From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: commitfest.postgresql.org is no longer fit for purpose |
Date: | 2024-05-16 21:04:09 |
Message-ID: | 2171351.1715893449@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> ... Similar to how people currently use the
> Reviewer field as a personal TODO list... it might be nice to
> officially separate the ideas a bit.
Oh, that's an independent pet peeve of mine. Usually, if I'm
looking over the CF list for a patch to review, I skip over ones
that already show an assigned reviewer, because I don't want to
step on that person's toes. But it seems very common to put
one's name down for review without any immediate intention of
doing work. Or to do a review and wander off, leaving the patch
apparently being tended to but not really. (And I confess I'm
occasionally guilty of both things myself.)
I think it'd be great if we could separate "I'm actively reviewing
this" from "I'm interested in this". As a bonus, adding yourself
to the "interested" list would be a fine proxy for the thumbs-up
or star markers mentioned upthread.
If those were separate columns, we could implement some sort of
aging scheme whereby somebody who'd not commented for (say)
a week or two would get quasi-automatically moved from the "active
reviewer" column to the "interested" column, whereupon it wouldn't
be impolite for someone else to sign up for active review.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joe Conway | 2024-05-16 21:06:56 | Re: commitfest.postgresql.org is no longer fit for purpose |
Previous Message | Jelte Fennema-Nio | 2024-05-16 21:01:56 | Re: Add new protocol message to change GUCs for usage with future protocol-only GUCs |