if you have questions, please see that thread and contact the group
mentioned there (chops-so...@google.com
). for the purposes of
this discussion, the matter is closed.
> > > >, i've come across some repos that have a lot of stale CLs. how would people feel about a tool that automatically abandoned CLs that have had no activity for more than some time frame ? we could start with 5 years as a "no one will disagree with that" policy and see how devs react.
> > > >
> > > > if the CL owner wanted to keep the CL, they can always hit the Restore button.
> > > >
> > > > we do this with bugs already as sheriffbot automatically closes stale bugs after a year or two of no activity.
> > > >
> > > > some random open CL stats to fuel discussion. these are cumulative: <2013 == 72 CLs from 2011 & 200 CLs from 2012. these numbers are also after i manually abandoned 100s of really old ones from some CrOS repos.
> > > > <2012 72
> > > > <2013 272
> > > > <2014 448
> > > > <2015 956
> > > > <2016 1694
> > > > <2017 3022
> > > > <2018 10k+
> > > >
> > > > so if we nerfed all CLs older than 5 years, it'd affect ~1.7k right now.
> > >
> > > If people spent time discussing them, and there was no consensus, then
> > > probably there is a chance that the story will repeat itself. The
> > > better strategy could be to estimate the cost of the bankruptcy in
> > > human hours needed to review and reticket those CLs.
> > based on the 100s i've already abandoned, >99% go quietly without
> > comment. so this doesn't seem like a problem, and your "hours"
> > estimate vastly overestimated.
> But I didn't do any estimation, so how do you know that I
you said "hours" which i took to mean each CL would cost at least 1
hour and i think that is a vast overestimate. if you meant it more
generically as "estimating some amount of time", then sorry i put
words in your mouth.
either way, imo, it appears to be "negligible".
> Usually for me the process to commit to an unknown
> repository takes 3 days. It is not 72 hours straight and even 24, but
> 12 can come easily. The total cost of bankruptcy could include those
> in addition to hours that maintainers are needed to spend to review
> them for merging. If people "go quietly" about their changes, then
> they might as well quit quietly, because the motivation to repeat the
> process for me personally would be extremely low.
we're talking about changes that haven't been touched in years. as in
no one has commented on or rebased or done anything with it. the
likelihood of them still being relevant, let alone directly mergeable
w/out conflicts, is extremely low. if you haven't touched the project
in years, then you've already "quit quietly".
this isn't about pushing people out. if a change is actively being
worked on (where "active" is defined as "within some number of
*years*"), then it isn't applicable to this discussion.
i'll point out again that we already have this policy in place for bug
reports on a shorter time scale as i linked to originally: