> > Right, but that really has nothing to do with abandoned patches, lest > you are proposing to not migrate them.
I would say we should prefer a strategy of keeping patches over shedding them. As someone who has worked on this project for several years, sometimes you try something only to realize it is going to be a *LOT* harder than you would expect. You have still done a good amount of work, and don't want to lose what you have done, even if it is no longer a priority. Even if you aren't going to directly use that patch again, you want it to reference when you pick up the particular activity again. Merge Conflicts look ugly but they really aren't a big deal. So I am on board with keeping things forever. I don't think we should ever get rid of work. It really shouldn't be a big deal to keep things kicking around. Regards, Ryan Goulding On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 10:28 AM, Robert Varga <[email protected]> wrote: > On 18/05/17 16:11, Andrew Grimberg wrote: > > So, my intent with the auto-close is to have Gerrit clean-up a bunch of > > the open changes so that when we do start the migration then we're far > > more likely to be able to get a good idea of who we're going to have to > > talk to to get things reconnected and user names fixed where needed. > > Right, but that really has nothing to do with abandoned patches, lest > you are proposing to not migrate them. > > The reason for it being that even abandoned patches have an owner, which > presumably needs to map to an identity due to the obvious question: who > will be the owner if the patch is ressurrected? > > Regards, > Robert > > > _______________________________________________ > TSC mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/tsc > >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
