On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 09:19:22AM +0100, Jedrzej Nowacki wrote:
> On Friday 1. February 2013 14.34.26 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > i'd rather have a bot post a gentle ping after the proposed 3-month
> > timeout, and then follow through within a few (four?) weeks.
>
> That is a bit destructive. T
On Friday 1. February 2013 14.34.26 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > But if we automate this the timeout period needs to be long enough.
> > 2-3 months is certainly too short, we need to be conservative with
> > these kinds of automatisms. A year sounds more reasonable.
> >
> >
>
> i don't think thi
On 01/31/2013 07:49 AM, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 01:59:17PM +0100, Paul Olav Tvete wrote:
>> On Thursday 31 January 2013 13:08:11 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
>>> as i stated before, i'm driving forward a process to decide the
>>> execution details of a previously made decis
On 01/31/2013 03:19 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
> Slightly off-topic, but in any event, I think we can all agree that
> there's a huge difference between a good QML API and a good C++ API.
> I haven't looked at it, but if Alan thinks that QScreen, as is,
> shouldn't be exposed to QML as a property o
On Fri, Feb 01, 2013 at 10:43:12AM +0100, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On sexta-feira, 1 de fevereiro de 2013 08.40.10, Peter Kümmel wrote:
> > > The problem with the original request to simply make all changes
> > > "abandoned" is that it will destroy the differentiation between
> > > "trash" and "not
On sexta-feira, 1 de fevereiro de 2013 10.59.47, Alan Alpert wrote:
> 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).
+1 to Alan's definition.
I have several commits that implement something
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 11:28 PM, Peter Kümmel 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
>> participl
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 09:07:06PM +0100, André Pönitz wrote:
> I have not seen any reasoning beyond "I ignore what you say" why
> abandoning any change that is _not_ on your dashboard would help to
> solve the problem you have with the size of your dashboard.
>
i never claimed that. it's not abou
On Fri, Feb 01, 2013 at 09:58:41AM +, Knoll Lars wrote:
> This discussion is in many ways similar to discussions on how to
> handle bug reports. I had many discussions over the years about
> whether to automatically close old bug reports (say older than a year
> or two) or not. So far there hav
On Feb 1, 2013, at 1:37 AM, Alan Alpert <4163654...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Rutledge Shawn
> wrote:
>>
>> On 29 Jan 2013, at 1:41 PM, Sorvig Morten wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 29, 2013, at 1:05 PM, Oswald Buddenhagen
>>> wrote:
>>>
moin *,
5.0 is
On sexta-feira, 1 de fevereiro de 2013 08.40.10, Peter Kümmel wrote:
> > 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".
>
> Another problem is that some touches your change
>
> 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".
Another problem is that some touches your changes you've invested
time and motivation and simply moves it into the trash can
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
> ab
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Rutledge Shawn
wrote:
>
> On 29 Jan 2013, at 1:41 PM, Sorvig Morten wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jan 29, 2013, at 1:05 PM, Oswald Buddenhagen
>> wrote:
>>
>>> moin *,
>>>
>>> 5.0 is out and the 5.1 feature freeze isn't that far off any more.
>>> seems like the best time fo
On quinta-feira, 31 de janeiro de 2013 19.43.37, Thorbjørn Martsum wrote:
> Hi Oswald and others
>
> Though I clearly understand the reason, I don't like the idea. It is not
> that I have a problem with writing 'do not abandon' on my own old changes.
> My main concern is that we have had contribute
On quinta-feira, 31 de janeiro de 2013 17.26.37, Jedrzej Nowacki wrote:
> > 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 s
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 2:58 AM, Rutledge Shawn
wrote:
> On 29 Jan 2013, at 8:43 PM, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 06:43:34PM +, Rutledge Shawn wrote:
>>> I do actually abandon stuff when it's quite clear that it's dead, but
>>> due to the review and CI processes, ther
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 01:08:11PM +0100, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 10:58:13AM +, Rutledge Shawn wrote:
> > I question your right to unilaterally decide to put the kibosh on
> > other people's patches, automatically, across the whole project, even
> > when they are not
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 3:54 AM, Oswald Buddenhagen
wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 11:46:24AM -0800, Alan Alpert wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 11:43 AM, Oswald Buddenhagen
>> wrote:
>> > the cut-off for dead changes will be set at two months (or more -
>> > tbd) without any activity (which
Hi Oswald and others
Though I clearly understand the reason, I don't like the idea. It is not
that I have a problem with writing 'do not abandon' on my own old changes.
My main concern is that we have had contributers who left the community and
they have left their patches.
Some of these patches
On 01/31/2013 04:08 AM, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> << SNIP >>
>
> introducing a separate state isn't necessarily a bad idea.
> however, from a single user's perspective i don't see a difference to
> starring the still relevant changes, and i have doubts that making the
> owner's expectations regar
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 05:26:37PM +0100, Jedrzej Nowacki wrote:
> 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.
>
then call it "reminding",
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
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 01:59:17PM +0100, Paul Olav Tvete wrote:
> On Thursday 31 January 2013 13:08:11 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > as i stated before, i'm driving forward a process to decide the
> > execution details of a previously made decision.
>
> Since this decision process has been unnoti
On Thursday 31 January 2013 13:08:11 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> as i stated before, i'm driving forward a process to decide the
> execution details of a previously made decision.
Since this decision process has been unnoticed by the people I have asked:
Would you mind giving a reference to where
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 10:58:13AM +, Rutledge Shawn wrote:
> I question your right to unilaterally decide to put the kibosh on
> other people's patches, automatically, across the whole project, even
> when they are not on your own review list.
>
as i stated before, i'm driving forward a proces
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 11:46:24AM -0800, Alan Alpert wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 11:43 AM, Oswald Buddenhagen
> wrote:
> > the cut-off for dead changes will be set at two months (or more -
> > tbd) without any activity (which is not pinging).
>
> Can we please have more specific criteria?
Hi,
> > (https://codereview.qt-project.org/#change,46020)
>
> You are the only one who doesn't like that patch. Otherwise it could have
> gone in before Qt 5.0.
>
> > https://codereview.qt-project.org/#change,39624
>
> This patch is the opposite of the previous one, so only one will go in.
> Bu
On 29 Jan 2013, at 8:43 PM, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 06:43:34PM +, Rutledge Shawn wrote:
>> I do actually abandon stuff when it's quite clear that it's dead, but
>> due to the review and CI processes, there's quite a large percentage
>> of what I write that has hit s
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 11:43 AM, Oswald Buddenhagen
wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 06:43:34PM +, Rutledge Shawn wrote:
>> I do actually abandon stuff when it's quite clear that it's dead, but
>> due to the review and CI processes, there's quite a large percentage
>> of what I write that has
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
On Tuesday 29. January 2013 13.05.52 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> moin *,
>
> 5.0 is out and the 5.1 feature freeze isn't that far off any more.
> seems like the best time for some serious house cleaning.
> therefore i'd like to urge everyone to give their pending changes which
> haven't seen activ
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 08:43:33PM +0100, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 06:43:34PM +, Rutledge Shawn wrote:
> > I do actually abandon stuff when it's quite clear that it's
> > dead, but due to the review and CI processes, there's quite a
> > large percentage of what I writ
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 08:10:45AM -0800, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On terça-feira, 29 de janeiro de 2013 15.57.18, Poenitz Andre wrote:
> > My dashboard still fits a screen, even with a few old items in it.
> > If yours doesn't and you don't like that (I wouldn't...) unsubscribe
> > yourself. Destr
On terça-feira, 29 de janeiro de 2013 19.47.11, Peter Kümmel wrote:
> On 29.01.2013 13:05, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > moin *,
> >
> > 5.0 is out and the 5.1 feature freeze isn't that far off any more.
> > seems like the best time for some serious house cleaning.
> > therefore i'd like to urge ev
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 06:43:34PM +, Rutledge Shawn wrote:
> I do actually abandon stuff when it's quite clear that it's dead, but
> due to the review and CI processes, there's quite a large percentage
> of what I write that has hit some sort of obstacle and yet is still a
> good idea to someh
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Rutledge Shawn
wrote:
>
> On 29 Jan 2013, at 1:41 PM, Sorvig Morten wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jan 29, 2013, at 1:05 PM, Oswald Buddenhagen
>> wrote:
>>
>>> moin *,
>>>
>>> 5.0 is out and the 5.1 feature freeze isn't that far off any more.
>>> seems like the best time fo
On 29.01.2013 13:05, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> moin *,
>
> 5.0 is out and the 5.1 feature freeze isn't that far off any more.
> seems like the best time for some serious house cleaning.
> therefore i'd like to urge everyone to give their pending changes which
> haven't seen activity for a long ti
On 29 Jan 2013, at 1:41 PM, Sorvig Morten wrote:
>
> On Jan 29, 2013, at 1:05 PM, Oswald Buddenhagen
> wrote:
>
>> moin *,
>>
>> 5.0 is out and the 5.1 feature freeze isn't that far off any more.
>> seems like the best time for some serious house cleaning.
>> therefore i'd like to urge every
On terça-feira, 29 de janeiro de 2013 15.57.18, Poenitz Andre wrote:
> My dashboard still fits a screen, even with a few old items in it.
> If yours doesn't and you don't like that (I wouldn't...) unsubscribe
> yourself. Destroying other people's work is not an option.
There's no destroying. All a
Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > No, and that's my point : I don't really care how many changes others
> > have. I'll deregister myself from those I'm not interested in.
> >
> all changes i'm subscribed to are somehow interesting to me, obviously.
> that means that i don't want to unsubscribe, as i'd
On terça-feira, 29 de janeiro de 2013 16.21.17, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > Can you elaborate a bit on what practical issue this would solve?
> > (beyond "there are many changes in gerrit").
>
> apart from the above, it also skews the metrics (in case somebody ever
> decides to use the number of
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 01:53:27PM +, Sorvig Morten wrote:
> On Jan 29, 2013, at 2:32 PM, Oswald Buddenhagen
> wrote:
> > just stick to the request above. if we made an exception for
> > everyone who wants a different procedure, we won't get anywhere - do
> > you have any idea *how* many dead
On Jan 29, 2013, at 2:32 PM, Oswald Buddenhagen
wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 12:41:13PM +, Sorvig Morten wrote:
>> On Jan 29, 2013, at 1:05 PM, Oswald Buddenhagen
>> wrote:
>>> please explicitly mark the ones you still want to work on by adding a
>>> comment. everything which has no i
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 02:22:47PM +0100, Shaw Andy wrote:
> > everything which has no indication of (planned) activity in a few
> > weeks will be abandoned by administrative action.
>
> Wouldn't it be best to put a specific date on when the administrative
> action will take place? Rather than le
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 12:41:13PM +, Sorvig Morten wrote:
> On Jan 29, 2013, at 1:05 PM, Oswald Buddenhagen
> wrote:
> > please explicitly mark the ones you still want to work on by adding a
> > comment. everything which has no indication of (planned) activity in a
> > few weeks will be aban
> 5.0 is out and the 5.1 feature freeze isn't that far off any more.
> seems like the best time for some serious house cleaning.
> therefore i'd like to urge everyone to give their pending changes which
> haven't seen activity for a long time a honest look.
> please explicitly mark the ones you st
On Jan 29, 2013, at 1:05 PM, Oswald Buddenhagen
wrote:
> moin *,
>
> 5.0 is out and the 5.1 feature freeze isn't that far off any more.
> seems like the best time for some serious house cleaning.
> therefore i'd like to urge everyone to give their pending changes which
> haven't seen activity
moin *,
5.0 is out and the 5.1 feature freeze isn't that far off any more.
seems like the best time for some serious house cleaning.
therefore i'd like to urge everyone to give their pending changes which
haven't seen activity for a long time a honest look.
please explicitly mark the ones you stil
49 matches
Mail list logo
