| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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: | 2024-05-17 04:58:09 |
| Message-ID: | bcfd4904-07f4-4d3e-a7ff-10db3aeca1e4@eisentraut.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 17.05.24 00:13, Tom Lane wrote:
>> So a third status that encompasses the various other situations like
>> maybe forgotten by author, disagreements between author and reviewer,
>> process difficulties, needs some senior developer intervention, etc.
>> could be helpful.
>
> Hmm, "forgotten by author" seems to generally turn into "this has been
> in WOA state a long time". Not sure we have a problem representing
> that, only with a process for eventually retiring such entries.
> Your other three examples all sound like "needs senior developer
> attention", which could be a helpful state that's distinct from "ready
> for committer". It's definitely not the same as "Unclear".
Yeah, some fine-tuning might be required. But I would be wary of
over-designing too many new states at this point. I think the key idea
is that there ought to be a state that communicates "needs attention
from someone other than author, reviewer, or committer".
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2024-05-17 05:05:38 | Re: commitfest.postgresql.org is no longer fit for purpose |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2024-05-17 04:46:53 | Re: race condition when writing pg_control |