On Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 10:09 AM Julien Rouhaud <rjuju...@gmail.com> wrote: > First of all, I didn't want to imply that rejecting a patch should be > pleasant, > sorry if that sounded that way.
No worries, I don't think it really sounded that way. :D > It's not that I'm opposed to adding that status, I just don't see how it's > really going to improve the situation on its own. If the situation you're referring to is the fact that we have a lot of patches sitting without review, it won't improve that situation, I agree. The situation I'm looking at, though, is where we have a dozen patches floating forward that multiple CFMs in a row feel should be returned, but they won't because claiming "they have feedback" is clearly unfair to the author. I think this will improve that situation. > Or maybe because it wouldn't > make any difference to me as a patch author to get my patches returned "with > feedback" or "for any other reason" if they are ignored. Sure. I think this change helps the newer contributors (and the CFMs talking to them) more than it helps the established ones. I'm in your boat, where I don't personally care how a patch of mine is returned (and I'm fine with Withdrawing them myself). But I'm also paid to do this. From some of my past experiences with other projects, I tend to feel more sensitive to bad communication if I've developed a patch using volunteer hours, on evenings or weekends. > I'm afraid that > patches will still be left alone to rot and there still be no clear rules on > what to do and when, reminder for CFM and such, and that this new status would > never be used anyway. So I guess I will just stop hijacking this thread and > wait for a discussion on that, sorry for the noise. Well, here, let's keep that conversation going too while there's momentum. One sec while I switch Subjects and continue... --Jacob
