| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
| 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 21:46:27 |
| Message-ID: | 2186208.1715895987@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> writes:
> The problem is if we have 180 patches in Needs Review, and only 20 are
> really actually ready to be reviewed. And a second-order problem is
> that if you already know that this will be the case, you give up before
> even looking.
Right, so what can we do about that? Does Needs Review state need to
be subdivided, and if so how?
If it's just that a patch should be in some other state altogether,
we should simply encourage people to change the state as soon as they
discover that. I think the problem is not so much "90% are in the
wrong state" as "each potential reviewer has to rediscover that".
At this point it seems like there's consensus to have a "parking"
section of the CF app, separate from the time-boxed CFs, and I hope
somebody will go make that happen. But I don't think that's our only
issue, so we need to keep thinking about what should be improved.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2024-05-16 21:53:17 | Re: commitfest.postgresql.org is no longer fit for purpose |
| Previous Message | Jacob Champion | 2024-05-16 21:43:47 | Re: commitfest.postgresql.org is no longer fit for purpose |