[13:51:08] andre__: why don't you just abandon such changes instead of -2'ing them? https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/358024/ [13:51:28] Nemo_bis: in theory to teach people how to use Gerrit [13:52:56] andre__: isn't -1 sufficient for teaching purposes? :) [13:53:06] isn't in a clear -2? [13:53:20] Hm? [13:53:27] s/in/it/ [13:53:37] -1 means "needs improvement". But it does not need improvement as it'll never get merged. [13:54:00] Clicking "Abandon" is an improvement :D [13:54:34] well, then people don't learn about cleaning up after themselves if someone else does for them. [13:54:45] why does it bother you? [13:55:19] I mostly bother about the changesets not being abandoned [13:55:39] But the -2 seems also rather harsh (the user cannot reverse it, for one) [13:55:55] because there is nothing to reverse for a patch that will never end up being merged [13:56:21] Still, it's a bigger use of force on the user [13:56:22] directly abandoning feels harsher to me actually, and not letting the user learn to use Gerrit :) [13:56:28] how? [13:56:55] They can still learn by restoring and abandoning again, if that's your concern :) [13:57:17] As I just said, because it's irreversible (very few users have the ability to override/remove a -2) [13:58:03] While abandoning is rather mild [13:58:46] Hmm. I see it exactly the other way round :) [13:59:20] new users likely don't know about restoring anyway [13:59:32] But you can tell them [14:00:03] You can add a message which conveys you're just setting their change apart, away from the list of changes pending review [14:01:00] While -2 is more like "this looks like something you should never left here and I'll leave it here forever with a blinking sign above it so that everybody can see your shame" [14:01:31] Errr we seem to have a fundamentally different take on this :0 [14:01:46] I don't see any "shame" at all. I even thank the person for their patch [14:02:11] and we always leave everything forever in Gerrit, no matter if abandoned or first -2'ed and then abandoned at some later point [14:02:34] the shaming is rather when directly abandoning and hence throwing away their work immediately [14:08:07] Who said "immediately"? [14:08:18] And it's not thrown away because they can restore, while -2 is sticky [14:59:02] Nemo_bis, and -2 should stay sticky because, again, that change will never land. [14:59:13] and there is no reason to restore either. [15:09:34] Nor there is a reason to upload a new patchset [15:09:55] So why work for the worst case [15:17:40] indeed. and a newly uploaded patchset will likely happen if you abandon. [15:59:09] andre__: how so? [15:59:51] Nemo_bis: because no new Gerrit user knows that you can restore [16:01:29] andre__: so why would they send a new patch? [16:01:54] Don't know. Testing out Gerrit? Ask them? :) [16:02:04] Never happened to me [16:02:12] What success rate does your method have? [16:02:36] I don't spend time creating statistics on that, sorry [16:02:44] if you have statistics, feel free to share them [16:03:43] Ballpark figures are ok too :) [16:03:52] I don't remember any single failure with my method