Re: is no longer fit for purpose

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: is no longer fit for purpose
Date: 2024-05-18 22:49:31
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 11:44:40AM -0400, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> So, anyway, I'd argue that we need a parking lot for patches which we
> all agree are important and have a path forward but need someone to do
> the last 20-80% of the work. To avoid this being a dumping ground,
> patches should _only_ be allowed in the parking lot if they have a
> clear path forward. Patches which haven't gotten any interest don't go
> there. Patches in which the author has clearly not addressed feedback
> that is reasonable for them to address don't go there. These are
> effectively community TODOs which we agree need to be done -- if only
> someone had the time.

When I am looking to commit something, I have to consider:

* do we want the change
* are there concerns
* are the docs good
* does it need tests
* is it only a proof-of-concept

When people review commit fest entries, they have to figure out what is
holding the patch back from being complete, so they have to read the
thread from the beginning. Should there be a clearer way in the commit
fest app to specify what is missing?

Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>

Only you can decide what is important to you.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Munro 2024-05-18 22:55:11 Re: speed up a logical replica setup
Previous Message Ole Peder Brandtzæg 2024-05-18 22:46:01 Re: Requiring LLVM 14+ in PostgreSQL 18