Hi, On 2022-08-04 11:19:28 -0700, Jacob Champion wrote: > 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.
Sorry, I should have been clearer. It wasn't mine either! I was just trying to understand what you see as the usecase / get a better feel for it. I'm now a bit more convinced it's useful than before. > >> - 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. Why is it better to mark it as lacks interested than RwF if there actually *has* been feedback? > I don't think a patch should sit motionless in CF for eight months; it's not > at all fair to the author. It's not great, I agree, but wishes don't conjure up resources :( > >> - 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. I don't think the entry needs more review - it needs changes: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAOKkKFtc45uNFoWYOCo4St19ayxrh-_%2B4TnZtwxGZz6-3k_GSA%40mail.gmail.com That contains quite a few things that should be changed. A patch that has gotten feedback, but that feedback hasn't been processed pretty much is the definition of RwF, no? > >> (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? I agree that "lacks interest" could be useful. But I'm wary of it becoming just a renaming if we end up marking patches that should be RwF or rejected as "lacks interest". Greetings, Andres Freund
