On Sun, Oct 03, 2021 at 11:20:21AM -0500, Jaime Casanova wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 02, 2021 at 11:32:01AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:
> > > On 2021-Oct-02, Tom Lane wrote:
> > >> Yeah. I have been thinking of looking through the oldest CF entries
> > >> and proposing that we just reject any that look permanently stalled.
> >
> > > I was just going to say the same thing yesterday, and reference [1]
> > > when I did it once in 2019. I think it was a useful cleanup exercise.
> > > [1] https://postgr.es/m/20190930182818.GA25331@alvherre.pgsql
> >
> > Right. Michael and Jaime have been doing some of that too in the last
> > few days, but obviously a CFM should only do that unilaterally in very
> > clear-cut cases of patch abandonment. I was intending to go after some
> > where maybe a bit of community consensus is needed for rejection.
> >
>
> I have done so with 2 or 3 patches that has been stalled more than one
> month and after asking in the thread if I receive no answer for 2 or 3
> weeks.
>
Actually it should be some kind of rule of thumb (that could be used as
guide) for doing so. Keeping around patches that has no expectation of
being worked on makes us no favor and the queue keeps growing.
--
Jaime Casanova
Director de Servicios Profesionales
SystemGuards - Consultores de PostgreSQL
