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

Hi,

On Wed, Aug 03, 2022 at 08:58:49AM -0700, Jacob Champion wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2022 at 8:00 PM Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > I'm personally fine with the current statutes, as closing a patch with RwF
> > explaining that there was no interest is still a feedback,
>
> Making that explanation each time we intend to close a patch "needs
> interest" takes a lot of time and wordsmithing. "Returned with
> feedback" clearly has an established meaning to the community, and
> this is counter to that meaning, so people just avoid using it that
> way.
>
> When they do, miscommunications happen easily, which can lead to
> authors reopening patches thinking that there's been some kind of
> mistake (as happened to at least one of the patches in this past CF,
> which I had to close again). Language and cultural differences likely
> exacerbate the problem, so the less ad hoc messaging a CFM has to do
> to explain that "this is RwF but not actually RwF", the better.
>
> > and having a
> > different status won't make it any more pleasant for both the CFM and the
> > author.
>
> "More pleasant" is not really the goal here. I don't think it should
> ever be pleasant for a CFM to return someone's patch when it hasn't
> received review, and it's certainly not going to be pleasant for the
> author. But we can be more honest and clear about why we're returning
> it, and hopefully make it less unpleasant.
>
> > My biggest complaint here is that it doesn't really do anything to try to
> > improve the current situation (lack of review and/or lack of committer
> > interest).
>
> It's not really meant to improve that. This is just trying to move the
> needle a little bit, in a way that's been requested several times.
>
> > Maybe it would be better to discuss some clear rules and thresholds on when
> > action should be taken on such patches.
>
> I think that's also important to discuss, and I have thoughts on that
> too, but I don't think the discussions for these sorts of incremental
> changes should wait for that discussion.

First of all, I didn't want to imply that rejecting a patch should be pleasant,
sorry if that sounded that way.

It's not that I'm opposed to adding that status, I just don't see how it's
really going to improve the situation on its own. Or maybe because it wouldn't
make any difference to me as a patch author to get my patches returned "with
feedback" or "for any other reason" if they are ignored. I'm afraid that
patches will still be left alone to rot and there still be no clear rules on
what to do and when, reminder for CFM and such, and that this new status would
never be used anyway. So I guess I will just stop hijacking this thread and
wait for a discussion on that, sorry for the noise.