On Fri 19 Sep 2014 09:25:10 AM PDT, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
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
On 2014-09-19 15:27:36 + (+), 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
On 2014-09-18 15:21:20 -0400 (-0400), Jay Dobies wrote:
How many of the reviews that we WIP-1 will actually be revisited?
I'm sure there will be cases where a current developer forgetting
they had started on something, seeing the e-mail about the WIP-1,
and then abandoning the change.
But what
On 17/09/14 16:40, Charles Crouch wrote:
- Original Message -
Hi,
as part of general housekeeping on our reviews, it was discussed at last
week's meeting [1] that we should set workflow -1 for stale reviews
(like gerrit used to do when I were a lad).
The specific criteria
On 18/09/14 00:29, James Polley wrote:
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 6:26 PM, mar...@redhat.com
mailto:mar...@redhat.com mandr...@redhat.com
mailto:mandr...@redhat.com wrote:
Hi,
as part of general housekeeping on our reviews, it was discussed at last
week's meeting [1] that we
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 5:21 PM, mar...@redhat.com mandr...@redhat.com
wrote:
On 17/09/14 16:40, Charles Crouch wrote:
- Original Message -
Hi,
as part of general housekeeping on our reviews, it was discussed at last
week's meeting [1] that we should set workflow -1 for
-Original Message-
From: James E. Blair [mailto:cor...@inaugust.com]
Sent: 17 September 2014 23:24
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] Set WIP for stale patches?
Sullivan, Jon Paul jonpaul.sulli...@hp.com writes
On 2014-09-18 08:06:11 + (+), Sullivan, Jon Paul wrote:
In my experience if the check results are not fresh enough the
recheck is automatically run. I am not on the infra team, so
without looking up code I am just guessing, but my guess is that
the workflow score change triggers the
On 18 Sep 2014, at 6:06 pm, Sullivan, Jon Paul jonpaul.sulli...@hp.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: James E. Blair [mailto:cor...@inaugust.com]
Sent: 17 September 2014 23:24
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO
Sullivan, Jon Paul jonpaul.sulli...@hp.com writes:
This is not solely about finding reviews. It is about pruning stale
reviews. I think the auto-abandon code was excellent at doing this,
but alas, it is no more.
What's the purpose of pruning stale reviews? I've read the IRC log of
the
How many of the reviews that we WIP-1 will actually be revisited?
I'm sure there will be cases where a current developer forgetting they
had started on something, seeing the e-mail about the WIP-1, and then
abandoning the change.
But what about developers who have moved off the project
- Original Message -
Hi,
as part of general housekeeping on our reviews, it was discussed at last
week's meeting [1] that we should set workflow -1 for stale reviews
(like gerrit used to do when I were a lad).
The specific criteria discussed was 'items that have a -1 from a core
On 17/09/14 14:40, Charles Crouch wrote:
- Original Message -
Hi,
as part of general housekeeping on our reviews, it was discussed at last
week's meeting [1] that we should set workflow -1 for stale reviews
(like gerrit used to do when I were a lad).
The specific criteria
-Original Message-
From: Derek Higgins [mailto:der...@redhat.com]
Sent: 17 September 2014 14:49
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] Set WIP for stale patches?
On 17/09/14 14:40, Charles Crouch wrote
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 6:26 PM, mar...@redhat.com mandr...@redhat.com
wrote:
Hi,
as part of general housekeeping on our reviews, it was discussed at last
week's meeting [1] that we should set workflow -1 for stale reviews
(like gerrit used to do when I were a lad).
The specific criteria
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 8:24 AM, James E. Blair cor...@inaugust.com wrote:
Sullivan, Jon Paul jonpaul.sulli...@hp.com writes:
I think this highlights exactly why this should be an automated
process. No errors in application, and no errors in interpretation of
what has happened.
So
16 matches
Mail list logo
