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
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 |