Re: [RFC] Results of Phase 1 of the Review Process study

[Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>]

On Thu, 2015-10-15 at 22:18 +0100, Lars Kurth wrote:
> > Separately, I suppose it is impossible to distinguish stalled from
> > abandoned (and perhaps in some senses they are the same thing so we don't
> > need to distinguish).
> 
> Agreed. Unless we come up with some sort of convention, marking a series
> as abandoned in the mail thread, there is no way to find out. Which is
> why we came up with the 7 days, <12 months and >12 months buckets.
> Essentially assuming that very old reviews are abandoned: maybe we should
> change "stalled" with "likely abandoned".

I'd say the most accurate characterisation now would be
"superseded/abandoned/stalled" (in decreasing order of likelihood IMHO).

Once more intelligent matching exists it would be interesting to see what
the monthly influx of new unmatched things is.

It might be that having declared things before some ancient date as
historical (i.e. don't care, throw them into a
"superseded/abandoned/stalled" bucket) and a block of upfront work to
manually characterise anything after that date that the monthly ongoing
effort to manually characterise any unmatched backlog into superseded or
known abandoned, leaving the rest in a default "abandoned/stalled" state
would not be too unmanageable (if anyone could be convinced to care to do
so).

Ian.