Pending merges/unmerged matches

+10 votes
178 views
I hate to be a noodge.............But we have all been discussing merges policy a lot in the forum. Would like to note that if leadership can hammer out the suggestions into policy we then need some attention on pending merges dating back to November 2012 and unmerged matches dating back to October 2011. Pending and matches were not intended to be permanent statuses. I have been doing the matches for a couple of days with some success; managers approving or rejecting to resolve.

Perhaps we can develop plan to deal with these two collateral issues.
in Policy and Style by Anonymous Knight G2G6 Mach 3 (35.2k points)
retagged by Keith Hathaway

1 Answer

+9 votes
 
Best answer
I'm not sure how much more of a plan we could have than what we have now. The Arborists have been amazingly successful in shrinking the backlog of pending merges, bringing it down from just over 30000 just 8 months ago to 6703 as of right now. And the oldest ones, the ones from the end of 2012, are all private ones, which can only be completed by a sysop (usually me). All I can say to that is, I'm working on it. :)

My hope is that once we're caught up on pending merges (which will be very soon!) we can shift some of our focus to the unmerged matches. Those take a lot longer since almost every one needs to be researched first, to sort out the problems that kept them from being merged in the first place.
by Lianne Lavoie G2G6 Pilot (423k points)
selected by Mags Gaulden
I have very fond feelings for arborists.
^^^^  What she said! :)

Related questions

+27 votes
1 answer
+5 votes
5 answers
205 views asked Apr 23, 2019 in WikiTree Help by Deb Williams G2G6 (8.6k points)
+10 votes
4 answers
202 views asked Aug 10, 2017 in Policy and Style by M Cole G2G6 Mach 3 (35.4k points)
+8 votes
2 answers
+5 votes
0 answers
+16 votes
1 answer

WikiTree  ~  About  ~  Help Help  ~  Search Person Search  ~  Surname:

disclaimer - terms - copyright

...