On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 11:28 PM, Peter Kümmel <[email protected]> wrote: > On 01.02.2013 01:37, Alan Alpert wrote: >> >> That said, I'd prefer it for us to reach a consensus that the >> abandoned state should mean abandoned (adj 2 of >> http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/abandoned) instead of destroyed (past >> participle of verb 1, http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/destroy). Then >> abandoning stale changes is simply changing the gerrit state to more >> accurately reflect the state of reality. > > This points in the right direction. > > The problem with the original request to simply make all changes > "abandoned" is that it will destroy the differentiation between > "trash" and "not interested in atm". >
I actually disagree that any abandoned commits are "trash" (or possibly I just don't see the distinction between trash and not interested in anymore). Even if a change is abandoned because everyone immediately agrees that it is flat out wrong, it's still an important part of the history. It can be referred to in JIRA or mailing lists - I've already used a change as an example in this thread which was subsequently abandoned. It might be overly conservative to effectively have a "don't throw anything away" policy, but I think that's appropriate for something as important and useful as development history. If the distinction is more whether you, personally, currently intend to look at it again... I still maintain that should go in JIRA so that we all use a common mechanism for storage and retrieval of project plans. If it's too minor a note for JIRA, is it really a major enough note to implement a separate gerrit state for? -- Alan Alpert _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
