Jacob Champion <jchamp...@timescale.com> writes:
> On 8/1/22 09:33, Robert Haas wrote:
>> We really need to move to a system where it's the patch author's job
>> to take some action if the patch is alive, rather than having the CM
>> (or any other human being) pinging to find out whether it's dead.> Having
>> the default action for a patch be to carry it along to the next
>> CF whether or not there are any signs of life is unproductive.
> In the medium to long term, I agree with you.
> In the short term I want to see the features that help authors keep
> their patches alive (cfbot integration! automatic rebase reminders!
> automated rebase?) so that we're not just artificially raising the
> barrier to entry. People with plenty of time on their hands will be able
> to go through the motions of moving their patches ahead regardless of
> whether or not the patch is dead.
Yeah, I don't want to introduce make-work into the process; there's
more than enough real work involved. At minimum, a patch that's
shown signs of life since the previous CF should be auto-advanced
to the next one.
regards, tom lane
