Comment 7 for bug 559325

On 10 April 2010 05:23, Aaron Bentley <email address hidden> wrote:
> I think that hiding the branch is not the right approach.  The fact that
> the original developer stopped working on it does not imply that the
> branch is useless, and we should err on the side of showing things that
> may be useful.

I agree.

>
> However, we should prominently display the abandoned status.  We might
> also want to reduce the visibility of the merge proposal, or hide it
> entirely.  It implies that the branch is in development, which is at
> odds with the branch's status.  (We should still allow traversal to the
> merge proposal from the branch page itself.)
>
> If there were no merge proposal, the Abandoned status would be
> prominent, so as a first cut, I suggest that we ignore the merge
> proposals of abandoned branches in this display.

To me this should somehow tie to the mp status too. If the branch was
proposed and rejected, as jml's was, then it should still be visible
on the bug but it perhaps less prominent than something that actually
has a fix and needs to be reviewed or merged.

Then the interesting thing is whether jml's still going to work on it
or not - this is perhaps best modelled by the bugtask assignment.

Then we might like to know whether the approach in this branch was
useful at all, or whether someone needs to basically start from
scratch. Perhaps abandoned comes in there? But perhaps that's just
the difference between needs fixing and rejected? (It's unclear
though.)

--
Martin <http://launchpad.net/~mbp/>