Re: [openstack-dev] auto-abandon changesets considered harmful (was Re: [stable][all] Revisiting the 6 month release cycle [metrics])

2015-03-05 Thread Doug Hellmann
On Thu, Mar 5, 2015, at 06:59 AM, Alexis Lee wrote: Doug Hellmann said on Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 11:10:31AM -0500: I used to use email to track such things, but I have reached the point where keeping up with the push notifications from gerrit would consume all of my waking time. Jim said

Re: [openstack-dev] auto-abandon changesets considered harmful (was Re: [stable][all] Revisiting the 6 month release cycle [metrics])

2015-03-05 Thread Alexis Lee
Doug Hellmann said on Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 11:10:31AM -0500: I used to use email to track such things, but I have reached the point where keeping up with the push notifications from gerrit would consume all of my waking time. Jim said if his patch was auto-abandoned, he would not find out.

Re: [openstack-dev] auto-abandon changesets considered harmful (was Re: [stable][all] Revisiting the 6 month release cycle [metrics])

2015-03-04 Thread Doug Hellmann
On Wed, Mar 4, 2015, at 07:24 AM, Alexis Lee wrote: John Griffith john.griffi...@gmail.com writes: ​Should we just rename this thread to Sensitivity training for contributors? Culture plays a role in shaping ones expectations here. I was lucky enough to grow up in open source culture,

Re: [openstack-dev] auto-abandon changesets considered harmful (was Re: [stable][all] Revisiting the 6 month release cycle [metrics])

2015-03-04 Thread Alexis Lee
John Griffith john.griffi...@gmail.com writes: ​Should we just rename this thread to Sensitivity training for contributors? Culture plays a role in shaping ones expectations here. I was lucky enough to grow up in open source culture, so I can identify an automated response easily and I don't

Re: [openstack-dev] auto-abandon changesets considered harmful (was Re: [stable][all] Revisiting the 6 month release cycle [metrics])

2015-03-03 Thread Thierry Carrez
Doug Wiegley wrote: [...] But I think some of the push back in this thread is challenging this notion that abandoning is negative, which you seem to be treating as a given. I don't. At all. And I don't think I'm alone. I was initially on your side: the abandoned patches are not really

Re: [openstack-dev] auto-abandon changesets considered harmful (was Re: [stable][all] Revisiting the 6 month release cycle [metrics])

2015-03-03 Thread Kuvaja, Erno
From: John Griffith [mailto:john.griffi...@gmail.com] Sent: 03 March 2015 14:46 To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] auto-abandon changesets considered harmful (was Re: [stable][all] Revisiting the 6 month release cycle [metrics]) On Tue

Re: [openstack-dev] auto-abandon changesets considered harmful (was Re: [stable][all] Revisiting the 6 month release cycle [metrics])

2015-03-03 Thread Kyle Mestery
@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] auto-abandon changesets considered harmful (was Re: [stable][all] Revisiting the 6 month release cycle [metrics]) Doug Wiegley wrote: [...] But I think some of the push back in this thread is challenging this notion that abandoning is negative, which

Re: [openstack-dev] auto-abandon changesets considered harmful (was Re: [stable][all] Revisiting the 6 month release cycle [metrics])

2015-03-03 Thread James E. Blair
John Griffith john.griffi...@gmail.com writes: ​Should we just rename this thread to Sensitivity training for contributors? I do not think that only new contributors might feel it is negative. I think that both some new and long-time contributors do. My oldest patch is from July -- it's

Re: [openstack-dev] auto-abandon changesets considered harmful (was Re: [stable][all] Revisiting the 6 month release cycle [metrics])

2015-03-03 Thread Kuvaja, Erno
-Original Message- From: Thierry Carrez [mailto:thie...@openstack.org] Sent: 03 March 2015 10:00 To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] auto-abandon changesets considered harmful (was Re: [stable][all] Revisiting the 6 month release cycle [metrics

Re: [openstack-dev] auto-abandon changesets considered harmful (was Re: [stable][all] Revisiting the 6 month release cycle [metrics])

2015-03-03 Thread John Griffith
(was Re: [stable][all] Revisiting the 6 month release cycle [metrics]) Doug Wiegley wrote: [...] But I think some of the push back in this thread is challenging this notion that abandoning is negative, which you seem to be treating as a given. I don't. At all. And I don't think I'm

Re: [openstack-dev] auto-abandon changesets considered harmful (was Re: [stable][all] Revisiting the 6 month release cycle [metrics])

2015-03-02 Thread Clay Gerrard
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 8:07 AM, Duncan Thomas duncan.tho...@gmail.com wrote: Why do you say auto-abandon is the wrong tool? I've no problem with the 1 week warning if somebody wants to implement it - I can see the value. A change-set that has been ignored for X weeks is pretty much the

Re: [openstack-dev] auto-abandon changesets considered harmful (was Re: [stable][all] Revisiting the 6 month release cycle [metrics])

2015-03-02 Thread Clint Byrum
Excerpts from Doug Wiegley's message of 2015-03-02 12:47:14 -0800: On Mar 2, 2015, at 1:13 PM, James E. Blair cor...@inaugust.com wrote: Stefano branched this thread from an older one to talk about auto-abandon. In the previous thread, I believe I explained my concerns, but since the

Re: [openstack-dev] auto-abandon changesets considered harmful (was Re: [stable][all] Revisiting the 6 month release cycle [metrics])

2015-03-02 Thread Stefano Maffulli
On Mon, 2015-03-02 at 13:35 -0800, Clay Gerrard wrote: I think Tom's suggested help us help you is a great pre-abandon warning. In swift as often as not the last message ended with something like you can catch me on freenode in #openstack-swift if you have any questions Good, this thread

Re: [openstack-dev] auto-abandon changesets considered harmful (was Re: [stable][all] Revisiting the 6 month release cycle [metrics])

2015-03-02 Thread Tom Fifield
On 03/03/15 05:35, Clay Gerrard wrote: On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 8:07 AM, Duncan Thomas duncan.tho...@gmail.com mailto:duncan.tho...@gmail.com wrote: Why do you say auto-abandon is the wrong tool? I've no problem with the 1 week warning if somebody wants to implement it - I can see

Re: [openstack-dev] auto-abandon changesets considered harmful (was Re: [stable][all] Revisiting the 6 month release cycle [metrics])

2015-03-02 Thread Doug Wiegley
On Mar 2, 2015, at 1:13 PM, James E. Blair cor...@inaugust.com wrote: Stefano branched this thread from an older one to talk about auto-abandon. In the previous thread, I believe I explained my concerns, but since the topic split, perhaps it would be good to summarize why this is an

Re: [openstack-dev] auto-abandon changesets considered harmful (was Re: [stable][all] Revisiting the 6 month release cycle [metrics])

2015-03-02 Thread James E. Blair
John Griffith john.griffi...@gmail.com writes: For what it's worth, at one point the Cinder project setup an auto-abandon job that did purge items that had a negative mark either from a reviewer or from Jenkins and had not been updated in over two weeks. This had absolutely nothing to do

Re: [openstack-dev] auto-abandon changesets considered harmful (was Re: [stable][all] Revisiting the 6 month release cycle [metrics])

2015-03-02 Thread Duncan Thomas
Why do you say auto-abandon is the wrong tool? I've no problem with the 1 week warning if somebody wants to implement it - I can see the value. A change-set that has been ignored for X weeks is pretty much the dictionary definition of abandoned, and restoring it is one mouse click. Maybe put

Re: [openstack-dev] auto-abandon changesets considered harmful (was Re: [stable][all] Revisiting the 6 month release cycle [metrics])

2015-03-02 Thread James E. Blair
Duncan Thomas duncan.tho...@gmail.com writes: Why do you say auto-abandon is the wrong tool? I've no problem with the 1 week warning if somebody wants to implement it - I can see the value. A change-set that has been ignored for X weeks is pretty much the dictionary definition of abandoned,

Re: [openstack-dev] auto-abandon changesets considered harmful (was Re: [stable][all] Revisiting the 6 month release cycle [metrics])

2015-03-02 Thread Doug Wiegley
On Mar 2, 2015, at 11:44 AM, James E. Blair cor...@inaugust.com wrote: Duncan Thomas duncan.tho...@gmail.com writes: Why do you say auto-abandon is the wrong tool? I've no problem with the 1 week warning if somebody wants to implement it - I can see the value. A change-set that has been

Re: [openstack-dev] auto-abandon changesets considered harmful (was Re: [stable][all] Revisiting the 6 month release cycle [metrics])

2015-03-02 Thread James E. Blair
Doug Wiegley doug...@parksidesoftware.com writes: A default query that edited out old, jenkins failing, and -2 stuff would be helpful. A default or easy query that highlighted things relevant to the current milestone's blueprints and bugs would be SUPER useful to guiding folks towards the

Re: [openstack-dev] auto-abandon changesets considered harmful (was Re: [stable][all] Revisiting the 6 month release cycle [metrics])

2015-03-02 Thread James E. Blair
Stefano branched this thread from an older one to talk about auto-abandon. In the previous thread, I believe I explained my concerns, but since the topic split, perhaps it would be good to summarize why this is an issue. 1) A core reviewer forcefully abandoning a change contributed by someone

Re: [openstack-dev] auto-abandon changesets considered harmful (was Re: [stable][all] Revisiting the 6 month release cycle [metrics])

2015-03-02 Thread John Griffith
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 12:52 PM, James E. Blair cor...@inaugust.com wrote: Doug Wiegley doug...@parksidesoftware.com writes: A default query that edited out old, jenkins failing, and -2 stuff would be helpful. A default or easy query that highlighted things relevant to the current

Re: [openstack-dev] auto-abandon changesets considered harmful (was Re: [stable][all] Revisiting the 6 month release cycle [metrics])

2015-03-01 Thread Jay Bryant
+2 I recently had a patch abandoned that had every right to be pulled off the list. It had fallen off my radar and was no longer relevant. As long as there is a way to restore the patch where appropriate, we should do it. Jay I have to agree with John. We have many more submitters than we

Re: [openstack-dev] auto-abandon changesets considered harmful (was Re: [stable][all] Revisiting the 6 month release cycle [metrics])

2015-03-01 Thread Tom Fifield
On 28/02/15 09:02, John Griffith wrote: On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 5:40 PM, Stefano Maffulli stef...@openstack.org mailto:stef...@openstack.org wrote: I'm not expressing myself cleary enough. I don't advocate for the removal of anything because I like pretty charts. I'm changing the

Re: [openstack-dev] auto-abandon changesets considered harmful (was Re: [stable][all] Revisiting the 6 month release cycle [metrics])

2015-03-01 Thread Duncan Thomas
I have to agree with John. We have many more submitters than we have core folks, and our current scaling limits tend to be around core and reviews, not around submissions, so making life slightly more difficult for submitters in order to make it substantially easier for core is a reasonable trade.

[openstack-dev] auto-abandon changesets considered harmful (was Re: [stable][all] Revisiting the 6 month release cycle [metrics])

2015-02-27 Thread Stefano Maffulli
I'm not expressing myself cleary enough. I don't advocate for the removal of anything because I like pretty charts. I'm changing the subject to be even more clear. On Fri, 2015-02-27 at 13:26 -0800, James E. Blair wrote: I am asking you to please independently remove changes that you don't

Re: [openstack-dev] auto-abandon changesets considered harmful (was Re: [stable][all] Revisiting the 6 month release cycle [metrics])

2015-02-27 Thread John Griffith
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 5:40 PM, Stefano Maffulli stef...@openstack.org wrote: I'm not expressing myself cleary enough. I don't advocate for the removal of anything because I like pretty charts. I'm changing the subject to be even more clear. On Fri, 2015-02-27 at 13:26 -0800, James E. Blair