On Tue, 2015-03-03 at 17:10 +0200, Duncan Thomas wrote:
> I feel the need to abandon changes that seem abandoned
I think there is an agreement that there should be a way to have a clean
view of changesets that are being actively worked on, changes where the
owner is responding to comments, working
Is common sense an option here?
More specifically I mean leveraging the common sense of both contributors
and core reviewers (or whoever is authorized to abandon patches).
The formers should abandon patches they're not working on anymore, and
expect somebody else to do that if the patches they own
Salvatore Orlando said on Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 08:21:08PM +0100:
> Is common sense an option here?
Common sense is never an option :)
Mainly because it's situational and hence arises out of shared culture
and expectations, so those not indoctrinated into the group yet get
scolded for lacking comm
I feel the need to abandon changes that seem abandoned. I believe this has
been covered to death now, so I'm going to shelve that conversation for a
while, and talk about missing tooling in gerrit.
One of the examples of something that was auto-abandoned wrongly was a
patch on hold until some futu
On Tue, Mar 3, 2015, at 10:10 AM, Duncan Thomas wrote:
> I feel the need to abandon changes that seem abandoned. I believe this
> has
> been covered to death now, so I'm going to shelve that conversation for a
> while, and talk about missing tooling in gerrit.
>
> One of the examples of somethin
Right, I think this is the 'procedural -2' case, which feels like we
need another state for things that are being held for procedural
reasons, which is unrelated to normal code-review.
On 03/03/2015 10:10 AM, Duncan Thomas wrote:
> I feel the need to abandon changes that seem abandoned. I believe
On 3 March 2015 at 17:23, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> Does the tool ignore patches with Workflow-1 set ("work in progress")?
>
So if it doesn't then we can easily change it to do so, however, I think a
WIP progress patch that hasn't been updated for months counts as abandoned
for any sensible purpose
Sean Dague writes:
> Right, I think this is the 'procedural -2' case, which feels like we
> need another state for things that are being held for procedural
> reasons, which is unrelated to normal code-review.
We have been looking into that and believe we may be able to do
something like that in
