[Development] abandoning stale changes on gerrit

Alan Alpert 416365416c at gmail.com
Fri Feb 1 19:59:47 CET 2013


On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 11:28 PM, Peter Kümmel <syntheticpp at gmx.net> wrote:
> On 01.02.2013 01:37, Alan Alpert wrote:
>>
>> That said, I'd prefer it for us to reach a consensus that the
>> abandoned state should mean abandoned (adj 2 of
>> http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/abandoned) instead of destroyed (past
>> participle of verb 1, http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/destroy). Then
>> abandoning stale changes is simply changing the gerrit state to more
>> accurately reflect the state of reality.
>
> This points in the right direction.
>
> The problem with the original request to simply make all changes
> "abandoned" is that it will destroy the differentiation between
> "trash" and "not interested in atm".
>

I actually disagree that any abandoned commits are "trash" (or
possibly I just don't see the distinction between trash and not
interested in anymore).

Even if a change is abandoned because everyone immediately agrees that
it is flat out wrong, it's still an important part of the history. It
can be referred to in JIRA or mailing lists - I've already used a
change as an example in this thread which was subsequently abandoned.
It might be overly conservative to effectively have a "don't throw
anything away" policy, but I think that's appropriate for something as
important and useful as development history.

If the distinction is more whether you, personally, currently intend
to look at it again... I still maintain that should go in JIRA so that
we all use a common mechanism for storage and retrieval of project
plans. If it's too minor a note for JIRA, is it really a major enough
note to implement a separate gerrit state for?

--
Alan Alpert



More information about the Development mailing list