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
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.
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
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
@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
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
-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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
+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
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
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.
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
21 matches
Mail list logo
