On 2020-Dec-07, Tom Lane wrote: > Anastasia Lubennikova <a.lubennik...@postgrespro.ru> writes:
> > Firstly, we use it to track patches that we want to see in the nearest > > releases and concentrate our efforts on. And current CFM guideline [1] > > reflects this idea. It suggests, that after the commitfest closure date > > we relentlessly throw to RWF patches that got at least some feedback. To > > be honest, I was reluctant to return semi-ready patches, because it > > means that they will get lost somewhere in mailing lists. And it seems > > like other CFMs did the same. > > Yeah, the aggressive policy suggested in "Sudden Death Overtime" is > certainly not what's been followed lately. I agree that that's > probably too draconic. On the other hand, if a patch sits in the > queue for several CFs without getting committed, that suggests that > maybe we ought to reject it on the grounds of "apparently nobody but > the author cares about this". That argument is easier to make for > features than bug fixes of course, so maybe the policy needs to > distinguish what kind of change is being considered. Note that this checklist was written in 2013 and has never been updated since then. I think there is nothing in that policy that we do use. I'm thinking that rather than try to fine-tune that document, we ought to rewrite one from scratch. For one thing, "a beer or three" only at end of CF is surely not sufficient.
