| dww | I'm happy to see this thread tends to be empty in our meetings. :heart: I once heard a very wise perspective that "there's no such thing as 'venting', you're just rehearsing" -- rehashing your negative emotions about something and reliving the frustration. Maybe we could remove this as a standard agenda item going forward? |
| pratik_kamble | I sometime feel one thread should be there to listen to pain points of contributor. May be we can rephrase this these item. @larowlan any thoughts |
| larowlan | But the acronym |
| dww | What acronym? |
| larowlan | 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 wins, thanks, frustrations :joy: |
| larowlan | always thinking about these things when naming … see also drupal.org/project/field_union |
| larowlan | i’ll see myself out |
| larowlan | but yeah +1 to remove frustrations - jokes aside |
| samiullah | from testers point of view, steps to replicate were missing in some issues. We shd make it a practice to add issue replication steps |
| dww | @samiullah It should hopefully be getting a bit better now that https://www.drupal.org/node/1393226 and #2281761: Add "Steps to reproduce" section to "Bare issue summary template" for dreditor and default value for new issues are done/deployed. |
| samiullah | thanks @dww looks good. |
| xjm | WRT whether we should include a frustrations/blockers thread, maybe we could rephrase it to be something like "Barriers"? |
| dww | So long as we don't call them "Obstacles" (for the acronym inclined). :wink: |
| Kristen Pol (she/her) | I'm curious how many people focus on the focus. TBH, I just look for any bug that needs review |
| dww | Yeah, after a few weeks, I'm becoming less and less convinced that this is meaningful or worth spending time discussing. Focusers gonna focus. Everyone else gonna do whatever comes across their radar. :wink: |
| pameeela | yeah, i find it's not that i don't agree with the focus or anything like that, but if it's not something i can help with i will just get on with the stuff i can do. |
| pameeela | it is hard enough to find anything useful to do, without having to narrow the focus! |
| dww | Yeah, I think the "focus" has been mostly "insiders" working on stuff we'd already be working on. ;) |
| quietone | Or, the focus isn't promoted or perhaps it needs someone to lead it. |
| dww | I sometimes feel crappy trolling the RTBC queue with pedantic reviews, but it's definitely a win. Every time a committer opens and RTBC issue and has to move it back to NW is another RTBC issue they didn't have time to fix. |
| dww | "We" should definitely give committers every possible reason to commit something if it's going to be sitting at RTBC. |
| pameeela | i think there is a fair bit getting through that is even more obvious, like needs tests or doesn't incorporate previous maintainer/committer feedback. |
| pameeela | pedantic reviews are OK too though, if you have the time and the feedback. |
| Kristen Pol (she/her) | Maybe we can make it clear we're double checking the RTBC for bugsmash? To address tge issue that it may look to others like redundant work? (edited) |
| pameeela | i didn't mean to check only for bugsmash, i just meant in general |
| pameeela | but if you check an issue and have no feedback, i'd say just leave it, if you have feedback then it's not redundant! |
| pratik_kamble | Probably setting up some comment template for RTBC will help (edited) |
| pameeela | hmm, i think by the time it's RTBC it needs a custom message if it's getting bumped |
| dww | Yeah, I think we should always review issues as if we were core committers. The more we get things in shape before a core committers spends time on it, the better. |
| jungle | I have been doing so -- checking RTBC’d issues. looking for what could be improved before committers jumping in. CS violations, documentation improvements, micro optimizations etc. |
| dww | But especially once they're at RTBC, we should make sure they belong there. |
| dww | Also making sure the summary / title are accurate. |
| Kristen Pol (she/her) | If we check it and it looks good but we don't leave a comment then someone else may double check it as well which duplicates work |
| pratik_kamble | Probably we can add it as document for steps which @jungle follows. To avoid going back and forth of issue queue |
| Kristen Pol (she/her) | It would be good to have a checklist |
| Kristen Pol (she/her) | I have a mental checklist but not an easy reference |
| pameeela | If we check it and it looks good but we don't leave a comment then someone else may double check it as well which duplicates worki'm not sure i agree, just because i didn't spot something doesn't mean someone else wouldn't? (edited) |
| jungle | If we check it and it looks good but we don’t leave a comment then someone else may double check it as well which duplicates workit’s fine, to me, everyone could find something to improve probably. but a generic checklist would help. |
| dww | https://www.drupal.org/community-initiatives/drupal-core/bug-smash#review links to some handbook pages about doing good reviews. |
| dww | The patch review page is pretty good, but perhaps could use an explicit "Steps to check before something is RTBC" list. |
| jungle | http://xjmdrupal.org/review-guide#checklist |
| jungle | See xjm's patch review checklist. |
| dww | Right, but that's 3 clicks removed from the Bug Smash page. ;) I think we could put some of the x j m list directly on the '/patch/review' page. |
| Kristen Pol (she/her) | For me, bullets with as few words as possible is the best1. Title makes sense 2. Issue summary is complete and relevant3. Tests pass4. Patch for latest version5. Code reviewed6. New tests added if relevant7. Tagged appropriatelyEtc (edited) |
| dww | That looks like a great start. https://www.drupal.org/node/772/edit anyone? :wink: |
| dww | (yes, that page really is a 3 digit nid!) |
| dww | For now, I added a link to https://www.drupal.org/project/issues/search/drupal?status%5B%5D=14&cate... to the Needing triage (from developers) section. (edited) |
| dww | Thanks to @pameeela for giving it the nice artwork. ;) But other than that, I've done like 90% of the revisions at https://www.drupal.org/node/3150111/revisions -- would love for some other folks to dive in. |
| Griffyn Heels | Love the artwork! |
| quietone | Can you provide specific examples of what needs to be done? |
| dww | A) the @todo comments ;) |
| dww | B) I think "How to help" section needs help. |
| Kristen Pol (she/her) | Very meta |
| dww | Although looking again, it's definitely not as skeletal as I remember. So it has been improving. Thanks also @quietone! I hadn't seen your edits. |
| quietone | Haha. I mean what do you envision that the 'todos' are replaced with. Links to more existing pages? |
| dww | Yeah, generally I think linking to existing docs is better than writing new content directly in this page. |
| quietone | That helps. I will make another attempt this fortnight. |
| dww | But the d.o handbook universe is vast, an stuff can be spread out into multiple sections / areas. So I think we can do a useful service by collecting links from disparate places and having a nice pile in one spot for easy finding. |
pratik_kamble, Ridhima Abrol, jungle, kimb0, dww, pameeela, Kristen Pol (she/her), acbramley, quietone, Griffyn Heels, larowlan, sime, Michael (g-brodiei), lendude, samiullah, partyka, jonathanjfshaw, xjm