Hi,
On 2022-08-04 11:19:28 -0700, Jacob Champion wrote:
> My intention had not quite been for this to be a referendum on the
> decision for every patch -- we can do that if it helps, but I don't
> think we necessarily have to have unanimity on the bucketing for every
> patch in order for the new state to be useful.
Sorry, I should have been clearer. It wasn't mine either! I was just trying to
understand what you see as the usecase / get a better feel for it. I'm now a
bit more convinced it's useful than before.
> >> - https://commitfest.postgresql.org/38/3310/
> >
> > I don't really understand why this has been RwF'd, doesn't seem that long
> > since the last review leading to changes.
>
> Eight months without feedback, when we expect authors to turn around a
> patch in two weeks or less to avoid being RwF'd, is a long time IMHO.
Why is it better to mark it as lacks interested than RwF if there actually
*has* been feedback?
> I don't think a patch should sit motionless in CF for eight months; it's not
> at all fair to the author.
It's not great, I agree, but wishes don't conjure up resources :(
> >> - https://commitfest.postgresql.org/38/3050/
> >
> > Given that a non-author did a revision of the patch, listed a number of TODO
> > items and said "I'll create regression tests firstly." - I don't think "lacks
> > interest" would have been appropriate, and RwF is?
>
> That was six months ago, and prior to that there was another six month
> silence. I'd say that lacks interest, and I don't feel like it's
> currently reviewable in CF.
I don't think the entry needs more review - it needs changes:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAOKkKFtc45uNFoWYOCo4St19ayxrh-_%2B4TnZtwxGZz6-3k_GSA%40mail.gmail.com
That contains quite a few things that should be changed.
A patch that has gotten feedback, but that feedback hasn't been processed
pretty much is the definition of RwF, no?
> >> (Even if they'd all received skeptical feedback, if the author replies in
> >> good faith and is met with silence for months, we need to not keep stringing
> >> them along.)
> >
> > I agree very much with that - just am doubtful that "lacks interest" is a good
> > way of dealing with it, unless we just want to treat it as a nicer sounding
> > "rejected".
>
> Tom summed up my position well: there's a difference between those two
> that is both meaningful and actionable for contributors. Is there an
> alternative you'd prefer?
I agree that "lacks interest" could be useful. But I'm wary of it becoming
just a renaming if we end up marking patches that should be RwF or rejected as
"lacks interest".
Greetings,
Andres Freund
