Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes:
> 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".
I think there is a difference. "Lacks interest" suggests that there
is a path forward for the patch, namely (as Jacob has mentioned
repeatedly) doing some sort of consensus-building that it's worth
pursuing. The author may or may not have the interest/skills to do
that, but it's possible that it could happen. "Rejected" says "don't
bother pursuing this, it's a bad idea". Neither of these seems the
same as RWF, which I think we mostly understand to mean "this patch
has technical problems that can probably be fixed".
regards, tom lane
