Hi Andres, My intention had not quite been for this to be a referendum on the decision for every patch -- we can do that if it helps, but I don't think we necessarily have to have unanimity on the bucketing for every patch in order for the new state to be useful.
On 8/3/22 12:46, Andres Freund wrote: >> - 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 There were no comments about code quality issues on the thread that I can see, and there were three people who independently said "I don't know why this isn't getting review." Seems like a shoe-in for "needs more interest". >> - https://commitfest.postgresql.org/38/3338/ > > Here it'd have fit. Okay. That's one. >> - https://commitfest.postgresql.org/38/3181/ > > FWIW, I mentioned at least once that I didn't think this was worth pursuing. (I don't see that comment on that thread? You mentioned it needed a rebase.) IMO, mentioning that something is not worth pursuing is not actionable feedback. It's a declaration of non-interest in the mildest case, and a Rejection in the strongest case. But let's please not say "meh" and then Return with Feedback; an author can't do anything with that. >> - https://commitfest.postgresql.org/38/2918/ > > Hm, certainly not a lot of review activity. That's two. >> - 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. But then the rest of it stalled. Something has to be done with the open entry. >> - https://commitfest.postgresql.org/38/2266/ (this one was particularly >> miscommunicated during the first RwF) > > I'd say misunderstanding than miscommunication... The CFM sending it said, "It seems there has been no activity since last version of the patch so I don't think RwF is correct" [1], and then the email sent said "you are encouraged to send a new patch [...] with the suggested changes." But there were no suggested changes left to make. This really highlights, for me, why the two states should not be combined into one. > 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. Those comments are, as far as I can tell, not in the thread. (And the new thread you linked is also stalled.) >> - https://commitfest.postgresql.org/38/2218/ > > Yep. That's three. >> - https://commitfest.postgresql.org/38/3256/ > > Yep. That's four. >> - 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. Eight months without feedback, when we expect authors to turn around a patch in two weeks or less to avoid being RwF'd, is a long time IMHO. I don't think a patch should sit motionless in CF for eight months; it's not at all fair to the author. >> - 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? That was six months ago, and prior to that there was another six month silence. I'd say that lacks interest, and I don't feel like it's currently reviewable in CF. >> (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". Tom summed up my position well: there's a difference between those two that is both meaningful and actionable for contributors. Is there an alternative you'd prefer? Thanks for the discussion! --Jacob [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20211004071249.GA6304%40ahch-to
