| From: | Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl> |
|---|---|
| To: | 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 19:11:14 |
| Message-ID: | 66bbb685-7ab2-b01d-ed06-1a39c8078034@xs4all.nl |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Op 5/16/24 om 20:30 schreef Robert Haas:
> Hi,
>
> The original intent of CommitFests, and of commitfest.postgresql.org
> by extension, was to provide a place where patches could be registered
> to indicate that they needed to be reviewed, thus enabling patch
> authors and patch reviewers to find each other in a reasonably
> efficient way. I don't think it's working any more. I spent a good
Hi,
Perhaps it would be an idea to let patches 'expire' automatically unless
they are 'rescued' (=given another year) by committer or commitfest
manager (or perhaps a somewhat wider group - but not too many).
Expiration after, say, one year should force patch-authors to mount a
credible defense for his/her patch to either get his work rescued or
reinstated/resubmitted.
Just a thought that has crossed my mind already a few times. It's not
very sympathetic but it might work keep the list smaller.
Erik Rijkers
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David G. Johnston | 2024-05-16 19:13:17 | Re: commitfest.postgresql.org is no longer fit for purpose |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2024-05-16 19:07:44 | Re: race condition when writing pg_control |