Open Stack

On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 8:46 AM, John Griffith <john.griffith8 at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 7:18 AM, Kuvaja, Erno <kuvaja at hp.com> wrote:
>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Thierry Carrez [mailto:thierry at openstack.org]
>> > Sent: 03 March 2015 10:00
>> > To: openstack-dev at 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-request at 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-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20150303/b9cddef2/attachment.html>