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

[Trevor Daniels]

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.

Trevor