Folks,
I'll push DevOps to run the script. However, what we need is to just go
ahead and clean up, abandon manually what is not relevant anymore, provide
comment.
Please start with your patches.
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 11:08 PM Oleg Gelbukh wrote:
> Nicely put, Doug, you gave me laughs :)
>
> I
Nicely put, Doug, you gave me laughs :)
I can't see how a CR could hang for a month without anyone paying attention
if it worths merging. If this really happens (which I'm not aware of),
auto-abandon definitely won't make things any worse.
--
Best regards,
Oleg Gelbukh
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 6:
Just adding an experience from another project, Neutron.
We had similar debates, and prepping for the long apocalyptic winter of
changeset death, Kyle decimated the world and ran the abandon script. The
debates were far more intense than the reality, and my large stockpile of Rad-X
and Nuka Col
I'm with Stanislaw on this one: abandoning reviews just to make numbers
*look* better will accomplish nothing.
The only benefit I can see is cleaning up reviews that we *know* don't need
to be considered, so that it's easier for reviewers to find the reviews
that still need attention. I don't see
Folks,
let's execute here. Numbers are still large. Did we have a chance to look
over the whole queue?
Can we go ahead and abandon changes having -1 or -2 from reviewers for over
than a months or so?
I'm all for just following standard OpenStack process [1], and then change
it only if there is goo
2 weeks seems too small for me. We easy can be in situation when fix for
medium bug is done, but SCF starts. And gap between SCF and release easily
can be more than a month. So, 2 months seems okay for me if speaking about
forcibly applying auto-abandon by major vote. And I'm personally against
suc
That's a very good plan ("Initial feedback/triage") Mike.
thanks,
dims
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Mike Scherbakov
wrote:
> +1 for just reusing existing script, and adjust it on the way. No need to
> immediately switch from infinite time to a couple of weeks, we can always
> adjust it later.
+1 for just reusing existing script, and adjust it on the way. No need to
immediately switch from infinite time to a couple of weeks, we can always
adjust it later. But 1-2 month should be a good start already.
Our current stats [1] look just terrible. Before we enable an auto-abandon,
we need to
Let's keep it at >4 weeks without comment, and Jenkins failed - similar
to the script that Kyle Mestery uses for Neutron. In fact, we could
actually just use his script ;)
https://github.com/openstack/neutron/blob/master/tools/abandon_old_reviews.sh
--
Sean M. Collins
___
Hi,
My 2 cents on it.
Let's abandon patch:
* if there's at least one -1, and there were no activity for 2 weeks
* if it has positive feedback, bat there were no activity for 4 weeks
Thanks,
Igor
On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 2:33 PM, Oleg Gelbukh wrote:
> Given this is _inactivity_ timeout, 2 weeks
Given this is _inactivity_ timeout, 2 weeks seem more than enough. Mind
that the discussion without any patch sets incoming counts against this
limit as well.
And basically, if you go on a lenghty vacation, you better finish with all
your CRs before that. During that time it's likely that changes
+1 for one month.
On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 12:54 PM, Vladimir Kuklin
wrote:
> +1
>
> On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Evgeniy L wrote:
>
>> +1 for enabling auto-abandon
>>
>> Sergii, I think the period should be smaller, 2 weeks - 1 month,
>> if patch is important, the author will unabandon it.
>
+1
On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Evgeniy L wrote:
> +1 for enabling auto-abandon
>
> Sergii, I think the period should be smaller, 2 weeks - 1 month,
> if patch is important, the author will unabandon it.
>
> Thanks,
>
> On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 3:50 AM, Sergii Golovatiuk <
> sgolovat...@mirant
+1 for enabling auto-abandon
Sergii, I think the period should be smaller, 2 weeks - 1 month,
if patch is important, the author will unabandon it.
Thanks,
On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 3:50 AM, Sergii Golovatiuk
wrote:
> 3 Months should be a good period. Sometimes, people have one month
> vacation th
3 Months should be a good period. Sometimes, people have one month vacation
thus it might be a problem in such cases.
--
Best regards,
Sergii Golovatiuk,
Skype #golserge
IRC #holser
On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 3:34 PM, Mike Scherbakov
wrote:
> Hi,
> we have too many patches which hang for over a mon
Hi,
we have too many patches which hang for over a month without attention.
Almost all are those which should be abandoned due to changes happened in
master, and need complete rework. Or, those were just proposals to make
something, which didn't fly. Unfortunately there are those which were good
id
16 matches
Mail list logo
