Re: Triage on old commitfest entries

Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> writes:
> On Sun, Oct 3, 2021 at 12:15 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Perhaps we should create a new closure state?

> I'd rather go in the opposite direction here: merge "Rejected" and
> "Returned with Feedback" into a single "Patch Returned" category
> (without adding a third category).

Hm, perhaps. You're right that the classification might be slippery.
I do feel it's useful to distinguish "this is a bad idea overall,
we don't want to see follow-on patches" from "this needs work, please
send a follow-on patch when you've done the work". But maybe more
thought could get an idea out of the first category and into the
second.

>> Index Skip Scan 16
>> Last substantive discussion 2021-05, currently passing cfbot
>>
>> Seems possibly useful, but we're not making progress.

> This feature is definitely useful. My pet theory is that it hasn't
> made more progress because it requires expertise in two fairly
> distinct areas of the system. There is a lot of B-Tree stuff here,
> which is clearly my thing. But I know that I personally am much less
> likely to work on a patch that requires significant changes to the
> planner. Maybe this is a coordination problem.

Fair. My concern here is mostly that we not just keep kicking the
can down the road. If we see that a patch has been hanging around
this long without reaching commit, we should either kill it or
form a specific plan for how to advance it.

regards, tom lane