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

On Thu, Aug 4, 2022 at 3:00 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> 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.

Great!

> > >> - 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?

Because I don't think the utility of RwF is in saying "we gave you
feedback once and then ghosted"; I think it's in saying "this patchset
needs work before the next round of review." If an author has
responded to the feedback and the patchset is just sitting there for
months, the existence of the feedback is less relevant.

> > 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 :(

I see this less as a wish for resources, and more as an honest
admission -- we don't currently have enough resources to give each
patch the eyes it deserves, so if an author finds themselves in this
state, they'll have to put in some more work to find those eyes
somewhere.

> > >> - 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?

Looking through again, I see now what you're saying. Yes, I agree that
RwF would have been a fine fit there.

> 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".

Agreed. This probably bleeds over into the other documentation thread
a bit -- how do we want to communicate the subtle points to people in
a CF?

--Jacob