Re: new commitfest transition guidance

On 2/4/25 21:11, Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Mon, 2025-02-03 at 12:22 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> My interpretation of this is that patches should be moved forward by
>> either an author, possibly a reviewer, possibly a committer signed up
>> for the patch, or maybe even a colleague of an author who knows that
>> the
>> author is on vacation and will get back to it in a couple of weeks,
>> or
>> some similar situation.
>
> I also suggested: when someone does move a patch forward, that they
> summarize the current state if that's not obvious from recent messages
> on the thread.
>
> There was some concern that it would clutter up -hackers with unhelpful
> status messages. I still like the idea: if someone is writing an
> unhelpful status message (e.g. no clear next steps or blockers), that's
> a sign that they aren't close enough to the patch and someone else
> needs to carry it forward. Also, we don't need to decorate the message
> with "This is an official end-of-fest patch status message" -- the
> message should flow with the rest of the conversation.
>

I didn't have an opinion on this during the developer meeting, but after
thinking about it I think having an up to date status for the patch is a
reasonable requirement.

It wouldn't need to be very long / detailed, it could even point to an
earlier message in the thread, if it's still accurate.

How did you propose to submit/track the status? Would it be sent to the
mailing list, or would it be entered into the CF app while adding the
patch to the next commitfest? (The latter wouldn't have the problem of
cluttering the mailing list, but the information would be "split".)

regards

--
Tomas Vondra