----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dave Neary" <dne...@redhat.com> > To: "Itamar Heim" <ih...@redhat.com> > Cc: "engine-devel" <engine-de...@ovirt.org>, email@example.com > Sent: Wednesday, October 9, 2013 12:07:45 PM > Subject: Re: [vdsm] stale gerrit patches > > Hi, > > On 09/23/2013 12:36 PM, Itamar Heim wrote: > > we have some very old gerrit patches. > > I'm for abandoning patches which were not touched over 60 days (to begin > > with, I think the number should actually be lower). > > they can always be re-opened by any interested party post their closure. > > > > i.e., looking at gerrit, the patch list should actually get attention, > > and not be a few worth looking at, with a "lot of old patches" > > I'm coming late to this discussion, but I see that there were some > dissenting views from people who want maintainers to be able to store > "in-progress" patches in Gerrit. > > I am all in favour of treating Gerrit like we treat a bug tracker. If > something is opened in the bug tracker, it should be a bug, an open bug > is something to be fixed or closed, not to be left indefinitely. An open > patch needs to be rejected, reviewed, revised or committed. I don't > think Gerrit is the place for in-progress patches (use private branches > for that).
Just point out that you can also use 'drafts' to store those in progress changes: http://gerrit-documentation.googlecode.com/svn/ReleaseNotes/ReleaseNotes-2.3.html#_drafts > > Cheers, > Dave. > > -- > Dave Neary - Community Action and Impact > Open Source and Standards, Red Hat - http://community.redhat.com > Ph: +33 9 50 71 55 62 / Cell: +33 6 77 01 92 13 > _______________________________________________ > vdsm-devel mailing list > firstname.lastname@example.org > https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/vdsm-devel > _______________________________________________ vdsm-devel mailing list email@example.com https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/vdsm-devel