Hi,
On Tue, Aug 02, 2022 at 03:55:28PM -0700, Jacob Champion wrote:
> [Trying -hackers rather than -www this time, since the impacted users are here.]
>
> There are occasionally patches that are dutifully rebased by a
> responsive author, all feedback implemented... but there have been no
> reviews for a while, and there's no sign of any on the way. This case
> seems to tie us up in knots. We don't want to Reject since the patch
> is fine, it's just not a current priority; and we don't want to Return
> with Feedback because there is no feedback to act upon. Since no one
> wants to close it, they can drag on forever, with hopeful authors
> rebasing eternally. I ended up closing several patches like this with
> RwF, but I felt the need to write a huge explanation in the
> accompanying email.
> [...]
> [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/3905363.1633288498%40sss.pgh.pa.us
I'm personally fine with the current statutes, as closing a patch with RwF
explaining that there was no interest is still a feedback, and having a
different status won't make it any more pleasant for both the CFM and the
author.
My biggest complaint here is that it doesn't really do anything to try to
improve the current situation (lack of review and/or lack of committer
interest).
Maybe it would be better to discuss some clear rules and thresholds on when
action should be taken on such patches. It doesn't have to be closing the CF
entry directly but instead sending some email to ask for community / committer
feedback as in the thread you pointed, and document that in the commitfest wiki
page.
