On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 8:46 AM, John Griffith <john.griffi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 7:18 AM, Kuvaja, Erno <kuv...@hp.com> wrote: > >> > -----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]) >> > >> > 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 >> deleted, >> > you can easily restore them. So "abandoned" could just mean "inactive" >> or >> > "stale" in our workflow, and people who actually care can easily >> "unabandon" >> > them to make them active again. And since "abandoning" is currently the >> > only way to permanently get rid of stale / -2ed / undesirable changes >> > anyway, so we should just use that. >> > >> > But words matter, especially for new contributors. For those >> contributors, >> > someone else "abandoning" a proposed patch of theirs is a pretty strong >> > move. To them, abandoning should be their decision, not yours (reviewers >> > can -2 patches). >> > >> > Launchpad used to have a similar struggle between real meaning and >> > workflow meaning. It used to have a single status for rejected bugs >> > ("Invalid"). In the regular bug workflow, that status would be used for >> valid >> > bugs that you just don't want to fix. But then that created confusion to >> > people outside that workflow since the wrong word was used. >> > So "WontFix" was introduced as a similar "closed" state (and then they >> added >> > "Opinion" because "WontFix" seemed too harsh, but that's another story). >> > >> > We have (like always) tension around the precise words we use. You say >> > "Abandon" is generally used in our community to "set inactive". Jim says >> > "Abandon" should mean abandon and therefore should probably be left to >> > the proposer, and other ways should be used to "set inactive". >> > >> > There are multiple solutions to this naming issue. You can rename >> "abandon" >> > so that it actually means "set inactive" or "mark as stale". >> > >> > Or you can restrict "abandon" to the owner of a change, stop defaulting >> to >> > "is:open" to list changes, and introduce features in Gerrit so that a >> "is:active" >> > query would give you the right thing. But that query would need to be >> the >> > Gerrit default, not some obscure query you can run or add to your >> dashboard >> > -- otherwise we are back at step 1. >> > >> > -- >> > Thierry Carrez (ttx) >> > >> >> I'd like to ask few questions regarding this as I'm very much pro >> cleaning the review queues of abandoned stuff. >> >> How often people (committer/owner/_reviewer_) abandon changes actively? >> Now I do not mean the reviewer here only cores marking other peoples >> abandoned PSs as abandoned I mean how many times you have seen person >> stating that (s)he will not review a change anymore? I haven't seen that, >> but I've seen lots of changes where person has reviewed it on some early >> stage and 10 revisions later still not given ones input again. What I'm >> trying to say here is that it does not make the change any less abandoned >> if it's not marked abandoned by the owner. It's rarely active process. >> >> Regarding the contributor experience, I'd say it's way more harmful not >> to mark abandoned changes abandoned than do so. If the person really don't >> know and can't figure out how to a) join the mailing list b) get to irc c) >> write a comment to the change or d) reach out anyone in the project in any >> other means to express that (s)he does not know how to fix the issue >> flagged in weeks, I'm not sure if we will miss that person as a contributor >> so much either? And yes, the message should be strong telling that the >> change has passed the point it most probably will have no traction anymore >> and active action needs to be taken to continue the workflow. Same time >> lets turn this around. How many new contributors we drive away because of >> the reaction "Whoa, this many changes have been sitting here for weeks, I >> have no chance to get my change quickly in"? >> >> Specifically to Nova, Swift & Cinder folks: >> How much do you see benefit on bug lifecycle management with the >> abandoning? I would assume bugs that has message their proposed fix >> abandoned getting way more traction than the ones where the fix has been >> stale in queue for weeks. And how many of those abandoned ones gets >> reactivated? >> >> Last I'd like to point out that life is full of disappointments. We >> should not try to keep our community in bubble where no-one ever gets >> disappointed nor their feelings never gets hurt. I do not appreciate that >> approach on current trend of raising children and I definitely do not >> appreciate that approach towards adults. Perhaps the people with "bad >> experience" will learn something and get over it or move on. Neither is bad >> for the community. >> >> - Erno >> >> __________________________________________________________________________ >> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) >> Unsubscribe: >> openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> > > Should we just rename this thread to "Sensitivity training for > contributors"? > > Way back some number of posts ago I felt that a good compromise was keep > the auto-abandon and add a comment (I still feel that way). But it seems > folks that are concerned about "feelings" don't want a compromise. > > Since then the thread has turned into "What about the poor contributor > that doesn't know how to use email, IRC or look at his/her patch any > more"? Well, I guess they're out of luck; and honestly if this makes > somebody have hurt feelings and crushes their spirit they're not going make > it very long in the OpenStack community anyway, not to mention life. At > your employer do you get assigned a task, do part of it then just let it > sit and consider it done? > > We auto-abandon stuff, it's part of a process as far as I'm concerned > everybody should get over it and just move on. Maybe go update your patch > that's been sitting idle for a week instead dealing with this thread, or > maybe go do a review; I probably could/should have done a few myself > instead of writing this silly response. > > +1 Well said John. > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > >
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
