Re: Suggested new CF status: "Pending Discussion"

On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 6:05 PM, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:

> On 3/3/13 4:31 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
>> I'd like to add a new CF status, "Pending Discussion". This status
>> would be used for patches which have long discussions regarding syntax
>> or difficult functionality on this list which must be resolved before
>> commit.
>>
>
I'd like this. It is frustrating to grab a patch that needs review and
reading all of the discussion, only to find it is still being actively
discussed. If I remembered all of that discussion and so could come back
in two weeks and pick up where I left off, that wouldn't be so bad. But in
two weeks, I have to read the whole discussion again.

On the other hand, there is always the possibility that if I was not
following the discussion in real time out of curiosity, then maybe it isn't
the right patch for me to be reviewing.

>
> I made a similar suggestion a few years ago. Robert thought it was a
> workflow problem because it removed any notion of who was responsible for
> the next action. Once something goes into "Discussion", it's easy to fall
> into a state where everyone is waiting for someone else.
>
> I thought it was a useful idea anyway, but I could see his point. This
> should probably move to "Waiting on Author" when it happens, presuming that
> the person who wrote something is motivated to see the change committed.
> (If they weren't, why did they write it?)
>

I too can see his point, but I think we should just declare it to be the
author's ultimate responsibility to decide when it is ready to be reviewed,
and then write a summary of the discussion and change the status. (Not
that someone else could not make that decision if they felt moved to do
so...). I don't think that the words "waiting on author" has to be part of
the status' name in order for us to know whose responsibility it is.

Cheers,

Jeff