> > No. First of all, this would give anyone who has -1 and can > click some buttons the power to abandon changes or at least > whip a contributor into action: "Fix this /now/, or else!" > I don't think this would be a healthy atmosphere for devel- > opment. From my limited view of development at OpenStack, > it appears that doesn't force contributors to produce +2able > changes in a jiffy, but just give up. > > Second, changes with -1 appear in the Gerrit UI by default, > while abandoned changes do not. So all the work that was > done is effectively lost when finally someone new comes > along and wants to tackle a problem that has been approached > before.
Its essentially impossible to find anything useful in the gerrit ui between the mess of ignored -1 patches. I think the visibility of both types of changes are pretty low. > > Third, this sends out the message: "We welcome you as a con- > tributor! A patch, how awesome! Oh, sitting more than four > weeks? Then go away and only come back when your code is > ready because you are messing up our statistics!" > > I'm all for abandoning changes when the author doesn't react > and the patch doesn't apply anymore (not in a technical > sense, but the patch's concept cannot be rebased to the cur- > rent HEAD). But forcing work on many just so that a metric > can be easier calculated by one is putting the burden on the > wrong side. > > Tim > I do agree with this. I don't think we should let statistical needs dictate community practise. However, I would like a (conservative) auto-abandon thing for other reasons. --bawolff _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
