Re: commitfest.postgresql.org is no longer fit for purpose

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 22:13:18
Message-ID: 2206351.1715897598@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:
> On 16.05.24 23:46, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Right, so what can we do about that? Does Needs Review state need to
>> be subdivided, and if so how?

> Maybe a new state "Unclear". ...

> I think, if we consider the core mission of the commitfest app, we need
> to be more protective of the Needs Review state.

Yeah, makes sense.

> So a third status that encompasses the various other situations like
> maybe forgotten by author, disagreements between author and reviewer,
> process difficulties, needs some senior developer intervention, etc.
> could be helpful.

Hmm, "forgotten by author" seems to generally turn into "this has been
in WOA state a long time". Not sure we have a problem representing
that, only with a process for eventually retiring such entries.
Your other three examples all sound like "needs senior developer
attention", which could be a helpful state that's distinct from "ready
for committer". It's definitely not the same as "Unclear".

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Melanie Plageman 2024-05-16 22:24:00 Re: commitfest.postgresql.org is no longer fit for purpose
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2024-05-16 22:03:30 Re: commitfest.postgresql.org is no longer fit for purpose