Re: [PATCH] CF app: add "Returned: Needs more interest"

Hi,

On 2022-08-03 12:06:03 -0700, Jacob Champion wrote:
> On 8/3/22 11:41, Andres Freund wrote:
> > What patches are we concretely talking about?>
> > My impression is that a lot of the patches floating from CF to CF have gotten
> > sceptical feedback and at best a minor amount of work to address that has been
> > done.
>
> - 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.

> - https://commitfest.postgresql.org/38/3338/

Here it'd have fit.

> - https://commitfest.postgresql.org/38/3181/

FWIW, I mentioned at least once that I didn't think this was worth pursuing.

> - https://commitfest.postgresql.org/38/2918/

Hm, certainly not a lot of review activity.

> - 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.

> - https://commitfest.postgresql.org/38/2266/ (this one was particularly
> miscommunicated during the first RwF)

I'd say misunderstanding than miscommunication...

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.

> - https://commitfest.postgresql.org/38/2218/

Yep.

> - https://commitfest.postgresql.org/38/3256/

Yep.

> - 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.

> - 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?

> (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".

Greetings,

Andres Freund