Open Stack

Excerpts from Doug Wiegley's message of 2015-03-02 12:47:14 -0800:
> 
> > On Mar 2, 2015, at 1:13 PM, James E. Blair <corvus at inaugust.com> wrote:
> > 
> > Stefano branched this thread from an older one to talk about
> > auto-abandon.  In the previous thread, I believe I explained my
> > concerns, but since the topic split, perhaps it would be good to
> > summarize why this is an issue.
> > 
> > 1) A core reviewer forcefully abandoning a change contributed by someone
> > else can be a very negative action.  It's one thing for a contributor to
> > say "I have abandoned this effort", it's very different for a core
> > reviewer to do that for them.  It is a very strong action and signal,
> > and should not be taken lightly.
> 
> I'm not arguing against better tooling, queries, or additional comment warnings.  All of those are good things. 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 also don't understand your point that the review becomes invisible, since it's a simple gerrit query to see closed reviews, and your own contention is that gerrit queries solve this in the other direction, so it can't be too hard in this one, either. I've done that many times to find mine and others abandoned reviews, the most recent example being resurrecting all of the lbaas v2 reviews after it slipped out of juno and eventually was put into it's own repo.  Some of those reviews were abandoned, others not, and it was roughly equivalent to find them, open or not, and then re-tool those for the latest changes to master.
> 

You are correct in saying that just like users can query for a proper
queue of things they should look at, people can also query for abandoned
patches.

However, I'm not sure these are actually the same things.

One is a simple query to hide things you don't want.

The other is a simple query to find things you don't know are missing.