On 2014-09-19 15:27:36 +0000 (+0000), Sullivan, Jon Paul wrote: [...] > I think that the abandoning happening from an automated process is > easier to accept than if it came from a person, and so less likely > to create a poor and emotional response.
Here we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think core reviewers hiding behind an automated process so that they don't have to confront contributors about stalled/inadequate changes is inherently less friendly. Clearly you feel that contributors are less likely to be offended if a machine tells them they need to revisit a change because it's impersonal and therefore without perceived human judgement. > If your personal opinion was that it wasn’t useful to your > project, then perhaps what you are really saying is that the > implementation of it was not configurable enough to allow > individual projects to tailor it to their needs. [...] Sure. For what it's worth, I haven't said I would push back on someone writing a reasonable implementation of this feature, but it definitely is something I wouldn't want imposed on everyone's workflow just because the majority of core reviewers on some subset of projects found it easier to have changes abandoned for them. > So the removal of the auto-abandon, imho, has increased core > reviewer workload, increased the chance that a good change may get > ignored for extended periods of time, and has increased the > possibility of code committers becoming frustrated with core > reviewers adding a wip or abandon to their patches, so a decrease > in productivity all around. :( I think this is an inaccurate representation of the situation. It wasn't explicitly removed. It was a buggy hack which was effectively unmaintainable, didn't work with modern versions of Gerrit, and nobody felt like investing time in a new implementation of it nor was it deemed a critical feature for which we should hold back progress and continue to fester on a years-old Gerrit installation. It broke and has never been fixed. This is not the same thing as being removed, but since it's been gone I've come to wish we had removed it rather than just living with it until it ceased working due to bitrot. In this case, an automated process determined that feature was no longer suitable and abandoned functional use of it. I think it would have been more friendly to our community if the people who were no longer interested in maintaining that feature had explicitly removed it instead... but then it sounds like you would assert that having the machine abandon this feature for us was less likely to offend anyone. ;) -- Jeremy Stanley _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStackfirstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev