Hi, On 2022-08-03 12:06:03 -0700, Jacob Champion wrote: > On 8/3/22 11:41, Andres Freund wrote: > > What patches are we concretely talking about?> > > My impression is that a lot of the patches floating from CF to CF have > > gotten > > sceptical feedback and at best a minor amount of work to address that has > > been > > done. > > - https://commitfest.postgresql.org/38/2482/
Hm - "Returned: Needs more interest" doesn't seem like it'd have been more descriptive? It was split off a patchset that was committed at the tail end of 15 (and which still has *severe* code quality issues). Imo having a CF entry before the rest of the jsonpath stuff made it in doesn't seem like a good idea. > - https://commitfest.postgresql.org/38/3338/ Here it'd have fit. > - https://commitfest.postgresql.org/38/3181/ FWIW, I mentioned at least once that I didn't think this was worth pursuing. > - https://commitfest.postgresql.org/38/2918/ Hm, certainly not a lot of review activity. > - https://commitfest.postgresql.org/38/2710/ A good bit of this was committed in some form with a decent amount of review activity for a while. > - https://commitfest.postgresql.org/38/2266/ (this one was particularly > miscommunicated during the first RwF) I'd say misunderstanding than miscommunication... It seems partially stalled due to the potential better approach based on https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/15848.1576515643%40sss.pgh.pa.us ? In which case RwF doesn't seem to inappropriate. > - https://commitfest.postgresql.org/38/2218/ Yep. > - https://commitfest.postgresql.org/38/3256/ Yep. > - https://commitfest.postgresql.org/38/3310/ I don't really understand why this has been RwF'd, doesn't seem that long since the last review leading to changes. > - https://commitfest.postgresql.org/38/3050/ Given that a non-author did a revision of the patch, listed a number of TODO items and said "I'll create regression tests firstly." - I don't think "lacks interest" would have been appropriate, and RwF is? > (Even if they'd all received skeptical feedback, if the author replies in > good faith and is met with silence for months, we need to not keep stringing > them along.) I agree very much with that - just am doubtful that "lacks interest" is a good way of dealing with it, unless we just want to treat it as a nicer sounding "rejected". Greetings, Andres Freund
