Open Stack

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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20150303/6ebe7086/attachment.html>