> On 19 Feb 2025, at 10:25, Jelte Fennema-Nio <postg...@jeltef.nl> wrote: > > Since the next commitfest is starting soon, I think for now we should > move all entries still open in the January commitfest to the March > commitfest. There's a bunch that are still not moved, that I know > should be moved. For example[1] which we discussed at FOSDEM and seems > to have a reasonable chance of even being committed. I've moved that > specific one already, but there's a bunch more. Unless someone feels > like actually going over the list, I think we should just move it. > Then we can try a new flow for the new development cycle. > > On Fri, 7 Feb 2025 at 11:48, Aleksander Alekseev > <aleksan...@timescale.com> wrote: >> Perhaps we should consider the other way around. All the patches are >> moved to the next CF automatically, as we did before. Except for the >> cases when there were no updates for a certain amount of time (e.g. a >> few months). In this case the application sends an email to the >> corresponding thread notifying that the CF entry was closed due to >> inactivity, but if this was done by mistake feel free moving it by >> hand to the upcoming CF. > > I think this sounds much more reasonable than what's happening now. > But I think we need to make the flow a bit more clear: > 1. Add a "no interest" reason for closing. > 2. Add a label[2]/column that specifies that an entry will be closed > as "no interest" automatically at the end of this CF, e.g. a "pending > no interest" label. > 3. If at the end of a commitfest a patch has had 3 or more months > without any emails, it automatically gets that "pending no interest" > label. > 4. Anyone subscribed to emails for this patch will get notified about > that change. > 5. If a patch is Ready for Committer and has a committer assigned, > never add this label. > 6. At the end of the commitfest, move all patches without that label. > And close all patches with such a label.
I don't think it makes much sense to encode value judgments into the system with arbitrarily chosen deadlines (X months between January and re-opening master after the freeze is different from X months around September etc). The opposite, which was discussed at length at FOSDEM, was to ask authors to click a single button once a month at most. If that level of engagement is too much to ask then maybe said authors should question why they in return ask others to spend hours reviewing? -- Daniel Gustafsson
