Re: [Commitfest 2022-07] Begins Now

From: Jacob Champion <jchampion(at)timescale(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [Commitfest 2022-07] Begins Now
Date: 2022-07-18 19:22:25
Message-ID: c4fef469-1b71-d670-5281-28baa41d570f@timescale.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

[dev hat]

On 7/15/22 18:07, Andres Freund wrote:
> IDK, I've plenty times given feedback and it took months till it all was
> implemented. What's the point of doing further rounds of review until then?

I guess I would wonder why we're optimizing for that case. Is it helpful
for that patch to stick around in an active CF for months? There's an
established need for keeping a "TODO item" around and not letting it
fall off, but I think that should remain separate in an application
which seems to be focused on organizing active volunteers.

And if that's supposed to be what Waiting on Author is for, then I think
we need more guidance on how to use that status effectively. Some
reviewers seem to use it as a "replied" flag. I think there's a
meaningful difference between soft-blocked on review feedback and
hard-blocked on new implementation. And maybe there's even a middle
state, where the patch just needs someone to do a mindless rebase.

I think you're in a better position than most to "officially" decide
that a patch can no longer benefit from review. Most of us can't do
that, I imagine -- nor should we.

Thanks,
--Jacob

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2022-07-18 19:26:26 Re: replacing role-level NOINHERIT with a grant-level option
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2022-07-18 19:09:54 Re: fix crash with Python 3.11