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

[James Lowe]

Hello,

On 21/09/15 09:36, Trevor Daniels wrote:
> 
> David Kastrup wrote Monday, September 21, 2015 9:16 AM
> 
> 
>> "Trevor Daniels" <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>>> David Kastrup wrote Sunday, September 20, 2015 11:34 PM
>>>
>>>> James Lowe <address@hidden> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 20/09/15 22:52, Simon Albrecht wrote:
>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>
>>>>> Extra cruft that serves no purpose as I can see.
>>>>>
>>>>> We have waiting/needs_work already.
>>>>
>>>> Both of those indicate that the Patch is not (yet?) abandoned.
>>>
>>> The key difference is one of ownership.  The LP developers have
>>> a tradition of not interfering (other than by commenting) on the development
>>> of a patch to an issue already "owned" by someone else.  Patch 
>>> waiting/needs_work means the current owner is still planning to do more 
>>> work, so other devs let it ride.  Patch abandoned means the previous 
>>> dev has given up, so anyone else is free to take it up and change the 
>>> ownership.  Well, at least that's my understanding.
>>
>> No, that's not entirely related.  I may give up on a particular approach
>> to an issue, making it pointless to pursue a particular patch, but still
>> want to cook up a different patch or solve the problem in the context of
>> another issue.  Patch abandoned just means that the latest proposed
>> patch is not going to be pursued further, not that the issue owner has
>> given up on a particular problem altogether.
> 
> We don't really have a mechanism to handle multiple patches, so I think
> we can discount that possibility.  We usually use Patch needs_work to
> cover the situation where the current patch is inadequate and further work
> is in progress.  I'd rather adopt my interpretation as a more useful use 
> of this limited set of markers, namely that Patch abandoned really means, 
> "I've given up on working on this issue and the current patch is now up for 
> grabs for someone else to improve on it."  And I'd suggest an issue should
> be placed in this state by the Bug Squad if no action on it has been apparent
> by the current owner for over 6 months.
> 
> Trevor

But my main point has still not been addressed. While I like Trevor's
suggestion - about the 6 month review - should we not just put the issue
back to as it was if it was 'new', and just put something in the thread
that says words to that effect?

I still think that the casual observers look at 'patch abandoned' 'as
if' it was like an issue had been marked 'invalid', in that it is simply
ignored as an issue where some more work could be done when filtered for.

Maybe that is just me and how I view the issues list, but I still
maintain that if (let's say after 6 months of whatever) nothing has been
worked on the issue then it simply goes back on the 'pile' of 'new'
issues (in that they have all their labels stripped and put back as if
they were just entered). Any devs who then take a look at that issue
will of course see the thread (and the link to the old patch) but at the
same time the issue is not 'tainted' (if that is the right way to think
of it) by patch_abandoned.

So, off the top of my head

Patch-New - > Patch-Reviwe - > some back and forth or some time spent -
> Patch-needs work - > Patch-new -> Patch_review -> more arguing/thought
-> Patch-Needs work -> some more time, loss of the will to live/more
interesting less hard things to work on [insert time limit here] - >
Patch abandoned -> [insert more time here] -> clear issue back to 'as
new' (Label is 'Accepted' patch-abandoned is cleared and the tracker is
updated).

Or something along those lines - personally I still needs-work is
enough. If it needs-work for more than 3/6 months then it is considered
abandoned but the issue is put back new and the 'needs-work' label is
removed.

Perhaps these are just emotive things but 'needs work' is something I
might look at compared to something that was 'abandoned' (gosh if they
abandoned it, it must be really hard or really a lot of work).

I have a relatively set-way of doing things now as Patch Meister (it
seems to work for the group and no one has complained ;) ) so adding
something in the schedule to cycle all the needs_work/abandoned into new
/ no patch status is something that is not that hard once we've (I've)
caught up on these issues - there are only so many because of the fact
that I had been derelict in my duty for these abandoned patches.

I don't think Bug Squad need to be involved (unless they or others think
it is better than the PM?), but after all it is an abandoned patch and
that is what I 'Meister' over.

James