On 05/18/2017 02:24 AM, Robert Varga wrote: > On 17/05/17 21:11, Andrew Grimberg wrote: >> We've got changes still open going all the way back to 2013! I would >> like to put a proposal out that we auto-abandon changes that are >6 >> months in age and in all honesty I would like to do it for any change >> that is >6 weeks old but I figured that 6 months was a good starting point. > > I am not sure I like auto-abandon, two main reasons being: > > 1) I do have a bunch of patches that I mean to return to, but are low > priority right now. I certainly would not like them disappearing from my > dashboard, although that would be okay if there was a 'My Abandoned > Changes' view. > > 2) We were bitten by 'abandon' before, where a patch was abandoned while > it was waiting for dust to settle on after a release. The end result was > a bug report for something that should have been fixed for 6+ months and > a wasted day digging through history to understand where the fix went > missing. Bug tracking should help here, but BZ is simply awful for > tracking things to be delivered to multiple branches. > > At any rate, 6 weeks is definitely too aggresive.
I figured folks would say that 6 weeks is too aggressive. That's why I'm suggesting 6 months. If 6 months still seems too aggressive I would say 1 year but I really don't think a change that has been open for 1+ years, and just left to sit, is likely still viable. After all, as I page through all the opens as I get back to ~2 months a large portion of the changes are in 'Merge Conflict'. That obviously doesn't mean that they can't be easily brought back to a point of being a mergeable state. -Andy- -- Andrew J Grimberg Lead, IT Release Engineering The Linux Foundation
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
