Re: commitfest.postgresql.org is no longer fit for purpose - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: commitfest.postgresql.org is no longer fit for purpose
Date
Msg-id 2206351.1715897598@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: commitfest.postgresql.org is no longer fit for purpose  (Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>)
Responses Re: commitfest.postgresql.org is no longer fit for purpose
List pgsql-hackers
Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> writes:
> On 16.05.24 23:46, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Right, so what can we do about that?  Does Needs Review state need to
>> be subdivided, and if so how?

> Maybe a new state "Unclear". ...

> I think, if we consider the core mission of the commitfest app, we need 
> to be more protective of the Needs Review state.

Yeah, makes sense.

> 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".

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: commitfest.postgresql.org is no longer fit for purpose
Next
From: Melanie Plageman
Date:
Subject: Re: commitfest.postgresql.org is no longer fit for purpose