Re: List of Issues with 'patch_abandoned' assigned to them - as of September 2015

[Simon Albrecht]

On 20.09.2015 23:10, James Lowe wrote:
> My thinking is like this; I pick an issue to work on, I do some stuff,
> make a patch, have a discussion, then get bored and go silent.
>
> The issue is now patch_abandoned.
>
> What is the benefit of leaving this label (or even having it in the
> first place)

One can see immediately that a patch has already been prepared for this 
issue, which may serve as a starting point for future work. True, 
anybody to pick up such an issue would have to read through the entire 
discussion anyway, but I’d rather ask the other way round:
What’s the benefit of deleting the Patch label, or the harm that a 
Patch:abandoned does?
>   as anyone new who wanted to look for an issue would have to
> start from square 1 anyway or pick up where someone left off (i.e. start
> from square 2 so to speak), so how is this different from 'Accepted'
> with no patch label as long as 'someone' (i.e. the Patch Meister)
> updated the issue tracker with some words?
>
> In other words what is the difference between an issue that has had a
> patch abandoned for 2 years to an issue that has never been started but
> has been accepted?

Status is independent of Patch status.
True, I did myself make some thoughts on merging those two fields: i.e. 
replacing Status:Started by Status:Patch_new etc. After all, 
Status:Fixed would be a fitful successor to Status:Patch_push. 
Status:Patch_abandoned would mark an issue as ‘suspended’.
I came to the conclusion that it wasn’t worth the effort of updating all 
the DB.

Yours, Simon