[Development] abandoning stale changes on gerrit

[Jedrzej Nowacki]

On Wednesday 30. January 2013 12.20.18 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 08:58:32AM +0100, Jedrzej Nowacki wrote:
> > Please don't do it. My dashboard contains patches, that I'm interested
> > in. It is a kind of knowledge storage, with already signed CLA. I
> > understand that a big dashboard is not nice to maintain, but forcing
> > everyone to clean it up is not the way to go.
> > 
> > Answer is: use filters.
> > 
> > https://codereview.qt-project.org/#q,reviewer:+oswald+-age:+2d+status:ope
> > n,n,z
> > 
> > for more you can look here:
> > https://review.typo3.org/Documentation/user-search.html
> 
> thankyouverymuch, i know how to use filters.
> unfortunately, this entirely misses the point.
> the whole exercise is meant to prod some contributions into (a promise
> of) activity, and to weed out hopeless ones. most of the stuff is
> totally inapplicable meanwhile. there is just no point in keeping it
> open.
> for the "repository of potentially interesting stuff [which, let's face
> it, i'll never get around to using]" you can use the "star" feature -
> this makes it conveniently reachable, but keeps it out of your working
> set (i.e., the dashboard), and is independent of the state the changes
> are in.
> _______________________________________________
> Development mailing list
> Development at qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Hi,

There is no point in closing them either. We aim for time based releases. 
There is not need for "prodding". If something is not in then it is for a 
future release, or for never, which is also fine. Your work flow doesn't work, 
fine, you can go and fix it, but why in such invasive way? Sure, I can use 
"star" feature as well as you can use filtering. I do not see difference. 
Please, convince me that bulk abandoning will improve our lives. For now I see 
that it would improve your dashboard, by cost of everyone doing a bit of 
cleanup work.

Thank you for sharing link with the original discussion, I found reasoning why 
you believe that all changes needs to be abandon:

> - "W19 - Abandon review - 3" - Is this basically to close a review after
> there has been no activity or it has been rejected? If I understand
> correctly what this is, I would give it 5, since without this the view
> of active reviews will be cluttered with old junk (basically what we
> have with merge requests today).

And Thiago's answer:

> I was thinking of "withdraw a review", by the contributor, as opposed to 
close 
> it as merged by the CI system.
> 
> But you're right, we need to filter out old junk of rejected reviews. There 
> shouldn't be unreviewed contributions though.

So, the goal was to __filter__ out an old "junk". It seems that we do not need 
to do anything because we already have the filter feature.

Cheers,
  Jedrek