On Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 10:09 AM Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> wrote:
> First of all, I didn't want to imply that rejecting a patch should be pleasant,
> sorry if that sounded that way.
No worries, I don't think it really sounded that way. :D
> It's not that I'm opposed to adding that status, I just don't see how it's
> really going to improve the situation on its own.
If the situation you're referring to is the fact that we have a lot of
patches sitting without review, it won't improve that situation, I
agree.
The situation I'm looking at, though, is where we have a dozen patches
floating forward that multiple CFMs in a row feel should be returned,
but they won't because claiming "they have feedback" is clearly unfair
to the author. I think this will improve that situation.
> Or maybe because it wouldn't
> make any difference to me as a patch author to get my patches returned "with
> feedback" or "for any other reason" if they are ignored.
Sure. I think this change helps the newer contributors (and the CFMs
talking to them) more than it helps the established ones.
I'm in your boat, where I don't personally care how a patch of mine is
returned (and I'm fine with Withdrawing them myself). But I'm also
paid to do this. From some of my past experiences with other projects,
I tend to feel more sensitive to bad communication if I've developed a
patch using volunteer hours, on evenings or weekends.
> I'm afraid that
> patches will still be left alone to rot and there still be no clear rules on
> what to do and when, reminder for CFM and such, and that this new status would
> never be used anyway. So I guess I will just stop hijacking this thread and
> wait for a discussion on that, sorry for the noise.
Well, here, let's keep that conversation going too while there's
momentum. One sec while I switch Subjects and continue...
--Jacob
