, 22 January 2019, 12:05:24 GMT,
Thiemo Kreuz <
thiemo.kreuz(a)wikimedia.de> wrote:
Fundamentally broken sounds like a bit of a
stretch.
A process that annoys people based on nothing but the fact that they
happened to be the last one touching a file *is* fundamentally broken.
This is not how anyone should look for reviewers, neither manually nor
automatically.
Here is a thought experiment: We could send review requests to the
*least* active users that are still around, but *never* touched a
file. The positive effects of such an approach include:
* More people get familiar with the code.
* Knowledge gets spread more evenly.
* Bottlenecks and bus factors get reduced.
* These people probably have more time.
* Review requests are spread more evenly.
* Workload is spread more evenly.
Still sounds like a bad idea? Sure, because it is. Now tell me: How is
it more clever to do the *opposite* and dump review requests on people
that have to much workload already?
At this point I don't care any more if we are talking about a fully
automated process or a suggest button. Both are targeting the wrong
people.
it was probably working quite well for our
less-trafficked repositories.
What is the difference between being the last one fixing a typo in a
low-traffic vs. high-traffic repository? In both cases it's the wrong
person.
Thiemo
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
--
Niharika
Product Manager
Community Tech
Wikimedia Foundation
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l