João Abecasis wrote:
For those who missed it, I suggested on the "Languishing review requests" thread that we keep track of Review Requests and Applications for Review Managers in the ticketing system. The goal being to avoid the "silent rejection" problem.
I'm not convinces this problem is really a serious problem. Sometimes, there just isn't much interest in a given library, and the silence that comes along with that means that the library shouldn't move forward into the "formal" parts of the review process (finding a review manager, scheduling a review, etc.). Still, my view on this doesn't mean that I don't agree with your ideas below... because I do.
Below I offer some suggestions on how this could work, just to get the discussion rolling.
* Ticket Type: we could use one or two more ticket types: (Library) Review Requests and a Review Manager Application. Perhaps a single generic "Review Request" would work just as well, to begin with.
Let's just have one ticket type. I suggest calling it "Library Submission", because that seems to cover the whole process.
* Reporter: The person submitting the review request or RM application
* Status: Assigned would be used when a Review Manager has been assigned. He is responsible for "closing" the review ticket.
Sounds good. Actually, we might want to take this one step further: once a review manager is assigned, the ticket is passed to that person. When the formal review is completed (and assuming the library is accepted), the review manager could bounce the ticket back to the author. The ticket is closed, and milestone assigned, when the library is integrated in CVS/Subversion (and we therefore know the version in which the library will appear). That means one will be able to easily tell which version of Boost a library will appear in, just from the ticket system.
* Owner: per above, this would be the Review Manager for a library submission and the Review Wizard for other types of requests.
Ah, okay. So initially,. the review wizard would own the ticket, then pass it to the review manager, then finally to the library author before it's closed?
* Milestone: Perhaps a bit far-fetched, but this could be used to follow the library library submission process (http://boost.org/more/submission_process.htm). This allows one to check at a glance libraries in each stage. It could also clutter the Roadmap page. None of these Milestone Steps would advance: tickets would progress from one to another.
Let's not do this. Milestones should be reserved for Boost and tool releases. Anyway, we can easily create custom reports that would only look for library submissions, grouping them by milestone (which automagically shows which Boost release a library will appear in). Creating new reports in Trac is as simple as adding a new SQL query to http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/report
* Version: Version of Boost with which the library was tested? Version for inclusion after acceptance?
"Milestone" seems a better match for this, but either one will do.
* Component: "Boost Process"
Okay.
And if you've got this far... Do you think this is a good idea in general? Do you think something like this adds more "process" with no or little gain? Is it any friendlier to potential submitters? How about potential review managers? ...
I think this is a good idea. It gives us a better "paper" trail to see where each submission is, and can help automate some of the tasks that the review wizards and review managers are already doing. Here's my suggestion: write up a page on the Trac describing how to use the ticket system to track the library submission process (which will probably just be called LibrarySubmissionProcess). Write it as if this were *the* submission process documentation, integrating all of the material from http://boost.org/more/submission_process.htm along with the instructions/links to the right places in the Trac system. If you like the names "Boost Process" (for the component) and "Library Submission" (for the ticket type), then drop me a line and I'll add those to the Trac. I've enabled the ability to create and modify reports on the Trac (assuming you already have access to the Subversion repository; if not, see http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/wiki/BoostSubversion). I would suggest that you take some of the entries on http://boost.org/more/formal_review_schedule.html and create tickets for them retroactively (even for older, accepted libraries). Then, you could add a Trac report that shows the status of all of the library submissions. I like your idea to use the Trac ticket system to keep track of reviews. I'm also interested in migrating developer-centric content from the web site over to the Trac, where it can be more easily maintained, and in replacing hand-maintained web pages (like the formal review schedule) with auto-generated reports, where possible. In the end, however, Tom Brinkman and Ron Garcia manage the formal reviews, and these tools are meant to make their jobs easier along with helping others better understand the process. - Doug