[Engine-devel] [vdsm] stale gerrit patches

[Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden]

On Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 06:16:09AM -0400, David Caro Estevez wrote:
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Dave Neary" <dneary at redhat.com>
> > To: "Itamar Heim" <iheim at redhat.com>
> > Cc: "engine-devel" <engine-devel at ovirt.org>, vdsm-devel at lists.fedorahosted.org
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 9, 2013 12:07:45 PM
> > Subject: Re: [vdsm] stale gerrit patches
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On 09/23/2013 12:36 PM, Itamar Heim wrote:
> > > we have some very old gerrit patches.
> > > I'm for abandoning patches which were not touched over 60 days (to begin
> > > with, I think the number should actually be lower).
> > > they can always be re-opened by any interested party post their closure.
> > > 
> > > i.e., looking at gerrit, the patch list should actually get attention,
> > > and not be a few worth looking at, with a "lot of old patches"
> > 
> > I'm coming late to this discussion, but I see that there were some
> > dissenting views from people who want maintainers to be able to store
> > "in-progress" patches in Gerrit.
> > 
> > I am all in favour of treating Gerrit like we treat a bug tracker. If
> > something is opened in the bug tracker, it should be a bug, an open bug
> > is something to be fixed or closed, not to be left indefinitely. An open
> > patch needs to be rejected, reviewed, revised or committed. I don't
> > think Gerrit is the place for in-progress patches (use private branches
> > for that).
> 
> Just point out that you can also use 'drafts' to store those in progress changes: http://gerrit-documentation.googlecode.com/svn/ReleaseNotes/ReleaseNotes-2.3.html#_drafts

+1 for drafts. git review -D submits your patches as drafts.