On 5/16/24 15:47, Tom Lane wrote:
Daniel Gustafsson <dan...@yesql.se> writes:
On 16 May 2024, at 20:30, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
The original intent of CommitFests, and of commitfest.postgresql.org
by extension, was to provide a place where patches could be registered
to indicate that they needed to be reviewed, thus enabling patch
authors and patch reviewers to find each other in a reasonably
efficient way. I don't think it's working any more.
But which part is broken though, the app, our commitfest process and workflow
and the its intent, or our assumption that we follow said process and workflow
which may or may not be backed by evidence? IMHO, from being CMF many times,
there is a fair bit of the latter, which excacerbates the problem. This is
harder to fix with more or better software though.
Yeah. I think that Robert put his finger on a big part of the
problem, which is that punting a patch to the next CF is a lot
easier than rejecting it, particularly for less-senior CFMs
who may not feel they have the authority to say no (or at
least doubt that the patch author would accept it).
Maybe we should just make it a policy that *nothing* gets moved forward
from commitfest-to-commitfest and therefore the author needs to care
enough to register for the next one?
I spent a good deal of time going through the CommitFest this week
And you deserve a big Thank You for that.
+ many
+1 agreed
--
Joe Conway
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
