872906d761
An IRC conversation/question showed that the current wording of the policy can be misinterpreted to mean that permission must be asked before restoring a patch. This patch aims to make it explicit that it is not the case. Also fix a couple of typos. Change-Id: Iaf78eedd5e6367bed476e7d4253bbb834ec42bfd
106 lines
3.0 KiB
ReStructuredText
106 lines
3.0 KiB
ReStructuredText
=================
|
|
Patch Abandonment
|
|
=================
|
|
|
|
Goal
|
|
====
|
|
|
|
Provide basic policy that core reviewers can apply to outstanding reviews. As
|
|
always, it is up to the core reviewers discretion on whether a patch should or
|
|
should not be abandoned. This policy is just a baseline with some basic rules.
|
|
|
|
Problem Description
|
|
===================
|
|
|
|
TripleO consists of many different projects in which many patches become stale
|
|
or simply forgotten. This can lead to problems when trying to review the
|
|
current patches for a given project.
|
|
|
|
When to Abandon
|
|
===============
|
|
|
|
If a proposed patch has been marked -1 WIP by the author but has sat idle for
|
|
more than 180 days, a core reviewer should abandon the change with a reference
|
|
to this policy.
|
|
|
|
If a proposed patch is submitted and given a -2 and the patch has sat idle for
|
|
90 days with no effort to address the -2, a core reviewer should abandon the
|
|
change with a reference to this policy.
|
|
|
|
If a proposed patch becomes stale by ending up with a -1 from CI for 90 days
|
|
and no activity to resolve the issues, a core reviewer should abandon the
|
|
change with a reference to this policy.
|
|
|
|
When NOT to Abandon
|
|
===================
|
|
|
|
If a proposed patch has no feedback but is +1 from CI, a core reviewer should
|
|
not abandon such changes.
|
|
|
|
If a proposed patch a given a -1 by a reviewer but the patch is +1 from CI and
|
|
not in merge conflict and the author becomes unresponsive for a few weeks,
|
|
reviewers can leave a reminder comment on the review to see if there is
|
|
still interest in the patch. If the issues are trivial then anyone should feel
|
|
welcome to checkout the change and resubmit it using the same change ID to
|
|
preserve original authorship. Core reviewers should not abandon such changes.
|
|
|
|
Restoration
|
|
===========
|
|
|
|
Feel free to restore your own patches. If a change has been abandoned
|
|
by a core reviewer, anyone can request the restoration of the patch by
|
|
asking a core reviewer on IRC in #tripleo on freenode or by sending a
|
|
request to the openstack-dev mailing list. Should the patch again
|
|
become stale it may be abandoned again.
|
|
|
|
Alternative & History
|
|
=====================
|
|
|
|
This topic was previously brought up on the openstack mailing list [1]_ along
|
|
with proposed code to use for automated abandonment [2]_. Similar policies are
|
|
used by the Puppet OpenStack group [3]_.
|
|
|
|
Implementation
|
|
==============
|
|
|
|
Author(s)
|
|
---------
|
|
|
|
Primary author:
|
|
aschultz
|
|
|
|
Other contributors:
|
|
bnemec
|
|
|
|
Milestones
|
|
----------
|
|
|
|
Pike-2
|
|
|
|
Work Items
|
|
----------
|
|
|
|
References
|
|
==========
|
|
|
|
.. [1] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-October/076666.html
|
|
.. [2] https://github.com/cybertron/tripleo-auto-abandon
|
|
.. [3] https://docs.openstack.org/developer/puppet-openstack-guide/reviews.html#abandonment
|
|
|
|
Revision History
|
|
================
|
|
|
|
.. list-table:: Revisions
|
|
:header-rows: 1
|
|
|
|
* - Release Name
|
|
- Description
|
|
* - Pike
|
|
- Introduced
|
|
|
|
.. note::
|
|
|
|
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0
|
|
Unported License.
|
|
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode
|