Thanks Rob,
Comments inline.
On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 02:59:02PM -0400, Rob Crittenden via FreeIPA-devel wrote:
There are a lot of old, outdated PRs.
I think we need to close them and strive hard to keep the list of PRs very
low so for this round, against my usual instincts, I propose we act on the
harsher side. Note that I did __not__ review the patches in detail, I'm
mostly look at at last touch and relevance.
If we don't close them outright then some pushing on the contributor will be
needed including a timeframe to respond.
If we want to close, then close. But for the PRs waiting on
info/updates, invite the contributor to reopen if they provide the
info/updates needed to progress the PR.
I think that for any closed PRs we attach a copy of the patches to
the
associated ticket (and mention the remote branch) so we don't lose anything.
+1
Here is my list of PRs to close and the reasoning:
https://github.com/freeipa/freeipa/pull/1793 - needs rebase (2 weeks),
failing test needs investigation.
https://github.com/freeipa/freeipa/pull/1559 appears to be a duplicate of
this.
https://github.com/freeipa/freeipa/pull/1809 - Needs response to reviewers,
including, and most importantly, showing that the test succeeds by a
temporary patch to execute it.
https://github.com/freeipa/freeipa/pull/1724 - There is confusion over what
branch this needs to land in.
https://github.com/freeipa/freeipa/pull/1650 - Doesn't seem to have
agreement that this is needed
https://github.com/freeipa/freeipa/pull/1563 - Was a good,
forwarding-looking change but given William's departure are we likely to see
this fixed anytime soon?
What is the long-term outlook for the old 389 deployment scripts?
If they're planning to remove them the future, it would make sense
for someone to finish this work and land it in master.
https://github.com/freeipa/freeipa/pull/1515 - been waiting weeks for
contributor to address comments of reviewer
https://github.com/freeipa/freeipa/pull/1460 - been waiting months for
contributor to address comments of reviewers
https://github.com/freeipa/freeipa/pull/1430 - been waiting weeks for
reviewer comments to be addressed
Based on content of (stalled) discussion, I agree to close.
We want this. I think it devolved to a doc/label change to clarify
the actual behaviour, so it should be easy/trivial for any developer
to rework.
https://github.com/freeipa/freeipa/pull/1378 - been waiting months for
contributor to address comments of reviewers
https://github.com/freeipa/freeipa/pull/1353 - WIP patch. Is it still needed?
I think we want this. Christian needs to comment on the status.
https://github.com/freeipa/freeipa/pull/1188 - been waiting months for
rebase
https://github.com/freeipa/freeipa/pull/920 - reviewer restarted work a
month ago, do we want to keep this open?
What to do with the 2 postponed PRs? Will we ever get to them?
https://github.com/freeipa/freeipa/pull/717 - I don't think we will ever finish this
https://github.com/freeipa/freeipa/pull/433 - same as above
I agree to close these. We may revisit in the future, but if we do
we rework it to be not NSS-based (python-cryptography more likely).
>
> And then there are these two which are planned changes that have been lost
> to the depths of time:
>
>
https://github.com/freeipa/freeipa/pull/117 - What is the priority of this?
> It is in the 4.7 milestone.
>
>
https://github.com/freeipa/freeipa/pull/23 - What to do with this, it was
> planned for 4.5? Does it need coordination with SSSD to do the time
> enforcement?
>
> rob