On 01/31/2013 04:08 AM, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > << SNIP >> > > introducing a separate state isn't necessarily a bad idea. > however, from a single user's perspective i don't see a difference to > starring the still relevant changes, and i have doubts that making the > owner's expectations regarding particular changes globally visible would > actually add any value.
Agreed, for the owner of a limited number of changes. But for the Maintainer, and for statistics collection - It might be very useful. We have even given this Thread the title "abandoning stale changes on Gerrit". Therefore, why not create a new change State, called "Stale" ? I think that there is a big difference between: (a) truly "abandoned" == Thrown away, because the problem was solved differently (or labeled "out of scope", "invalid, etc.). I have several of these, with no need to look at them again - although Gerrit should keep them because they might contain clues for someone about what do do (and what NOT to do) in writing a future change, or extracting a "draft" of a particular function working within that area of Qt. (b) merely "stale" == not touched recently, because PreReqs are up in the air, or a listed Reviewer needs to be replaced, or the original Developer can no longer track his/her contributions, or it's waiting for promotion from the "Development" Branch (e.g., 5.2 changes awaiting 5.1 Release). Typically, waiting for another Gerrit event, but still under serious consideration for a future Release. (I haven't got any of these at the moment, but a lot of you Devs have a ton of them.) I think that we should avoid confusing these two situations (i.e., using the same "status" value) when we move Changes from "In Review" State for the reason of reaching the Stale Expiration Timer. If the separation which I recommend later proves to be a relatively useless complication, then we can easily reset all the "Stale" changes back into "Abandoned" State quite easily. But going othe other direction, separating out a significant number of "Golden Needles" from a Mountain of "truly dead" Changes, all makred as "Abandoned": That will become increasingly difficult as the number of "stale" changes increases, and future cases of Developer turnover occur. IMO, Play it safe == a new status value for for this "Stale" status. Is this a hard thing to do? -- GPG fingerprint: 597E 4CE5 6D56 A7C2 DA3A 26FF F21F F828 0C86 165A _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development