Bug 33656

Summary: webkit.org/pending-review should route to a better list
Product: WebKit Reporter: Eric Seidel (no email) <eric>
Component: WebKit WebsiteAssignee: Nobody <webkit-unassigned>
Status: NEW ---    
Severity: Normal CC: cjerdonek, mjs, oliver
Priority: P2    
Version: 528+ (Nightly build)   
Hardware: PC   
OS: OS X 10.5   

Description Eric Seidel (no email) 2010-01-14 00:20:47 PST
webkit.org/pending-review should route to a better list

Since pending-review was created, Maciej has come up with several better (in my mind) queries for viewing the list of patches to review.  We should consider updating pending-review to reflect one of those fancier queries. :)

patches needing generic review:
http://tinyurl.com/y98qfjs

patches needing specialized review (mostly [Gtk] or [Qt]):
http://tinyurl.com/yjr2xru

all patches needing review:
https://bugs.webkit.org/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&short_desc_type=allwordssubstr&short_desc=&long_desc_type=substring&long_desc=&bug_file_loc_type=allwordssubstr&bug_file_loc=&keywords_type=allwords&keywords=&emailassigned_to1=1&emailtype1=substring&email1=&emailassigned_to2=1&emailreporter2=1&emailcc2=1&emailtype2=substring&email2=&bugidtype=include&bug_id=&chfieldfrom=&chfieldto=Now&chfieldvalue=&cmdtype=doit&order=Reuse+same+sort+as+last+time&field0-0-0=flagtypes.name&type0-0-0=equals&value0-0-0=review%3F

I vote that we use #3 for /pending-review.

The current /pending-review points to:
https://bugs.webkit.org/request.cgi?action=queue&requester=&product=&type=review&requestee=&component=&group=requestee

which Oliver Hunt mentioned tonight is confusing because it lists both commit-queue? patches and review? patches.
Comment 1 Eric Seidel (no email) 2010-01-14 00:22:00 PST
/pending-review does not seem to be kept in WebKitSite, so it might be an apache-side config setting.  If so I'm not sure who we'd contact to get it changed.  I'll email webkit-dev.
Comment 2 Chris Jerdonek 2010-01-14 00:42:11 PST
I think these URLs should also have an appropriate sort order built into them -- perhaps by the amount of time they've been waiting for review if possible, or something similar that's age-related.

Alternatively, it can be sorted by "importance" and secondarily age, if the measure of importance can be relied upon.

If I recall, the first 2 URLs in comment 0 (in addition to the third) use order=Reuse+same+sort+as+last+time, which might not be the best choice.
Comment 3 William Siegrist 2010-01-14 06:43:15 PST
The redirects are indeed server side and in an internal repository. Email me or assign this bug to me when you want it changed.