I think the end-point of this discussion looks like consensus, and that's pretty well what I've been doing to tidy up some inactive issues. Let's see how it looks as a patch to the CG.
Trevor ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Lowe" <[email protected]> To: "lilypond-devel" <[email protected]> Cc: "Trevor Daniels" <[email protected]>; "David Kastrup" <[email protected]>; "simon Albrecht" <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, November 21, 2015 7:14 PM Subject: On issues that are marked as 'Patch_Abandoned' > Hello, > > > > Trying to collate all the that David, Simon and Trevor kindly came up > with (although may end up repeating myself, so my apologies in advance). > I collated the main points from each of the three and have responded, > inline, to those points. > > I hope this isn't 'bad form' but the thread was so interlaced with > comments and comments of comments, I wanted to make sure that I didn't > misrepresent or misunderstand anyone. > > *** > > [David K] > A whole bunch of the issues you have below are for Duplicate, Invalid, > or independently Fixed issues. An abandoned patch is natural to go with > that and should not require any additional action. It's only for open > issues that an abandoned patch might form a point of reference. > > [JAMES] > What I would like to perhaps suggest here is that those that are > Duplicate, Invalid or Independently fix (i.e. also technically a > duplicate I suppose) can keep those 'Status' entries but the 'Patch' > entry can be moved to 'blank'. > > [David K] > The only suspicious combination is an abandoned patch for a Started > issue where the issue owner is the same person responsible for the > patch. That's likely an oversight (or the owner tried to work on a > different patch and lost track at some point of time). > > [JAMES] > Which sounds reasonable. Hence the point about removing the Patch entry > (i.e. setting it to blank) and making sure the Status field is set > accordingly (Invalid or Duplicate). > > [David K] > I don't think abandoned patches require any action of their own. > "Started" issues may independently be considered as not being worked on > after a considerable amount of time. > > [JAMES] > Would 9 months be acceptable as a 'considerable amount of time'? I can > then start on trying to make sure that I go back as far as necessary > (i.e. everything before April/May of this year) and then try to keep on > top of it each month thereafter; trying to make sure that issues marked > 'abandoned' are never older than 6 months. > > [David K] > In that case, it might get disowned, reset to "Accepted" (when it's > still relevant) and _possibly_ any existing patch may be marked > "abandoned" in that process. > > [JAMES] > Certainly it should get set to 'blank' owner I think (and put back to > 'Accepted'). Anything younger than 9 months (see my last comment above) > would still be marked as 'abandoned' (if not already). If the previous > owner disagrees or still wants to 'own' the issue (whatever that may > mean for them) then they can always update the ticket accordingly. This > would have two effects; first the issue would be 'updated' in terms of > its 'last edited' date (so to speak) bringing it forward from any > 6-month-or-older filter, and secondly the Issue would have an entry - > either just the Owner and Status change and/or a 'I am still working on > this' entry in the thread. This puts the onus back on the developer and > if they choose to do nothing, then that can be assumed to remove doubt > on the state of the issue for others who may want to work it or who may > be ignoring it, thinking that the other developer is still doing > something (Graham P's universal 'Law of the 'Hot Potato'!) > > [David K] > But I don't think that any patch already marked "abandoned" necessitates > any further action on its own. > > [JAMES] > Well I think that 'depends' (see my previous replies above for my > reasoning). > > *** > > [Simon A] > One can see immediately that a patch has already been prepared for this > issue, which may serve as a starting point for future work. True, > anybody to pick up such an issue would have to read through the entire > discussion anyway, but I’d rather ask the other way round: > What’s the benefit of deleting the Patch label, or the harm that a > Patch:abandoned does? > > [JAMES] > My further thoughts on what I said before were if a patch was only > abandoned because a developer gave up or ran out of time (or something > similar to that) other than the fact it was 'Invalid' or 'Duplicate'; > then I think there is no benefit of being left with the 'Patch > abandoned' label and that it might - subconsciously or otherwise - cause > other potential developers to 'ignore' the issue simply because of > having that label (I don't know how developers' minds work in that > regard I must admit). So *not* having, or rather, putting the Patch back > to 'blank', I think, always gains something at least psychologically. > > I hope that made sense? > > [Simon A] >> [David K] Status is independent of Patch status. > True, I did myself make some thoughts on merging those two fields: i.e. > replacing Status:Started by Status:Patch_new etc. After all, > Status:Fixed would be a fitful successor to Status:Patch_push. > Status:Patch_abandoned would mark an issue as ‘suspended’. > I came to the conclusion that it wasn’t worth the effort of updating all > the DB. > > [JAMES] > Not so much that, as having yet another status ('suspended') doesn't > gain us anything think. We already have 'Waiting' - which is something > that I don't really think is clear either (but that is for another time, > I want to just get 'Patch Abandoned' sorted first). > > > **** >> [James] The 'new' status was for those issues that had been added by > random Joes >> (not members of the bug squad) and then it was changed to 'Accepted' >> once the issue was checked - else it would be marked invalid or >> duplicate (or even merged). If we're going to keep 'blank' then we could >> even do way with the 'new' status. >> >> >> >>> [Simon] True, I did myself make some thoughts on merging those two > fields: i.e. >>> replacing Status:Started by Status:Patch_new etc. After all, >>> Status:Fixed would be a fitful successor to Status:Patch_push. > >> [James] Actually 'Fixed' could be also potentially removed as well and > the label >> Fixed_X_x_x be used in it's place. > > [Simon] How would that fit into the workflow? IIUC, currently > Status:Fixed is set by the developer. > > [James]. Yes - or the committer. > > [Simon] The bug squad member verifies and then sets Status:Verified and > Label:Fixed_X_x_x. Label and Status should definitely not get mixed up, > if you ask me. > > [James] I don't think they would get mixed up - what I am (sort of) > proposing is a way to 'reset' any incident that is not Invalid/Duplicate > and is 'patch_abandoned' back to 'as if' had been 'Accepted' but had not > been started. Patches that are Invalid/Duplicate would have the > 'patch_abandoned' status, if it had one, removed and also any dev name, > if there was one, as well. > > **** > > [Trevor] > The key difference is one of ownership. The LP developers have > a tradition of not interfering (other than by commenting) on the development > of a patch to an issue already "owned" by someone else. Patch > waiting/needs_work means the current owner is still planning to do more > work, so other devs let it ride. Patch abandoned means the previous > dev has given up, so anyone else is free to take it up and change the > ownership. Well, at least that's my understanding. > > [David] > No, that's not entirely related. I may give up on a particular approach > to an issue, making it pointless to pursue a particular patch, but still > want to cook up a different patch or solve the problem in the context of > another issue. Patch abandoned just means that the latest proposed > patch is not going to be pursued further, not that the issue owner has > given up on a particular problem altogether. > > [Trevor] > We don't really have a mechanism to handle multiple patches, so I think > we can discount that possibility. > > [David] > Sorry, but that just does not match reality. We have a host of issues > where multiple patches have been proposed. While we only assign a state > to the latest patch with a reference in a comment, this state has a > number of degrees of freedom independent from that of the issue. > > [Trevor] > We usually use Patch needs_work to > cover the situation where the current patch is inadequate and further work > is in progress. I'd rather adopt my interpretation as a more useful use > of this limited set of markers, namely that Patch abandoned really means, > "I've given up on working on this issue and the current patch is now up for > grabs for someone else to improve on it." > > [David] > That's issue ownership. And the difference between "Started" and > "Accepted". > > [Trevor] > And I'd suggest an issue should > be placed in this state by the Bug Squad if no action on it has been > apparent > by the current owner for over 6 months. > > [James] > The very least, I suppose, that dev who was still 'pursuing' a different > approach could be metaphorically kicked into stating their intentions in > the issue itself if it appeared that the issue was stagnating with an > out of date patch and no update for a period of time. I'm just about > removing the doubt for other/new contributors. > > [Trevor] > OK, I can accept that. So, to elaborate a little on James' post, > the point of which is to enable some old inactive issues/patches > to be cleared up, in the event of inaction for 6 months (say): > > Status:Started -> Status:Accepted > Owner -> "" > Patch: needs_work -> Patch:abandoned > > So the final state of an issue which has been inactive for more > than 6 months reverts to "Accepted" with no Owner, and the final > state of the latest associated patch reverts to "abandoned" or > remains "waiting", and in the latter case this should be qualified > by the Needs field. That makes it clear the issue is free to be > picked up by someone else, either by starting from scratch or > continuing to develop an earlier abandoned patch. > > [James] > I like that. > > > On 20/09/15 15:01, David Kastrup wrote: >> James Lowe <[email protected]> writes: >> >>> Hello, >>> As part of the 'Patch Meister's' role, I present the following list of >>> all issues currently marked as 'patch_abandoned'. >>> I've grouped them into their patch 'Status' fields and then shown the >>> date that the last time the issue was updated. >>> For those that cannot remember, Issue classification definitions are >>> here: >>> > [1]http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/contributor-big-page#iss >>> ue-classification >>> We should make some decision on what to do with these. In my opinion, >>> the very least we should change the status to either 'new', 'invalid' >>> or 'blank'. My own feeling that we not use the 'patch_abandoned' label >>> anymore, in that if an Issue is 'abandoned', it is usually abandoned >>> because of >>> i. Dev has no more time or has given up working on the patch for a >>> 'started' issue - perhaps set issue back to 'new' and remove patch >>> status label; but put a note in the thread that the patch was >>> abandoned. >>> ii. The issue has been shown to no longer be applicable (because of a >>> change in either the code base, or for example in the case of > trying to >>> support some deprecated third-party code - like an OS or Browser etc.) >>> In which case this should probably be changed to 'Invalid' and be > done. >>> Other than those two (variations on a theme) I cannot think of > anything >>> other case. >> >> A whole bunch of the issues you have below are for Duplicate, Invalid, >> or independently Fixed issues. An abandoned patch is natural to go with >> that and should not require any additional action. It's only for open >> issues that an abandoned patch might form a point of reference. >> >> The only suspicious combination is an abandoned patch for a Started >> issue where the issue owner is the same person responsible for the >> patch. That's likely an oversight (or the owner tried to work on a >> different patch and lost track at some point of time). So basically >> I don't think abandoned patches require any action of their own. >> "Started" issues may independently be considered as not being worked on >> after a considerable amount of time. In that case, it might get >> disowned, reset to "Accepted" (when it's still relevant) and _possibly_ >> any existing patch may be marked "abandoned" in that process. >> >> But I don't think that any patch already marked "abandoned" necessitates >> any further action on its own. >> > > > -- > James > > ------- > > B8F4 5395 CBE2 ED37 7513 B075 FF32 5682 A84B D8BE > > -- > James > > ------- > > B8F4 5395 CBE2 ED37 7513 B075 FF32 5682 A84B D8BE > _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
