spike(code-review): add post and histograms - #237
Conversation
Related to PACKIT-5059 Assisted-by: Claude Sonnet 4.5 Assisted-by: GPT-5.6 Luna Signed-off-by: Matej Focko <mfocko@packit.dev>
0bca6af to
72b12e1
Compare
| authors: mfocko | ||
| --- | ||
|
|
||
| This analysis looks at pull requests in the Packit organization over a rolling 365-day period. It focuses on three timestamps: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
just to be clear, are these all PRs on github.com/packit?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
All merged PRs in the last 365 days (collected sometime around August), check with simple search over merged PRs, the number roughly matches.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
could you add this to the research directly please?
|
|
||
| ### Optimize the tail, not just the median | ||
|
|
||
| The median experience is already fairly fast. The larger opportunity is the tail: pull requests that receive no timely human attention or that remain open for more than a week. A useful next step would be to identify the causes of those cases, such as ownership gaps, review requests without a response, failing checks, author inactivity, or changes that require cross-team coordination. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If PR authors are waiting for us to provide human review and this causes them to be inactive, then it's bad; it would be helpful to know how often this happens.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
+1, this is something we should also definitely revisit/discuss within the team, e.g. for the ownership we have definitely space for improvement.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
the repo breakdown here could be helpful too, to see which repos have longer review time, wdyt? We now also have https://devtools.pages.redhat.com/n8n-pulumi-poc/#/?org=linuxengineering&product=packit&team=packit&tab=prcycletime available, which might be useful for follow-up decisions/actions.
4 participants
Related to PACKIT-5059