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

On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 9:29 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> "David G. Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > On Friday, May 17, 2024, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> wrote:
> >> A solution to both of these issues (yours and mine) would be to allow
> >> things to be added *during* the CF month. What is the point of having a
> >> "freeze" before every CF anyway? Especially if they start out clean. If
> >> something is ready for review on day 8 of the CF, why not let it be
> added
> >> for review?
>
> > In conjunction with WIP removing this limitation on the bimonthlies makes
> > sense to me.
>
> 2. As I mentioned a bit ago, the original idea was that we didn't exit
> a CF until it was empty of un-handled patches, so obviously allowing
> new patches to come in would mean we'd never get to empty. That idea
> didn't work and we don't think that way anymore.
>
> So yeah, I'm okay with abandoning the must-submit-to-a-future-CF
> restriction.
>
>
Concretely I'm thinking of modifying our patch flow state diagram to this:

stateDiagram-v2
state "Work In Process (Not Timeboxed)" as WIP {
[*] --> CollaboratorsNeeded : Functional but\nFeedback Needed
[*] --> NeedsReview : Simple Enough for\nSign-Off and Send
[*] --> ReworkInProgress : via Returned With Feedback
CollaboratorsNeeded --> NeedsReview : Collaboration Done\nReady for
Sign-Off
CollaboratorsNeeded --> WaitingOnAuthor : Feedback Given\nBack with
Authors
ReworkInProgress --> ReworkCompleted : Rework Ready\nfor Inspection
ReworkCompleted --> ReworkInProgress : More Changes Needed
ReworkCompleted --> ReadyForCommitter : Requested Rework Confirmed\nTry
Again to Commit
NeedsReview --> ReadyForCommitter : Reviewer and Author\nDeem
Submission Worthy
NeedsReview --> WaitingOnAuthor : Changes Needed
WaitingOnAuthor --> NeedsReview : Changes Made
WaitingOnAuthor --> CollaboratorsNeeded : Need Help Making Changes
WaitingOnAuthor --> Withdrawn : Not Going to Make Changes
Withdrawn --> [*]
}

state "Bi-Monthly Timeboxing" as BIM {
[*] --> CommitPending : Simple Committer Patch
CommitPending --> Committed : Done!
CommitPending --> ChangesNeeded : Minor Feedback Given
CommitPending --> ReturnedWithFeedback : Really should have been WIP
first
ReadyForCommitter --> ChangesNeeded : Able to be fixed\nwithin the
current cycle
ReadyForCommitter --> Committed : Done!
ReadyForCommitter --> ReturnedWithFeedback : Not doable in the current
cycle\nSuitable for rejections as well
ChangesNeeded --> ReadyForCommitter
Committed --> [*]
ReturnedWithFeedback --> [*]
}

This allows for usage of WIP as a collaboration area with the side benefit
of CI.

Patches that have gotten commit cycle feedback don't get lumped back into
Needs Review

There is a short-term parking spot for committer-reviewed patches that just
cannot be pushed at the moment. That should be low volume enough to cover
both quick-fixes and freeze-driven waits.

Collaboration Needed should include a description of what kind of feedback
or help is sought. Even if that is just "first timer seeking guidance".

The above details 5 new categories:

Collaborators Needed - Specialized Needs Review for truly WIP work

Rework Completed - Specialized Needs Review to ensure that patches that got
into the bi-monthly once get priority for getting committed

Commit Pending - Specialized Needs Review for easily fast-tracked patches;
and a parking lot for frozen out patches

Rework in Progress - Parking lot for patches already through the bi-monthly
and currently being reworked most likely for the next bi-monthly

Changes Needed - Specialized Waiting on Author but the expected time period
or effort to perform the changes is low; or the patch is just a high
priority one that deserves to remain in the bi-monthly in order to keep
attention on it. When the author is done the committer is waiting for the
revisions and so it goes right back into ReadyForCommitter.

I removed Rejected here but it could be kept. It seems reasonably rolled
into Returned with Feedback and we shouldn't be rejecting without feedback
anyway. Not enough rejection volume to warrant its own category.

David J.

https://mermaid.live/edit#pako:eNp9VU1z2jAQ_Stbn9pOufToQ2cS0qQcSJiQGQ51D7K12Cr2iuoDwmTy37uyYkzADicj73t-u3pPekkKLTFJE-uEwxslSiOaye57Ru0CZMlKmw3MCBZGF2gtfL7XDp5Ug7l-RvklS0BYWM0W8JIR8O_31z8wmfyAqa5rkWsjnDb2HlGihBRuPRVOaRI15N5lGd3ym1wUG4gl7znCmn3EncI9Y5eq2dYIP0n7soK1NgxfqpImD-s1CJKwRDojeMQ9y58Riy9NUJ_CTgledt4QC1opV0EnIUKHdF9q6au4GbjRhCzmEYU8BGHQyfqYciWUU1Q-0JV3FaPSoxS4UzskprwOf_ZBZayxkfGir77ZqQ5Tcu204wq0upgsKJuR3WK7BadMPWhkanNtEKaVoBLtu60axvP3brXh1UY5h6aV8s-jDRVvoqaa1so0zJPRkznAVSkUgdMQUZH9dOjjzOE1PwYLxCkx5Q1iA0ufN8rasEVsY1cdhlkv92Go0_OqAVO8oeZC4jhmOBjhAX5hvWX0hiEd2ThP8K40Yk8BzZm80wHGA2QCPIMfSwOQw5HRa0Z9xq_VZK7JVfWhSzZTxWRfz-aXyQ7DX3DYwgePuez3ZCFcUXXWP63t0dGfITefRgtjB8cJzRVx52cJGcF2AQ-NHxHBKqLmHm2lfS2hEjuEHJHa44vNaF3n6XOXDem5yrlpHneOjH1ufRyCGkxcIRTeGCQHxaGo8UPa4XkMF4_0FbZfahEEDX6ez0mvXPs-nAEG_8YjwIYd3mNdv83xXYeDeTsdeBf31k9R84C6U8cl35IGTSOU5BundVWWsNoGsyTlRynMJku4kuuEd3p5oCJJnfH4LfFb2V9QSboWteVVlIpTNI9XWHuTvf4HuH5UYg

[image: image.png]

[image: image.png]